Ah yes; Ni! I think I've identified the secret ingredient here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo
-- a shrubbery. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:10 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi ChemE and Andrew: If you read the entire thread, you'll see my statement: "If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE, whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome..." You should both be quite familiar with the term, NAE, coined by Dr. Storms, so I shouldn't have to explain this further. The thread was discussing localized areas in the Ni or Pd samples used in LENR research, which, due to specific and rare conditions, do NOT behave as the bulk material; some of the physics which describe the bulk material no longer apply. Let me be more explicit. If you have a chuck of Ni, that is 'bulk' matter; its physical properties are well known and predictable. However, inside that bulk Ni are dislocations and voids caused by stress relief and perhaps other well know processes. These voids, and perhaps the atoms immediately surrounding them, or atoms trapped inside, given certain conditions, do NOT behave as predicted by the physics which describe the behavior of the BULK Ni. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason it is taking so long for LENR researchers to develop a viable theoretical framework is that they are relying too much on the physics of the 'bulk' material, when the active areas where LENR takes place is not governed by the same physics; they need to be looking outside the bulk box. -Mark From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi I am not sure what Mark is referring to but I believe the core of the Earth is a Black Brane <deleted> Stewart On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: Are we talking about the bulk of theoretical physics? If so, then it's simply everything that's not on the brane. I like to conceptualise it as an embedding space of higher dimension than the brane we inhabit. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi Mark, <deleted> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: Mornin' Jones! NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , "..in or around the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*," I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth, instead of the tabletop! ;-) Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and therefore one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors. I would bet that once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will NOT be random, and will be modeled in a more classical manner. I see much discussion about the conditions necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier. In trying to think their way thru it, they apply some scientific 'rules' so as to propose something that is at least reasonable, and rightfully so. However, the 'rules' seem to me to be taken from what's expected of the bulk properties, and I take issue with that. The concept of resonances and coherent (or in-phase) oscillatory systems can cause long-term localized regions which concentrate energy; the bulk's physics of chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of energy. For the localized areas (NAEs), is the concentration of energy enough to overcome the coulomb barrier? Time will tell. Tesla was generating potentials of tens of millions of volts in his secondary from only a few hundred volts in his primary, so amplification factors of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude are perfectly reasonable... -Mark _____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi Mark, Yes - the "energy localization" aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry. However, the "NAE" implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary. The absence of gamma radiation presents the prima facie case that no traditional nuclear reaction takes place. The is no good reason to propose a known nuclear reaction, if good alternatives exist, which is the case. Ahern and others, including Mitchell Swartz seem to be leaning towards an explanation where thermal gain is QM-based and mediated by spin dynamics - which involves the "magnon". The source for energy mediated by magnons can itself be nuclear or non-nuclear. This is where semantics enters the picture - but one is on firmer theoretical ground using QM magnons as an operative modality - rather than LENR "cold fusion". The magnon is a "Goldstone boson" (wiki has an entry) and can turn up in both magnetic anomalies and nuclear anomalies. It is spin based. The magnon can be said to be the quantum of spin. Actually "subnuclear" is the preferred semantics for the ultimate energy source for magnons since pions are themselves pseudo-Goldstone bosons, at a minimum and there are no other "nuclear" indicia. When the nucleus is involved via a magnon modality, mass will be converted into energy in smaller packets, and without a change in the identity of the nucleon. That is the key semantic difference between "subnuclear" and "nuclear". Thus, we can propose using the term "subnuclear energy" to describe magnon mediated conversion, instead of "nuclear energy" since the later almost always implies an identity change in the nucleus (and larger packets of energy). _____________________________________________ From: MarkI-ZeroPoint If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE, whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome... _____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene In pursuit of more evidence for the ~300 eV photon - in the sense of it being the active energy transfer particle for the Rossi effect, another curiosity turns up - the water window. This is a favorable scaling region at the border of EUV and x-radiation for near-coherency and transparency. The wavelength is around 4 nm in the spectral region between the Carbon and Oxygen K shell absorption edges. The Rossi effect does not employ planned coherency it would seem, unless AR is cleverer than anyone imagines. However, from the earliest days, Dicke superradiance was thought to be involved in LENR in a causative way, even if inadvertent. Preparata expanded on this - and it was called DPSR or Dicke-Preparata Superradiance. Ahern calls it "energy localization"....
