[Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
As expected my paper was rejected Subject: Re: Here is my paper that was to be presented at ACS meeting next spring. Dear Dr Znidarsic, I am sorry to inform you that your paper has been rejected for pblication in the JCMNS. Here are the comments of the referee: I have looked at the paper Quantization of Energy by Frank Znidarsic as you have asked. In this paper, Znidarsic points out various issues (such as wave-particle duality) that were encountered during the development of quantum mechanics, and in response has put forth a number of his thoughts which he argues resolves the issues. In his paper, he seems to be concerned with the notion of speed, and the notion of a transitional quantum state. I do not recommend this paper for publication. Quantum mechanics has been described as the most successful theory that has been developed so far, and people use it every day for to understand particles, light, atoms, molecules, and their interactions in every day applications to obscure research applications. Znidarsic seems for some reason not to be happy with the way that quantum mechanics deals with atoms or light, or related issues. In response, he has put forth his thoughts on various topics. In his section on the energy of the photon, Znidarsic puts forth an argument that seems to be based on the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor to make an argument which he claims allows him to derive the relation between a photon energy and frequency, where he recognizes the ratio of charge to the product of dielectric constant and a velocity as being Planck's constant. In modern physics, Planck's constant does not have a derivation. Instead, we tend to think of it as a fundamental constant, with a value that can be determined from experiment. If Znidarsic were able to derive Planck's constant for real, he would have a major fundamental result. However, no physicist is going to agree with Znidarsic's argument for the connection between the energy and frequency of a photon. A physicist wants to see a physical argument that can be understood. Znidarsic has not given an understandable physical argument. There are words written down, and there are also some formulas. However, the words written are not helpful in making a physical argument. The formulas seem vaguely connected to the words. Based on what has been written, one wonders whether Znidarsic understands the physical principles behind Maxwell's equations, or the Schrodinger equation. Is Znidarsic familiar with Dirac's quantization of Maxwell's equations, which derives the connection between the photon energy and photon frequency using very good physical arguments. Moreover, there are a great many experiments that have been done which seem to strongly support Dirac's theory for the quantized electromagnetic field. I cannot recommend for the publication of this paper. The author seems not to understand how to motivate or present a physical argument, he does not seem to be familiar with basic ideas that appear in classic works on the problems he addresses, and the ideas that he does put forth don't seem to make any sense. Best regards -- ean-Paul Biberian
Fwd: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
-Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: storms2 stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 12:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected I have taken a different approach. About 12 years ago when I was downsized from the Pennsylvania Electric Company I used the free time as an opportunity to presue cold fusion. I jumped at the opportunity to go back to college and to learn physics and computer science. I worked to bring Yuri Patopov to Las Alamos as a team with a local group. I visited Paterson in Florida and went to NASA Marshall. Nothing happened. Three years later, I went back to work with Alstom in a difficult and demanding job on which I focused on for 10 years. I am again, due the economic condition and my age, out of work. This time was different. I went to college to study Spanish (not physics). I am building and testing cell phone adapters, safety devices for the mines. and ways to trap bed bugs (no time to wasted on free energy devices). I hope to bring one of these these things to market shortly. Non disclosures prevent me for saying more. I only sent a paper to the meeting of the American Chem society because I was invited. I am also invited to the Space and Propulsion International forum to which I expect to come to the same end. :Lane and the Alien Scientist asked to work with me, so I am helping them to the best I can. Infinite Energy published my rejected papers and now I am on record to what I have said. There is nothing more for me to do. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 11:31 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected Dear Frank, I sympathize with your frustration in getting your work published. However, the problem is at your end, not with the reviewers. I have read your work and come to the same conclusion as the present reviewer even though I agree with you that quantum theory is flawed and needs improvement. I suggest you need to discuss your ideas with someone who understands the present theories and learn to present your arguments in ways that other people can understand. Getting a new idea understood is hard enough without having the additional handicap of using words that have no meaning to other people. The videos you had made are not helpful even though they will bring support from the uneducated. The problem with all theory is that it is open ended and limited only by the imagination. As a result, millions of variations on how nature can be explained are available. The accepted ones are chosen based on what best describes nature and on how well the ideas can be made understandable. For example, no one paid much attention Einstein until he was able to show a