Clearance Items

    Quote from sigmoidal

    Well, right off the bat you started running in the wrong direction. So I really can't help you until you decide to stop and turn around.


    BTW, you ignored my basic questions above.


    How about describing the involvement of orbital vs spin angular momentum (or both) in your theory?


    Chirality is not a intrinsic property of orbital vs spin angular momentum. It is a property of particle spin including quarks and quasiparticles. Particle spin is the source of magnetism. This magnetism is what is the common interface between the SPP and the quark.

    Also, you have not been censored. You posted clearly confused notions in the Purcell thread you initiated.

    You are free to post your ideas here in Clearance.


    The reason I criticize your ideas as wrong or incoherent is simple: they are wrong and incoherent.


    You will do much better with coherent ideas that don't include persistently confused notions regarding the laws of physics.

    Quote from axil

    Chirality is not a intrinsic property of orbital vs spin angular momentum. It is a property of particle spin including quarks and quasiparticles. Particle spin is the source of magnetism. This magnetism is what is the common interface between the SPP and the quark.


    I never said chirality was "an intrinsic property of orbital vs SAM". But if you don't know the difference between OAM and SAM, and why it matters to your assertions regarding polarity, you're notion is dead on arrival. Which is why I asked. Also, your statement that "particle spin is the source of magnetism" is wrong. Any electric field movement is the source of magnetism (and vice versa). This is not limited to particle spin. And yes, this matters. A lot.


    These are really elementary errors in understanding that you have, so you really need to get the basics of electromagnetic physics down, not to mention particle physics, before you start trying to formulate a "comprehensive theory for LENR".


    I'm sorry to say, but this discourse really just proves that you're completely out of your element.

    For example, in the LookingForHeat experiment, there is no radioactive activation apparent due to the action of chiral SPP activity. Yet gamma radiation is observed. The production of heat through the thermalization of gamma is accomplished through the action of the generation of a polariton Bose condensate. This BEC is established through increased pumping of energy into to cormation of more SPPs. Polariton BEC formation is a function of the density of SPPs and not necessarily temperature.


    See


    The Petal Condensate

    Quote from axil

    The SPP generated chiral magnetic flux tube performs two basic LENR functions: 1 - destabilizes the nucleon, and 2 - stabilize any nuclear activation that the first mentioned function produces.


    And this is where you go off the rails. There is nothing about these manuscripts that supports your assertions. And providing one line connectors to support your "extraordinary" claims is simply not worth responding to.


    I understand that this is consistent with your past attempts (which also, if you look at them, go off in various incoherent directions).


    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, not extraordinarily incoherent "theory".


    I suggest you attempt to really understand the physics behind these papers and try to refrain from brutally simplistic and non-informative declarations for how they "support" a theory of LENR. (Because they don't come close).


    Then you might have a chance at making a useful contribution.


    In all sincerity, I hope this advice helps encourage you to try a new, more studied and serious approach.



    I address the quark destabilization issue as follows:


    Center Vortex Flux Tube Interference.


    The LENR reaction is extremely complex and a comprehensive theory needs to cover every case and is therefore multifaceted.

    Quote from axil

    For example, in the LookingForHeat experiment, there is no radioactive activation apparent due to the action of chiral SPP activity. Yet gamma radiation is observed. The production of heat through the thermalization of gamma is accomplished through the action of the generation of a polariton Bose condensate. This BEC is established through increased pumping of energy into to cormation of more SPPs. Polariton BEC formation is a function of the density of SPPs and not necessarily temperature.


    This is a prime example of an incoherent non-explanation masquerading as a "theory". You have no basis for positing that "there is no radioactive activation apparent due to the action of chiral SPP activity." You merely make this assertion, with no thought about the implications of this simplistic statement.


    You then assert, without evidence or theory, that the thermalization is accomplished through the action of the generation of a polariton Bose condensate. No evidence, no theory.


    Your assertions have a semblance of sounding intelligent/scientific to a non-technical audience.


    But that's not really helpful is it? If anything, it just adds to your self-delusion that you actually have anything that could be considered insightful.

