Thermal motion produces infrared photons that are central to the LENT reaction.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > *Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin?* > > I assert that this is the underlying mechanism of LENR. > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks Jones. There might be something here that needs further >> research. Would it not seem logical that there should exist some ultimate >> minimum energy level for the proton mass? In other words, some mass below >> which additional energy can not be extracted. >> >> I can imagine that higher spin energy states would exist. These may even >> exchange total energy among the nearby protons such that most remain >> elevated about the zero additional energy state. Then I might ask about >> how unidirectional the effect should be. Would the tendency to achieve >> maximum disorder push the process of converting the stored excess energy >> into thermal motion? Can random thermal motion ever be converted into spin? >> >> I suppose I am reaching for a mechanism that would allow an exchange of >> the captured spin energy with random thermal energy. I guess that spin >> energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while thermal energy >> tends to be considered associated with linear momentum. The two might not >> mix very well. So far I have not been able to come up with a way to >> exchange the two types of momentum. >> >> Forgive me for rambling on, but this is the way my mind processes >> interactive ideas as I try to connect the dots. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:14 pm >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism >> >> From: David Roberson >> * >> * I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton >> mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass >> spectrometers? >> >> Yes and no. This is not unlike the problem of mass-4 similarity between D2 >> and He but more demanding. There could be repeatable statistical variation >> over a large population within measurement error of the very top level >> specialty spectrometer, running for substantial time periods. But in an >> average lab – no way. >> >> Given Rossi’s claims, it might even be possible to actually weight the >> difference on a sensitive scale if the hydrogen sample was say 10 grams of >> H2 from a blue box which had given up say a gigawatt of heat over 6 months. >> There are nanogram scales using piezoelectric effects which could be >> modified. >> >> * I suppose that even a 1% variation would be more than enough to >> supply all of the nuclear energy that we are seeing since the energy content >> of the standard mass is so great. >> >> Not that large. The usable mass variation for protons appears to be about 70 >> ppm (part per million). If the distribution is a bell curve, then perhaps >> one third of the population can be further depleted. In short, the average >> gain possible can be calculated to be about 5,000-10,000 times more than >> chemical but about 1,000-2,000 times less than nuclear fusion. >> >> >> * Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that >> have shown variation in this factor? >> >> I have a collection of published measurements of proton mass (going back to >> the cold war era) where there were substantial reported variations, >> especially as seen in Russia. Different instrumentation. Nowadays, everyone >> automatically seems to use the same value. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >
