That is the model that I try to understand Axil. But I do not believe that an
isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. A free
proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every observer
except one at rest to it. It therefore can not emit thermal energy in the form
of IR without the interaction of other particles around it. The infrared
photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) of the
system of particles. Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as photon
energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
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
