[Vo]:BLP on next big future
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/blacklight-power-announces-independient.htm l new announcement from BLP and my reply . GoatGuy http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1291416079/images/themes/narcissus/moderator.png http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/blacklight-power-announces-independient.ht ml#comment-106300194 1 day ago http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/blacklight-power-announces-independient.ht ml#comment-106216644 in reply to froarty .Really? Bullsnot. First - as was intended - there is an implied, but no actual correlation to astrophysics except that the experimental spectrum measurement was made AT an astrophysics facility that happened to have the spectrometer to do the job. Read it again, goats. Bullsnot II: Dr. Ramanujachary has been working with Mills for quite awhile. Insofar as I can tell, his department is a shill for the whole enterprise: it gives credibility to Mills, and allows them to talk about universities and publishing and independent research. But the mouse in the pocket remains the mouse in the pocket. Bullsnot III: no new results regarding the production of actual power are presented. Or, if there are new results, could someone point them out? Bullsnot IV: there are no processes - including nuclear - that release the potential energy contained within the system that don't consume SOMETHING. Or, alternately (e.g. chemical systems), that don't require the investment of at least as much energy into the system as eventually, later, removed from it. IF hydrinos are being created, AND they are an energy system containing an extraordinary amount of energy, THEN it must take at least as much energy to create them as is released when they are returned to relaxation state. Period. Thermodynamics 101. Bullsnot V: The references to anomalous time dilation in highly red-shifted quasars are just the height of bullsnot. So... we've gone by some extraordinary brain-spin from impossible-from-a-quantum-perspective hydrogen states to explaining quasars, which actually have pretty decent theory to describe anyway? I could go on, but it isn't important. In several previous posts, I set several criteria that will aid believability of the theory. So far, none of the goalposts have been achieved. 1) availability of the hydrino gas, in ampoules, for other labs to experiment with. (It is gaseous according to their theory, and stable. It is also produced in copious quantities from the experimental process. Ergo... there should be macroscopic quantities available for experimentation) 2) demonstration of lab-scale power generation as a continuous system, not as a single thermal pulse from a highly abstracted bomb experiment. (Bomb refers to thermodynamic measurement, not explosion). Look, researchers ... just build a system that takes some well characterized inputs, and run it 24 hr/day for several weeks, producing some measurable amount of thermal energy. Such a system is reproducible by others. There are others, but these two are key. If hydrinos can't be exported in ampoules, then ... do they exist? Or, if they can't, but are supposed to be highly stable, then where are they? Or, if they're supposed to be manufactured on the spot, and no one except Mills and his derivative group can make 'em, why not? Further, having an engineering system that - however it is mocked up - that produces (for example) 100 kW of heat continuously, with only 7 kW of input, and a delivery of 20 kg/hr of some reactants ... for days ... would then allow the thermodynamics of the 20 kg of reactants to be characterized. Then, and only then would one be able to determine whether there is a net energy gain beyond known physics/chemistry, or not. Only then. G O A T G U Y . froarty in reply to GoatGuy . Bullsnot IV: there are no processes - including nuclear - that release the potential energy contained within the system that don't consume SOMETHING. Or, alternately (e.g. chemical systems), that don't require the investment of at least as much energy into the system as eventually, later, removed from it. IF hydrinos are being created, AND they are an energy system containing an extraordinary amount of energy, THEN it must take at least as much energy to create them as is released when they are returned to relaxation state. Period. Thermodynamics 101. You are not getting something for nothing - I am skeptical of Mill's theory as well but he is not alone in demonstrating excess energy - I will refrain fom the term over unity because you might interpert this as a violation of COE -it is not! The theories in play (and there are many) is that the catalytic environment is creating the dam that can be rectified by gases translating between monatomic and multiatomic states. Science has known for many years that gas law is based on Heisenburg uncertainty principle and that even at 0 degrees Kelvin this keeps liquified gas from solidifying. this is a macro
RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com However I fail to see why Frank chose to equate his constant with the speed of sound in the nucleus. OK, let me try to explain it historically. I think I have found the answer (smoking gun) in the Archives. There is an old exchange with Keith about the capacitance of the proton - where FZ is cornered on the fact that the value he is using for the proton radius is too high, by a large margin. This was from 2006 - follow the whole thread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg16464.html At that time, he was merely floating his ideas to a smaller audience (Vortex), who were already known, far and wide, to be open-minded because we entertained the notion that LENR was real. Perfect target audience for a fringe theory - right. And he was said to be a good hands-on experimenter who was close to finding something valid in the lab. OTOH he was trying to make what he perceived to be a useful constant work out mathematically, and if he could, then it would look to unsuspecting viewers like he could use this discovery (the bogus megahertz-meter value) to derive Planck via another path, and for many other marvelous uses. It was a house-of-cards. Catch-22. It