Fran--
The fact that particles are relativistic in many cosmic reactions and two
particles may be traveling side by side suggests that either gravity or maybe
static (relative to the particles) magnetic fields can cause the shrinking and
fusion to a lower dark state, and this is responsible for dark matter and maybe
dark energy.
What is the controlling mechanism--nature trying to reduce angular momentum to
zero or the temperature and associated kinetic energy and its momentum or both?
As I have suggested before, I think that angular momentum and linear momentum
must be connected at a Planck scale.
Bob
Sent from Windows Mailh?
From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Bob,
This line of thought also brings back Lyne atomic oven and MAHG theory of
operation where a shrunken molecules forms between the shrunken atoms… what
happens to this molecular bond when the “shrinkage” factor changes.. if the
disassociation threshold is reduced you have yet another route to excess
energy. If Naudts is correct about these shrunken forms being relativistic then
the basic principle would be similar to an elatic tether between 2 near C
space craft traveling through areas where there are sudden shifts in gravity
except we don’t need rocket fuel or deep gravity wells. IMHO Casimir
confinement provides dynamic gravity HILLS / warps at the nano level which
provide equivalent acceleration while at a smaller more local scale the atoms
are still slaves to HUP for random gas motion between different regions /
geometry [DCE]. I also believe this is the mechanism behind the shrunken /
inverted Rydberg formation and that locally the hydrogen atoms are unaware of
their shrunken state- it is a product of the longer vacuum wavelengths
attempting to fit between the Casimir boundaries making the observation
relativistic in the same fashion as the near C paradox twin would see the earth
as greatly accelerated and shrunken from his perspective.
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low
Energy Nuclear Reaction"
Jones and Bob--
I like this line of thought.
I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken hydrogen
molecule can also form. However, I would think it would be likely advance to a
Cooper pair and a Boson as a result. This would make fusion possible.
Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair. It may take 2 H and 2 D
to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin). The reaction may
occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta, and do
away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes.
Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s with respect
to normal temperatures associated with LENR. I thinks he considers that more
than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs of H and D could
condense to a duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping
wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on
occasion. Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a
mix. The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller
ones--a fission of a BEC. I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons
making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration. However a new
separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the
conditions to allow additional reactions.
Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Bob,
Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two
differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier.
Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for
tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC
state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not
need it. That is a big plus.
However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try
to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas
(Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium.
The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which
is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would
including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear
tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic
statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and
thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL
can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I
doubt that it can happen at high temperature.
The second problem is that dropping all the way from ground state to DDL
does not really release all that much energy, in advance. There is still MeV
levels to dispose of after the fusion. So the mitigation of the gamma is not
really accomplished by the Mills method.
For those reasons, it seems to me that fusion can be justified as an
explanation for bosons (deuterons); but as to whether the DDL, as a
composite boson, would still qualify for nuclear tunneling, that is doubtful
– and anyway, Ed has already invoked P-e-P - which is incompatible with the
near field of the DDL.
From: Bob Higgins
Jones,
You are positing that Ni-H fusion must be something
completely different than a Pd-D fusion due to the fact that a hydrogen
nucleus (proton) is a fermion and a deuterium nucleus (proton + neutron) is
a boson.
Integer spin particles, Bosons, are not subject to the Pauli
exclusion principle and have a far easier time fusing in condensed matter,
at high probability due to tunneling - especially since they have inherent
coulomb screening from the neutron. Deuterons are Bosons. And even if Ed
does not like tunneling, it is the only reason that his theory has a leg to
stand on. LENR in the hydroton scenario is possible with Bosons and
impossible with Fermions. It is as simple as that.
That could be at least partly true and I would like to ask
for some discussion. Isn't a neutral hydrogen atom (proton + electron) a
boson? We have discussed on Vortex the concept that the energy from the
hydrogen isotope must be released before fusion can occur (Ed's proposal).
This is necessary to prevent (in advance) the high energy photon released
after the LENR fusion occurs. If we do not reject summarily the Mills
concept of inverse Rydberg states for the hydrogen atom (even if it turns
out he doesn't have it quite right), then the advance energy being taken out
of the atoms to be fused could be taken out by successive reduction in
orbital size during the resonance process, with corresponding emitted lower
energy photons. The result of resonance could be highly shrunken neutral
hydrogen atoms which are still bosons. Ejected shrunken hydrogen would
likely pass through most materials like a neutron, but if captured, could
cause a fusion-fission in outside materials (activating them) - this could
be the unusual radiation that Ed Storms documented.
You could be right that bosons will fuse easier, but that
doesn't rule out hydrogen - but may instead point to the possibility that
the shrunken inverse Rydberg states may exist in some form for hydrogen. If
such states exist, then something like the hydroton would be an excellent
way to move hydrogen in and out of those states because the close resonant
coupling of the structure provides a strong evanescent coupling to the atom;
evanescent coupling purported to be required for that transition by Mills.
Your observation that the deuterium nucleus is a boson
already means that the neutral atom is not. Here is a complete guess -
maybe deuterium cannot enter a shrunken fractional Rydberg state because its
neutral atom is not a boson. Deuterium could be a catalyst then in the
hydroton, allowing the resonance and hydroton to continue shrinking the
hydrogen while not itself shrinking.
I would like to hear your comments.
Bob Higgins
