Fran,
Jones has suggested that I go to your site to study your post about casimer
cavitites; in fact, I've been to your blog several times, but most of what you
are saying is beyond my paygrade. I have no idea how to interpret what you are
saying.
So, can you help me out. Based on your theory, how does one achieve this
overunity from dynamical casimer cavities. Just put an H2 molecule in a
casimer cavity 2-12 nm in size and ionize it and allow it to recombine
resulting in excess heat due to excess bosonic glue as Jones theorizes? Could
it be as simple as this?
What do you mean by "normal gas motion between different casimer geometries can
discount and disassociate H2 at an overunity rate." Do you mean, ionize H2 at
a certain size cavity and then move it to a different size cavity (bigger or
smaller?) ? If this is what you mean, I can achieve this. I seem to remember
a way to build Carbon Nanotubes via tip growth wherein you start out with a
bigger diameter CNT and modify it to a smaller diameter CNT. I think this is
possible. This would provide a change in casimer cavity size. Would this work?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Roarty, Francis X
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission
Jones,
I'm ok with your posit crediting the extra energy to these slight
atomic overages , it is an olive branch to those that still insist this a
nuclear reaction despite the fleeting amount of ash while leaving the door open
for those of us that credit ZPE as being a key ingredient. Your theory, Haisch
and Model's lamb pinch or my posit of changes in NAE opposing h2 motion
differently than h1 motion are all just different theories for containing and
rectifying this same anomalous environment to produce heat. We seem to share
the same back end where the energy is released when h2 reforms but regarding
the front end, there are likely many methods that will suffice, After reading
about the MAHG, and Lyne, and Langmuir I derived my posit that normal gas
motion between different Casimir geometries can discount and disassociate H2 at
an over unity rate. In the case of atomic welding I think some of the hydrogen
ions do indeed act like catalyzers for other hydrogen molecules much like Mills
predicts in Rayney Nickel.
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission
-----Original Message-----
From: Jojo Jaro
So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely
considering that nickel is such a stable element? .What would be the fission
reaction paths ending up with these elements.
Jojo,
I have been pursuing what is a "default" theory which has been posted to
Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is
basically "what is left" when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due
to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully
falsifiable, unlike the others.
My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy
conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or
transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy
is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in
contention) but this value becomes what is really an "average mass" based on
whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before
recalibration.
The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as
either "overage" or "deficit" and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The
overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this
becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from
Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with
spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the
geometry and porosity.
A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third
of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong
force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios,
but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when
spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and
later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb
force prior to that.
The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark
component is small for all three - but is the only component which is
relatively "fixed" by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present
but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum "glue" and some of
it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for quasi-nuclear gain,
even if most of the "glue" must be retained, since quarks are not mutually
attractive without it.
Bottom line, there is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark
remainder bosons (pions, gluons, etc) in the proton average mass - which is
extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton
maintains its identity and no radioactivity or transmutation needs to show up.
Ironically, this is still a "nuclear reaction" but is being labeled as
quasi-nuclear, to avoid confusion.
Jones
l