don't work ! And on close inspection, megahertz-meter is NOT even a particularly good fit to the underlying data, like he claimed. Notice it fails by three orders of magnitude with the Arata experiment. This problem on the theoretical end is basically due to the expected size of the proton radius, and the small amount of uncertainty at that time that it could be different (few percent either way). Never mind that he was nowhere close, the immediate problem for the great theorist becomes: how do I get around this slight problem and make the radius appear much larger, since there is some uncertainty anyway. He should have moved-on to something else - or at least come up with the perfect experiment to validate the underlying value (.03 C). We can only hope that he tried and got close. Instead of abandoning a sinking ship - he digs deeper into finding the quick fix. At that time he was trying to plug-in what he was calling a maximum radius, which is the first fiction ... and to bolster that - this is (apparently) where the whole thing about nuclear sound comes in... and then compression waves, etc and/or strings. It all required moving to a high Z nucleus, where the proton could appear to be larger - but which is exactly what you do NOT want to do, for a general quantum theory that helps in furthering LENR. What a disgrace ! You have a known value that doesn't work with your pet hypothesis, so you go out there and invent a way to make the proton radius seem to be two thirds larger than it is. I hope that his video guy - Lane - is not complicit in this. He actually seems more tuned-in to reality than his mentor. On most occasions at least. Very sad waste of intellectual talent to see science degenerate into becoming a tool of well-educated, but possibly not well-meaning, mental-hijackers. The best way for Frank can redeem himself now is to stay off YouTube and return to the Lab and find the rock-solid experiment that blows his critics (me) out of the water. You have the skills to do that Frank, and you are smarter than I am and most of us here are, but you are not smarter than all of us. Do NOT be seduced by a bunch of good-looking videos into thinking you have found it. You have been caught on this one. Go out and make a real discovery. Jones
RE: [Vo]:BLP on next big future
Hi Fran, Yeah, I saw GoatGuy's opus as well. It seems to me that a common tactic debunkers use is to relentlessly ram their POV directly at what they envision to be a captive audience. The objective seems to be to intimidate rivals to such an extent that they are forced to retreat while covering their bruised rears from additional bullsont ramming. From a sociobiological POV it's like observing a male goat advertise the availability of bullsnot genes to prospective females. The advertising is performed by repeated intellectual ramming of rival POVs, aka other prospective male goats who may also be in the market, but I dunno. I can only hope that most females who may be in the market find the prospect of purchasing bullshot genes to be questionable family planning strategy. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3f5db4e520/goofy-goat But perhaps I'm being a little hypocritical myself here. ;-) On a more serious note, Fran, can you clarify a two items. For example, you conjectured: We have been told these forces are chaotic and can not be rectified because they are so localized as to be physically unmanageable - and it is THIS rule that is being broken.. I gather what is being implied here is that entropy (entropy manifested close to the quantum mechanical scale?) is somehow being mysteriously REorganized back into a coherent and useable force. How much evidence is there to support this controversial POV? And... Mill's calls them hydrinos but I think Jan Naudts nailed it when he suggested hydrinos are actually relativistic hydrogen. Can you elaborate a little more about what relativistic hydrogen entails, and why it might help explain what is presumed to be excessive heat. (I don't know what relativistic hydrogen means.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks.
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Dear Mr. Jonesy, First, let me inform you of sad reality of life: Just because something doesn't make sense to *you* yet, does not mean it doesn't make sense altogether. More than likely, it simply means that it doesn't make sense to *you*. And when one hits a brick wall in terms of their understanding, there are two approaches that can be taken: A) The Holy Roman approach: Lynch anyone who disagrees with your limited understanding. On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com However I fail to see why Frank chose to equate his constant with the speed of sound in the nucleus. OK, let me try to explain it historically. I think I have found the answer (smoking gun) in the Archives. There is an old exchange with Keith about the capacitance of the proton - where FZ is cornered on the fact that the value he is using for the proton radius is too high, by a large margin. This was from 2006 - follow the whole thread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg16464.html At that time, he was merely floating his ideas to a smaller audience (Vortex), who were already known, far and wide, to be open-minded because we entertained the notion that LENR was real. Perfect target audience for a fringe theory - right. And he was said to be a good hands-on experimenter who was close to finding something valid in the lab. OTOH he was trying to make what he perceived to be a useful constant work out mathematically, and if he could, then it would look to unsuspecting viewers like he could use this discovery (the bogus megahertz-meter value) to derive Planck via another path, and for many other marvelous uses. It was a house-of-cards. Catch-22. It don't work ! And on close inspection, megahertz-meter is NOT even a particularly good fit to the underlying data, like he claimed. Notice it fails by three orders of magnitude with the Arata experiment. This problem on the theoretical end is basically due to the expected size of the proton radius, and the small amount of uncertainty at that time that it could be different (few