clear relationship between his ideas and something that could be measured and until people began to translate his ideas into understandable language. You need to find a measurement for which you can predict a value more accurately than present methods. Or you need to find a behavior that is presently unexplained and give a useful explanation. Your use of cold fusion is not good example of this approach because your explanation is useless and not consistent with most measurements. If you really want to have your ideas accepted rather than wasting time being a victim, I suggest you take a different approach. Regards, Ed On Nov 25, 2010, at 8:52 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: As expected my paper was rejected Subject: Re: Here is my paper that was to be presented at ACS meeting next spring. Dear Dr Znidarsic, I am sorry to inform you that your paper has been rejected for pblication in the JCMNS. Here are the comments of the referee: I have looked at the paper Quantization of Energy by Frank Znidarsic as you have asked. In this paper, Znidarsic points out various issues (such as wave-particle duality) that were encountered during the development of quantum mechanics, and in response has put forth a number of his thoughts which he argues resolves the issues. In his paper, he seems to be concerned with the notion of speed, and the notion of a transitional quantum state. I do not recommend this paper for publication. Quantum mechanics has been described as the most successful theory that has been developed so far, and people use it every day for to understand particles, light, atoms, molecules, and their interactions in every day applications to obscure research applications. Znidarsic seems for some reason not to be happy with the way that quantum mechanics deals with atoms or light, or related issues. In response, he has put forth his thoughts on various topics. In his section on the energy of the photon, Znidarsic puts forth an argument that seems to be based on the capacitance of a
RE: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
Frank, In regards to the rejection letter: ... If Znidarsic were able to derive Planck's constant for real, he would have a major fundamental result. However, no physicist is going to agree with Znidarsic's argument for the connection between the energy and frequency of a photon. A physicist wants to see a physical argument that can be understood. Znidarsic has not given an understandable physical argument. There are words written down, and there are also some formulas. However, the words written are not helpful in making a physical argument. The formulas seem vaguely connected to the words. Based on what has been written, one wonders whether Znidarsic understands the physical principles behind Maxwell's equations, or the Schrodinger equation. Is Znidarsic familiar with Dirac's quantization of Maxwell's equations, which derives the connection between the photon energy and photon frequency using very good physical arguments. Moreover, there are a great many experiments that have been done which seem to strongly support Dirac's theory for the quantized electromagnetic field. I cannot recommend for the publication of this paper. The author seems not to understand how to motivate or present a physical argument, he does not seem to be familiar with basic ideas that appear in classic works on the problems he addresses, and the ideas that he does put forth don't seem to make any sense. The first paragraphs strikes me as quite revealing. No wonder the physics establishment doesn't want to deal with your theory. To be honest I'm not in a position to judge the merits of your controversial theories. Nevertheless, I often tend to sympathize with the minority report POV, and as such, would like to see your views at least get equal time. It seems to me that your critics have potentially sowed the actual seeds of their eventual downfall. By that I mean you might want to focus on clarifying in subsequent papers what it is that your critics are missing in their review of your theories. Many of your critics seem to be insinuating the assumption you don't really understand certain fundamental laws of physics. At least that is what they are attempting to paint you as: Someone who is basically ignorant, eccentric, deluded, and as such, why should they give you and your zany ideas the time of day. At this point it is now up to you to state as clearly as you can that yes you DO clearly understand their concerns, that you DO understand the laws of physics as clearly they have stated them to be, and how the established theories differ from your theories AND WHY. Give your readers reasons as to why they might want to reconsider the rigidity of certain fundamental assumptions in physics in favor of pursuing your theories. Finally, are there experiments that can be performed to falsify the validity of your theories. Are there experiments that can be performed that clearly show why your theories might more accurately predict what Nature is doing as compared to what the prevailing theories predict Nature ought to be doing? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:we need an ultrasimple example
