encrusted protons?
;-)
harry
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
