Perhaps so. Can spin energy be converted into linear kinetic energy? If spin is tied to angular momentum, one might expect it to be conserved overall. How do we prove or disprove this?
If you look at the universe from a distance you observe large amounts of spin(angular momentum) that does not appear to be going away by conversion into thermal energy(linear momentum). Both processes appear to be conserved and is that true for spin among smaller units such as protons? Are these phenomena always orthogonal? Energy can be converted directly between angular and linear forms, but is the same true for momentum? I suspect not. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I assert that the magnetic component of matter as released by LENR is the source of dark energy. Dark energy is the resonance values picked up by josephson junction resonance effects instead of dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3790 Could it be that the bosenova that has been seen in the DGT Ni/H reactor as described by professor Kim is a microcosm of the expansion of the universe as a result of dark energy. Could it be that the universe is undergoing a bosenova? On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go about finding those results? Spin variations among the various components of the proton might easily lead to interesting results. If this is indeed the source of LENR energy, then one might ask how it is shared among the total matter of the universe. Can it be passed between various protons freely by electromagnetic interaction? Does the normal trend exist that results in kinetic energy as the preferred outcome in which case the proton mass excess would want to find some way to be converted into heat ultimately? How long can the excess energy be trapped inside the proton before it finds it way out? You might want to know if the energy transfer is a two way process where spin can be given or taken away by other protons, etc. Here, our recent discussions about interaction with magnetic fields might yield fruitful results. A large external magnetic field could be the process that directs the energy exchange in a gainful manner as opposed to random exchange that is the norm. Of course all of these questions and suppositions are based upon pure speculation thus far. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The spin of the proton is the big puzzle in particle physics. The quarks in the proton contribute less than half of the required proton spin. The gluons contribute the remainder of the spin. But theory says that gluons should not have spin. If gluons have spin then they must be magnetic and they can be effected by magnetic force. But the gluons are the force carriers of the strong force; the strong force is not magnetic. But the strong force must be magnetic if the gluons have spin. Something is not right about how theory defines the strong force and it will take LENR, IMHO, to solve this issue. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Jones, I want to ask you about your thougths about the variation in proton mass. Should the variation be measurable with high sensitivity mass spectrometers? 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. Also, are you aware of any super accurate mass measurements that have shown variation in this factor? Perhaps the best way to begin discussion of this question is to locate the basic standard variation curves that must have been generated for lone proton measurements to see if the uncertainty has enough range to be useful. If the standard deviation of mass uncertainty is adequate then this might be a productive concept. In that case, LENR is merely a process that leads to the release of the stored energy and methods to enhance that process must be available. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 11:20 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism The most importantunsolved problem in physics is arguably proton/quark spin dynamics. Thesuperset of this problem is underappreciated – variability of proton mass. It is a surprise to manyscientists that quark mass is highly variable and apparently has been forbillions of years … meaning that there could be gradual shifts over time. Quarkmass cannot be accurately quantized; and because of that systemic problem infundamental physics - proton mass is itself variable as a logical deduction. Protons,or at least a fraction on the distribution tail of any population, can thereforesupply a great deal of energy without the need to fuse or undergo any change inidentity. Quark spin and proton spin are, in one viewpoint, independent of eachother, but they must be linked (as a logical deduction) which is another formof wave-particle duality. This is part of the larger so-called “proton spin crisis”. There are dozens if nothundreds of papers and scholarly articles trying to rationalize problems withthe standard model of physics, based on quark mass variation going all the wayback to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Quark mass variation is a fact, and quarkspin is a major feature of that mass. This is why any new modelfor LENR – based on mass depletion of reactants (mass-to-energy conversion) viaspin coupling is on much firmer theoretical ground than a silly attempt toinvent a