Jones--
You stste: “Yes and it is all statistical - but equalization among protons cannot be substantial due to the many components of the proton, besides the three quarks – none of which, including quarks is quantized.” I think that quarks and gluons carry spin that is quantized. Am I wrong? Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:32 AM To: [email protected] From: Bob Cook Your step #2 involves spin coupling and associated mass loss as an energy source not only for the deflation exotherm, but the simultaneous inflation and its exotherm--I think? Is this correct? Not exactly. Imagine an oscillation in which a sphere pulses in and out in apparent size. Usually the pulsation is by reduction of ½ of the radius, but occasionally more. The first few shrinkage levels, especially the first one but as many as seven - would be endothermic for the first half of the pulse cycle and exothermic for the second part (re-inflation). This oscillation would be powered by excess mass of the proton providing the spin energy to shrink the electron orbit. That is the first half-cycle. Later, that spin energy is given up as thermal energy immediately when the orbital re-inflates (unless the oscillator is captured in a cavity, so that freedom of movement stabilizes it against reinflation). Often the cavity is the same energy hole in which the species was formed. In this viewpoint, the energy hole is geometric. A separate question: If the system is connected why could you not have deflation in some H and inflation in others so that the events of deflation and inflation were in separate areas of the system? There is no delay and they would not need to be understood as separated, since every active particle is oscillating in one linked transaction with no delay. The fractional species, or hydrino is transient with a very short half life in this view, which is different from Mills CQM. The exception is when the hydrino is dissolved into a metal matrix as it was in the Thermacore nickel capillary tubes. Also, why are only 1/3 of the protons available for release of spin energy? That is merely a guess based on the bell curve. The “known” mass-energy of the proton, almost 1GeV - is an average mass. The proton is not quantized. We can model it as a bell distribution. Only the heavier portion of the population of protons will have enough excess mass to convert into spin-energy, in order to power the shrinkage. This would lower the average mass of the population over time unless some other mechanism (like the zero point field) keeps it relatively constant. That gets us back to Puthoff’s theory. Spin states among protons moving close to each other could change pretty fast and swap spin energy (spin states) to equalize the stability of the population as to their possible spin quanta. An oscillating magnetic field may facilitate such swapping. Yes and it is all statistical - but equalization among protons cannot be substantial due to the many components of the proton, besides the three quarks – none of which, including quarks is quantized. Lastly, what happens in a metal lattice to the H? It is entrapped there until freedom of movement is sufficient to allow reinflation. This gets us back to the X-ray analysis (XPS) which was used twenty years ago to validate this viewpoint, but it was never really expressed as an alternative to Mills view, before now.