    Quote from axil

    I address the quark destabilization issue as follows:


    Center Vortex Flux Tube Interference.


    The LENR reaction is extremely complex and a comprehensive theory needs to cover every case and is therefore multifaceted.


    And here is yet another example where you seem to believe you've adequately "addressed" "quark destabilization" because you had: a notion. This article does not support your "quark destabilization". At least not in any coherent way that helps explain LENR.


    Having a notion after reading a wikipedia article does not count for much. Especially coming from someone who repeatedly demonstrates that they don't understand what they are reading or the implications of what they assert.


    You then go into complete science-babble: "But when a LENR generated flux lines gets close to a quark interconnection flux tube, the LENR flux tube cuts the quark magnetic connection and intercepts the quark magnetic interconnection. "


    Because you had a notion. That caused an assertion.


    And it keeps coming:


    "The LENR agent now has a direct magnetic connection to the quark(s) of one or more nucleons and holds onto them."


    Suddenly, we've got LENR agents, and they're 'holding on'! (Are they anything like hydrinos?) They're holding on with "direct magnetic connection". What is the magnitude of this direct magnetic connecting force? We are not told. What is an "LENR agent"? No explanation. What repulsive forces must be overcome so that "quark(s) of one or more nucleons holds onto them."? No explanation.


    No evidence, no experiments, no theory, no math, no equations.


    And then there's those triangular holes. Why not assert that this supports evidence of LENR? No explanation needed. Just more one-liner assertions. With seemingly unending non-explanations masquerading as explanations.


    Rudyard Kipling had a great collection of assertions that are far more imaginative and entertaining.


    But I think I've wasted enough time trying to help you. If you insist on self-delusion, there's really not much I can do to help you.


    (Have you thought about why it's really important to distinguish OAM from SAM? Like maybe differences in longitudinal vs transverse polarization and consequences for right or left polarization? And how this affects the polarity of flux tubes? Or how wavelet phase affects OAM? Can you articulate these theoretical effects using Maxwell's equations? If for some reason you think Maxwell's equations don't apply, can you describe why? Can you try to explain your strange fascination with the Purcell effect and why you think it somehow supports non-standard theory, or why it's OK to mis-apply it to particle physics? Those are just a start. But as I said, I'm done for now. )

    Wow, this site does get testy at times.


    Let me take a stab at a helpful diversion... I am but a layman.


    sigmoidal Angular momentum is best considered in two, surely more may even be better. Consider that a low frequency wave/particle is overtaken by a high frequency wave/particle at a convergent angle. What if it is such that a harmonic which creates standing waves is created by the angles and frequencies of thermal gradients within the nano nuclear reactive environment of LENR? Within a multi multi body system such as Alan and Russ are playing with, who can tell. I believe Bob at MFMP is 'puzzling this' along a similar train of thought. Best to observe and record. While we scratch our heads, and tap our feet a bit. Only release data after intense scrutiny. All good scientists follow this rule. LENR research is full of good scientists, no?


    Study of "angular momentum" of thermal gradient(s), which create a harmonic resonance of electron states/sites in plates of iron, by Harold Aspden, led to modern thermo electric devices. Considered the grandfather of modern thermo electric conversion, his patent history and patent citations support this. He was also granted one of the first 'cold fusion patents', late in his years.


    Layman: By dithering (tapping) heat contacts while dithering (tapping) cold contacts along the opposite edges of different trapezoidal sheets of various iron/steel composition materials (mainly being of nickel and iron) Harold Aspden could create thermal waves of different thermal frequencies (speeds of tapping), traveling along different geometries (thermal wave angles), through metallic material/layered materials. This led to the science behind the efficient, low but useful, thermo-electric energy conversion devices and materials in use today.


    Take a deep breath and steel yourself or iron yourself out.

    Theory seeks commonality in order to evolve, Einstein knew this.


    Don't blame me when I suggest you all sip a cup of tea and study the LENR theories and works of Harold Aspden... while patiently, or impatiently awaiting publication by Russ and Allan. Then send them a tin of Earl Grey or a box of Morning Thunder tea.


