heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at surface of solids. are they totally different from the one WL assume ? maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed energy for WL to happens.
about electrons, is it rational to interpret electrons as individual. I thought that is was a property inside space (a field), and that electrons as particle are just a propagation mode in void. in solid, with interaction with other and with other field it might be (and is ) very different. think also for protons. note that interpreting hydrogen as atomic is not so evident, because inside a metal the electron might be shared with the metal, and the proton swimming separately inside, maybe interfering (as a similar but distinct field) with colleagues. the atomic interpretation of hydrogen seems to consider hydrogen is an independent solid/liquid in the crack, while it may be a complex plasma inside crystal. by the way quantum coherence assumptionof WL, is the same used for the shielding theory. Both theories assume some quantum interference, and not to interpret particle or atoms as marbles. I don't understand the animosity against WL, yet I understand that it is only one in many possibilities that share the following ideas : - imply high surface NAE - imply local instabilities - imply quantum coherence to overcame high energy barrier 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> > Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very > accurate analogy. > > In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead > car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when > the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case > all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. > As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that > CAN NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found > that can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one > electron, and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release rate > obversed, then find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct rates, > then W&L might become a viable explanation. > > One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all > inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's > another thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain > the phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. > > This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in > this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these > mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to > explain the phenomenom. > > BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV must > be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 > eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a > very good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with > known mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's > explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about > the behavior in such chemical environment. > > But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and I > am willing to be wrong. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. >>> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. >>> >>> A mechanical analog >>> >>> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m >>> hill >>> - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily >>> >> >> Nice analogy. >> > >
