date:20140220

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dramatic!

 As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged
 balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion.
 In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would
 cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of
 reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged.


I selected a more dramatic version because it could be argued that some
expansion or contraction of space would make the spring look stretched in
one frame and compressed in another.

If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as
expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial
paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is
possible.

John

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report

2014-02-20 Thread Nigel Dyer

Is this a report of the same demo for which we previously saw the 
video.   I dont think the high voltage arc discharges appeared in the 
video, and seem to be quite different to the low voltage electric arc 
welder style demo.   Both demos come within the patent description.


For the high voltage discharge, Nick does not go into great details on 
the calorimetry, but seems convinced of the results.


Nigel
On 20/02/2014 03:38, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf

A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter.
Everything extrapolated from that. LOL.

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

Correction:

If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as
expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial
paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is
possible.

If an observer in another frame expects a force to exist in the charges
frame so as to match their expectation of a magnetic field, and if that
would lead to a dramatic and paradoxical result as it would not be existed
to occur in the static frame.

A very easy real world experiment is the common practice of waving a a coil
past a permanent magnet and seeing the voltage induced in the coil read on
a meter. (yes this experiment is the inverse as it is relative motion
to observe an electric field from relative motion to a magnetic field)

To be consistent, David would have to argue that if there were a coil
attached to a volt meter being waved by the permanent magnet, and another
coil attached to the volt meter that is not moving relative to the magnet,
that the waving coil that sees an electric field from movement relative to
the magnetic field would also expect the stationary volt meter to see this
voltage also, and expect it to be deflected.

Now it is easy to move your head with the waving coil, if you see a voltage
induced in the non moving coil when you wave your head and not when you
don't, I will be very very impressed and amazed.

But I think we both know that no such effect exists.
And if it does not exist in the magnetic to electric, it won't exist in
electric to magnetic.

John

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dramatic!

 As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged
 balls connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion.
 In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would
 cause the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of
 reference of the balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged.


 I selected a more dramatic version because it could be argued that some
 expansion or contraction of space would make the spring look stretched in
 one frame and compressed in another.

 If the result of the magnetic force being seen to act on one frame as
 expected from the flux in another leads to a dramatic and non-trivial
 paradox, it is going to be harder to keep up the delusion that such is
 possible.

 John

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility

2014-02-20 Thread Roarty, Francis X

[snip] So it makes far more sense to consider this proof of something that can 
exist, the aether, than proof of something that can't (all frames being equal 
and experiencing unequal time dilation equally).[/snip]
EXACTLY! Our metrics of time and distance all assume physical objects to limit 
displacement to 3D.. the Pythagorean basis of Lorentzian formulas is screaming 
physical displacement 90 degrees to the observers 3D plane. This also ties into 
the failure of MM to detect any ether drift because the ether is moving 
through all 3 spatial dimensions at 90 degrees and therefore contraction 
normally only occurs when you increase the number of interactions by velocity 
or gravity well [the Haisch Rhueda analogy of speeding car through a downpour 
of rain].. I suspect relativistic hydrogen as suggested ny Naudts for the 
hydrino is actually reducing the rainfall through Casimir suppression and 
results in less interaction .. from our perspective the contraction would 
appear symmetrical since we become the near luminal observer as compared to the 
negative value of rainfall/ether in the geometry - that is to say WE are 
contracting at 90 degrees to a hypothetical nano observer riding the suppressed 
hydrogen inside the skeletal catalyst or grains of  nano powder where of course 
time and space seems locally normal to the observer. I would guess Lorentzian 
contraction still obeys the 1 axis rule we have come to accept from the 
perspective of this nano observer where the entrance to the cavity would seem 
to shrink farther away increasing the volume of the cavity and allowing more 
gas atoms to accumulate inside than exterior measurements would seem to 
indicate possible like a nano TARTUS from DR Who.  Since suppression doesn't 
require near luminal displacement in any spatial dimension the contraction is 
shared equally in each direction.
Just my story and I am sticking to it :_)

From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson 
dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, so time dilation must have occurred for the muon, it moved through the 
reference frame of the lab and lasted longer because of it.
But the Muon was not conscious, carried no instrumentation and surely had no 
evidence to offer to indicate that it observed time was seeming to occur more 
swiftly for it than for the lab.
In my model, the muon did not consider that its life time was any different 
than at complete rest.  It was not time dilated as far as it was concerned.

You missed my point, I did not say the muon should observe it's own time to 
slow down, I said that SR would expect the muon to see the lab as moving at 
near the speed of light, and it would expect (in SR) to see the lab's clock to 
be running slow.


The only ones measuring the muon time dilation are the observers on Earth.

Yes, and what is observing the muons view of how time passes in the Lab? frame 
No one. Unless muons are conscious but it would be dead, perhaps a seance for 
the muon could be carried out?


To make matters worse, you get the right answer if you consider the muon as 
observing length contraction of the path that it takes.   Then, I had time 
dilation for one observer and length contraction for the other to contend with. 
 Each process gave a valid seeming answer.

I was looking for a hole in SR, but came up empty.  Only then did I realize 
that the operation of the LHC also matched these two nasty calculations.  Back 
to ground zero.

Only if you want to accept something logically impossible and indefensible.
Time dilation and or length contraction are concepts that originally occurred 
to those considering movement relative to an aether.

So it makes far more sense to consider this proof of something that can exist, 
the aether, than proof of something that can't (all frames being equal and 
experiencing unequal time dilation equally).

John

[Vo]:Plastic detector progress video

2014-02-20 Thread fznidarsic

If I can't solve the world's energy problems perhaps I can help manage its 
waste.  Progress report on #1 plastic detector.  Video linked below type mp4 5 
MB.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/PlasticDetect.mp4


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC

2014-02-20 Thread Bob Cook


Jones-Axil, Ed, etal

Check out the current (Feburary) issue of Scientific American--page 
32--regarding the radius of the proton.  Seems the wave functions overlap 
better than one might have concluded from old theory.


The researchers have interesting connections to active long-term LENR theory 
development at MIT.  Ironical.


