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.
Online
axil
Verified User
- Member since Oct 10th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by axil
-
-
Post #2,467 is offered to show how polaritons organized in a soliton can produce a chiral magnetic flux tube.
-
Yes. So what?
(Hint: "Therefore, this supports my LENR theory" is a non-sequitur.)
One negative argument is that the quasiparticles do not manifest chiral spin. Post #2,464 was presented to forestall that argument.
-
Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf
This paper shows how the SPP chiral spins produces a chiral magnetic field in the form of an open magnetic flux tube,. -
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08846
Chiral Quasiparticles at the Fermi Surface of the Weyl Semimetal TaAs
This paper supports the contention that the quasiparticle carries the chiral spin property. The Weyl is a quasiparticles that exists in certain condensed matter systems.
-
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.
-
Display More
You responded to THH's references, but that does not mean you adequately addressed them.
Here's the problem. Your references do not support your statements. Your brief assertions, even if they were true (and they are not) are not adequate to communicate an articulate theory.
Asserting that you "addressed" these issues, or that you have a coherent explanation when you have nothing close to that, is not helping you or others.
So my advice to you, if you want to learn anything or have a productive conversation, is to actually stick to relevant articles, or take the time to formulate your theories formally.
Otherwise, you're really just spouting a bunch of hot air, as they say.
I am doing my best to layout an all encompassing LENR theory based on the SPP. I am not discouraged by the censorship that I am experiencing lately or the negativity from learned experts that could greatly help in perfecting the theory.
-
Display More
Oh, I just now see your Purcell effect thread. And I see that over there you also confused light with subatomic particle behavior.
Wow. You are one confused individual!
THHuxley responded to your original post correctly, in a much more patient and explicit manner than I did above.
He also provided you some great links to help you understand this area better.
BTW, we both have electrical engineering degrees and experience with particle physics and electro-optics, which probably explains the similar responses.
You are really out of your element here, sorry to say.
But try reading up. There is a lot of great material online these days.
And please try to refrain from ignorant declarative statements claiming to provide new insight into LENR. Maybe after you have studied a bit you can furnish a written rationale for whatever new insights you think you might have come across.
I addressed THHuxley references. They all concerned light matter interaction. Light matter interactions boils down to polariton formation and behavior.
You have given the laser based U232 stabilization experiment short shrift. Why?
-
Display More
I'm sorry, but you're clearly the confused one here. The Purcell reference is applicable to light. (Light is not a sub-atomic particle and readily polarizes left or right). The second to 3D modeling of (electromagnetic) flux. Thowing in chirality of sub-atomic particles with effects describing light shows me that you have a great capacity to mix-metaphors.
That's a no no in physics.
But thank you. This does explain a lot about your confusion.
(And I did not "miss" your Nature reference. You had not provided it).
A polariton is not a photon. The Polariton is a quasiparticle and if a quasiparticle has a spin then it is chiral. All spin is chiral.
-
I knew that I would be censored into the clearance thread and here we are.
-
Display More
Your two citations:
1) Purcell effect was published in 1946. It explains nothing about LENR.
2) Linton and Antiochos 2005 is a theoretical paper discussing the mathematical modeling of 3D flux and effects on subatomic particles.
Neither paper has any published relationship to LENR. Neither paper has published relationship to each other (except that at a trivial level, they both involve electromagnetic radiation).
Also, your doubling down by now claiming that "left-handed centrality" (which has no meaning, perhaps you meant to say "left-handed polarity") is "coupled to the weak force" is also not supported by your citations.
You're attaining even lower levels of credibility.
You provide no coherent explanation for how these relate to each other or to LENR. This is true despite your triumphant statements (without explanation) as to why (for example) these explain the "heart of LENR".
And specifically, these two citations do not support your statement "the cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes supported by experiment." in any way.
In other words, you are continuing your legacy of throwing "sciencey" sounding papers and sciencey sounding declarative non-sequiturs at the wall and hoping that they might stick.
Instead, your flinging of unrelated-but-significant-sounding stuff against the wall merely keeps your credibility stuck at a near-zero level.
In any case, it's certainly not helping the credibility of LENR in any way.
You missed this reference
https://www.nature.com/articles/524008b
Particle physics: Only left-handed particles decay
Read up on chirality. From what you are saying, I don't think you have seen this in your education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)
Only left-handed fermions and right-handed antifermions interact with the weak interaction.
