Keep in mind that Rossi claims low energy radiation that could be from positron-electron decay.
Remember both photons carry a spin quanta also with spin transfer. Both linear and angular momentum is conserved with a transfer of “rest” mass into EM fields of the photons. The transfer of energy between magnetic and electric fields at right angles to each other may vary well represent a spin and its associated angular momentum for each photon. And of course the photons each also carry linear momentum. Regarding one of Dave’s questions yesterday regarding spin interactions, it has been my thought that orbital spin momentum can be changed into intrinsic spin angular momentum without any violation of spin conservation. The extensive existence of this orbital momentum associated with a metal lattice and intense magnetic fields may allow such coupling. The change in spin quantum numbers associated with orbital momentum may vary well establish vibrations in the lattice and hence linear momentum with its classical heat or temperature of the lattice. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2014 7:35 PM To: [email protected] Muon catalyzed fusion could be the enabler of Proton Proton fusion (PP). The double protons seen in the Piantelli experiments might be due to the first steps in the PP fusion chain. PP will exist until there is a positron emission to form deuterium. The PP could then be fused with nickel to form copper via muon fusion. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: Muon catalyzed fusion might come about when a magnetic field creates a muon during proton interaction with a magnetic field from meson production via meson decay. To create this effect, a stream of negative muons, most often created by decaying pions, is sent to a crystal of hydrogen. The muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse, release the catalytic muon (most of the time), and part of the original mass of both nuclei is released as energetic particles, as with any other type of nuclear fusion. The release of the catalytic muon is critical to continue the reactions. The majority of the muons continue to bond with other hydrogen isotopes and continue fusing nuclei together. However, not all of the muons are recycled: some bond with other debris emitted following the fusion of the nuclei (such as alpha particles and helions), removing the muons from the catalytic process. This gradually chokes off the reactions, as there are fewer and fewer muons with which the nuclei may bond. The number of reactions achieved in the lab can be as high as 150 fusions per muon (average). Muons will continue to be produced through energy injection into the protons and neutrons of the atoms within the influence of the magnetic beam. This magnetic based reaction is more probable than the magnetic formation of a quark/gluon plasma since it only requires 100 MeV of energy to produce the muon. Linier and angular momentum is conserved via neutrino production during the decay of the pion to keep all spins zero. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: OK, so that leaves just about nothing to extract. It would certainly not be adequate to explain LENR levels of energy we are expecting. So, why do we hear members of the vortex speaking of variation in the mass of the proton as being important? I have to ask about the measurement technique and how it is possible to determine the mass to that level of precision. I have never witnessed the determination of proton mass and plead ignorance to the processes that are used. Can anyone actually make a physical measurement that is to the accuracy suggested? Anyone can calculate the number to as many decimal figures as they desire by using a computer model but the results might not reflect the real world values. Does anyone have first hand experience in making this determination and what is the real standard deviation of the energy content of a lone proton? If the numbers are as precise as you are suggesting then why not put to rest the thought of being able to somehow extract this source of energy? Jones, I think you might have some input that would be helpful. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