Bob
-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC


A contact from LBNL told me years ago that there were researchers in top
labs doing LENR-related research, but the Lab administrators would never
known it - since the title and field of inquiry would be carefully
constructed to hide the fact.

This seemed preposterous to me back then, but I just stumbled on a paper
that makes me wonder. Well, it clearly is not a ruse, but it would be a
great surprise if Nilsson's group had not seen an energy anomaly in this
work.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/QeJ5maLQQrugiSYMF3ATDA/2.1.4.4.nilsson_06.pdf

The paper turned up using the search terms:
hydrogen, nickel, potassium, CNT
since that combination seems like the best guess for the Rossi
formula...

No smoking gun of course, but interesting parallel path.

http://ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/nilssongroup/index.html

Re:[Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report

2014-02-20 Thread a.ashfield


JOnes,

0.5 C is easy enough to measure.
What I found disappointing was the COP = 2.8

RE: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 

 0.5 C is easy enough to measure.
What I found disappointing was the COP = 2.8


Even that inflated estimate could go away with a poof when they measure P-in
from the wall, which should always be done with pulsed power. 

But the huge disappointment in this report is basically that it is the
Graneau line of experiment from nearly 20 years ago, also taken up by dozens
of others who provide much more information than Mills. It is mildly OU but
has been impossible to take further. 

Given that 6 years ago, Mills licensed half a dozen Utility companies to
produce gigawatts of power in the Southwest, using his solid fuel reactor
- what we should be seeing now is a full report on that progress - or a mea
culpa on why it fizzled ...

(it did fizzle, just like CIHT will fizzle in all likelihood, based on a two
decades of disappointment, cloaked by silence.)

Move on... nothing new to see here... 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:The Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME)

2014-02-20 Thread Bob Cook

Axil--

How do you get wind of all these good items?

Bob

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:10 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:The Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME)

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

A 10^16 magnetic field will deconfine the quarks in the nucleus. This high 
level of magnetic fields are seen in quark plasma production in heavy ion 
collisions  and in LENR.

RE: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

Check out the current (Feburary) issue of Scientific American--page
32--regarding the radius of the proton.  Seems the wave functions overlap
better than one might have concluded from old theory.

The researchers have interesting connections to active long-term LENR theory
development at MIT.  Ironical.


Bob,

I haven't read the SciAm article yet but much of this variable radius talk
has been out since last summer. Pohl's paper is on arXiv.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0905

...as is the more important one of Roberto Onofrio who has suggested that
the muonic hydrogen experiment may be providing evidence of quantum gravity.


This bodes well for LENR. A theory of quantum gravity is based on the
unification of gravity and the weak force, also called gravitoweak
unification. 

Essentially quantum gravity tells us why two protons can come together in a
metal matrix without requiring a deflated electron. Of course, they cannot
fuse permanently - thus the reversal back to two protons may not be net
energetic. The extra energy if there is any, could come from QCD or from
the Lamb shift - which is an easier way to account for it. In fact QCD may
supply the Lamb shift (see below).

Conventional Newtonian gravity holds at large distances, but like the
electroweak interaction, it morphs into a different kind of gravitational
interaction at very small scale. Specifically, the strength of the
gravitational interactions equals the weak force near the Fermi scale. This
in effect reduces four fundamental forces to two.

As Onofrio shows, quantum gravity supplies the additional binding energy in
the muonic hydrogen experiments, which explains the smaller proton radius
value. 

BTW - In these experiments, the proton radius value is usually measured in
terms of an energy difference between two energy levels, called the Lamb
shift. 

On Vortex - for many years, going back to Fred Sparber or before, we have
suggested that in the event that when LENR is understood and there is no
previously known fusion reaction which can be found, as now seems likely -
then the excess energy will most likely be caused by asymmetry in the Lamb
Shift. And the Lamb shift energy could still derive from spin coupling to
the nucleus so it remains nuclear.

Now we have a vetted theory which provides that asymmetry - GU or
gravitoweak unification. In fact, at the ~10 THz level, the a sequential
Lamb shift can provide what is seen in the Rossi HotCat.

LS = 4.372 x 10^-6 eV = x 1.602 x 10^-19 J/eV = 7.00 x 10^-25 J

Tiny, indeed. But... that low energy is per reaction and per proton pair
... and even if the asymmetry is only 1% of that low number - but the
transaction rate is 27 THZ... then with a gram of hydrogen adsorbed into
nickel, we are feasting on Lamb Bar-B-Q courtesy of the HotCat.

Jones




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

2014-02-20 Thread David Roberson


 Harry, that is an interesting experiment.  I will certainly give it some 
thought since it approaches the problem from a different angle.  (pun intended) 
 This is similar to the case where a second non moving charge counters the 
initial repulsion.  My first thought is that this idea might reveal something 
about energy storage or perhaps charge behavior as seen by a moving observer.  
If we had the normal current carrying wire case there would be no problem since 
this type of structure has been proven to generate a force.  So, if taken to 
the extreme, is there a reason that a small segment along the wire behaves in a 
different manner? 

Thanks Harry,

Dave 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law



Dramatic!


As alternate way of revealing the paradox, I imagined the two charged balls 
connected by a spring which counter balances the force of repulsion.

In the reference frame where the balls are moving, a magnetic force would cause 
the spring to become shorter. Paradoxically, in the frame of reference of the 
balls the length of the spring would remain unchanged. 




harry

RE: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC

To add a few more details into the mix for future reference,
here are some slides with most of the basic mathematical formalities.


http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD/2011/FridayAfternoon/Pachucki.pdf

The overriding proposition is this: Essentially, quantum
gravity facilitates two protons coming together in a metal matrix in LENR.
Of course, protons cannot fuse permanently- thus the nearly instantaneous
reversal of the diproton back to two protons follows, with the emphasis on
nearly. 

The extra energy of LENR would come from the strong force
during the short diproton lifetime, and be expressed via Lamb shift
asymmetry from spin coupling to the diprotons, the nickel lattice or both -
so the energy gain remains nuclear, but without the indicia. Mass is
converted to energy.

