My usual take on this subject is that a bullet behaves much like a small
explosive device. The energy delivered by the retardation of the fast moving
bullet was deposited within his skull and must find a way out. Energy does not
know direction since it is scalar which leads to damage in all directions.
This type of demonstration is quite evident when a high speed bullet impacts a
plastic container of water. In that case the water is rapidly expelled in all
directions.
Conservation of momentum is required in this special case along with
conservation of energy. As you mention, plenty of material travels along with
the spent bullet through the forward exit point. It needs to be proven that
the momentum contained within this forward exiting mass is greater than the
initial bullet momentum so that a negative momentum is generated that is large
enough to send his head backwards. This may be possible, but it is not evident.
I have fired plenty of rifles and have been subject to the kick due to the
bullet being fired. In this case we are attempting to accept the notion that
the brain matter and bullet leaving the front of his head actually has more
kick(momentum) than if Oswald had held the rifle butt against his
head(Oswald's) as the gun was fired. I must say that this seems highly
unlikely after a bit of consideration.
My conclusion at this time is that some other force must have been involved to
make JFK's head react so strongly backwards. I believe some say that your
muscles might tense due to damage of the brain which might be the explanation.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
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 <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
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>
