In quantum theory, when enemy is produced and/or transferred the entangled system becomes Decoherent.
The BEC or a part of it is rendered decoherent after nuclear power production and transfer. But the BEC is reestablished almost instantaneously. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > How about Quantum Decoherence as the energy source? As I am staring at > gravity and seismic waves generated from Hurricanes that is what I am > seeing in the atmosphere and the Earth. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence > > Conversion of quantum information into classical. Decoherence occurs when > a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically > irreversible <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversibility> way > > Stewart > darkmattersalot.com > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The thermalization of nuclear energy release is conditional. Proton-21 >> produces gammas up to 10 MeV but that process also uses vortex current to >> disrupt the nucleus. >> >> >> >> Bose Einstein condensation (BEC) thermalizes gamma level energy through a >> coherent and entangled superatom mechanism. >> >> >> >> >> >> I do not agree with Dr. Kim that BEC is the primary LENR mechanism. It is >> instead a epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) or a secondary phenomenon >> that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. >> >> >> >> An epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot affect >> a primary phenomenon. >> >> >> >> >> >> In the field of complex systems, the term epiphenomenon tends to be used >> interchangeably with "emergent effect". >> >> >> >> >> >> In the E-cat, the polariton formation process allows for the formation of >> EMF solutions (vortex current) as separate unconnected units at low >> temperatures. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As the temperature rises, polariton formation of global polariton >> Bose-Einstein condensation appears as an epiphenomenon. This BEC will >> thermalize the gamma radiation via a superatom mechanism. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What is the reaction resulting from this disruption of nuclear >>> processes? Does this reaction release energy slowly enough to overcome >>> Roberson's critique of the nanomagnetic-scale hypothesis of particle-size >>> as being subject to melting by even a single fusion event? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> *In its simplest expression, what the Ni/H reactor does is convert >>>> heat to a special form of magnetism that disrupts nuclear processes. * >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *The magnetic nature of nickel would interfere with the production of >>>>> nano-vortex anapole fields.* >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *The ability of nickel to affect nano-magnetism must be removed by >>>>> getting nickel above the Curie temperature.* >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *Dipole oscillations are the powerhouse that feeds energy into vortex >>>>> current production. The stronger the Dipole oscillations become, the >>>>> stronger that the vortex currents will become.* >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *Through the application of heat, the nickel micro particles power >>>>> the LENR process through stimulating Dipole oscillations. This heat >>>>> energy is transferred to the dipoles most efficiently at or above the >>>>> Debye >>>>> temperature.* >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *Also, 137C is the blackbody resonant frequency for micro-particles >>>>> at about 6 microns. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *I bet when Defkalion and Rossi add the nanowire covering to the 5 >>>>> micron nickel micro-powder, the size of those processed particles will be >>>>> ideal for a 137C blackbody resonance.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Does that favor the Debye temperature or Curie point view of the NAE? >>>>>> >>>>>> Given your prior posting of this video: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqFc4wriBvE >>>>>> >>>>>> It would seem to point to the Debye temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> *At the heart of the Nanoplasmonic theory of LENR, hot spots >>>>>>> produce nano-sized magnetic vortexes that disrupt nuclear structure. >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:29 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To put things into perspective, the Curie point and not the Debye >>>>>>>>> temperature of nickel seems to be the most important parameter for >>>>>>>>> gain in >>>>>>>>> Ni-H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, so now we have: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nickel nanomagnetic scale (sub 10nm) particles heated at least to >>>>>>>> Ni's Debye temperature, if not its Curie point, and infused with >>>>>>>> hydrogen >>>>>>>> -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by ionizing the hydrogen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Areas of clarification needed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Should "hydrogen" read "protium (ie: Hydrogen-1)"? >>>>>>>> - Should there be some characteristic of the ionizing energy >>>>>>>> specified so that the "infused" "hydrogen" is properly ionized? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:20 AM, James Bowery >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, James Bowery >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Erratum: Debay -> Debye >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, James Bowery <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nickel nanoparticles heated to Ni's Debay temperature and >>>>>>>>>>> infused with hydrogen -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by >>>>>>>>>>> ionizing >>>>>>>>>>> the hydrogen. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Areas of clarification needed:... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Is there a technical name that can be given to the >>>>>>>>>>> geometry of the "nanoparticles" that would, for example, tell us >>>>>>>>>>> where in >>>>>>>>>>> the "nano" range the size of these particles should sit? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Nanomagnetic scale" (sub 10nm) is a term that may qualify. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See pages 14-16 of: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/energy-localization-no8-11_n3.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