Now we have a succinct theory which provides more than a
hint at Lamb shift asymmetry as the working dynamic of LENR - via
gravitoweak unification and spin coupling. In fact, at the low THz level,
the a sequential Lamb shift can easily provide the gain seen in the Rossi
HotCat and much more.

The Lamb shift energy is tiny, in the range of 10^-25 J, and
inherent asymmetry would be a faction of that. But, this low energy is per
reaction per proton pair ... therefore, even if the asymmetry is a small
fraction of a very low initial energy - the transaction rate is THZ ... and
with a gram of hydrogen adsorbed into nickel, we are feasting on Lamb
Bar-B-Q courtesy of the HotCat.

Jones




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report

2014-02-20 Thread Bob Higgins

I thought it was an interesting report, but I think a fundamental issue may
be getting missed in the calorimetry of the BLP experiment.

As I understand it, the calorimeter was modified to have the large copper
electrodes that supply the very high spot welder current placed into the
test chamber.  These conductors will allow a lot of heat to flow out that
will not get registered by the calorimeter because the whole apparatus is
not in an enclosed box.  To address this outflow of heat, null/blind
experiments were run for calibration using spot welding of metals.
 However, as the author of the report points out, the nature of the energy
release for the experiments with water was different - louder pop and
light.  This means that there was radiation (at least visible light) and
probably ejecta from the actual experiment compared to the null blind.  The
blind experiments would have had more of their heat conducted out through
the copper electrodes and the experiments with light and ejecta would
deposit more of the heat to the calorimeter bomb shell.  Even if the energy
release were the same in the two cases, the calorimeter would show more
heat in the case where there was light and ejecta and water vapor.

Is this enough to make up for a factor of 2 difference in the measured
heat?  It is hard to say without having a better model for the apparatus,
and the report does not provide any indication this this detailed level of
modeling was done.

Despite this, a factor of 2 should be discern-able after modeling if real.

Bob Higgins


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf

 A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter.
 Everything extrapolated from that. LOL.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
 But Terry, but are these epo's moving?

No, unless they are hit by a photon which alters their polarization.
Hotson explains it well in the referenced article.  Although, it might
help to read his first two articles before.

www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf

Although, we have discussed this ad infinitum about a dozen years ago:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33614.html

But I think part 3 offers some aspects not clear in the originals.

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report

If the past is prolog, the Papp engine produced very little if any heat.
The same will be true for the Mills engine.

Mills engine energy production will come from two places: pressure/shock
wave expansion with associated plasma movement and the production of excess
electrons. These two energy sources were the source of the over unity power
production derived from the Papp engine and these sources should be the
same for the Mills engine.

The one important engine design idea that has not made it into Mills' head
yet is the requirement to setup positive feedback loops that leverage these
two energy sources to optimize Mills engine power production.

I fear that Mills fantasy doctrinaire will blind Mills to these important
engine design priorities in the design and the development of the Mills
engine.

Can Mills discard the science religion that has fed him and built a legion
of faithful and adoring followers be abruptly discarded in altruistic
pursuit of truth and subsequent open source engine design success? It will
never happen.

[Vo]:FYI: The Third Way of Thermal-Electric Conversion...

2014-02-20 Thread Mark Jurich

The Third Way of Thermal-Electric Conversion beyond Seebeck and Pyroelectric 
Effects

Thermal-electric conversion is crucial for smart energy control and harvesting, 
such as thermal sensing and waste heat recovering. So far, people are aware of 
only two ways of direct thermal-electric conversion, Seebeck and pyroelectric 
effects, each with distinct working conditions and limitations. Here, we report 
the third way of thermal-electric conversion beyond Seebeck and pyroelectric 
effects. In contrast to Seebeck effect that requires spatial temperature 
difference, the-third-way converts the time-dependent ambient temperature 
fluctuation into electricity, similar to the behavior of pyroelectricity. 
However, the-third-way is also distinct from pyroelectric effect in the sense 
that it does not require polar materials but applies to general conducting 
systems. We demonstrate that the-third-way results from the 
temperature-fluctuation-induced dynamical charge redistribution. It is a 
consequence of the fundamental nonequilibrium thermodynamics and has a deep 
connection to the topological phase in quantum mechanics. The findings expand 
our knowledge and provide new means of thermal-electric energy harvesting.  
(Jie Ren)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.3645.pdf


- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

2014-02-20 Thread H Veeder

As Dave has mentioned, Einstein's reason for postulating the constancy of c
was partly motivated by his examination of the laws of electrodynamics.

Here is the introduction to his paper ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING
BODIES. You can see he is bothered by a lack of symmetry in the laws but a
lack symmetry does not mean a lack of integrity. The lack of symmetry is an
aesthetic judgement. Also he claims the electromotive force has no
corresponding energy, but I am not sure why he would say this since it does
have a potential energy. Perhaps he expects it to have kinetic energy, but
this would reflect an implicit philosophical prejudice against
non-mechanical causes.

Harry


--
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES

By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor
at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field
with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where
parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and
the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives
rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to
electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the
electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as
has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same
laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise
this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
Principle of Relativity) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce
another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a luminiferous
ether will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an absolutely stationary space provided with
special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have
to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.

The rest of paper is here:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[Vo]:urban farming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrpyUA1pQqE

Will LENR help?

Re: [Vo]:ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

My view on SR is of course that it can not be possible.

But it does give some interesting and correct answers, now impossible is
still impossible, but...
If we reduce the magnet in Einstein's example to an electromagnet, or
better yet just one straight wire carrying a DC current. (or a macro model
of this with a pipe and charged balls)
And if the coil with relative motion is reduced to just a straight wire...
(or a macro model)

If the relative motion of the electrons caused them to flatten and pancake
(length contraction), then the protons (spherical) field would not cancel
the electrons field which has been compressed from length contraction, this
would make a voltage appear which would be identical to the motional
E-field proposed by Hooper.

If we now approached this wire with a second parallel wire, we would now
see the electrons moving on a different angle, each electrons pancaking
field would now look different, what did look like this ||
(electric field squashed perpendicular to wire) now looks like this
//   electric field squashed on a slant.