-
Axil, THH & others,
According to Holmlid, ultra-dense deuterium decays via the weak force in mesons. What is surprising here is less the occurence of a weak decay - given the length and time scales at play - than the absence of the usual D-D fusion and decay via the fast strong interaction.
Does anyone know a process that could prevent the decay of an excited D-D via the strong force?
See
Center Vortex Flux Tube Interference.
The Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) generates a magnetic flux tube that destabilizes the quark flux tube interconnections in the nucleon. This destabilization is what generates mesons.
The SPP form in the spin wave that cover the surface of the ultra dense material.
-
Display More
No, the only reason to stop is because you cannot support your statement "the cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes" supported by experiment.
It's really quite simple: just provide the citation supporting your statement. I am confident that the moderators would be quite happy for you to provide any citations.
In fact, if you can provide a supporting citation, they might even decide to promote a reasoned discussion to a new thread.
But unfortunately, your history strongly suggests that you have no citation. Just more declarative science-babble.
The citation supporting my statement was included in these threads
QuoteDisplay MoreSupport for the statement that left handed centrality is coupped to the weak force
How the magnetic flux tube breaks quarks apart in protons and neutrons
-
Support for the statement that left handed centrality is coupped to the weak force
How the magnetic flux tube breaks quarks apart in protons and neutrons
-
Nezt...
How are the flux tubes produced
The Surface Plasmon Polaritons generate two counter rotating spin currents that are chiral polarized. One current is left handed spin polarized and the other current is right handed spin polarized. These spin currents generate a falaco soliton. The spinning flux tubes connect these two rotating spin currents. Notice in the picture below that two counter rotating spin flows are represented.
I need to stop now because I will cause these posts to be sent to the clearance thread.
-
Except that, as usual, there is no peer-reviewed manuscript providing evidence to support Axil's incoherent (but very "scientific" and intelligent sounding) babbling.
Or go ahead Axil, please enlighten us all and prove me wrong by providing the peer-reviewed manuscript supporting your statement that the "cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes" supported by experiment.
First look at this experiment
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
-
Display More
Neutron evolution
* * * * *
Board of Advisers
May 6, 2010 at 10:07 PMThis insight of Dr Dufour is very interesting. It merits a deep analysis. We never found emission of neutrons outside the reactor, with exception of once, when the reactor has gone out of control because we tried to raise further the pressure. In that case we got a strong emission of neutrons, detected from the bubble neutron revelators. But in average exercise we never had an emission of neutrons. Our shield is made by 20 mm of boron, 20 mm of lead. The water flow has not shielding power towards the neutrons. We detected emission of gamma rays, which have been thermalized in the water flow, and we have strong evidence of matter -antimetter reaction
(positrons + electrons), with production of energy through the annichilation, but we didn’t get neutrons. We think it is because we don’t reach the energy level necessary to the neutrons to get out of the nucleus. Nevertheless the analysis of Dr Dufour is extremely interesting and we want to go through it.
Andrea Rossi
Andrea Rossi
Very interesting. After 2 hours we still have thermal emission, but still we don’t have radiations out of the reactor. Of course, the lasting of thermal emission means that readiation (gamma) continues to be thermalized. We ( Focardi and me) are convinced that neutrons don’t reach the energy to exit the nuclea, with some exception, which is thermalized in 20′,also because our shielding od boron and lead is much lower that you calculated.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Andrea Rossi
Dear Mr Mauro Rossi:
1- we consume about 1 gram og hydrogen in 24 hours
2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.
3- No, I didn’t.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi
Dear Dr Enrico Billi:
1- yes, it is so
2- no, we have never detected neutrons outside the reactor
Lavolale, Lavolale!
A.R.
Can...
Now you can tell Alan Smith how Rossi make gamma radiation go away so that Alan can produce excess heat instead of gammas.
Can, while you are at it, you might explain how Alan Smith's experiment is producing gammas and yet is not producing any radioactive activation of the reactor.
-
axil : It's time to move off. Alan claims nothing! It is all your phantasy!
If you believe that the standard model explains LENR, then go to a classic physics forum...
The cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes. This theory is supported by experiment.
-
Does Rossi read LF?
For those who wish both Rossi and R. Mills ill, be joyful in that these plasma based LENR reactors will be found to produce muons by the boatload. Rossi and Mills together with all their investors will be ruined when this muon exposure problem is detected.
-
