Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Harry So be it. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999): This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-) Harry On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry-- I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age. However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor from my pill box. I typically don't eat blue things. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Bob stated: . we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole. Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices! The Blue pill or the Red pill? ;-) -Mark One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-) Neo's apartment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI The red/blue pill scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg Harry
RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a *circulating flow* of energy in the wave field of the electron. This is at least somewhat understandable if one considers the vacuum as a near-frictionless fluid under extreme pressure. you cannot have 'flow' without a pressure differential. the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. I commented on the importance of coherence in a posting several days ago. well, coherence involves not only a frequency component, but a polarization (or phase relationship) component. The bulk matter, or 'chemistry' that Dr. Storms has spent his life in, does NOT involve coherency. the laws that he is intimately familiar with do not involve systems where significant groups of atoms/electrons/SPP/??? are all coherently interacting. LENR will require a new set of laws for these regions of coherent entities. -Mark Iverson From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:08 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf What is Spin? Am J. Phys. 54 (6) June 1986. The abstract is: According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitivelyl appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are internal - they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather with the structure of the field. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding Belinfante spin momentum. Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a result of its wave function and not motion of forces within the electron. Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum and the wave nature of photons. That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are related if not identical. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones-- It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out. I hope Ed takes note and decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR.. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Cook mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Jones-- the rabbit hole just became more crowded. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in LENR and to SPP. That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious to everyone, here is an additional point. Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes relevant to SPP. On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP Recently, we described such spin for surface plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal field component plays an important role in optical coupling processes. From: Mark Jurich Mark Iverson wrote: | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html | Paper Ref: | http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html FYI: arXiv Preprint:
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Harry--Wikipedia regarding The Matrix says the following: The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill). The terms, popularized in science fiction culture, derive from the 1999 film The Matrix. In the movie, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The blue pill would allow him to remain in the fabricated reality of the Matrix, therefore living the illusion of ignorance, while the red pill would lead to his escape from the Matrix and into the real world, therefore living the truth of reality. I think you've got your pills mixed up. The red ones get you to reality, although wonderland would not be to bad--it might be a little like this blog, which is a lot of fun. Bob Contents - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999): This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-) Harry On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry-- I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age. However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor from my pill box. I typically don't eat blue things. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Bob stated: . we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole. Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices! The Blue pill or the Red pill? ;-) -Mark One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-) Neo's apartment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI The red/blue pill scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg Harry
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Some study that approach. the problem is laws are designed so crowdfunding is treated like charity, or at best as securities. LENR is not a charity, it is a revolution, the next industrial revolution. It deserve crowd-equities this is what plain honest capitalism should be, and what it is not today. 2014-03-10 0:47 GMT+01:00 Lawrence de Bivort ldebiv...@gmail.com: Jed, this may seem unconventional, but has a crowd-sourcing approach been considered? I know of at least one scientific program -- small, admittedly -- that is being crowd-funded. A LENR proposal would appeal more broadly, I think, and might be able to raise adequate research funding. A key might be to structure the proposal with phases, so that funding and program phases were coordinated, thus building investor confidence. Cheers, Lawry On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Given your absolutist declaration about complete lack of funding. Zero dollars you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be valid no matter what they do but I disagree. MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid. They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal before and after. Without that they are flying blind. - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Bob, The red pill brings you closer to the truth by taking you deeper into the rabbit hole. The journey into Wonderland isn't mere escapism. Like Mark said, you should watch the movie. Harry On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry--Wikipedia regarding The Matrix says the following: The *red pill* and its opposite, the *blue pill*, are pop culture symbols http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill). The terms, popularized in science fiction culture, derive from the 1999 film *The Matrix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix*. In the movie, the main character Neo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_%28The_Matrix%29 is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The blue pill would allow him to remain in the fabricated reality of the Matrix, therefore living the illusion of ignorance, while the red pill would lead to his escape from the Matrix and into the real world, therefore living the truth of reality. I think you've got your pills mixed up. The red ones get you to reality, although wonderland would not be to bad--it might be a little like this blog, which is a lot of fun. Bob Contents - Original Message - *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999): This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-) Harry On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry-- I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age. However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor from my pill box. I typically don't eat blue things. Bob - Original Message - *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Bob stated: ... we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole. Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices! The Blue pill or the Red pill? ;-) -Mark One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-) Neo's apartment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI The red/blue pill scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg Harry
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
The most remarkable takeaway of US20140034116A1 is that the inventors point out that using ionized 1/1 (light) Hydrogen, only two Nickel isotopes are suitable: Ni62 and Ni64. This is particulary interesting since they published this in their provisional patent application back in August 2012. Rossi and Defkalion started talking about specific Nickel isotopes being essential during the course of spring 2013. Rossi amended his claims in April 2013 claiming Ni62 is essential for the overall proces. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: There is no bibliography on this patent. This is odd. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
Harry, Good point and it aligns with dynamic casimir effect and possibly a form of crack propagation which is normally in a metals but may apply to the exotic hydrogen states we are discussing. It could also fit into Mills description of self catalyzing hydrino states and Peng Chens paper about catalytic action only occurring at openings and defects in nanotubes..if the already suppressed hydrogen forms an isotropy at one scale and then individual members then fall into a smaller crack in the geometry does their vacancy break the isotropy and initiate a crack propagatin as surrounding gas rushes in to fill the hole.. if this was normal physics we would expect pressure equalization but suppression of longer vacuum wavelengths is not normal physics..and more hydrogen in means more hydrogen out but IMHO there is no spatial bias as the suppression is in a relativistic direction and the exiting hydrogen is pressure driven out equally around the channel of highest suppression where the hydrogen is entering much like a steam heat system which uses 1 pipe where steam goes thru the pipe but water condenses and falls back down the inner walls of the pipe to return to the boiler. Fran From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks If this has any bearing on hydrogen loaded metal lattices then the equivalent of the flour crack might be a region which was formerly filled with hydrogen but which suddenly became devoid of hydrogen. In other words, instead of cracks in the lattice being important to excess heat, it might be the opening and closing of cracks in the distribution of hydrogen which contribute to excess heat. harry On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.scienceinschool.org/2009/issue12/fireballs I judge this to be important of the LENR scientist as follows: These patterns proved that the fireballs were indeed full of particles with an average radius of about 25 nm - i.e. they are nanoparticles. The data also showed that the particles varied widely in size (very important) (as is typical of aerosols) and that there were about 109 particles per cubic centimetre. This makes the volume fraction of solid material (the ratio of volume of solid to total volume of space) in the fireball around 10-7 or 10-8. There was really only a very, very, small amount of matter in the cloud. The analysis also suggested that the particles had quite a rough surface: the scientists found the surface to have a fractal dimension of 2.6 (2.0 corresponds to a smooth 2D surface, On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.commailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, I don't get it. Why not optimize this for power generation? Find a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of electricity. Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just 'shifting a Tupperware container' This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality something is happening there. My only question, is that is voltage being reported. What was the excess thermal heat? Going to email them. On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348 LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Actually, neither pill exists. Both are part of the construct.
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... Try downloading it again, please. Press reload the page. Your browser may be looking at the old copy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR puzzles NASA
This brings back my discussion of magnetic fields being a critical factor in the formation of planets around stars. It only seems reasonable to assume a force that is many order of magnitude larger than gravity must play an important part. This may be evidence of that speculation. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 8:45 pm Subject: [Vo]:LENR puzzles NASA http://phys.org/news/2014-03-mystery-planet-forming-disks-magnetism.html Mystery of planet-forming disks explained by magnetism Researchers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to study developing stars have had a hard time figuring out why the stars give off more infrared light than expected. The planet-forming disks that circle the young stars are heated by starlight and glow with infrared light, but Spitzer detected additional infrared light coming from an unknown source. LENR in dust will produces both magnetism and additional infrared radiation.
RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
Bob Cook wrote: It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out. I hope Ed takes note and decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR. Spin coupling is very different in the Nickel-Hydrogen type of LENR than in Pd-D - and this would explain why a theory derived from the latter cannot adequately explain the former. Protons fusing to deuterium - as an explanation for gain - has severe problems with spin, which make that putative reaction a physically impossibility - at least in a statistically relevant way. Ferromagnetism is important in Ni-H, but not in Pd-D and the magnon as an energy transfer medium is probably not related to the Pd-D reaction in any way. Many observers balk at trying to digest the implications of the magnon, but the Wiki entry is adequate to frame the issues. The magnon/exciton should be viewed together as allowing spin coupling to thermal kinetics, on the high end and to proton spin flipping on the low. In short, spin energy transfer can be derived from simple para - ortho reversals happening at THz frequency... and consequently Ni-H do not need nuclear fusion as an intrinsic factor. It may happen as an occasional side effect, but is not needed for the excess energy seen. However, we do need nuclear mass conversion to energy in Ni-H, but it does not need to be related to permanent fusion. This fundamental dichotomy has much ingrained resistance in the LENR field, since so much work was done primarily in Pd-D in the early days - that it is hard for practitioners to accept that Ni-H is fundamentally different. The magnon is a collective excitation of spin structure in a lattice. In a nickel particle which is loaded with hydrogen and excited by a spin wave (i.e. an exciton) the magnon can be viewed simply as a spin wave at the macro-molecular level. This is the level that couples to thermodynamics. As a quasiparticle, a magnon carries a fixed amount of energy and lattice momentum and possesses an intrinsic spin of h-bar. This spin can be coupled - both to phonons and to proton spin and to the underlying Lamb shift at the nano-geometry. The Lamb shift is tiny net energy per instance, with a very high transaction rate. The problem that most observers have with this description is that it does not frame the issue of the ultimate source of energy - which is much higher than chemical. But that issue can be addressed elegantly as spin coupling as well, since quarks have spin (also tied to h-bar) and quark mass is not quantized... this is true, so long as the proton, on average, has excess mass to share. It does, on average. Jones Here, here... another round of drinks at the H Bar - and three quarks for Muster Mark! attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
Mark-- One of the issues is what is the extent of Coherency--I have been calling it coupling the material systems we know. Are crystals coherent?, are nano particles coherent?, are molecules coherent?, are BEC coherent?, are semiconductor resistors coherent? What in your experience defines the size of a coherent system? Bob rom: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:11 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a *circulating flow* of energy in the wave field of the electron. This is at least somewhat understandable if one considers the vacuum as a near-frictionless fluid under extreme pressure. you cannot have 'flow' without a pressure differential. the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. I commented on the importance of coherence in a posting several days ago. well, coherence involves not only a frequency component, but a polarization (or phase relationship) component. The bulk matter, or 'chemistry' that Dr. Storms has spent his life in, does NOT involve coherency. the laws that he is intimately familiar with do not involve systems where significant groups of atoms/electrons/SPP/??? are all coherently interacting. LENR will require a new set of laws for these regions of coherent entities. -Mark Iverson From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:08 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf What is Spin? Am J. Phys. 54 (6) June 1986. The abstract is: According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitivelyl appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are internal - they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather with the structure of the field. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding Belinfante spin momentum. Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a result of its wave function and not motion of forces within the electron. Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum and the wave nature of photons. That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are related if not identical. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones-- It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out. I hope Ed takes note and decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR.. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Jones-- the rabbit hole just became more crowded. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in LENR and to SPP. That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious to everyone, here is an additional point. Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Mark-- I will. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, you need to watch The Matrix! -mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Harry So be it. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999): This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-) Harry On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry-- I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age. However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor from my pill box. I typically don't eat blue things. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Bob stated: . we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole. Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices! The Blue pill or the Red pill? ;-) -Mark One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-) Neo's apartment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI The red/blue pill scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg Harry
[Vo]:ARPA-E Energy Summit Winner
http://www.tm-lift.com/ This is a heat-pump powered by natural gas instead of electricity. Apparently, it is so efficient that it will save nearly half the gas which the grid plant would use in getting the same amount of air conditioning into your home in summer, and perhaps an even greater % for heating in the winter. That is good for the consumer and can be called light green... which is far better than black-as-coal. As a practical matter, it will certainly allow MacMansions to lower their thermometers by a few degrees. Many advocates of renewables will complain that this is not a good sign for alternative energy - when the winning technology in this type of competition is not renewable... at least not in its present form. But you can see why this kind of RD would never be funded by the gas industry. As a practical matter, if a new technology saves fossil fuel and money on the bottom line then it is a step in the right direction. But can ThermoLift really go renewable as they hint ? The company calls their heat pump is disruptive and transformational - thermally driven so presumably it would not be limited to natural gas as the power source, which is basically what it is now. If it were solar driven, or LENR driven- then it would be disruptive and transformational but as of now, it uses natural gas as the power source. Still it is a step in the right direction, but far from disruptive and transformational attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
After thinking about the Free-electron x-ray laser device a bit longer, I realize that it appears to demonstrate time dilation as well as Lorentz contraction rather neatly. In my earlier post I pointed out the excellent reference in Wikipedia about the Lorentz contraction being directly demonstrated by the output frequency of the laser. The mathematical contribution of the contraction enters directly into the calculation of the x-ray output frequency in a manner that is difficult to argue against. It appears that the same is true for a demonstration of time dilation according to special relativity (SR). Here is one example of how time dilation is exhibited: The undulator is a structure that exists in our stationary frame of reference through which the relativistic electron beam propagates. It consists of a series of permanent magnets that alternate poles along its length such that the electrons are accelerated at right angles to their main high velocity path by a modest amount as they pass through the structure. We observe them moving up and down or right and left depending upon the design of the undulator. Since the device operates by using electrons that are traveling at very nearly the speed of light, we observe only a tiny change in frequency of that right angle motion as their speed creeps up toward the light speed limit. Here I am referring to what we see looking from the side of the undulator at the moving electrons. To put this measurement into perspective, very little difference is observed in the motion of the electrons even though the laser output frequency changes over an order of magnitude in frequency. We would conclude that the frequency of the up and down electron motion remains essentially unchanged as energy is imparted upon the electrons by the system. At the same time the actual measured output frequency of x-rays emitted changes over an order of magnitude according to real life systems. This can readily be explained by realizing that we are actually observing time dilation at work. This is evident because the observed change in velocity of the series of electrons approaches a limit of c while the time dilation increases without bounds as that limit is neared. I find this laser device to be one of the best demonstrations of SR that I have encountered. Here one device can be built which clearly shows how time dilation and length contraction occur with motion of relativistic electrons. Any reference to Doppler confusion is nothing but hand waving. An injection signal of very small amplitude is sometimes utilized to lock the high power output x-ray signal to its phase. This allows the operator to significantly reduce the noise that typically would be seen had the device been allowed to operate with the non uniform electron beam. Careful analysis of the operation and construction of this type of device should be adequate to explain SR to all but the most determined skeptics. Harry, your train thought experiment should be simulated by the operation of one of these devices. The track is replaced by the undulator and the electron beam can stand in for the train. Both Lorentz contraction and time dilation are demonstrated in a real world type of device. Refer to the article for an excellent description of this type of device: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser Dave
RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