    This article provides links to the works of Harold Aspden, fascinating yet not quite where we are now (as far as we are now) in our, still disjointed, theoretical understanding of LENR. In spite of this, studying his works can provide a helpful insight...

    Which is all we are hoping for.

    Wi wi monsieur No?

    JUNE 14, 2013 Aether the Theory of Relativity and LENR Energy

    http://coldfusionnow.org/aethe…lativity-and-lenr-energy/


    The article with the links was posted in June of 2013 at Cold Fusion Now. The article lead is quite lengthy, it provides a theoretical and historical context. It eventually leads to the thermo electric and LENR works, patents and theories of Harold Aspden (found about in the middle). Well worth a relaxed moment of study. His archival website link leads to a wonderful goldmine of thought and science history, quote Harold Apden, "It is a fact that the precise value of the proton-electron mass ratio of 1836.152 was deduced in terms of the mu-meson field. This derivation involved collaboration with Dr. D. M. Eagles of the then National Standards Laboratory in Australia. It was reported in the U.S.A. Institute of Physics journal Physics Today in 1984." Fascinatingly out of our 'league', or not.


    Followed by more feisty/passionate and respectful sharing of ideas here at LENR forum.



    Post-scriptum: Not LENR yet pertains...


    See the original paper Gauge theory picture of an ordering transition in a dimer model, by D. Charrier, F. Alet, P. Pujol in Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 167205 (2008)


    Mardi 12 fevrier 2013-14:00

    Spin-dependent thermoelectric transport in HgTe/CdTe quantum wells

    http://www.lpt.ups-tlse.fr/spip.php?article1000&lang=fr


    Marine Guigou (LPS Orsay) par Bertrand Georgeot – 12 février


    HgTe quantum wells are known to host, under a topological phase transition, the quantum spin Hall effect. The latter refers to the presence of metallic edge states moving in opposite direction for opposite spins. Recently, HgTe/CdTe quantum wells, among others topological insulators, have been proposed as good materials for thermoelectric conversion. The basic idea relies on the topological protection of the 1D edge states that prevents reduction of electrical transport in disordered systems. Their efficiency to convert heat into electricity is based on the dominance of the edge modes on transport [1,2].


    During this presentation, I will discuss about the thermoelectric properties of HgTe/CdTe quantum wells through the analysis of Seebeck and spin Nernst coefficents in a four terminal cross-bar setup. As a lateral thermal gradient induces a longitudinal electric bias and a transverse spin current in such a system, each of them can be used as a probe of the topological regime as well as finite size effects of the quantum spin Hall insulator. Furthermore, I will present a qualitative relative between effective mass of particles and magnitude of spin Nernst signal which allows to provide an explanation of the observed phenomena based on anomalous velocities and spin-dependent scattering off boundaries[3]


    [1] R. Takahashi and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B 81, 161302 (2010).


    [2] O.A. Tretiakov, A. Abanov, S. Murakami, and J. Sinova, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 073108 (2010).


    [3] D.G. Rothe, E.M. Hankiewicz, B. Trauzettel, and M.G., Phys. Rev. B 86, 165434 (2012).


    When spontaneous transmutation of particles occurs in a quantum liquid.


    Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 016403 (2012)


    par Carlos Lamas – 12 juillet 2012


    Toutes les versions de cet article : English , français


    The nature of doped insulators (where electrons experience strong repulsion) is a key issue that has been debated for years : it was first suggested that fermionic dopants (fermions are particles that can not share the same quantum mechanical state) can change into bosonic particles (bosons are particles that can occupy the same quantum mechanic state) – so-called statistical transmutation. This spectacular phenomenon is made possible by the exotic nature of the parent insulator, a quantum liquid which might be viewed as a “soup” of fluctuating close-packed dimers. Such a state is shown to exhibit emergent (topological) quantum defects that can bind to dopants and change their fundamental quantum properties and statistics (fermionic or bosonic statistics). In a recent Letter, C.A. Lamas, A. Ralko, D.C. Cabra, D. Poilblanc and P. Pujol have proven the existence of a “statistical transmutation” symmetry : the system is invariant under a simultaneous transformation of the statistics of the dopants and change of the signs of all the dimer resonances. The authors combine exact analytical results with high performance numerical calculations to clarify this issue. The exact transformation developed in the letter enables to define a duality equivalence between doped quantum dimer Hamiltonians, and provides the analytic framework to analyze dynamical statistical transmutations. These results constitute a fundamental step in the understating of a broad family of new phenomena in the large community of strongly correlated electronic systems.