Once a science principal is finally understood there is always some high school science teacher that finds a way to demonstrate it using gum wrappers, paper clips and rubber bands. Our field will require extreme conditions . Everyone knew for example that P1V1 = P2V2 long before they realized by confining one while varying the other that temperature was also part of the equation P1V1/T1= P2V2/T2. I think we need a similar confinement vs variation of conditions before the environment even qualifies for energy extraction. I keep looking for a low cost do at home materials but the traditional confinements are typically unavailable, dangerous or require huge investments. I had hopes when I saw foamed metals or recent articles on building magnetic cores out of nano materials that maybe these could lend themselves to the task - whether you want to investigate overunity motors or just pass atomic hydrogen through the mix Arata style - and they are valid materials to utilize but I think they need an additional form of containment to reveal the anomaly. The underlying qualifications for the effect are only occurring briefly and the few successful experiments are difficult to replicate and seem to rely heavily on timing / pulsing or other as yet poorly understood conditions. Some ideas - I recently saw a demonstration of paramagnetism where rare earth magnets are dropped down a copper tube and fall very slowly due to the coppers aversion to the motion of the field - I have to wonder how a stationary field with a rotating copper tube would qualify as a conditional variable for a reactor housing between the stationary field and the spinning copper tube? Fran
Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
I am going for turkeydinner now. I will post the rejected paper for all to read tomorrow. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 12:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected Frank, In regards to the rejection letter: ... If Znidarsic were able to derive Planck's constant for real, he would have a major fundamental result. However, no physicist is going to agree with Znidarsic's argument for the connection between the energy and frequency of a photon. A physicist wants to see a physical argument that can be understood. Znidarsic has not given an understandable physical argument. There are words written down, and there are also some formulas. However, the words written are not helpful in making a physical argument. The formulas seem vaguely connected to the words. Based on what has been written, one wonders whether Znidarsic understands the physical principles behind Maxwell's equations, or the Schrodinger equation. Is Znidarsic familiar with Dirac's quantization of Maxwell's equations, which derives the connection between the photon energy and photon frequency using very good physical arguments. Moreover, there are a great many experiments that have been done which seem to strongly support Dirac's theory for the quantized electromagnetic field. I cannot recommend for the publication of this paper. The author seems not to understand how to motivate or present a physical argument, he does not seem to be familiar with basic ideas that appear in classic works on the problems he addresses, and the ideas that he does put forth don't seem to make any sense. The first paragraphs strikes me as quite revealing. No wonder the physics stablishment doesn't want to deal with your theory. To be honest I'm not in a position to judge the merits of your controversial heories. Nevertheless, I often tend to sympathize with the minority eport POV, and as such, would like to see your views at least get equal ime. It seems to me that your critics have potentially sowed the actual seeds of heir eventual downfall. By that I mean you might want to focus on larifying in subsequent papers what it is that your critics are missing n their review of your theories. Many of your critics seem to be nsinuating the assumption you don't really understand certain fundamental aws of physics. At least that is what they are attempting to paint you as: omeone who is basically ignorant, eccentric, deluded, and as such, why hould they give you and your zany ideas the time of day. At this point it s now up to you to state as clearly as you can that yes you DO clearly nderstand their concerns, that you DO understand the laws of physics as learly they have stated them to be, and how the established theories differ rom your theories AND WHY. Give your readers reasons as to why they might ant to reconsider the rigidity of certain fundamental assumptions in hysics in favor of pursuing your theories. Finally, are there experiments that can be performed to falsify the validity f your theories. Are there experiments that can be performed that clearly how why your theories might more accurately predict what Nature is doing as ompared to what the prevailing theories predict Nature ought to be doing? egards Steven Vincent Johnson ww.OrionWorks.com ww.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Supercooled PHOTONIC Bose-Einstein condensate made for first time in history!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101124143407.htm Scientists produced a B.E.C. made of photons. Supercooled photons. Crazy stuff. I'm not sure the implications of this yet. Any ideas?
Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
Frank, I've just picked up that you have a theory on Cold Fusion. I haven't been following this list very closely, so I'm slow I suppose. But: 1) Have you published your ideas anywhere? Perhaps on the internet? Is there a way for me to learn more of your theory? 2) Do your ideas explain any of Mill's work and his theory on Classical Quantum Mechanics? Craig (Houston)
Re: [Vo]:Supercooled PHOTONIC Bose-Einstein condensate made for first time in history!
Is it just me or is science getting pretty absurd. Photons having a temperature!?!? Can the temperature of a photon be measured? If the sun was cold but emitted the same amount of light, would it heat us less? If this is so, then could you use light as a heat sink? Can you get 2 light sources and heat one and cool the other and detect a difference in the light? I think the answer to all of these questions is no, but if it is yes then that would be fascinating. In what way is light changed by being emitted by something hot? On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, seattle truth seattle.tr...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101124143407.htm Scientists produced a B.E.C. made of photons. Supercooled photons. Crazy stuff. I'm not sure the implications of this yet. Any ideas?
Re: [Vo]:Supercooled PHOTONIC Bose-Einstein condensate made for first time in history!