From: Teslaalset The most remarkable takeaway of US20140034116A1 is that the inventors point out that using ionized 1/1 (light) Hydrogen, only two Nickel isotopes are suitable: Ni62 and Ni64. This is particulary interesting since they published this in their provisional patent application back in August 2012. Rossi and Defkalion started talking about specific Nickel isotopes being essential during the course of spring 2013. Rossi amended his claims in April 2013 claiming Ni62 is essential for the overall process. Yes, that detail is interesting ... maybe even prescient ... but it would only be patentable IF (big if) in the specifications, the inventor described a reactor which had actually been reduced to practice (instead of being an educated guess based on theory) and in which the enriched isotopes had been actually used, instead of the bulk metal. It is not possible in US patent law to claim priority for use of a bulk element by specifying an active alloy in that element. This application reads like the inventor is trying to patent a theory. It is almost a certainty that this application will not be granted as drafted. OTOH - the inventor has nuclear industry credentials, and has written a book, of sorts... but none of that inspires confidence that he has written an enforceable patent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/15/zuppero_solar_system/ http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4534 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Jones etal-- Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. Back to back .51 Mev gammas would also be present in the Cu-59 decay and could easily be detected with coincidence gamma counters. The in-growth of Cu isotopes may not disturb the lattice too much given their low population in the lattice. Spin coupling of the proton to the various Ni isotope may be the key to getting the reactions to occur. This effect should be fleshed out by those folks that can handle the math. I could but it would take me some time to bone up on the wave functions and handling them. However, it is apparently not new math but was done by Belinfante in 1908 in his theory of spin momentum. I bet Focardi understood this spin coupling and figured out what temperatures would encourage the reaction of Ni62 and Ni64 separate from Ni58. The Cat in Rossi's E-Cat is probably the special sauce that produces the correct coupling at a given temperature. In addition to temperature Rossi's device may include a controlled oscillating magnetic field. A further refinement might be to enrich the Ni to have more Ni62 and Ni64. This may be the heart of Rossi's Hot Cat design. A separate high temperature lattice may also be involved such a a W-Ni lattice. Does anyone have an idea how you would do such enrichment for Ni? I would start with chemical separation based on photo sensitive Ni organic compounds that respond to differing wave lengths of light for the various Ni isotopes. It may be fairly simple. One should investigate the Company that is making Rossi's Ni powder to see if they do isotope enrichment work. Bob The - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR From: Teslaalset The most remarkable takeaway of US20140034116A1 is that the inventors point out that using ionized 1/1 (light) Hydrogen, only two Nickel isotopes are suitable: Ni62 and Ni64. This is particulary interesting since they published this in their provisional patent application back in August 2012. Rossi and Defkalion started talking about specific Nickel isotopes being essential during the course of spring 2013. Rossi amended his claims in April 2013 claiming Ni62 is essential for the overall process. Yes, that detail is interesting ... maybe even prescient ... but it would only be patentable IF (big if) in the specifications, the inventor described a reactor which had actually been reduced to practice (instead of being an educated guess based on theory) and in which the enriched isotopes had been actually used, instead of the bulk metal. It is not possible in US patent law to claim priority for use of a bulk element by specifying an active alloy in that element. This application reads like the inventor is trying to patent a theory. It is almost a certainty that this application will not be granted as drafted. OTOH - the inventor has nuclear industry credentials, and has written a book, of sorts... but none of that inspires confidence that he has written an enforceable patent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/15/zuppero_solar_system/ http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4534
RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Original Message- From: Bob Cook Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. Bob, In general you are asking too much of spin coupling to participate in proton addition reactions. There is an energy gap of at least 6 orders of magnitude. And in the end you still cannot account for copper ash which should be extremely radioactive but is not. Far better IMHO to look mass-energy conversion somewhere else.
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
Bob:
Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet
my definition of coherent.
Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely
NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of
condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of
physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent
behavior which defines bulk condensed matter.
I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years
which support a physical model I have in mind.
There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of
coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down
to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That
quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking.
They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat
to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first became
still.
You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental
frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same
thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you
remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators),
they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of
coherency (which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add
just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with
only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different
frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin
shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental
freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into
another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy
which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by
the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes'
of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly.
To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even
'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor',
and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially
interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of
energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of
oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept
of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of
oscillators.
Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of
achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any
significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent...
and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of
physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to
reproduce.
Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE...
what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt
with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally
acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was
large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at
0K. Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows...
perhaps the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding
heat quanta so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or
D atom diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat
quanta it has to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If
so, then wouldn't they form, spontaneously, a BEC?
-Mark
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
Mark--
One of the issues is what is the extent of Coherency--I have been
calling it coupling the material systems we know.
Are crystals coherent?, are nano particles coherent?,
are molecules coherent?, are BEC coherent?, are semiconductor resistors
coherent?
What in your experience defines the size of a coherent system?
Bob
rom: MarkI-ZeroPoint
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:11PM
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in
evanescent light waves
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
However,on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica
6 887 (1939)], itcan be shown that the spin may be regarded as an
angular momentum generated bya * circulating flow * of energy in the
wave field of theelectron.
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Please do and tell fellow Vorts what you thought of it...
-m
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
Mark--
I will.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13PM
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly[Vo]:LENR a gateway into the
theory of everything.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob,you need to watch The Matrix!
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
-mark
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
From: Bob Cook[mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
ofeverything.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Harry
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
So beit.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
- Original Message -
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
From: H Veeder
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the
theory of everything.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob,
Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you
stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
Harry
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
wrote:
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
Harry--
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my
age. However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I
always choose the red ones, since they are easier to see when I
drop them on the floor from my pill box. I typically don't eat
blue things.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
Bob
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
- OriginalMessage -
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
From: H Veeder
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March09, 2014 10:04 PM
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re:Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the
theory ofeverything.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
[Vo]:Audio interview with Clarke about cold fusion
I found an old audio recording of Arthur C. Clarke from 1998. I transferred it from a tape player to the computer with a poor-quality player, so the recording is noisy. Fans of Clarke can download it here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ClarkeInterview.mp3 Christy sent me a transcript: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ClarkeInterviewTranscript.pdf - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He * Nuclear fusion inside condense matters * Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not understand experimental science. Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as the LENR community. It would be more accurate to call them every major academic electrochemist on earth. That puts it in a different perspective. The problem with skeptics is not that
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Jones-- As I pointed out the Cu-63 and Cu-65 is not radioactive--its stable. Cu-59 is radioactive as I pointed out. However it decays to a non-gamma emitting Ni-59 isotope with a significant half-life for beta+ decay. Spin energy fractionation occurs in small units and has many potential particles capable of spin changes available for participation, including electrons. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:21 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR Original Message- From: Bob Cook Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. Bob, In general you are asking too much of spin coupling to participate in proton addition reactions. There is an energy gap of at least 6 orders of magnitude. And in the end you still cannot account for copper ash which should be extremely radioactive but is not. Far better IMHO to look mass-energy conversion somewhere else.
