Magnetism is largely I’ll understood The molecular orbitals supporting ferromagnetism are in dispute
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 3, 2019, at 5:28 PM, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>" <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Andrew— You point out: “Point charge is only a mathematical convenience,” What you say begs the question: Is there any physical significance to a charge by it self? The next question of course is: Is the illusion of charge really a localized dynamic magnetic field? It seems there should be some primary physics text that addresses the physics of magnetic fields other than associate them with the illusion of charge. I am pretty sure I must be confused. Bob ________________________________ From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 10:59:04 AM To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>; VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg Subject: Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor Dear Bob, Point charge is only a mathematical convenience, valid for isotropic sources or conductors when measured beyond any of their charge distribution. We are taught in freshman physics how to treat the static fields inside a charge distribution. That said, the problem gets more difficult when dynamics are considered, and even more so for relativistic dynamics (where Jean-Luc has been working), and even further when the test region has a strong influence on the source distribution and fields. If I remember correctly, Feynman, in his Lectures, stated that the 1/r Coulomb potential was valid up to the nuclear radius. I might agree down to about 10 fm. Below that, I might argue with him unless he limits the statement to static, spinless, charges. Because of our interest in the deep-electron orbits, we are presently exploring the real nuclear region in our papers. Nevertheless, we are still using approximations, valid for large distances as initial approximations and then applying corrections for relativistic and proximity effects as we see them. There is little to no useful literature for such corrections in this region. Further in, it was easier to start from scratch and nuclear physics took over when spin-spin effects became stronger than spin-orbit effects. Cold fusion and the deep-orbits are caught in the quagmire region between atomic and nuclear physics. I doubt that there will be any easy answers. I still ask the question "when do two fermions combine to become a boson?" We look at the H atom, positronium, and deuteron as bosons; but, the neutron is a fermion (because a neutrino is added or subtracted?). What is the femto-H atom? Andrew _ _ _ On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: I think the relativistic considerations eliminate the reality of a “point charge” assumption for electrons, particularly in the nuclear dimensional zones and smaller. Andrew—If this is correct you might identify the range (distance) over which your theory applies and, otherwise, clarify the question of “point charge” assumptions. Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034883132&sdata=LThjMrxaZ8HbgUExNOqwlrKuiLTJrQPe2KOnCJh%2FZ38%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10 ________________________________ From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 10:01:01 PM To: VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg Subject: Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor Dear Jones, Thanks for asking about our work. We have published this since JCMNS -Vol 24. J-L Paillet, Andrew Meulenberg, "Deepening Questions about Electron Deep Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom," J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 26 (2017) 54–68, http://coldfusioncommunity.net/pdf/jcmns/v26/54_JCMNS-Vol26.pdf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoldfusioncommunity.net%2Fpdf%2Fjcmns%2Fv26%2F54_JCMNS-Vol26.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034893131&sdata=0gfFTGgt5%2BnHwR4SPmlnB%2F%2Foqc9%2BLjlqzdF70RM0TBc%3D&reserved=0> and are continuing to publish (from ICCF-21 presentations) 1. J-L Paillet, A. Meulenberg, "On highly relativistic deep electrons," ICCF-21, 21st International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 3 - 8 June, 2018, Fort Collins, CO USA, to be published in JCMNS, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxPrXqfNS5Q&feature=youtube<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSxPrXqfNS5Q%26feature%3Dyoutube&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034903148&sdata=BdztFy4Mt%2Fi0Ps5M9HWkMo70okC%2FBSwMgPZH6KrpSFQ%3D&reserved=0> http://viXra.org/abs/1902.0398<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FviXra.org%2Fabs%2F1902.0398&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034913153&sdata=95%2BP5Q%2F4QJL8kNg9PQlqAiJZvxHxhqTki3UsoNe9LEc%3D&reserved=0> 2. A. Meulenberg, J. L. Paillet, "Nuclear-waste remediation with femto-atoms and femto-molecules," ICCF-21, 21st International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 3 - 8 June, 2018, Fort Collins, CO USA, to be published in JCMNS, 2019, if I have time to get it finished. and to-be-published papers from two workshops and a chapter in a book. We have not published anything on the other models; although I did include a variation on Ed Storms' "crack" model as the basis for: A. Meulenberg, K.P. Sinha, “Composite model for LENR in linear defects of a lattice,” ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, Presentation slides at http://hdl.handle.net/10355/36818<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhdl.handle.net%2F10355%2F36818&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034923164&sdata=3%2Bno1rty%2BhaD76TWyEsW2Lc3ucQK4TdWgGxFkGDHlG8%3D&reserved=0>, video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTSUJUCRHE<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRcTSUJUCRHE&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034933169&sdata=plMHhwvvnxDp%2B70eKv8UkbNpbZyUghxq7Tm62nn6Dp0%3D&reserved=0> I have been too busy looking at the Deep Dirac Levels with J-L Paillet since ICCF-18 to even write up this important paper, much less examine in detail models, which look at bound levels between the atomic ground-states and the relativistic deep levels. We are presently pursuing the relativistic deep-orbit electrons, which Jean-Luc has described so well, and their interaction with the nucleus. At least I will also be looking at the possibility that the relativistic-electron effects could lead to intra-nuclear components and interactions. Before 1995, I did derive (classically) the "fractional" orbits below the atomic ground state, but did not think these 1/n states to be important because they could not be reached by photonic processes. When I later found out what Mills had been doing, I emailed him my warning about these levels having too little angular momentum to form photons. He never responded, so he may have figured that out for himself and, much to his credit, he chose other approaches, which I considered a big step. However, I thought that he made a mistake going for plasma rather than solid state as a base. (If he were to use a UV light source or other means to invert the lowest hydrogen atomic levels and "seed" the mixture with annihilation radiation for stimulated emission, he might get a significant deep-level (not a fractional-level) population. However, without mirrors at that energy, the system is unlikely to lase.) I did not think much of the non-photonic options for my own CF models until I had looked more closely at cold fusion products (late in 2008). Andrew _ _ _ On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:00 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: Question for Andrew. The citation that comes up on Google for your most recent paper seems to be: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/230_JCMNS-Vol24.pdf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoldfusioncommunity.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F08%2F230_JCMNS-Vol24.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C477130a442fd42d75f3d08d6a0278b3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636872489034943180&sdata=CbWFqLRKyGxyUnjgj%2Fg9RjAM9JimZuwv5T%2BVoE2jOFc%3D&reserved=0> Excellent, but it does not try to integrate similar concepts which are floating around, such as those of Holmlid, Arata and Mills. Have you published anything which takes a look at the entire spectrum of "deep electrons" ? Jones Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > It takes something more to make relativistic electrons. That is where the > deep-electron orbits enter the picture. They can have binding energies in the > hundreds of keV and kinetic energies in the 100s of MeV. This would not give > hot-fusion type results. Strangely enough, the deep orbits are long predicted > by relativistic quantum mechanics. They just were not believed because nobody > had seen them, or their results. With cold fusion, we can now see their > results. Andrew