This would cause a voltage to appear along the parallel wire that is
approaching our simplified magnet.
The direction of this field would be to repel the electrons in this wire
from the direction the electrons are moving in the 'magnet' wire.

And this is precisely the induction that we would expect from cutting line
of magnetic force, the direction is correct and I presume so is the
magnitude.

If the pickup wire was moving with the electrons in the magnet wire (not
typical, but easy to imagine) then the protons field would be seen to
pancake.
This would lead to the opposite voltage gradient (which is seldom looked
for or detected) from the wire due to pancaking now being protonic,
If this moving wire (moving with the electrons in the other wire) now also
moves towards the magnet wire with it's apparent protonic current, the
pancaking of the protons would now also slant this way \\  and
since electrons are attracted to protons, the voltage induced would be the
same.

The field would have the same observed induction if it is from electrons
moving to our left or protons moving to our right.

But what of the electric field from just electron motion, if that is
switching from positive to negative, shouldn't there be effects?

If we now construct a coil of one magnet wire and we move in a circle along
it, we would have an N-machine, or homopolar motor/generator.

The Homopolar generator is essentially experiencing induction from the
Hooper motional E-field, or from direct charge pancaking.

I am unsure, does anyone know if the faster a homopolar generator turns the
higher the voltage?
Since motion of a disk in an all electromagnetic n-machine (no
ferromagnetic help) would have only the slight difference in speed between
the electron drift and the protons.

So I wonder if such a generator would reach full voltage as extremely slow
rpm?

If the voltage does keep growing by the electrons moving slightly faster,
then this would imply that a coil that not only approaches a magnet but is
given a twist should have a larger voltage induced since the pancaking of
the electrons would be greater.

John


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:06 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 As Dave has mentioned, Einstein's reason for postulating the constancy of
 c was partly motivated by his examination of the laws of electrodynamics.

 Here is the introduction to his paper ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING
 BODIES. You can see he is bothered by a lack of symmetry in the laws but a
 lack symmetry does not mean a lack of integrity. The lack of symmetry is an
 aesthetic judgement. Also he claims the electromotive force has no
 corresponding energy, but I am not sure why he would say this since it does
 have a potential energy. Perhaps he expects it to have kinetic energy, but
 this would reflect an implicit philosophical prejudice against
 non-mechanical causes.

 Harry


 --
 ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES

 By A. Einstein
 June 30, 1905

 It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
 present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
 not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
 reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
 observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
 conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
 distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
 these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor
 at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field
 with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where
 parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and
 the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
 the magnet. In the conductor,

[Vo]:Cold Fusion a Credible Future Shock

2014-02-20 Thread Alan Fletcher

UK Ministry of Defence Document Lists Cold Fusion as ‘Credible Strategic Shock’
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/uk-ministry-of-defence-document-lists-cold-fusion-as-credible-strategic-shock/

Links to :
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33717/GST4_v9_Feb10.pdf

On (presumably HOT fusion) :

These economic imperatives will transform energy production and usage, but
breakthrough events, such as
commercially viable [HOT] nuclear fusion, are unlikely to come to fruition by
2040, and regions
rich in natural resources will therefore retain strategic importance.
A technological breakthrough in the development of [HOT] nuclear fusion may
occur. Many incremental steps towards
harnessing the energy of nuclear fusion have already been made, but a
commercially available fusion reactor is unlikely in the next 30 years.

And then, on Strategic Shocks :

This section considers what some of these high impact, low-probability events
could be,
while recognising that others may be beyond our experience to anticipate,
conceive or
understand. It is not a comprehensive list. Acknowledgement that shocks will
happen is
important. It is recognition that the future cannot be predicted in detail or
with certainty.
However, they will inevitably influence defence and security in some way,
providing a
strong argument for versatile and adaptable defence institutions, equipment and
personnel to deal with the unexpected challenges they will present.

The following is a selection of credible strategic shocks:

(Some of the other shocks are low-probability but generally acknowledged as
real : )

Collapse of a Pivotal State. ...

Cure for Ageing. ...

New Energy Source. A novel, efficient form of energy generation could be
developed that rapidly lowers demand for hydrocarbons. For example, the
development of commercially available cold fusion reactors could result in the
rapid economic marginalisation of oil-rich states. This loss of status and
income in
undiversified economies could lead to state-failure and provide opportunities
for
extremist groups to rise in influence.

Collapse of Global Communications. (EMP, Solar flare)

External Influences. (Pandemic, asteroid, super-volcano ... )

Re: [Vo]:ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

While I would still like to know what voltage a non-ferromagnetic N-machine
generator will establish at different RPM's, I looked up and found that
Depalma's chart of voltage to RPM in his Sunburst machine was linear,
double the RPM produced double the output voltage.

This would seem hard to explain (with SR) if the same result were to occur
without any ferromagnetism since surely electrons moving at 83001 mm a
second compared to protons moving at 83000 mm a second is not going to lead
to such a linear or significant voltage increase.

At any rate, this result does indicate that movement along a wire or around
a magnet does have an impact on the perception of that field, and as such
if we take the pancaking view of electrons, if the magnet is rotated as it
is thrust toward a coil, you could expect the inductive effect of the
magnet to increase as there would be a greater degree of pancaking.

Alas I just tried this and it does not work.

Indeed it seems that these results are not in keeping with SR, but rather
indicate a complex interplay where the magnetic field is not created by
relative movement of charges but is somehow absolute.
And once the effect appears as magnetic, it seems not to care about change
in perspective of what is creating the field and indeed it now appears to
be semi-devorces from it's electric origin.

We know that the electric field induced by a magnetic field is relative to
motion, but at this point we can only speculate that a magnetic field seen
around a charge would exist for only some reference frames.

Perhaps magnetic fields with their closed loops create their own reference
frame, the aether involved in their manifestation may be bound in a way
that does not occur for electric fields.

As such perhaps the magnetic field from an electric field will be
experienced the same for all reference frames since it is relative to the
aether.
But the magnetic induction is relative to the the aether entrained by the
magnetic field?

This can be tested by rotating a charged object, if a magnetic field is
seen in the stationary frame, is it also evidenced on the rotating frame?