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes more physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have some experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat of another viewpoint because of that. It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos). Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there. I think it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will find more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I understand that some players in the market behaved less than good in the past. To concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is to make any new investor confused. It is like telling the girl that her previous lover was a lousy lover and that the one who approached her yesterday was even worse. True or untrue, how do you know? How did you get that knowledge? The other ones have said the same about you so maybe she ought to visit another neighborhood? Maybe this is a bad area? I hope Ed Storms book will help sort out where we are. I personally have no investment capacity but I know investors need help to see, which possibilities are there and a pathway to reach success. Any hope to raise money will require : 1. A clear definition of the goal. (Nothing fluffy like a new era or revolutionary - precise expectations with a realistic time table.) 2. A list of possible obstacles. 3. Possible solutions to overcome the obstacles. 4. A team able to handle the obstacles. 5. An organization able to control the team and communicate with the investor. My experience is that most people will agree to three of the well known conditions and then say that the other two are not important. What was your first thought ? Honestly Two more things: First, it certainly will not be an advantage to criticize the competition rather the opposite. Second, no VC will come looking for the opportunity. Finally I know I am sticking out my head in a field where I have no capacity to debate the technology or its particular problems. They are unique at the same time as they are s common. I understand that there is a big difference if one wants to get the Noble price or successfully replace the grid, I.E.. My suggestions will probably be of little help to get the Nobel price. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Mark-- I will. Bob - Original Message - *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM *Subject:* RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, you need to watch The Matrix! -mark *From:* Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Harry So be it. Bob - Original Message - *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999): This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-) Harry On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Harry-- I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age. However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor from my pill box. I typically don't eat blue things. Bob - Original Message - *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09,
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you will find the data set on which this paper was based. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real physical effect “beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters • Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion • THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
This is good advice, Lennart. But let me carry your analogy further. In this case, the beautiful girl has the reputation for being a slut. So, not only must she sell her beauty but also has to show she can be trusted. How is this done when the people who spread the false rumor are still at work? In addition, most possible suitors have no ability to check the facts or even to understand how the rumor got started. The only way she gets chosen is for someone to take a chance, to ask the right questions, and to listen carefully to the answers because no one can be trusted to tell the truth. What will likely happen is that she will inherit a fortune from China and her reputation will no longer matter. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes more physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have some experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat of another viewpoint because of that. It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos). Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there. I think it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will find more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I understand that some players in the market behaved less than good in the past. To concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is to make any new investor confused. It is like telling the girl that her previous lover was a lousy lover and that the one who approached her yesterday was even worse. True or untrue, how do you know? How did you get that knowledge? The other ones have said the same about you so maybe she ought to visit another neighborhood? Maybe this is a bad area? I hope Ed Storms book will help sort out where we are. I personally have no investment capacity but I know investors need help to see, which possibilities are there and a pathway to reach success. Any hope to raise money will require : 1. A clear definition of the goal. (Nothing fluffy like a new era or revolutionary - precise expectations with a realistic time table.) 2. A list of possible obstacles. 3. Possible solutions to overcome the obstacles. 4. A team able to handle the obstacles. 5. An organization able to control the team and communicate with the investor. My experience is that most people will agree to three of the well known conditions and then say that the other two are not important. What was your first thought ? Honestly Two more things: First, it certainly will not be an advantage to criticize the competition rather the opposite. Second, no VC will come looking for the opportunity. Finally I know I am sticking out my head in a field where I have no capacity to debate the technology or its particular problems. They are unique at the same time as they are s common. I understand that there is a big difference if one wants to get the Noble price or successfully replace the grid, I.E.. My suggestions will probably be of little help to get the Nobel price. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Mark-- I will. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, you need to watch The Matrix! -mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Harry So be it. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Li_Stockman_PRL_2013_Electric_Spaser.pdf Electric Spaser in the Extreme Quantum Limit The normal state of the SPP is BEC because of their low mass. In Bose-Einstein statistics the quantum concentration Nq (particles per volume) is proportional to the total mass M of the system: Nq=(MkT/2πℏ2)3/2 where k Boltzmann constant, T temperature In a nutshell, a very low mass means certainty in BEC formation. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first became still. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency (which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of oscillators. Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to reproduce. Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at 0K. Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows... perhaps the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding heat quanta so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or D atom diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat quanta it has to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If so, then wouldn't they form, spontaneously, a BEC? -Mark On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- One of the issues is what is the extent of Coherency--I have been calling it coupling the material systems we know. Are crystals coherent?, are nano particles coherent?, are molecules coherent?, are BEC coherent?, are semiconductor resistors coherent? What in your experience defines the size of a coherent system? Bob *rom: **MarkI-ZeroPoint* *To: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* *Sent: *Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:11PM *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinarymomentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves “ However,on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], itcan be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated bya * *circulating flow
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
Axil -- The equationyou copied is jumbled. Can you produce it more clearly? However, I think I understand that a few particles means a BEC can occur at room temperature--is that correct? Yoeng Kim must agree since his LENR theory does not require near 0 degrees K. Of course its hard to say what the temperature is in a vacuum or crack in a lattice. I would at least think electrons would be around and in thermal equilibrium with the lattice. Bob From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Li_Stockman_PRL_2013_Electric_Spaser.pdf Electric Spaser in the Extreme Quantum Limit The normal state of the SPP is BEC because of their low mass. In Bose-Einstein statistics the quantum concentration (particles per volume) is proportional to the total mass M of the system: Nq=(MkT/2πℏ2)3/2where k Boltzmann constant, T temperature In a nutshell, a very low mass means certainty in BEC formation. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first became still. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency (which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of oscillators. Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to reproduce. Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was large enough, and no atoms entered it, it would be a perfect vacuum at 0K. Are there photons of heat constantly flying thru it? Who knows... perhaps the NAE boundaries present a higher barrier to atoms shedding heat quanta so the NAE remains pretty much a perfect vacuum until a H or D atom diffuses into it. Does that H or D atom then shed any heat quanta it has to join any others which have also entered the NAE. If so, then wouldn't they form, spontaneously, a BEC? -Mark On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Mark-- One of the
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:48:13 -0500: Hi, That one is easy, it's flour power :) [snip] Normally a charge imbalance arises when different materials are rubbed together. (eg. amber and fur) Since all the grains are made from same the material a charge imbalance should not occur and no voltage should arise ...hence the mystery. harry When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules can be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule breaks, it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess electrons, thus retaining a negative charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
