In vacuum dynamics, it is important to get the chain of causation correct.
The key in all this is to produce a huge magnetic field. In order to get a huge magnetic field, charge must be removed from the electrons that produce the spin that in turn will produce this magnetic field. Electric charge works against concentrating large numbers of electrons from being packed into a small compact volume. But fortunately for LENR, when electrons are confined from moving freely, they lose their charge due to movement accomplished exclusively by tunneling. These electrons being tightly confined only have spin now. These electrons can now be amassed in huge numbers. This electron packing will produce vortex motion as has been seen in type II superconductors. Light will combine with these electrons to produce surface plasmon polaritons. Polaritons are only formed under high electron density conditions. The polaritons can now project the huge magnetic fields required to energize the vacuum. When energy is pumped into the vacuum, virtual particle production goes way up. If the magnetic field is high enough, virtual P mesons (pions) will be produced. These pions will surely disrupt nuclear activity. But magnetic fields of lesser strength will still have LENR effects based on the increased production of virtual particles. Caused by increased magnetic fields, this accelerated virtual particle production will increase the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. One experiment demonstrated an increase in the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. I have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: "Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water" http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf The existence of cooper pairs of protons in the Piantelli experiments shows that protons can also lose their charge through tight confinement. The destruction of positive charge through tunneling can be another of the many modes of LENR reaction. It is ironic that plasma physicists try to overcome the coulomb barrier in huge machines as big as sports stadiums but nanotechnologist can do this same job better by building nanowires in just the proper way to do that erstwhile daunting mission. No wonder why orthodox science cannot believe that these amazing feats can be so easily done in such a marvelously smarter way. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > I apologize for responding so tardily. But I have been in transit and > outfitting for my summer/fall in Alaska. > > > Jones-- > > The dimensions of the emitter associated with spin transitions in a > nucleus or during nuclear magnetic momentum transitions does not have > anything to do with the size of the nucleus. As robin points out the size > of the wave length of the EM radiation does not depend upon the size of the > emitting entity. I think it depends upon the differential energy between > quantum states involved in the transition to a lower state. The geometry > of course is involved in determination of the allowed states, but a > typical dimension may not be apparent. > > That being said I think the halo concept is instructive in thinking about > how energy states may change as a virtual particle changes to a stable > ground state. I like to think of a virtual di-deuterium particle > collapsing to a He particle in the Pd / Deuterium system. In fact the > Cooper paring of two Deuterium atoms to form an excited virtual pair, > starting out with antiparallel alignment each with high spin quantum number > totaling a net of 0 of the target He ground state, may explain the energy > fractionation that apparently occurs in small energy increments. > > Separately, I tend to agree with Robin that the need to try to combine the > electric and gravitation forces is not warranted unless it is a > consideration in a strong magnetic field to cause the paring to start. > This may be more important in the Ni H system where a catalyst is needed--a > Cooper pair of electrons or a di-proton. Of course a Pd system may also > experience high magnetic fields and assistance in Cooper pairing. > > I am not sure that the restriction to one dimension in the strong magnetic > field involves controlling the gravitational field as well. > > Bob > > > > > *From:* Jones Beene <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 3:58 PM > *To:* [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > > Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just > fine? > Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this > force, as the deuteron is already bound. > > > Yes, of course. That's the basic problem. The nucleus does not emit in the > range which we need to match experimental results (or lack thereof). > > The problem with "normal" nuclear radiation is that it is very short > wavelength - which is not seen in LENR experiments. Working backwards from > a > spectrum which could have escaped detection, we can hypothesize that there > needs to be an emitter geometry which is large enough to emit EUV or x-rays > and at the same time, to delay actual fusion until enough energy has been > dumped. That requirement eliminates any normal nucleus. > > This gets into antenna theory. How can a femtometer particle emit > ultraviolet? Typically it cannot as the geometry is way too > disproportionate. > > Possibly a halo nucleus can do this, or maybe the halo is too small as > well. > If that is the case, then the rationalization (of any kind of stepwise > release) is dead. > > > > >
