Dear Andrew,

Thank you for contacting me again and thank you to Bob Cook for having helped.

As I told you I think that there are a lot of convergences in our thinking .I 
appreciate your point of view seeking for new ways on basis of pertinent 
knowledges which are not challenged by the scientific community .This is a 
thorough scientific process .

I came to same conclusions as you on the functioning of the nucleon through 
different ways .I considered the neutron and the proton ,as well as the alpha 
particle .These three 
particles have interesting particularities .The neutron has a abnormal dipolar 
magnetic moment ,as well as the proton and the alpha particle .The neutron 
decays into proton with a slight loss of mass and big modification of its 
dipolar magnetic moment .The alpha particle has a loss of mass much more 
important than the proton and no dipolar magnetic moment.

For me it is a sign that there are unknown processes at the heart of these 
particles .Indeed ,there are (partial) explanations of these anomalies .I was 
not satisfied with them and found worth to look at deeper explanations 
,especially because three fundamental 
interactions are at stake :electromagnetism ,weak and strong nuclear forces.

I first looked at the alpha particle because only one interaction ,the strong 
nuclear force is at stake ,it's dipolar magnetic moment being null ,probably 
neutralized by the interactions between the four nucleons which compose the 
alpha particle.I could easily 
quantize the loss of mass of alpha particle as you can see on my website : 
www.philippehatt.com

I compared these losses to the mass of neutron and proton and deduced a 
structure of the neutron and the proton which is shown on my blog.What about 
the validity of that structure ? It is only based on coincidences ,I agree 
.Nevertheless several coincidences 
could lead to give more solidity to a theory .And there are a lot of 
correlations you could discover on my blog.

I come now to your problem :the deep orbital electron .If you look at the 
structure displayed on my blog you notice that there are three parts :the trunk 
of 1800 electron masses ,the 71 /2 electron masses and the other little masses 
.Actually ,what concerns the electrons ,we see that the structure is : 
18+1800+18in alternatively with 
                                                                            
18+1800+17
In other terms every second time an electron is lacking in the neutron .When 
introduced 
it stays at another place than the other electrons and disturbs the structure 
of the neutron so as to create the proton.Moreover ,trying to take its "normal" 
place has as consequence that another electron is ejected from the core which 
has always 71/2 electron masses .This sort of "yo yo "process explains why the 
electron is falling on the proton,the two opposite charges being annihilated 
.As the stability of the whole requires 
71/2 electrons + one orbiting ,another electron is taking the place of the 
former one on the orbit .So there is not one electron orbiting at high 
relativistic speed around the proton .There are many electrons ,one at each 
quantized instant ,which do not move around the proton but have a translated 
movement from proton to "orbit "and again to proton.This explains the holes in 
the "orbit "and the fact that the  "speed " of electron is not measurable at 
the same time than its position .When the electron is on its position it has no 
speed.Indeed ,a vary classical explanation .More explanation is on my blog.

We can also conclude that the proton is neutralized at each quantized instant 
and taking again the stable state of proton + electron at the following 
quantized instant .This has consequence on LENR.