I have heard of HV charged disks effecting a compass.

John





On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:46 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 My view on SR is of course that it can not be possible.

 But it does give some interesting and correct answers, now impossible is
 still impossible, but...
 If we reduce the magnet in Einstein's example to an electromagnet, or
 better yet just one straight wire carrying a DC current. (or a macro model
 of this with a pipe and charged balls)
 And if the coil with relative motion is reduced to just a straight wire...
 (or a macro model)

 If the relative motion of the electrons caused them to flatten and pancake
 (length contraction), then the protons (spherical) field would not cancel
 the electrons field which has been compressed from length contraction, this
 would make a voltage appear which would be identical to the motional
 E-field proposed by Hooper.

 If we now approached this wire with a second parallel wire, we would now
 see the electrons moving on a different angle, each electrons pancaking
 field would now look different, what did look like this ||
 (electric field squashed perpendicular to wire) now looks like this
 //   electric field squashed on a slant.

 This would cause a voltage to appear along the parallel wire that is
 approaching our simplified magnet.
 The direction of this field would be to repel the electrons in this wire
 from the direction the electrons are moving in the 'magnet' wire.

 And this is precisely the induction that we would expect from cutting line
 of magnetic force, the direction is correct and I presume so is the
 magnitude.

 If the pickup wire was moving with the electrons in the magnet wire (not
 typical, but easy to imagine) then the protons field would be seen to
 pancake.
 This would lead to the opposite voltage gradient (which is seldom looked
 for or detected) from the wire due to pancaking now being protonic,
 If this moving wire (moving with the electrons in the other wire) now also
 moves towards the magnet wire with it's apparent protonic current, the
 pancaking of the protons would now also slant this way \\  and
 since electrons are attracted to protons, the voltage induced would be the
 same.

 The field would have the same observed induction if it is from electrons
 moving to our left or protons moving to our right.

 But what of the electric field from just electron motion, if that is
 switching from positive to negative, shouldn't there be effects?

 If we now construct a coil of one magnet wire and we move in a circle
 along it, we would have an N-machine, or homopolar motor/generator.

 The Homopolar generator is essentially experiencing induction from the
 Hooper motional E-field, or from direct charge pancaking.

 I am unsure, does anyone know if the faster a homopolar generator turns

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion a Credible Future Shock

They need to read Jed's book.

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion a Credible Future Shock

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 

 The following is a selection of credible strategic shocks


Here is another one which is more a twist on a known risk. And it could involve 
LENR but not in the way most are anticipating.

The most credible and imminent future shock for the USA is probably the 
Yellowstone caldera. Some experts think it is ripe for a supervolcano and the 
one early potential date is 2023, not too far off. This date comes from the 
periodic earthquake swarms which follow peak solar activity by 3-4 years.

This is no ordinary volcano. It could wipe out most of the population in a few 
years. Plus, it could in fact be powered by a giant natural nuclear reactor 
like the one at Oklo in Africa, but deeper, wetter and possibly augmented by 
LENR.

Far more helium is coming to the surface in the geyser gas than could ever be 
expected. 60 tons per year is measured and it could be 100 tons or more. A 
hundred pounds of helium from fusion represents about 30 terawatt-hours of 
thermal output, so this amount of heat in Yellowstone is unimaginable from a 
nuclear source, unless that helium has been stored for millions of years, which 
is what the experts want to believe.

The amount of helium is way too much for nuclear decay, in my view, and the 
2500 earthquakes per year make it unlikely that helium could be naturally 
stored there for a decade, much less millions of years. Therefore it seems more 
likely that this helium could indicate the presence of a natural reactor which 
is picking up steam, so to speak.

http://www.ibtimes.com/helium-yellowstone-national-park-way-more-ancient-element-escaping-expected-1556898

There is also the chance that some of the helium is coming from hybrid LENR. 
Uranium hydride is a subject that has been kept under that table for years, but 
fission/fusion could be a cofactor in UH reactions.

Dufour, J et al Hydrogen triggered exothermic reaction in uranium metal. 
Phys. Lett. A, 2000.270: p. 254

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJhydrogentr.pdf

Given that the French are not as restricted in pursuit of this kind of 
comparatively dirty energy option as we are in the USA, one is led to wonder 
if they have pursued the hybrid technology privately in a Programme Noir? 

It should surprise no one if they have, since there is lots of depleted U to 
deal with from their huge reactor network, and what better way to use it?

[Vo]:What do . . .

BLP and Tesla Motors have in common?

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

One of the unrecognized applications of the NiH reactor is its application
to gravity modification.

According to the theory expressed in this thread, since the NiH reactor
contains superconducting fields of distorted and degenerate vacuum
energy generated by enormous self reinforcing magnetic fields, high
rotational rates of the NiH reactor structure  will produce gravity
modification both as a attractive or repulsive force.

A tractor/repluser beam projector may be possible to construct via rotation
of these magnetic traps or EMF black holes  as has been described by
defkalion.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should
 create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static
 gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time
 and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

2014-02-20 Thread ChemE Stewart

I agree, I thought I noticed in one of Rossi's videos the hot cat was
moving around in the rack...

On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 One of the unrecognized applications of the NiH reactor is its application
 to gravity modification.

 According to the theory expressed in this thread, since the NiH reactor
 contains superconducting fields of distorted and degenerate vacuum
 energy generated by enormous self reinforcing magnetic fields, high
 rotational rates of the NiH reactor structure  will produce gravity
 modification both as a attractive or repulsive force.

 A tractor/repluser beam projector may be possible to construct via
 rotation of these magnetic traps or EMF black holes  as has been described
 by defkalion.


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM, John Berry 
 berry.joh...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','berry.joh...@gmail.com');
  wrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass
 should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its
 static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first
 time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

Here is a patent that describes how to build an anti-gravity engine.

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/anti-gravity-patent-available-for-development-2495864.html

The NiH reactor will provide a good self contained power source for an
anti-gravity vehicle.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 One of the unrecognized applications of the NiH reactor is its application
 to gravity modification.