    Reference : C. A. Lamas, A. Ralko, D. C. Cabra, D. Poilblanc, and P. Pujol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 016403 (2012)

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Wow, this site does get testy at times.


    Let me take a stab at a helpful diversion... I am but a layman.


    sigmoidal Angular momentum is best considered in two. A low frequency wave/particle is overtaken by a high frequency wave/particle at a convergent angle. What if it is such that a harmonic which creates standing waves is created by the angles and frequencies of a thermal gradient within the nano nuclear reactive environment of LENR? Within a multi multi body system such as Alan and Russ are playing with, who can tell. Best to observe and record and scratch your head a bit. Only release data after intense scrutiny. All good scientists do so. LENR research is full of good scientists, no?


    Gregory Byron Goble Thanks for trying to be helpful, but in Axil's case, he's trying to describe the creation of magnetic monopoles from electromagnetic waves resulting from particle spin (not physical vibration as in your example). I agree with you that angular momentum is best considered "in two", especially for electromagnetic radiation (OAM and SAM) and this specific issue (flux tubes). There is an obvious problem with Axil's notion of flux tube formation that I've hinted at. It involves a certain property of transverse electromagnetic waves that does not apply to longitudinal waves. I'm fairly confident that Axil is not aware of this or he would have responded to it and would not make the declarative assertions he is making. And I admit that nearly a decade of Axil's incoherent eruptions are annoying, especially because they have an initial appearance of expertise and "special insight" when on closer examination they are not coherent, insightful, or indicative of expertise. He has a habit of interspersing various often unrelated citations with one sentence declarations as if they were factual and meaningfully bridged the disparate sources cited. Were any of these one-liners actually true and published, it would take a full manuscript to describe and support, and be potentially Nobel Prize worthy (often). Or alternatively they're just pseudo-scientific babbling. Unfortunately, because he never goes beyond the one-liners, the latter explanation is the only viable choice. A look at his posting history will confirm this, as does his most recent thread on the Purcell effect. I just deconstructed a few examples of his most recent blather which started on a different thread, but this has been going on for years.


    So personally, as someone with training and experience in electro-optics, lasers and semiconductor physics, I don't find anything scientific or meritorious about Axil's contributions (exclusive of the various author's and sources he sites). He's certainly not helping to provide insight into LENR in any meaningful way.


    I'm also not persuaded that "LENR research is full of good scientists". There are some good LENR scientists. And many not very good at all. And the field seems to draw a lot of "posers" as well, like Axil, Rossi, Parkhomov, etc.,


    But I am enjoying some ice tea while writing.


    Cooler heads, and all...


    If the LookingForHeat reactor was radioactive, the radiation background level would be way above normal. I have seen no report that the reactor is radioactive. That fact would be news that we have not been told about.

    Quote from axil

    If the LookingForHeat reactor was radioactive, the radiation background level would be way above normal. I have seen no report that the reactor is radioactive. That fact would be news that we have not been told about.


    Therefore, you are persuaded that you are justified in asserting that this is "due to the action of chiral SPP activity".


    Or a million other more likely explanations, including the obvious one that the experiment is merely exothermic. Or there is experimental error. This is why it's essentially impossible to take you seriously.


    If you were an actual scientist, you would first do your own evaluation of possible alternative explanations. Scientists do this to (try to) avoid confirmation bias (self deception). As a scientist, I do this all the time.


    You seem to have no concept or patience for this.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.