percent either way). Never mind that he was nowhere close, the immediate problem for the great theorist becomes: how do I get around this slight problem and make the radius appear much larger, since there is some uncertainty anyway. He should have moved-on to something else - or at least come up with the perfect experiment to validate the underlying value (.03 C). We can only hope that he tried and got close. Instead of abandoning a sinking ship - he digs deeper into finding the quick fix. At that time he was trying to plug-in what he was calling a maximum radius, which is the first fiction ... and to bolster that - this is (apparently) where the whole thing about nuclear sound comes in... and then compression waves, etc and/or strings. It all required moving to a high Z nucleus, where the proton could appear to be larger - but which is exactly what you do NOT want to do, for a general quantum theory that helps in furthering LENR. What a disgrace ! You have a known value that doesn't work with your pet hypothesis, so you go out there and invent a way to make the proton radius seem to be two thirds larger than it is. I hope that his video guy - Lane - is not complicit in this. He actually seems more tuned-in to reality than his mentor. On most occasions at least. Very sad waste of intellectual talent to see science degenerate into becoming a tool of well-educated, but possibly not well-meaning, mental-hijackers. The best way for Frank can redeem himself now is to stay off YouTube and return to the Lab and find the rock-solid experiment that blows his critics (me) out of the water. You have the skills to do that Frank, and you are smarter than I am and most of us here are, but you are not smarter than all of us. Do NOT be seduced by a bunch of good-looking videos into thinking you have found it. You have been caught on this one. Go out and make a real discovery. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
To Seattle Truth and Frank Zindarsic, I've enjoyed Seattle Truth's recent video series, partially for their originality, rebelliousness, and the fact that they attempt to convey to the common man and woman certain mathematical principles pertaining to mysterious ways of quantum physics - and occasionally through the creativity of rap. The accuracy of what has been put to rap-speak is of course open to debate. I realize that Seattle Truth, and perhaps Frank Zindarsic as well, are not asking for the collective wisdom coming from this group, what I have often called the Vort Collective. Nevertheless, since Seattle Truth continues to post commentary here I feel compelled to personally suggest that instead of patronizing Mr. Jonseys skepticism a more effective approach would be to prepare an informed response to what appears to be a fundamental disagreement pertaining to the measured size of the proton radius. The charge has been made that the size of proton radius has been misinterpreted (less charitably stated: conveniently altered) in order to suit Frank Zindarsic's theories. IMO, this issue must be addressed. I'm gathering the impression that much of Frank's unique theory is fundamentally built on what is considered to be the correct measured size of the proton's radius. If these measurements remain in dispute, if Frank cannot effectively convince his audience as to why we should take his measurements as the correct one I believe Mr. Zindarsic will continue have an exceedingly difficult time making headway. Mr. Jones offers a practical suggestion, that Mr. Zindarsic: ...return to the Lab and find the rock-solid experiment that blows his critics (me) out of the water. Jones follows up with: You have the skills to do that Frank, and you are smarter than I am and most of us here are, but you are not smarter than all of us. * * * I'll now offer up some personal observations, some that might be perceived to be at Seattle Truth's expense. In my own experience I've come realize the following personal truth - that while fighting the good cause is indeed a worthy mission to tackle in life, acquiring the wisdom to discern the difference between fighting for an informed cause versus fighting for an unformed cause can be one of most difficult lessons in life to learn. In my own muddled (and occasionally checkered) past I know I'm guilty of having fought my share of battles I initially perceived as being worthy but later learned were less informed than what I had initially assumed. Nevertheless, to eventually discover my mistakes, however embarrassing they might have been to acknowledge, is how I suspect we all slowly learn the art of discernment. There are no free passes (or guarantees) when one is shopping around for a worthy cause in which to base one life's mission on. Combine that with impatience and a zeal to start fighting the battle prematurely, and one is likely to sow the seeds of encountering another rudely felt learning experience. I don't know if Frank Zindarsic's theory is correct or not. The question I hope Seattle Truth (and Frank Zindarsic) will never stop asking themselves is: Do they know for sure if Zindarsic's theory is correct. Verifying one's suspicions is the only way I know of in regards to resolving such conundrums. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
FW: RE: [Vo]:BLP on next big future