 According to the theory expressed in this thread, since the NiH reactor
 contains superconducting fields of distorted and degenerate vacuum
 energy generated by enormous self reinforcing magnetic fields, high
 rotational rates of the NiH reactor structure  will produce gravity
 modification both as a attractive or repulsive force.

 A tractor/repluser beam projector may be possible to construct via
 rotation of these magnetic traps or EMF black holes  as has been described
 by defkalion.


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass
 should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its
 static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first
 time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

2014-02-20 Thread Kevin O'Malley

This article is from 2006.  Has there been any update since then?  When are
we allowed to say that Einstein's theory is off by 20 orders of magnitude
due to 250 experiments performed?


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should
 create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static
 gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time
 and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

It does seem to be very similar the the initial Podkletnov effect.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

 This article is from 2006.  Has there been any update since then?  When
 are we allowed to say that Einstein's theory is off by 20 orders of
 magnitude due to 250 experiments performed?


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass
 should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its
 static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first
 time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

RE: [Vo]:What do . . .

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

BLP and Tesla Motors have in common?


Hmmm... I was looking for a Board member in common. Does not seem to be the
case. What I found was that three of BLP's prestigious former Board members,
including Michael Jordan, former CEO of Westinghouse, seem to have jumped
ship... haven't checked to see if their departure was of a more permanent
nature, so to speak...

Re: [Vo]:What do . . .

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 Hmmm... I was looking for a Board member in common.

A Tesla has a great grid leveling device on board.  A power source,
constant or transient, could make for a autonomous vehicle.

Of course, it's a fruity idea, eh?

Re: [Vo]:What do . . .

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 Hmmm... I was looking for a Board member in common.

 A Tesla has a great grid leveling device on board.  A power source,
 constant or transient, could make for a autonomous vehicle.

 Of course, it's a fruity idea, eh?

Don't need no driver, don't need no plugs, jes get in an go.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
 It does seem to be very similar the the initial Podkletnov effect.

Dr. Ning Li's company went black around that time.

[Vo]:If a moving electric field creates a magnetic field...

I would have thought that relative motion to an electric field would
probably create the observation of a magnetic field, both in SR (that I
reject) and in an aether model.

But I am starting to question that, I would appreciate any answer to the
following:

Take a long piece of dowel, apply charges to it's surface either directly
or with foil segments, making a monopole capacitor.

Because it is long, the field expand outwards decreasing close do the
distance squared if I am correct, so at 2 meters the electric field is
almost half that measured at 1 meter.

Now if we set the dowel into rapid rotation, the electric field will be
moving, very slowly close to the dowel axle and very swiftly out several
meters.
At 2 meters the linear velocity of the electric field would be double that
of the velocity at 1 meter.

So now I ask, IF rotating such an electrically charged dowel (which I will
propose is infinitely long for calculation) is calculated, how would the
strength of the observed magnetic field (assuming it exists at all) be
calculated to fall off?

Because as far as I can see, it wouldn't?! Leading to an infinite width
magnetic field.
Of course an added anomaly is that such an electric field would soon exceed
the speed of light (if you go way out) if possible for it to do so if we
assume the field keeps on going.

And if it doesn't, then what would happen to the electric field when it
tries to move too fast? Produce photons? (but certainly not normal ones)
Would the electric field just disappear?

Am I making a major error in these assumptions anywhere?

John

Re: [Vo]:Re: Why Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold - Physicist Solve the Mpemba Effect

2014-02-20 Thread Mark Jurich

I wrote:

  Mpemba Paradox Revisited -- Numerical Reinforcement – 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1014
Structure order, local potentials, and physical anomalies of water ice:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3880
- Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:If a moving electric field creates a magnetic field...

The gravity modification principle explained in the other thread was based
on photons enclosed by a superconductor that are rotating at a rapid rate.

All these requirements are included in the NiH reactor: widespread
superconductivity, photons at extreme densities and just to cover all the
bases degenerated vacuum and intense magnetic fields.

Your posit does not include photons imbedded in superconductivity.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would have thought that relative motion to an electric field would
 probably create the observation of a magnetic field, both in SR (that I
 reject) and in an aether model.

 But I am starting to question that, I would appreciate any answer to the
 following:

 Take a long piece of dowel, apply charges to it's surface either directly
 or with foil segments, making a monopole capacitor.

 Because it is long, the field expand outwards decreasing close do the
 distance squared if I am correct, so at 2 meters the electric field is
 almost half that measured at 1 meter.

 Now if we set the dowel into rapid rotation, the electric field will be
 moving, very slowly close to the dowel axle and very swiftly out several
 meters.
 At 2 meters the linear velocity of the electric field would be double that
 of the velocity at 1 meter.

 So now I ask, IF rotating such an electrically charged dowel (which I will
 propose is infinitely long for calculation) is calculated, how would the
 strength of the observed magnetic field (assuming it exists at all) be
 calculated to fall off?

 Because as far as I can see, it wouldn't?! Leading to an infinite width
 magnetic field.
 Of course an added anomaly is that such an electric field would soon
 exceed the speed of light (if you go way out) if possible for it to do so
 if we assume the field keeps on going.

 And if it doesn't, then what would happen to the electric field when it
 tries to move too fast? Produce photons? (but certainly not normal ones)
 Would the electric field just disappear?

 Am I making a major error in these assumptions anywhere?

 John

Re: [Vo]:If a moving electric field creates a magnetic field...

more...


a background article as follows:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html




On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The gravity modification principle explained in the other thread was based
 on photons enclosed by a superconductor that are rotating at a rapid rate.

 All these requirements are included in the NiH reactor: widespread
 superconductivity, photons at extreme densities and just to cover all the
 bases degenerated vacuum and intense magnetic fields.

 Your posit does not include photons imbedded in superconductivity.


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 I would have thought that relative motion to an electric field would
 probably create the observation of a magnetic field, both in SR (that I
 reject) and in an aether model.

 But I am starting to question that, I would appreciate any answer to the
 following:

 Take a long piece of dowel, apply charges to it's surface either directly
 or with foil segments, making a monopole capacitor.

