Dear Jones, I suspect that it will take a convergence of ideas to solve the CF problem. I haven't the time, presently, to come up to speed on Jurg's model (I may have to make the time at some point).
I was unaware that spintronics can increase the effective mass of electrons. However, I suspect that is in the context of a lattice; if so, such an increase would not be surprising. Just as charged particles are trapped in the Van Allen belts by "mirroring" in the Earth's mag field gradient, this could happen to conduction electrons within a lattice. This would certainly add to the increase in effective mass from the E-field barriers of the lattice. Right now, I am toying with Jean-Luc Paillet's concept of ~100 MeV relativistic electrons in deep orbits to act as muons and pions and a potential source of nuclear forces. As a consequence of deep-orbit interactions (e.g., spin-spin interaction between nucleons, quarks, and electrons), we may be able to understand the additional SS interactions, if a second such electron (or a positron) is present (as I suspect may be the case in the structure of neutrons - or even quarks). I would not be surprised if Holmlid's work (and spintronics) can contribute to new (or, at least, modified) models of nuclear and atomic physics. Andrew _ _ _ On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:20 AM JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > *From: *Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com> > > > - A possible weakness in the ICCF-14 model is the assumption that the > increased effective mass of a lattice electron would be valid for > atomic-hydrogen spacings (dimensions) below that of the lattice. > > > > Andrew, > > > > There is an interesting and possibly unplanned convergence of your > thinking with that of Jürg Wyttenbach relative to electron effective mass > and spin… which curiously also turns up at the basis of “spintronics”. > Perhaps LENR will move in that direction. After all, the “effective mass” > of electrons is a well studied detail in that context. > > > > In the case of Holmlid -- and taken to the extreme (far extreme) - the > large change in electron "effective mass" which can be engineered in > spintronics may point to the origin of what Holmlid detects as “muons”. > After all, the strongest objection to his work is the actual annihilation > of hydrogen, supposedly into muons. > > > > It may not be completely out of the question to suggest that he is somehow > seeing the scattering of transitory remnants from massively increased > (effective mass), rather than annihilation. > > >