Happy to discuss,

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

> Le 25 janv. 2018 à 18:42, Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Dear Philippe,
> 
> The reason that I enjoyed our extended conversation so much was that we had 
> come to much the same views, but from somewhat different directions. We still 
> have differences; but, I certainly see room for convergence (and learning in 
> the process).
> 
> Comments below.
> _ _ 
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Philippe Hatt <pcf.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Bob,
>> 
>> Thank you for your support ,again.I would also see Andrew Meulenberg address 
>> my theory on massification /demassification.
>> I met him in Sendai ,together with Jean-Luc  Paillet .We had a very 
>> interesting evening conversation .I saw immediately that their deep orbit 
>> theory had a tremendous interest (as well as Mill's and Jacques Dufour 's 
>> ones).The problem is that the deep orbit theory is considered by the 
>> majority of physicists as being in contradiction with the quantum mechanic( 
>> problem of ground state of proton).For me ,this apparent  contradiction can 
>> be solved in the following way .The proton has not only one electron moving 
>> around it ,but one at each (Plank)  instant. In other terms there is a 
>> mechanism creating one electron and one proton from the neutron  at each 
>> instant.The  mass of that electron is challenged by antimass to become an 
>> anti neutrino (which has then a mass and an antimass ,hence 0 mass). The 
>> charge of that electron is challenged by an anti charge (positive ) ,the 
>> whole being added as a wave to the former wave created by the former 
>> electron and its anti electron , hence the wave of the electron constantly 
>> changing.Indeed the problem is that electron and positron are considered as 
>> having the same mass and only opposite charges.So ,how can they annihilate ? 
>> My explanation is that the two masses are the same ,nevertheless one is 
>> entering our space time ,the other is going out of it.
> 
> This sounds equivalent to my view that matter and antimatter of the electron 
> and positron are simply stable displacements of the space-time 'plenum' along 
> the time axis, but in opposite directions. I believe that stability of the 
> displacement requires a vortex (a torus, and probably the basis for spin and 
> charge) and that creation of such a vortex (in time?) requires two cojoined 
> displacements (see Falaco soliton). The electron/positron pair is the primary 
> example and I propose that, at least initially, the pair are joined by a 
> wormhole. The restmass energy of both displacements (and rotation) is the 
> same. However, when matter and anti-matter are combined (annihilation), the 
> mass energy (a
> non-negative scalar) of each is added to become the resultant photons' energy.
> 
>  
>> As a result two photons are created evolving at the edge of our space time 
>> (no mass=no time for the photon ,even if we see that time is existing for 
>> the photon). This has consequences on speed of light versus speed of each 
>> photon , depending for me on the frequency of each photon .Also ,the 
>> frequency is related to the energy of the photon,just because there are 
>> "more photons in one photon "if the frequency is high.
> 
> I propose that the photons, oscillations of the space-time plenum (a 3D 
> surface defining t = 0) into time (+ and -), are energetic; but, they have no 
> net mass. [An integration of mass (displacements) over time or volume of a 
> photon gives zero net mass. However, such integration of mass energy, the 
> absolute value of the mass, gives the photon energy E = h nu.] I do not think 
> that the individual oscillations of a photon contain the rotational motion of 
> stable particles. However, the stability of a photon may depend on a torus 
> configuration of the whole. I suspect that the majority of the energy of a 
> photon is tied up in the toroidal motion (in 3-space, not in time?); but, I 
> have not thought much about this yet.
> 
> Since 'present' time is defined by the 3D plenum, which progresses along the 
> time axis, and the photons are bound to it, they do not experience any 
> passage of time. Nevertheless, they progress along the time axis with the 
> plenum. The oscillations in time of the photon could be equivalent to your 
> creation "evolving at the edge of our space time". Since the plenum is moving 
> in time, your expression "... the two masses are the same, nevertheless one 
> is entering our space time, the other is going out of it" is still equivalent 
> to my views of matter and antimatter (stable displacements in time) for 
> particles and of oscillations in time for photons.
> 
>> 
>> Let us come back to the nucleon ,i.e. a neutron creating at each quantized 
>> time a proton and an electron challenged the instant later in order to 
>> create an antineutrino and again a neutron .The process is continuous 
>> ,beginning again and again with the same result .This amazing process solves 
>> a lot of problems .Why is the electron not falling from its ground state ? 
>> Because it is replaced by another .This second electron appears not at the 
>> same place as the former one ,leaving a loophole .This is "classily " 
>> explained by Heisenberg's uncertainty .For me this is just as valid 
>> explanation as "we do not know".Einstein was right ,the quantum mechanic is 
>> not complete .
>> 
>> The deep orbit theory is ,for me ,considering that phenomenon of a neutron 
>> creating constantly a proton and an electron and an antineutrino .Actually 
>> there is a continuous ,"iterated "massification/demassification of the 
>> neutron ,which in that case is limited to the "external"part of the 
>> neutron.If you look at my theory you see a neutron trunk made of 1800 
>> electron masses ,plus an intermediary part of mass 71 electrons (18+18 
>> versus 18+17)and a lot of minor masses which are accompanied by magnetic 
>> charges .This last part only is modified by the neutron/proton process .The 
>> total of these minor masses is 3.137343 electron masses ,related to the 
>> dipolar magnetic moments of neutron and proton in the following way:I 1.913 
>> I + I 2.793 I = 4.706 = 1.5 x 3.137343 .In other terms mass was transformed 
>> into electromagnetism by antimass.Actually  mass + antimass = negative 
>> electromagnetism ,and antimass + mass = positive electromagnetism .The 