 Because it is long, the field expand outwards decreasing close do the
 distance squared if I am correct, so at 2 meters the electric field is
 almost half that measured at 1 meter.

 Now if we set the dowel into rapid rotation, the electric field will be
 moving, very slowly close to the dowel axle and very swiftly out several
 meters.
 At 2 meters the linear velocity of the electric field would be double
 that of the velocity at 1 meter.

 So now I ask, IF rotating such an electrically charged dowel (which I
 will propose is infinitely long for calculation) is calculated, how would
 the strength of the observed magnetic field (assuming it exists at all) be
 calculated to fall off?

 Because as far as I can see, it wouldn't?! Leading to an infinite width
 magnetic field.
 Of course an added anomaly is that such an electric field would soon
 exceed the speed of light (if you go way out) if possible for it to do so
 if we assume the field keeps on going.

 And if it doesn't, then what would happen to the electric field when it
 tries to move too fast? Produce photons? (but certainly not normal ones)
 Would the electric field just disappear?

 Am I making a major error in these assumptions anywhere?

 John

Re: [Vo]:If a moving electric field creates a magnetic field...

Axil, This had no intentional relationship to the other thread.

This post simply asks the question:

If a magnetic field is observed to exist from a moving electric field, if
the electric field if from a long (even infinity long) narrow spindle
charged to a high potential, then what would the strength at varying
distances be expected to be?

It would seem to me as as electric field density halved, electric field
velocity would double. This would leave a seemingly impossible situation if
creating a magnetic field that could be just as strong a million miles away
as it would be right there.

And that the electric field velocity would exceed the speed of light, even
before distances became that significant.

John



On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The gravity modification principle explained in the other thread was based
 on photons enclosed by a superconductor that are rotating at a rapid rate.

 All these requirements are included in the NiH reactor: widespread
 superconductivity, photons at extreme densities and just to cover all the
 bases degenerated vacuum and intense magnetic fields.

 Your posit does not include photons imbedded in superconductivity.


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 I would have thought that relative motion to an electric field would
 probably create the observation of a magnetic field, both in SR (that I
 reject) and in an aether model.

 But I am starting to question that, I would appreciate any answer to the
 following:

 Take a long piece of dowel, apply charges to it's surface either directly
 or with foil segments, making a monopole capacitor.

 Because it is long, the field expand outwards decreasing close do the
 distance squared if I am correct, so at 2 meters the electric field is
 almost half that measured at 1 meter.

 Now if we set the dowel into rapid rotation, the electric field will be
 moving, very slowly close to the dowel axle and very swiftly out several
 meters.
 At 2 meters the linear velocity of the electric field would be double
 that of the velocity at 1 meter.

 So now I ask, IF rotating such an electrically charged dowel (which I
 will propose is infinitely long for calculation) is calculated, how would
 the strength of the observed magnetic field (assuming it exists at all) be
 calculated to fall off?

 Because as far as I can see, it wouldn't?! Leading to an infinite width
 magnetic field.
 Of course an added anomaly is that such an electric field would soon
 exceed the speed of light (if you go way out) if possible for it to do so
 if we assume the field keeps on going.

 And if it doesn't, then what would happen to the electric field when it
 tries to move too fast? Produce photons? (but certainly not normal ones)
 Would the electric field just disappear?

 Am I making a major error in these assumptions anywhere?

 John

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

2014-02-20 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Here's an arrogant reply I received regarding this article:

Experiment that is almost certainly wrong, or large galaxies would be
sucking their local small cluster galaxies in at rates that astronomers
would have seen a long time ago.

First: the article is wrong. The magnetic analogue of the gravitational
field is not a prediction of general relativity. It is a consequence of the
Lorentz invariance of physics, and was predicted by Heaviside in 1892, 14
years before the special theory of relativity, and 24 years before the
general theory of relativity, using an analogy with Maxwell's equations
(which were already Lorentz invariant) but no one [then] knew why.
Second: If the effect was genuinely a manifestation of a magnetic analogue
of gravity (which does indeed exist) if it existed at the strength quoted,
an enormous laboratory [called the universe -- you may have heard of it]
would be able to duplicate the results in stars, galaxies, and clusters. It
doesn't. That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously
awesome experiment in eight years,


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should
 create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static
 gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time
 and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously awesome
experiment in eight years,

This statement may not be correct...Recent work on anti gravity.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf

Review of Poher experiment on fields produced by electric discharges in a
superconductor

R.A. Lewis*


Eugene Podkletnov on Antigravity

http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html




On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Here's an arrogant reply I received regarding this article:

 Experiment that is almost certainly wrong, or large galaxies would be
 sucking their local small cluster galaxies in at rates that astronomers
 would have seen a long time ago.

 First: the article is wrong. The magnetic analogue of the gravitational
 field is not a prediction of general relativity. It is a consequence of the
 Lorentz invariance of physics, and was predicted by Heaviside in 1892, 14
 years before the special theory of relativity, and 24 years before the
 general theory of relativity, using an analogy with Maxwell's equations
 (which were already Lorentz invariant) but no one [then] knew why.
 Second: If the effect was genuinely a manifestation of a magnetic analogue
 of gravity (which does indeed exist) if it existed at the strength quoted,
 an enormous laboratory [called the universe -- you may have heard of it]
 would be able to duplicate the results in stars, galaxies, and clusters. It
 doesn't. That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously
 awesome experiment in eight years,


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:


 http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

 According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass
 should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its
 static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first
 time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one
 hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
 predicts.

[Vo]:Experiment to answer relativistic magnetic field question!

I have been trying to conceive of experiments that would give a different
result based on if a magnetic field was created by only the electrons in a
wire, or also created by the protons in a wire dependant on relative
velocity.

I have thought of many that do not even need testing and furnish the result
that the electric field moving does not create a magnetic field, and that
the protons shouldn't create the field SR would expect.

Anyway here is one I find interesting based on the Hall effect.

Basically if the magnetic field from a coil is only produced by the
electrons, then the magnetic field from the electrons would be moving with
the electrons at their drift velocity.
If you now have a hall effect censor that has a current through the hall
sensor that in parallel to this magnetic field and in the same direction,
then the electrons in the hall effect censor would have little or no
relative velocity (assuming same drift speed) to the electrons providing
the magnetic field under test.