Mark-- You noted the following: Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a * circulating flow * of energy in the wave field of the electron. This is at least somewhat understandable if one considers the vacuum as a near-frictionless fluid under extreme pressure you cannot have flow without a pressure differential. The spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. I commented on the importance of coherence in a posting several days ago well, coherence involves not only a frequency component, but a polarization (or phase relationship) component. The bulk matter, or chemistry that Dr. Storms has spent his life in, does NOT involve coherency the laws that he is intimately familiar with do not involve systems where significant groups of atoms/electrons/SPP/??? are all coherently interacting LENR will require a new set of laws for these regions of coherent entities. Mark--If momentum is involved differential pressure is not necessary to cause flow. In fact in classical fluid considerations friction in any real flowing system reduces momentum and changes kinetic energy of the flowing fluid to thermal energy. Do you consider circulating flow could be induced by a circulating force field and not pressure differentials? Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves Bob: Of the several possibilites which you presented, only a BEC would meet my definition of coherent. Any assemblage of 2 or more atoms above a few degrees K are very likely NOT coherent; or if coherency happens to occur in a localized region of condensed matter, it won't last long enough to violate the laws of physics/chemistry which have been developed based on the UNcoherent behavior which defines bulk condensed matter. I've posted numerous FYIs about peer-reviewed research over the years which support a physical model I have in mind. There was one that is particularly relevent to this topic of coherency... This research took two identical atoms and cooled them down to near-K. I believe they then introduced a quantum of heat. That quantum was absorbed by one of the atoms, causing it to begin shaking. They could do something to the system which caused the quantum of heat to transfer to the other atom, which began shaking, and the first became still. You must look at all atoms as oscillators which have a fundamental frequency which they want to get to; this may or may not be the same thing as the 'lowest energy state' used by the mainstream. When you remove all heat quanta from an assemblage of like atoms (oscillators), they will oscillate at the same frequency and will be in a state of coherency (which we call a BEC, all wavefunctions overlapped). Add just ONE quantum of heat into that assemblage and it will combine with only one of the atoms, causing it to oscillate at a slightly different frequency, and it will be 'out-of-balance' so to speak and begin shaking... it wants to shed that quantum to get back to its fundamental freq, and if it does shed it, that quantum will get absorbed into another atom. So one can look at heat as individual packets of energy which are being absorbed and shed in extremely small time intervals by the atoms making up the bulk matter. Heat quanta are the 'hot-potatoes' of the atomic world getting caught and tossed constantly. To complicate matters further, throw in phonons and SPPs, possibly even 'spin', which potentially represent oscillators of a different 'flavor', and we now have a very very complicated system of potentially interacting oscillators. A further complication is that quanta of energy can ONLY be transferred between the different 'flavors' of oscillators if conditions are right. This may involve FrankZ's concept of a type of impedance-matching between the different types of oscillators. Given the above picture, is it any wonder that the probability of achieving even a small region of what I call coherency, for any significant length of time, in bulk matter is virtually nonexistent... and that would be the 'universe' which is explained by current laws of physics and chemistry. It also explains why LENR is so difficult to reproduce. Try shrinking yourself down to the size of a proton and enter a NAE... what would you see? One of the threads I started in the last year dealt with the inside of the NAE... It took awhile, but I think Ed finally acknowledged the fact that if the NAE (dislocation or 'micro-crack') was
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Ed, Maybe you turned my analogy a little but I am prepared to go along with that. Yes, I can see it is uphill. However, that makes it absolutely necessary to adhere to all five steps. First you have to reapply the lipstick. Remove the vulgar and tell it all to a more subtle lipstick. Then you need to ignore the critic and avoid to make comparisons. This is because you can be sure that all the other girls will point out that until recently she has been a slut and maybe she has not changed. Once she becomes accept and free from STD she will be rather attractive and YES inheritance will be good and who cares from where? However, as you said with inheritance she can chose to chase the Noble price and not worry about money. (My ideas is then obsolete.) I agree that it would be good if the F/P announcement had been better supported at the presentation. Here is where my fear kicks in so just take it for what it is. I have the understanding of that there are numerous rectifications and proofs to dhow that this critic is the snow that fell last year. In addition a number of possible theories have been created and even if they are different they do have some common ground. To concentrate on the common ground to accept the need to eliminate one issue at the time following a clear plan with a clearly stated goal will attract new lovers with curiosity for the adventures that lay ahead. No, I do not think these investors are to be found among government bond investors. I can hear that there is an adversity against that this technology cannot be firstly a US technology. I do not think that is realistic. It will have international implications and it will distribute its benefits without concern about nationality. There is advantages in every country. The problem is that they often do not come in to play. Here we have the advantage of good communication, available capital, innovative organizations and a long standing tradition of leading technology development. We can win much in the US of the future of LENR as it stand today. We neither want or can have a monopoly. We just have to stop to believe that government or/and politicians can be of any help. It is the other way around - just see how they always have believed in LENR the day it produces a success story. I know my concept is right. I believe that this group has the knowledge. My ambition was to encourage to form the organization and the attitude to reach the deserved result more than find out who is wrong in a detail here or there. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This is good advice, Lennart. But let me carry your analogy further. In this case, the beautiful girl has the reputation for being a slut. So, not only must she sell her beauty but also has to show she can be trusted. How is this done when the people who spread the false rumor are still at work? In addition, most possible suitors have no ability to check the facts or even to understand how the rumor got started. The only way she gets chosen is for someone to take a chance, to ask the right questions, and to listen carefully to the answers because no one can be trusted to tell the truth. What will likely happen is that she will inherit a fortune from China and her reputation will no longer matter. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes more physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have some experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat of another viewpoint because of that. It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos). Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there. I think it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will find more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I understand that some players in the market behaved less than good in the past. To concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is to make any
[Vo]:Wikipedia French Cold fusion (fusion froide) is slightly edited...
I just noticed some slight change in wikipedia Fusion froide (french cold fusion)... link to ICCF, reformulating, piantelli... regularly changing ... I refuse to read the text logs because I would react and be banned... but maybe something is happening... whoever want to check...
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
The Doppler effect is not handwaving, it is a very real effect that would notably increase the frequency of the light emitted from the electrons hugely (enough to account for the evidence). Additionally absolute time dilation from the electron moving through the aether at near light speed could also account for the results potentially depending on how photons are viewed to form. The Doppler argument is the easiest, since it is not in any way unknown or controversial, it MUST be present unless specifically neutralized by design. So the question then becomes, has the design been to actually remove this effect, or to confuse it with the expected length contraction results so that it does not disagree with SR? Hey, do you have a FEL we can test out? Me neither. I can think of other theories and problems with SR's conclusion of this experiments, but it isn't really the solid evidence you think. Indeed if this were done in a circular track, SR would now claim that the motion is now absolute and argue that the electron is moving definitively and the Lab stationary just as the speed of light around a Sagnac loop can exceed C from the rotating frame (light sent in one direction arrives too soon, and the other direction too late). And SR also claims that with a circular track, time dilation applies to the one moving in a circle only, which means they would see the Lab clock tick faster than theirs... This would also mean that if we applied an undulator to electrons (or protons?) in a circular accelerator the effect would disappear. Hence if time dilation and the speed of light no longer being C is accepted by SR, then the orbiting electron should not see length contraction either as this is not an inertial frame the electron is in. Or at least, if you try to apply length contraction and time dilation and various other SR claims to circular motion SR breaks immediately. You are trusting some entirely biased interpretations of an experiment, it would be very much the same as trusting a sceptics take on a cold fusion cell. The analysis is not going to be fair, and if they control the experiment, the data provided from it, and provide the only 'accepted' theory No wonder it looks like it fits. But the Doppler effect is way more than enough to explain the result. John On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: After thinking about the Free-electron x-ray laser device a bit longer, I realize that it appears to demonstrate time dilation as well as Lorentz contraction rather neatly. In my earlier post I pointed out the excellent reference in Wikipedia about the Lorentz contraction being directly demonstrated by the output frequency of the laser. The mathematical contribution of the contraction enters directly into the calculation of the x-ray output frequency in a manner that is difficult to argue against. It appears that the same is true for a demonstration of time dilation according to special relativity (SR). Here is one example of how time dilation is exhibited: The undulator is a structure that exists in our stationary frame of reference through which the relativistic electron beam propagates. It consists of a series of permanent magnets that alternate poles along its length such that the electrons are accelerated at right angles to their main high velocity path by a modest amount as they pass through the structure. We observe them moving up and down or right and left depending upon the design of the undulator. Since the device operates by using electrons that are traveling at very nearly the speed of light, we observe only a tiny change in frequency of that right angle motion as their speed creeps up toward the light speed limit. Here I am referring to what we see looking from the side of the undulator at the moving electrons. To put this measurement into perspective, very little difference is observed in the motion of the electrons even though the laser output frequency changes over an order of magnitude in frequency. We would conclude that the frequency of the up and down electron motion remains essentially unchanged as energy is imparted upon the electrons by the system. At the same time the actual measured output frequency of x-rays emitted changes over an order of magnitude according to real life systems. This can readily be explained by realizing that we are actually observing time dilation at work. This is evident because the observed change in velocity of the series of electrons approaches a limit of c while the time dilation increases without bounds as that limit is neared. I find this laser device to be one of the best demonstrations of SR that I have encountered. Here one device can be built which clearly shows how time dilation and length contraction occur with motion of relativistic electrons. Any reference to Doppler confusion is nothing but hand waving. An injection signal of very small