In reply to John Berry's message of Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:25:35 +1300: Hi, [snip] Is it just me or is science getting pretty absurd. I agree. Photons having a temperature!?!? Really low temperature ones are called radio waves. :) Can the temperature of a photon be measured? If the sun was cold but emitted the same amount of light, would it heat us less? That would depend on how close we were. If this is so, then could you use light as a heat sink? It already is. The Earth radiates lots of energy away into outer space every day. [snip] IMO every monochromatic laser should count as a BE condensate, and I suspect that what they have in fact created is a dye laser. Furthermore, I suspect that they will have great difficulty finding mirrors for x-rays. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Supercooled PHOTONIC Bose-Einstein condensate made for first time in history!
But I don't think here they really mean the frequency or the intensity, maybe I have it wrong but I think they really mean that a given frequency of light could be 'hot' or 'cold'. And yet, the Bonn researchers succeeded by using two highly reflective mirrors between which they kept bouncing a light beam back and forth. Between the reflective surfaces there were dissolved pigment molecules with which the photons collided periodically. In these collisions, the molecules 'swallowed' the photons and then 'spit' them out again. During this process, the photons assumed the temperature of the fluid, explained Professor Weitz. They cooled each other off to room temperature this way, and they did it without getting lost in the process. This really doesn't sound like they are talking about lowering the frequency or intensity of the light, just the 'Temperature'. And that is without some fundamental discovery about heat or light utterly preposterous. Now maybe it is true, but if it is the headline should be light has a temperature not we can make a BEC photon. They talk about such a photonic BEC creating x-rays, clearly they don't seem to be talking about ultra low frequency. Good point about laser light being very much like a BEC of light, if lasers were discovered today that is precisely what they would have been termed. At thins point you really have to wonder how long this sham can go on, how long they can be considered respectable while the real breakthroughs are being ignored and ridiculed. On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:25:35 +1300: Hi, [snip] Is it just me or is science getting pretty absurd. I agree. Photons having a temperature!?!? Really low temperature ones are called radio waves. :) Can the temperature of a photon be measured? If the sun was cold but emitted the same amount of light, would it heat us less? That would depend on how close we were. If this is so, then could you use light as a heat sink? It already is. The Earth radiates lots of energy away into outer space every day. [snip] IMO every monochromatic laser should count as a BE condensate, and I suspect that what they have in fact created is a dye laser. Furthermore, I suspect that they will have great difficulty finding mirrors for x-rays. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Steor has a new promo at their web site
What they are selling... http://www.steorn.com/skdb/oedu/ Harry From: John Berry aethe...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 23, 2010 4:51:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steor has a new promo at their web site The problem is that they say 300% but they don't say 300% of what? 300% of a few milliwatts? 1 watt? 10 watts? 100 watts? On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Some of the people in this latest video have appeared in earlier Steorn videos. Harry - Original Message From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, November 21, 2010 2:47:29 PM Subject: [Vo]:Steor has a new promo at their web site FWIW, Steorn's home page recently posted what I believe is a new You-Tube promo where they have interviewed several engineers from the Orbo Evaluation and Development Unit. What interested me were comments coming from some of the engineers, specifically that they have measured up to 300 percent OU. They go on to state that the margin of error is so far out of the ball park that it can't be due to measurement error. One evaluator said the device simply needs someone to take it by the scruff of the neck and work with it. It's been my personal policy to remain neutral on the Storn issue - as much as I possibly can. The only personal observations I'd like to interject here is the fact that listening to these engineers I came away with the feeling that they truly believe they have witnessed OU. Whether they really have is, of course, what continues to be debated, and rightly so. At present the main reason I remain doubtful of the OU claims is based on personal conjecture that if Stoen's team really has been able to repeatedly finesse up to 300% OU why haven't they been able to develop some kind of a demonstration contraption that clearly demonstrates a closed loop system in action. Can someone please refute me on the following conjecture: Surely it's possible to develop SOME kind of a prototype that is capable of exploiting 300% OU. Again, Such a device doesn't have to be pretty, and it certainly doesn't have to be economically viable. Proving economic viability is not the point. Proving OU actually exists IS the point. All the device has to show to the skeptical world is the fact that it proves unequivocally that it can self-sustains its own momentum - with a tiny bit of excess energy left over to spare. If they could just assemble something as simple as that - all bets would be off. I'm still waiting. So is Mongo. Stay tuned. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