And hence little or no hall effect voltage.  But if the direction of the
current is reversed in either the hall effect sensor or the electromagnet,
then suddenly a voltage should be found suddenly, or grow larger if a tiny
result was initially detected.

However if the electrons moving with the electrons on the other wire saw
the protons making a magnetic field, this result would not take place.

I hope this is not too hard to test as it could be a very illuminating
experiment.

John

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

2014-02-20 Thread a.ashfield


Has any later news of Podkletnov**surfaced?
This wired article was interesting 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html

Sounds like Wired was persuaded the effect was real.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

Try This


http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html

I am looking for this paper:

Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the
Speed of Gravity Impulses

I would love to read it if I could find it.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:

  Has any later news of Podkletnov surfaced?
 This wired article was interesting
 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html
 Sounds like Wired was persuaded the effect was real.

Re: [Vo]:Experiment to answer relativistic magnetic field question!

On further thought, I think I can debunk my own idea here.

The problem is that if the magnetic field is not moving relative to the
drifting electrons then it is moving relative to the circuit (volt meter
probes) that check for the hall effect voltage, and these moving magnetic
fields would be inducing a voltage in these probes anyway.
Also if you stopped putting current through the hall effect sensor then the
voltage induction would stop because now instead of no voltage induced in
the hall effect censor (if that is what is occurring), a voltage opposing
that of the external circuit would be found.

I realized this because it is an issue with N-machines, even if the
magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, it would still induce voltage
in the external circuit (brushes, etc) and a voltage and current would
appear once the circuit was completed.
And you can't complete a circuit in an N-machine without 2 reference frames
for the same reasons, opposing voltages are induced.

With a hall effect censor the current through the censor provides the
second reference frame.

A hall effect censor looks a lot like a solid state N-machine.

John




On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:01 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have been trying to conceive of experiments that would give a different
 result based on if a magnetic field was created by only the electrons in a
 wire, or also created by the protons in a wire dependant on relative
 velocity.

 I have thought of many that do not even need testing and furnish the
 result that the electric field moving does not create a magnetic field, and
 that the protons shouldn't create the field SR would expect.

 Anyway here is one I find interesting based on the Hall effect.

 Basically if the magnetic field from a coil is only produced by the
 electrons, then the magnetic field from the electrons would be moving with
 the electrons at their drift velocity.
 If you now have a hall effect censor that has a current through the hall
 sensor that in parallel to this magnetic field and in the same direction,
 then the electrons in the hall effect censor would have little or no
 relative velocity (assuming same drift speed) to the electrons providing
 the magnetic field under test.

 And hence little or no hall effect voltage.  But if the direction of the
 current is reversed in either the hall effect sensor or the electromagnet,
 then suddenly a voltage should be found suddenly, or grow larger if a tiny
 result was initially detected.

 However if the electrons moving with the electrons on the other wire saw
 the protons making a magnetic field, this result would not take place.

 I hope this is not too hard to test as it could be a very illuminating
 experiment.

 John

Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!

Here is a sample:
http://benthamscience.com/ebooks/Sample/9781608053995-sample.pdf

You can buy it for $30 here:
http://www.eurekaselect.com/100222/chapter/study-of-light-interaction-with-gravity-impulses-and-measurements-of-the-speed-of-gravity-impulse

You may be able to get it off this guy (Andrew) for free:
http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3636page=13

Abstract:
An attempt has been made in this work to study the scattering of laser
light by the gravity-like
impulse produced in an impulse gravity generator (IGG) and also an
experiment has been conducted in
order to determine the propagation speed of the gravity impulse. The light
attenuation was found to last
between 34 and 48 ns and to increase with voltage, up to a maximum of 7% at
2000 kV. The propagation
time of the pulse over a distance of 1211 m was measured recording the
response of two identical
piezoelectric sensors connected to two synchronized rubidium atomic clocks.
The delay was 631 ns,
corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. The theoretical analysis of
these results is not simple and
requires a quantum picture. Different targets (ballistic pendulums,
photons, piezoelectric sensors) appear to
be affected by the IGG beam in different ways, possibly reacting to
components of the beam which
propagate with different velocities. Accordingly, the superluminal
correlation between the two sensors does
not necessarily imply superluminal information transmission. Using the
microscopic model for the emission
given in Chapter 5, we also have estimated the cross-sectional density of
virtual gravitons in the beam and
we have shown that their propagation velocity can not be fixed by the
emission process. The predicted rate
of graviton-photon scattering is consistent with the observed laser
attenuation.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Try This



 http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html

 I am looking for this paper:

 “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the
 Speed of Gravity Impulses”

 I would love to read it if I could find it.


 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.netwrote:

  Has any later news of Podkletnov surfaced?
 This wired article was interesting
 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html
 Sounds like Wired was persuaded the effect was real.

[Vo]:Recent patent for low temp He-3 production

2014-02-20 Thread pagnucco

Hopefully, this has not already been posted to Vortex --

Method for producing helium-3 using a hydrogenated lattice (red fusion)
US 20130329844 A1 - Publication date Dec 12, 2013

Abstract

Helium-3 (also known as He-3 or 2He3) is created in a nuclear fusion
reaction by fusing Deuterium (1D2) ions from a Deuterium plasma with
Hydrogen ions (1P1) in a Lithium or diamond crystal lattice. (Red Fusion)

Specifically, Helium-3 is created by the following equation: 1D2
(Deuterium ion from Deuterium plasma, migrated into a Lithium crystal)+1P1
(Hydrogen ion in the Lithium crystal)=2He3+

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130329844

(Download the pdf version for easier reading.)

A one page summary is also available at:
http://lawpp2014.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Helium-3-Generation-Edbertho-and-David-Leal-REV-3-1.pdf

It seems well written, with lab tests corroborating the claims.
No energetic neutron or gamma emissions.

I assume both He-3 creation and the He-3 itself could produce safe energy.

-- Lou Pagnucco

[Vo]:Time dilation twist. Plus how time travel.