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
John, this device is real. Read the article carefully and you will understand how the frequency is accurately explained by Lorentz contraction. Do you consider that a coincidence? I fail to understand why you are so reluctant to accept that this device works as described when using Lorentz length contraction to accurately calculate the output frequency. The Doppler ideas that you suggest fail to give the correct answer. I realize it is difficult to accept SR when you have so much invested in your belief that it is not real, but you must try hard to get over that issue. Also, it does little good to avoid accepting the reality of this particular device by stating that you do not have one to test. I bet you don't have an LHC either. And yes, it is hand waving when you claim that the Doppler shift is the reason for the up conversion in frequency. It can readily be shown that the electrons change velocity a very tiny amount while the output frequency changes over a decade. The Doppler shift would therefore be minor whereas the device output frequency varies enormously. Explain how this is possible with Doppler. I find your statement humorous that the Doppler increase is enough to account for the evidence...you are kidding I assume. Stick to this system if you really want to understand how SR is demonstrated. To muddy the water by diversion to something entirely different does not help. The Free-electron x-ray laser is an extremely good example that proves special relativity has strong merit. Why are you reluctant to analyze such a fine demonstration of SR? This device can answer many of the questions that you have posed. It will likely be my favorite example supporting SR from this point forth and you would be wise to rely upon it to enhance your understanding of SR as well. One simple device that demonstrates both time dilation and length contraction at the same time is remarkable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 6:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser The Doppler effect is not handwaving, it is a very real effect that would notably increase the frequency of the light emitted from the electrons hugely (enough to account for the evidence). Additionally absolute time dilation from the electron moving through the aether at near light speed could also account for the results potentially depending on how photons are viewed to form. The Doppler argument is the easiest, since it is not in any way unknown or controversial, it MUST be present unless specifically neutralized by design. So the question then becomes, has the design been to actually remove this effect, or to confuse it with the expected length contraction results so that it does not disagree with SR? Hey, do you have a FEL we can test out? Me neither. I can think of other theories and problems with SR's conclusion of this experiments, but it isn't really the solid evidence you think. Indeed if this were done in a circular track, SR would now claim that the motion is now absolute and argue that the electron is moving definitively and the Lab stationary just as the speed of light around a Sagnac loop can exceed C from the rotating frame (light sent in one direction arrives too soon, and the other direction too late). And SR also claims that with a circular track, time dilation applies to the one moving in a circle only, which means they would see the Lab clock tick faster than theirs... This would also mean that if we applied an undulator to electrons (or protons?) in a circular accelerator the effect would disappear. Hence if time dilation and the speed of light no longer being C is accepted by SR, then the orbiting electron should not see length contraction either as this is not an inertial frame the electron is in. Or at least, if you try to apply length contraction and time dilation and various other SR claims to circular motion SR breaks immediately. You are trusting some entirely biased interpretations of an experiment, it would be very much the same as trusting a sceptics take on a cold fusion cell. The analysis is not going to be fair, and if they control the experiment, the data provided from it, and provide the only 'accepted' theory No wonder it looks like it fits. But the Doppler effect is way more than enough to explain the result. John On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: After thinking about the Free-electron x-ray laser device a bit longer, I realize that it appears to demonstrate time dilation as well as Lorentz contraction rather neatly. In my earlier post I pointed out the excellent reference in Wikipedia about the Lorentz contraction being directly demonstrated by the output frequency of the laser. The mathematical contribution of the contraction enters directly
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
I think there is a link. I think that one of the simplest interpretations of Jerry Pollacks work is that in certain circumstances water holds lightly to its protons, and will loose them leaving a region of negatively charged (but not alkalie) water. This can happen with water adsorbed on a surface, and you get static electricity. It can happen with suspended water droplets, and can result in negatively charged water droplets leaving charged protons behind, resulting in large potential differences in clouds. No reason to expect excess heat in any of this, just different ways of using work energy to create charge separation. Nigel On 10/03/2014 03:02, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Did my master's thesis under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric physicist, and expert in cloud microphysics. One of Telford's areas of interest was cloud electrification, which, at the time, was still not clearly explained. My thesis redesigned a novel airborne electric field measuring device which he and Dr. Peter Wagner had developed. One hypothesis about cloud electrification had to do with the collision of droplets inside the cloud causing a transfer of electrical charge, but that was only one of several hypotheses. When I read the article on the electrification of the powder, I immediately thought that the mechanism could be related... -Mark Iverson *From:*Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:53 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks Axil, I don't get it. Why not optimize this for power generation? Find a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of electricity. Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just 'shifting a Tupperware container' This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality something is happening there. My only question, is that is voltage being reported. What was the excess thermal heat? Going to email them. On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348 LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
[Vo]:Basic FP Electrolysis
Most everyone has done the basic electrolysis experiment of running current through water with some salt or a little acid in it. As we know from the sordid history of cold fusion, the electrolysis required to achieve 80% loading into PD of D is not so trivial. Aside from the obvious need to run the experiment for (a lot) longer than Nathan Lewis did, what are the other 'gotchas' that reduce the chances of achieving 80% loading?
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, this device is real. No doubt, so is the Doppler effect, which *will* be present. Read the article carefully and you will understand how the frequency is accurately explained by Lorentz contraction. Do you consider that a coincidence? That would depend on how the light is measured. I would again argue that is a sceptic of Cold Fusion (CF) and a believer would have very different observations of a Cell. Both would view as it agreeing with their own opinion of reality, especially if each could adjust the equipment used to gather evidence for their argument. What you must realise is that SR has a great deal of confirmation bias in interpretation even to the point of fraud as is seen with the experiment that flew clocks around in jumbo jets. I fail to understand why you are so reluctant to accept that this device works as described when using Lorentz length contraction to accurately calculate the output frequency. I do not trust results since if they decleared that the results disagreed with SR they would have faced massive opposition and ridicule, and would have faced massive cognitive dissonance. There is so much of SR that is totally paradoxical and unexplained, but accepted blindly by many. The disrespect you have towards challenges to Special Relativity is precisely why I do not trust evidence that claims to conform to it. The Doppler ideas that you suggest fail to give the correct answer. They would succeed to give the correct answer if the angle of light is changed. I realize it is difficult to accept SR when you have so much invested in your belief that it is not real, but you must try hard to get over that issue. The issue is that it can't explain it's self coherently. Paradoxes readily occur that none can explain. And there are many experiments that disagree with SR. So it makes more sense to me that this experiment is seeing other effects that DO shift frequency other than the laboratory contracting till the electron is moving at what it would view as a superluminal velocity against the non-contracted laboratory. Actually it is also easier to consider that the denial that electrons can't exceed C is causing the scientists to deny that they are actually exceeding C and that explains the effect. By what means is the actual velocity of an electron moving so fast measured? I am not saying I believe the electron IS moving superluminally, but it would be easier to accept than a paradoxical mutual length contraction of Lab and electron and the impossibilities that implies. Also, it does little good to avoid accepting the reality of this particular device by stating that you do not have one to test. I bet you don't have an LHC either. And yes, it is hand waving when you claim that the Doppler shift is the reason for the up conversion in frequency. It can