Sounds like you are a fast study, JoJo. Fran Roarty has got a lot of detailed info on Casimir on his site, and there are lots of specialized papers on CNT online. Other than that, you may be breaking new ground - so the best advice is to be thorough, keep good lab notes, report problems, consider all alternatives, and do not be hesitant to ask for help or opinions from strangers when you stall-out. And in general - "no one of us is as smart as all of us."
It is no secret that there are lots of diverse opinions, in various degrees of contact with reality, here on vortex. The one common denominator is a commitment to finding a solution. Obviously, if anyone had it figured out, they would not be inclined to reveal it completely, so you are in a position to cherry-pick, based on your own experience. The real beauty of "free enterprise" as a philosophy is most obvious and most pure in R&D - and not in commerce, per se. The one thing you do different in the Lab, may end up being critical to success in ways that even the inventor does not understand. It is seldom as pure in "capitalism" where little actual value is added most of the time - and where one man's sales gimmick or tax savings (or greed) can be a better man's tax burden or lost sales. In the Lab, it can be win-win without needing to "play the system" or scheme-up on worthless promotion. Go for it! -----Original Message----- From: Jojo Jaro How does one achieve this quasi nuclear reaction of releasing excess bosonic glue? Do you put H+ ions within 2-12 nm apart from each other? Put both of them is a cavity 2-12 nm in size? Or put an H2 molecule in a cavity 2-12nm in size and ionize them. Their recombination should "release" this extra bosonic glue energy? If this is correct, this would be easy to do experimentally. Just do what I proposed. Create CNTs 2-12 nm in diameter, chop off the tops, allow H2 molecules to accumulate inside the pipe, and deliver a mild spark to ionize the H2 to individual H+ ions. Their recombination should release this extra glue energy. Correct? You gotta help me out here Jones. I do not fully understand your Casimer theory to even begin to design a possible experiment. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:It's fission > -----Original Message----- > From: Jojo Jaro > So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that > be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? ...What > would > be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. > Jojo, > > I have been pursuing what is a "default" theory which has been posted to > Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is > basically "what is left" when you eliminate the theories which cannot > work, > due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully > falsifiable, unlike the others. > > My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy > conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta > decay > or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton > mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this > accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an > "average mass" based on whatever the most advanced current measurement > technique is being use before recalibration. > > The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as > either "overage" or "deficit" and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The > overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this > becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from > Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with > spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in > the geometry and porosity. > > A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a > third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when > the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of > other > scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event > is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 > nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity > by Coulomb force prior to that. > > The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark > component is small for all three - but is the only component which is > relatively "fixed" by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is > present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum > "glue" > and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for > quasi-nuclear gain, even if most of the "glue" must be retained, since > quarks are not mutually attractive without it. > > Bottom line, there is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark > remainder bosons (pions, gluons, etc) in the proton average mass - which > is > extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton > maintains its identity and no radioactivity or transmutation needs to show > up. > > Ironically, this is still a "nuclear reaction" but is being labeled as > quasi-nuclear, to avoid confusion. > > Jones > l >