Oops - forwarding copy to vortex with additional timeline info and this link http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2 to On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom by Naudts. I also included Dombreys assertion that the hydrino require a non relativistic counterpart to reamin physical which I consider a non sequitor - it assumes a local counterpart for each hydrino as necessary while the assumption should have been a global environment provided by Casimir geometry. These claims are always associated with a catalytic environment and regardless of your pet theory the exotic states of hydrogen should be balanced by the environment - this is the same old ruse by skeptics that say show me the hydrino - if it is relativistic you can only view the differences by examining dilation between samples after they are returned to the same frame like the twin paradox.A hydrino is always going to be simple hydrogen when viewed in the same frame as the observer. Additional info ..time line from wiki * May 20, 2005: Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency publishes a critical analysis in the New Journal of Physics. He concluded: We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! - Rathke August 5, 2005: Jan Naudts of the University of Antwerp argues that Rathke did not take into account complexities introduced by relativistic quantum mechanics, and that without doing so Rathke was not justified in rejecting the possibility of a hydrino state 2006: inspired by Naudts' response, Norman Dombey concluded that Mill's theory of hydrino states is unphysical. According to Dombey, the hydrino states would require: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power#cite_note-dombey-18 [19] 1. non-relativistic counterparts to remain physical, but they don't have them. 2. compatibility with a coupling strength (fine structure constant) equal to zero to remain physical, yet hydrino states seem to exist in the absence of any coupling strength. 3. binding strength that falls with the coupling strength. The hydrino model predicts that binding strength for hydrino states increases as the coupling strength falls, rendering the states unphysical. From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:26 PM To: 'orionwo...@charter.net' Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP on next big future Steven , The wikipedia definition attached at bottom is more appropriate based on vacuum energy instead of looking at it from the effect on gas law I used in my reply to goat guy. Yes I am positing that this random force is being organized back into a coherent and useable force via the bond state of atoms, In the final paragraph of the definition below the author states [snip] , in Stochastic Electrodynamics, the energy density is taken to be a classical random noise wave field which consists of real electromagnetic waves propagating isotropically in all directions. The energy in such a wave field would seem to be accessible e.g. with nothing more complicated than a directional coupler. The most obvious difficulty appears to be the spectral distribution of the energy, which compatibility with Lorentz invariance requires to take the form Kf3, where K is a constant and f denotes frequency. It follows that the energy and momentum flux in this wave field only becomes significant at extremely short wavelengths where directional coupler technology is currently lacking. [/snip] My posit side steps the difficulty of a directional coupler. I am conjecturing that a covalent or other compound bond between atomic gas opposes change to a different Casimir geometry while a monatomic gas atom does not - it simply reshapes (Mills view) or appears to reshape from our perspective (Naudts paper) the size or relative acceleration of the atom depending on who's theory you prefer. I prefer Naudts but this represents a controversial perspective - Relativistic hydrogen in space is just hydrogen atoms being accelerated to significant fractions of light speed. This is easy to grasp and time dilation works the same as the Twin Paradox but doesn't present any opportunity at astrophysical scales for energy gain because the energy source such as a stars corona that accelerated these atoms to near luminal velocity is now far displaced and relativistic/chemical interactions between different inertial frames are always separated by a slow isotropic gradient at the macro scale - this slow change of gravitational average (energy density) is based on square law displacement from a mass forming gravity well. My posit is that this changes inside a conductive material with Casimir geometry - that you CAN have rapid changes in energy
[Vo]:Re: Expanded proton halo peer review
Well, all I know is that those dudes at CERN aren't crackpots. This physicist works at CERN, physics department of Boston University, Institute of Theoretical Physics in Spain. He has a resume longer than my noodle, that's all I can say. I also know that the smaller proton radius found in muonic hydrogen experiments threatened QED. His theories reconcile QED and the measurements of muonic hydrogen. This paper was also published in *Physics Letters B*http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03702693 Volume 693, Issue 5http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL_tockey=%23TOC%235539%232010%23993069994%232461736%23FLA%23_cdi=5539_pubType=Jview=c_auth=y_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=4fbee109e6b658ae42bf960ca24e45db, 18 October 2010, Pages 555-558 But I'm l33t so I found it online for free: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3861v3.pdf I might be nothing and nobody in terms of science understanding, but when dudes from CERN talk I listen. The key point is the differentiation between the root mean square (charge radius) and the halo. The halo is real, the charge radius is simply a mathematical formulation, kind of like the Bohr radius. Peace.
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Sat, 4 Dec 2010 17:16:23 -0600: Hi, [snip] I realize that Seattle Truth, and perhaps Frank Zindarsic as well, are not asking for the collective wisdom coming from this group, what I have often called the Vort Collective. Nevertheless, since Seattle Truth continues to post commentary here I feel compelled to personally suggest that instead of patronizing Mr. Jonseys skepticism a more effective approach would be to prepare an informed response to what appears to be a fundamental disagreement pertaining to the measured size of the proton radius. The charge has been made that the size of proton radius has been misinterpreted (less charitably stated: conveniently altered) in order to suit Frank Zindarsic's theories. IMO, this issue must be addressed. [snip] Question: If Frank's constant were too small by a factor of 2, what effect would that have on the proton radius calculation (too bloody lazy to do it myself ;) I ask this because I noticed that Frank's velocity is precisely 1/2 c * the fine structure constant. The latter being the velocity of the electron in the Bohr orbit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