>> neutron is about mass + antimass ,hence its resulting mass of 939.5 MeV and 
>> its  abnormal dipolar magnetic moment of -1.913 ,the proton is about 
>> antimass + mass ,hence the slight loss of mass compared to neutron ,and its 
>> abnormal dipolar magnetic moment of + 2.793.
> 
> I agree with you on the neutron being a bound electron/proton pair. I believe 
> that the arguments against that concept are ignoring the relativistic effects 
> on spin. (What is the spin of a relativistic electron bound in an orbit that 
> is a fraction of its size?) The anti-neutrino would be equivalent to a photon 
> (with spin 1?), but with an oscillating mass-energy component as well as the 
> electric and magnetic ones.
> 
> We differ in our view of the neutron lifetime. You talk of an "iterated 
> massification/demassification." I need to look at your model more closely. 
> While I believe that an electron (coupled to a positron thru the wormhole) 
> may oscillate thru time with the positron, I don't believe that a neutron (a 
> compound structure) can do so as a whole. However, when in the presence of a 
> proton, the bound electron of a neutron exchanges 'homes' and the lifetime of 
> a neutron may become much shorter than when it is in free space. However, 
> since the proton, now with the deep-orbit relativistic electron, becomes a 
> neutron, there is no change in the number of neutrons and protons in the 
> system. It  therefore appears that the neutron is stable in that setting. If 
> anyone knows of a publication that proposes this model, I would greatly 
> appreciate a reference to it. 
> 
> Based on our model of the deep-orbit electrons and Feynman's descriptions of 
> molecular H and nuclear exchange (Yukawa) potentials, I proposed and analyzed 
> a femto-hydrogen molecular ion. 
> A. Meulenberg  and J. L. Paillet, “Basis for femto-molecules and -ions 
> created from femto-atoms,” ICCF-19, 19th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear 
> Science, Padua, Italy, 15/05/2015, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 19, pp. 202 
> – 209, (2016) www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol19.pdf#page=210
> Jean-Luc Paillet has been developing the relativistic deep-orbit electron 
> picture that gives much-more-energetic orbits than I proposed. An extension 
> of our works can easily encompass my neutron model (above) and on into the 
> quark model. Instead of talking of virtual pion-exchange potentials for 
> nuclear forces, it becomes reasonable to consider real relativistic-electron 
> exchange. His ~100 MeV deep-orbit electrons would be equivalent to the pions.
> 
> 
>> Antimass is not accepted as a concept .Nevertheless in the equation of 
>> Dirac, mass is always "squared" ,leaving two solutions opened ,mass and 
>> antimass.
> 
>  I agree that antimass should not be accepted as a concept. Nevertheless, if 
> we consider matter and antimatter (which I do accept) to both have positive 
> mass energy, but from differing displacements, then Dirac's choice is correct 
> when considering mass energy.
> 
>> 
>> The binding energy is about the same phenomenon ,involving more masses ,a 
>> part of the 71 electron masses .Please ,see my website www.philippehatt.com
>> 
>> I am about to write a book mainly on binding energy and LENR .Deep orbit is 
>> about neutron versus proton.LENR is about the massification/demassification 
>> of neutrons AND protons .It will be ready for the conference in June at Fort 
>> Collins .
> 
> I look forward to seeing it (and you again). 
> 
> Andrew
> _ _ _
>> 
>> Thank you for your attention ,
>> 
>> See you hoping lay soon,
>> 
>> Philippe 
>> 
>> 
>> Envoyé de mon iPadp
>> 
>>> Le 22 janv. 2018 à 21:36, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
>>> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Jones—
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I echo Esa Ruoho’s thanks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO 
>>> regarding LENR theory.  There is still some hand waving and some new terms 
>>> that make them hard for me to follow. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy 
>>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals 
>>> (lattices of atoms).
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of 
>>> massification with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and 
>>> magnetic moments.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and 
>>> Kraus from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed 
>>> Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2)
>>>  (1975) 27.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The following paper is also relevant IMHO:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Bob Cook
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Esa Ruoho
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/  (and on iTunes 
>>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 )
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC 
>>> will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area 
>>> of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges 
>>> ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean 
>>> energy technology. 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI 
>>> International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there 
>>> continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in 
>>> LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is 
>>> currently consulting with international research groups. 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR 
>>> theoretician. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy 
>>> Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an 
>>> independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper 
>>> Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes 
>>> editing them.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ruby interviews Andrew  Meulenberg.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, 
>>> whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else -  and AM 
>>> seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based 
>>> in India. Let’s hope it is real.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
>>> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
>>> 
>>> +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage 
>>> esaru...@gmail.com //
>>> 
>>> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // 
>>> http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
>>> 
> 

Reply via email to