readily be shown that the electrons change velocity a very tiny amount while the output frequency changes over a decade. The Doppler shift would therefore be minor whereas the device output frequency varies enormously. Explain how this is possible with Doppler. I find your statement humorous that the Doppler increase is enough to account for the evidence...you are kidding I assume. If intellectual dishonesty is assumed, the angle can be changed as the velocity is increased to provide precisely this observation. Stick to this system if you really want to understand how SR is demonstrated. To muddy the water by diversion to something entirely different does not help. The Free-electron x-ray laser is an extremely good example that proves special relativity has strong merit. can cause Why are you reluctant to analyze such a fine demonstration of SR? I have already done so. There are many issues, one is that if Lorentz length contraction alone explains the frequency, then there is a failure as time dilation must also be accounted for. If the output is an x-ray to the electrons frame, it would be an even higher frequency in the relatively time dilated lab frame. I believe that this is called transverse Doppler, and unlike the Doppler effect I mentioned previously this is both evidence of time dilation and IMO a source of a preferred frame in SR. This Doppler effect will grow in precisely the way you mention as it's magnitude is related to relativistic time dilation. Unlike the other Doppler effect this one also in not dependant on angle. And while I consider it absurd, IF Lorentz length contraction alone is sufficient, then this is a disproof of SR. This device can answer many of the questions that you have posed. It will likely be my favorite example supporting SR from this point forth and you would be wise to rely upon it to enhance your understanding of SR as well. One simple device that demonstrates both time dilation and length contraction at the same time is remarkable. Didn't you initially
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
Everything around high-powered pulsed Doppler radars in Florida is aging and decaying more quickly. Around Melbourne, FL you have over 10,000,000 pulsed watts of overlapping Doppler radiation with hundreds of thousands of dead fish, fish with tumors, algae blooms, hundreds of dead dolphins and manatees with neurological problems, as well as dead pelicans. They are also ionizing and dissolving the limestone around them causing accelerated decay and large sinkholes to form Doppler microwave radiation is speeding up time, which is really just an illusion, because it is really all about ionization, oxidation, low energy nuclear reactions and decay. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/03/08/burning-down-the-house/ On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:34 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The Doppler effect is not handwaving, it is a very real effect that would notably increase the frequency of the light emitted from the electrons hugely (enough to account for the evidence). Additionally absolute time dilation from the electron moving through the aether at near light speed could also account for the results potentially depending on how photons are viewed to form. The Doppler argument is the easiest, since it is not in any way unknown or controversial, it MUST be present unless specifically neutralized by design. So the question then becomes, has the design been to actually remove this effect, or to confuse it with the expected length contraction results so that it does not disagree with SR? Hey, do you have a FEL we can test out? Me neither. I can think of other theories and problems with SR's conclusion of this experiments, but it isn't really the solid evidence you think. Indeed if this were done in a circular track, SR would now claim that the motion is now absolute and argue that the electron is moving definitively and the Lab stationary just as the speed of light around a Sagnac loop can exceed C from the rotating frame (light sent in one direction arrives too soon, and the other direction too late). And SR also claims that with a circular track, time dilation applies to the one moving in a circle only, which means they would see the Lab clock tick faster than theirs... This would also mean that if we applied an undulator to electrons (or protons?) in a circular accelerator the effect would disappear. Hence if time dilation and the speed of light no longer being C is accepted by SR, then the orbiting electron should not see length contraction either as this is not an inertial frame the electron is in. Or at least, if you try to apply length contraction and time dilation and various other SR claims to circular motion SR breaks immediately. You are trusting some entirely biased interpretations of an experiment, it would be very much the same as trusting a sceptics take on a cold fusion cell. The analysis is not going to be fair, and if they control the experiment, the data provided from it, and provide the only 'accepted' theory No wonder it looks like it fits. But the Doppler effect is way more than enough to explain the result. John On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: After thinking about the Free-electron x-ray laser device a bit longer, I realize that it appears to demonstrate time dilation as well as Lorentz contraction rather neatly. In my earlier post I pointed out the excellent reference in Wikipedia about the Lorentz contraction being directly demonstrated by the output frequency of the laser. The mathematical contribution of the contraction enters directly into the calculation of the x-ray output frequency in a manner that is difficult to argue against. It appears that the same is true for a demonstration of time dilation according to special relativity (SR). Here is one example of how time dilation is exhibited: The undulator is a structure that exists in our stationary frame of reference through which the relativistic electron beam propagates. It consists of a series of permanent magnets that alternate poles along its length such that the electrons are accelerated at right angles to their main high velocity path by a modest amount as they pass through the structure. We observe them moving up and down or right and left depending upon the design of the undulator. Since the device operates by using electrons that are traveling at very nearly the speed of light, we observe only a tiny change in frequency of that right angle motion as their speed creeps up toward the light speed limit. Here I am referring to what we see looking from the side of the undulator at the moving electrons. To put this measurement into perspective, very little difference is observed in the motion of the electrons even though the laser output frequency changes over an order of magnitude in frequency. We would conclude that the frequency of the up and down electron motion remains
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
John, like before, you are dead set against special relativity and even a simple example such as this does not convince you. There is no possible way to get any simpler and more obvious than the example of the Free-electron laser so it is going to be non productive to continue this discussion. I predict that one day you will convince yourself of the fact that SR is real. No one else will be able to achieve that goal. Use the example I have given you to eventually understand where your hang up lies. It contains the clues that you seek. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, this device is real. No doubt, so is the Doppler effect, which will be present. Read the article carefully and you will understand how the frequency is accurately explained by Lorentz contraction. Do you consider that a coincidence? That would depend on how the light is measured. I would again argue that is a sceptic of Cold Fusion (CF) and a believer would have very different observations of a Cell. Both would view as it agreeing with their own opinion of reality, especially if each could adjust the equipment used to gather evidence for their argument. What you must realise is that SR has a great deal of confirmation bias in interpretation even to the point of fraud as is seen with the experiment that flew clocks around in jumbo jets. I fail to understand why you are so reluctant to accept that this device works as described when using Lorentz length contraction to accurately calculate the output frequency. I do not trust results since if they decleared that the results disagreed with SR they would have faced massive opposition and ridicule, and would have faced massive cognitive dissonance. There is so much of SR that is totally paradoxical and unexplained, but accepted blindly by many. The disrespect you have towards challenges to Special Relativity is precisely why I do not trust evidence that claims to conform to it. The Doppler ideas that you suggest fail to give the correct answer. They would succeed to give the correct answer if the angle of light is changed. I realize it is difficult to accept SR when you have so much invested in your belief that it is not real, but you must try hard to get over that issue. The issue is that it can't explain it's self coherently. Paradoxes readily occur that none can explain. And there are many experiments that disagree with SR. So it makes more sense to me that this experiment is seeing other effects that DO shift frequency other than the laboratory contracting till the electron is moving at what it would view as a superluminal velocity against the non-contracted laboratory. Actually it is also easier to consider that the denial that electrons can't exceed C is causing the scientists to deny that they are actually exceeding C and that explains the effect. By what means is the actual velocity of an electron moving so fast measured? I am not saying I believe the electron IS moving superluminally, but it would be easier to accept than a paradoxical mutual length contraction of Lab and electron and the impossibilities that implies. Also, it does little good to avoid accepting the reality of this particular device by stating that you do not have one to test. I bet you don't have an LHC either. And yes, it is hand waving when you claim that the Doppler shift is the reason for the up conversion in frequency. It can readily be shown that the electrons change velocity a very tiny amount while the output frequency changes over a decade. The Doppler shift would therefore be minor whereas the device output frequency varies enormously. Explain how this is possible with Doppler. I find your statement humorous that the Doppler increase is enough to account for the evidence...you are kidding I assume. If intellectual dishonesty is assumed, the angle can be changed as the velocity is increased to provide precisely this observation. Stick to this system if you really want to understand how SR is demonstrated. To muddy the water by diversion to something entirely different does not help. The Free-electron x-ray laser is an extremely good example that proves special relativity has strong merit. can cause Why are you reluctant to analyze such a fine demonstration of SR? I have already done so. There are many issues, one is that if Lorentz length contraction alone explains the frequency, then there is a failure as time dilation must also be accounted for. If the output is an x-ray to the electrons frame, it would be an even higher frequency in the relatively time dilated lab frame. I believe that this is called transverse Doppler, and unlike the Doppler effect I