way to completely hide gamma rays. Gamma rays are known to always beemitted when deuterium fuses to helium. It is almost brain-dead to suggest thatthey can be hidden with 100% success in any experiment where they should beseen. It is an embarrassment to thefield of LENR when a scientist of the caliber of Ed Storms, goes on record assaying that nanomagnetism is “a distraction”. Distraction to what? one must ask:is it a distraction to promotion of a book, or a distraction to an erroneous suggestionthat helium is found commensurate with excess heat in LENR? Or a distraction tothe bogus idea that gamma rays can be hidden 100% of the time? That is the kind ofdistraction which is poised to become the new norm. ____________________________________ Thanks Peter and Bob. Here are a couple of additional thoughts onan emerging nanomagnetism hypothesis. Nanomagnetism can be operational parallel to other processes inany experiment, even a novel form of “fusion” if that exists. Nanomagnetism canbe part of a dynamical Casimir effect as well. However, the thermal gain ofnanomagnetism results from a direct conversion of mass-to-energy, where themass lost is in the form of nuclear spin – possibly quark spin. There is notransmutation and no nuclear radiation. It is likely that there are two (or three) distinct temperatureregimes for Ni-H. Nanomagnetism is involved most strongly in the lower regimewhich is seen in the Cravens demo. In this regime the Neel temperature iscritical. We can note that Cravens adds samarium-cobalt to his active mix. Thismaterial is permanently magnetized. In a higher temperature version of nanomagnetism, the Curie pointis critical. This would explain the noticeable threshold mentioned in severalpapers around 350 C. In the highest temperature regime (HotCat) permanent magnetism is notpossible as an inherent feature, and an external field must be implemented.Thus, resistance wiring itself can be supplying the needed magnetic fieldalignment in the HotCat. Only a few hundred Gauss is required and it can beintermittent. At the core of the hot version, and possibly all versions, is anew kind of HTSC or high-temperature superconductivity which is local andhappens only in quantum particles (quantum dots, or excitons). This form of“local HTSC” seen at the nanoscale only, is entering the mainstream as wespeak, see: “Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html Summary: Magnetism is highly directional. "Knowing thedirectional dependence … we were able, for the first time, to quantitativelypredict the material's superconducting properties using a series ofmathematical equations… calculations showed that the gap possesses d-wavesymmetry, implying that for certain directions the electrons were boundtogether very strongly, while they were not bound at all for other directions," This ineffect is the spin-flip seen in the transition from superparamagnetismto superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle with intermediate stageswhich are antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic around the Neel temperature, inone version - so in effect what we have in nanomagnetism is a “heat drivenelectrical transformer” where the heat is self-generated. __________________________________ In automotiveengineering, there are several idealized energy transfer cycles which involve four clearly segmented stages of engine operation. For instance, the Otto cycle consists of: 1) Intake, Compression, Expansion, Exhaust whichare further arranged as 2) Two isentropic processes - adiabatic andreversible and 3) Two isochoric processes - constant volume 4) As an "idealized" cycle, this neverhappens completely in practice, but it permits substantial gain in a ratchet-like way and substantial understanding of the process. 5) There are many other idealized cycles forcombustion, such as the Stirling which is probably closer, as an analogy, to nanomagnetism In nanomagnetism, there is a corresponding strong metaphor involving a similar kind of 4 legged hysteresis curve, where we find 1) Antiferromagnetism, superparamagnetism,ferrimagnetism and superferromagnetism working in a repeating cycle 2) The remainder of the analogy is underdevelopment but there are two reversible processes involving field alignment, requiring two operative classes of reactants - one mobile and one stationary 3) Nanomagnetism requires a ferromagnetic nucleuswhich is nominally stationary. (yes, palladium and titanium alloy can be ferromagnetic) 4) Nanomagnetism requires a mobile medium, loadedor absorbed into the ferromagnet which has variable magnetic properties. 5) Hydrogen and its isotopes appears to be theexclusive mobile medium, which can oscillate between diamagnetic (as a molecule) and strongly paramagnetic (as an absorbed atom) 6) Spin coupling provides the transfer of energyfrom the ferromagnetic nucleus to the mobile nucleus in a method similar to induction. 7) Inverse square permits very strong effectivefields for transfer of spin energy from nickel-62, for instance. 8) Nanomagnetism seems to boosted by the presenceof an oxide of the ferromagnet - i.e. nickel with a small percentage of nickel oxide but the oxide is not required. This is an emerging hypothesis, the details of which are fluid, but... shall we say... "attractive" :-)
