The incommensurability of momentum and energy plays tricks on people's intuition. A graphic example is the way the movie "JFK" used this in its climactic courtroom scene where the Zapruder film shows JFK's head going backwards giving the appearance of a second shooter coming from another direction than the Book Depository.
If a bullet entered at high velocity from the back and dissipated its energy in JFK's brain in such a way as to pressurize it, then when it exited the forward side it would have exited at a lower velocity making a larger hole which would have been the preferred route of escape of the brain matter -- yielding a high mass flow in the forward direction. High mass flow at the same energy yields higher thrust. JFK's skull was a bit like a combustion chamber in a rocket and the larger hole at the front was the nozzle of the rocket engine. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, > > Momentum in a linear product of mass and velocity. Energy is a non linear > product with velocity being squared in the equations. The two are not > compatible. > > There should be no problem taking two non spinning particles and ending up > with opposite spins due to internal forces. These could independently > interact with other particles to transmit the energy. Of course the > initial spin energy of the two static particles must be derived from some > other potential source of energy. > > It is important to keep the concept of angular energy and angular momentum > separate just as with linear momentum and kinetic energy. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:01 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Dave-- > > I think there is a large number of particles involved in the fractionation > of energy resulting from LENR. Otherwise the structure would be damaged so > as not to produce LENR anymore. > > I agree that angular momentum can not be generated, however, if two > particles with equal but opposite spin--angular momentum--in the same > system come together the net angular momentum is zero. How the spin energy > for a system couples and excanges with potential energy is where better > understanding is required. > > You noted the following: > > I have difficulty accepting the notion that potential energy can be > converted into angular momentum.< > > What is the basis for this lack of acceptance? > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:27 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Bob, > > I agree with you that two particles are not required to conserve linear > momentum. I have difficulty accepting the notion that potential energy can > be converted into angular momentum. Angular momentum can not be generated > in a closed system IIRC unless an equal amount of the opposite sign is co > generated. The net system AM remains constant. > > If your assumed reaction includes a larger system of particles than the > two initial particles then energy and momentum can be traded among the > larger number. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:01 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Ed-- > > You said: > > >>Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha > because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is > released. << > > I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would > not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum > requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may > be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > From: Edmund Storms > > Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not > produced by photons. > > Who said it was? > > > I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up > photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added > the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not > produced by gamma. > > You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation > of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. > > > I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to > read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using > Vortex and I can not send all the papers. > > > This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such > as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. > > What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not > begin as an alpha particles? > > > Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha > because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is > released. > > > Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the > mass-energy is dissipated as photons. > > There is no proof of this. > > > The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with > all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information > in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please > be patient. > > > The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a > mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and > consistent will all the other observations. > > It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account > for > the heat. > > > I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a > way to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this > standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will > have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently > exists, including your own. > > Ed Storms > > > Where is the documentation? > > Jones > > > <winmail.dat> > > >