RE: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
Hi Nigel, Perhaps they've made progress in the past 20 years! I did my MS in the late 80s. I am familiar with Pollack's work, but didn't they determine that the energy for this Exclusion Zone (EZ) next to an interface was due to in-coming photons (i.e., light)??? Not sure if it was IR or UV. I vaguely remember something said about this because it would have very significant ramifications for biology (living systems). That EZ represents a 'battery' which is constantly in a state of charge so long as there is light. when they cut off the light in their test system, the EZ began to break down. Am I remembering this right? Thanks for chiming in! -Mark From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks I think there is a link. I think that one of the simplest interpretations of Jerry Pollacks work is that in certain circumstances water holds lightly to its protons, and will loose them leaving a region of negatively charged (but not alkalie) water. This can happen with water adsorbed on a surface, and you get static electricity. It can happen with suspended water droplets, and can result in negatively charged water droplets leaving charged protons behind, resulting in large potential differences in clouds. No reason to expect excess heat in any of this, just different ways of using work energy to create charge separation. Nigel On 10/03/2014 03:02, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Did my master's thesis under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric physicist, and expert in cloud microphysics. One of Telford's areas of interest was cloud electrification, which, at the time, was still not clearly explained. My thesis redesigned a novel airborne electric field measuring device which he and Dr. Peter Wagner had developed. One hypothesis about cloud electrification had to do with the collision of droplets inside the cloud causing a transfer of electrical charge, but that was only one of several hypotheses. When I read the article on the electrification of the powder, I immediately thought that the mechanism could be related. -Mark Iverson From: Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks Axil, I don't get it. Why not optimize this for power generation? Find a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of electricity. Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just 'shifting a Tupperware container' This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality something is happening there. My only question, is that is voltage being reported. What was the excess thermal heat? Going to email them. On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348 LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
RE: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
I have not had time to follow the discussion re: time dilation vs a Doppler effect, but if anyone wants to explore the topic further they might try visiting this site: http://home.comcast.net/~adring/ They publish a peer-reviewed journal, Galilean Electrodynamics, which is dedicated to the topic of the problems with Relativity theory. Here are two papers which are linked to from the homepage: http://home.comcast.net/~adring/Hajra_part_1_ckw.pdf The math in the first paper is way above my pay-grade, but develops the basic physical principles. The second paper provides practical examples. http://home.comcast.net/~adring/Hajra_part_2_ckw.pdf Abstract This paper argues that the results of electro-dynamic experiments performed on the surface of the moving Earth demand that the surface of the moving Earth is exactly similar to free space for our description of electromagnetic phenomena on it. In our opinion, this clearly implies that in the vicinity of its surface, Earth carries electric and magnetic fields along with it, just like it carries all other physical objects with it. We show in this part of our paper that this simple consideration naturally explains electro-dynamic phenomena as observed on the surface of the moving Earth and leaves no room for special relativity theory in electro-dynamics. Finally, the work by Haisch/Rueda/Puthoff on the zero-point field I believe concluded that at relativistic speeds the vacuum presents a form of friction or 'drag' on matter. could this be an alternate explanation?? -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 6:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser John, like before, you are dead set against special relativity and even a simple example such as this does not convince you. There is no possible way to get any simpler and more obvious than the example of the Free-electron laser so it is going to be non productive to continue this discussion. I predict that one day you will convince yourself of the fact that SR is real. No one else will be able to achieve that goal. Use the example I have given you to eventually understand where your hang up lies. It contains the clues that you seek. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, this device is real. No doubt, so is the Doppler effect, which will be present. Read the article carefully and you will understand how the frequency is accurately explained by Lorentz contraction. Do you consider that a coincidence? That would depend on how the light is measured. I would again argue that is a sceptic of Cold Fusion (CF) and a believer would have very different observations of a Cell. Both would view as it agreeing with their own opinion of reality, especially if each could adjust the equipment used to gather evidence for their argument. What you must realise is that SR has a great deal of confirmation bias in interpretation even to the point of fraud as is seen with the experiment that flew clocks around in jumbo jets. I fail to understand why you are so reluctant to accept that this device works as described when using Lorentz length contraction to accurately calculate the output frequency. I do not trust results since if they decleared that the results disagreed with SR they would have faced massive opposition and ridicule, and would have faced massive cognitive dissonance. There is so much of SR that is totally paradoxical and unexplained, but accepted blindly by many. The disrespect you have towards challenges to Special Relativity is precisely why I do not trust evidence that claims to conform to it. The Doppler ideas that you suggest fail to give the correct answer. They would succeed to give the correct answer if the angle of light is changed. I realize it is difficult to accept SR when you have so much invested in your belief that it is not real, but you must try hard to get over that issue. The issue is that it can't explain it's self coherently. Paradoxes readily occur that none can explain. And there are many experiments that disagree with SR. So it makes more sense to me that this experiment is seeing other effects that DO shift frequency other than the laboratory contracting till the electron is moving at what it would view as a superluminal velocity against the non-contracted laboratory. Actually it is also easier to consider that the denial that electrons can't exceed C is causing the scientists to deny that they are actually exceeding C and that explains the effect. By what means is the actual velocity of an electron moving so fast measured? I am not
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, like before, you are dead set against special relativity and even a simple example such as this does not convince you. Correct. It would convince me at least to a point if I could check over everything, or as i say build my own. But even then there are other things I simply do not trust. Unlike you, I believe science has made a massive wrong turn. And as such I simply do not trust what I see ore as propaganda. Another issue is how much of what you have said is an honest direct observation of how the FEL works .vs theory of how it should work mixed with some end results? The point is that since I am certain modern physics has missed the boat I am not going to give it the same weight you would. Just as you might ignore evidence of something that you do not accept or believe in, even if you do not know precisely where the fault lies. You may disregard paranormal research on it's face for instance without considering it carries any weight because you think their view on reality is biased. There is no possible way to get any simpler and more obvious than the example of the Free-electron laser so it is going to be non productive to continue this discussion. Agreed. I predict that one day you will convince yourself of the fact that SR is real. No one else will be able to achieve that goal. There are too many problems none have come close to solving, too many paradoxes for it to even be possible. It's a non-starter. It is inherently paradoxical and is based on axioms that are both unproven and impossible/unexplained. Use the example I have given you to eventually understand where your hang up lies. It contains the clues that you seek. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: John, this device is real. No doubt, so is the Doppler effect, which *will* be present. Read the article carefully and you will understand how the frequency is accurately explained by Lorentz contraction. Do you consider that a coincidence? That would depend on how the light is measured. I would again argue that is a sceptic of Cold Fusion (CF) and a believer would have very different observations of a Cell. Both would view as it agreeing with their own opinion of reality, especially if each could adjust the equipment used to gather evidence for their argument. What you must realise is that SR has a great deal of confirmation bias in interpretation even to the point of fraud as is seen with the experiment that flew clocks around in jumbo jets. I fail to understand why you are so reluctant to accept that this device works as described when using Lorentz length contraction to accurately calculate the output frequency. I do not trust results since if they decleared that the results disagreed with SR they would have faced massive opposition and ridicule, and would have faced massive cognitive dissonance. There is so much of SR that is totally paradoxical and unexplained, but accepted blindly by many. The disrespect you have towards challenges to Special Relativity is precisely why I do not trust evidence that claims to conform to it. The Doppler ideas that you suggest fail to give the correct answer. They would succeed to give the correct answer if the angle of light is changed. I realize it is difficult to accept SR when you have so much invested in your belief that it is not real, but you must try hard to get over that issue. The issue is that it can't explain it's self coherently. Paradoxes readily occur that none can explain. And there are many experiments that disagree with SR. So it makes more sense to me that this experiment is seeing other effects that DO shift frequency other than the laboratory contracting till the electron is moving at what it would view as a superluminal velocity against the non-contracted laboratory. Actually it is also easier to consider that the denial that electrons can't exceed C is causing the scientists to deny that they are actually exceeding C and that explains the effect. By what means is the actual velocity of an electron moving so fast measured? I am not saying I believe the electron IS moving superluminally, but it would be easier to accept than a paradoxical mutual length contraction of Lab and electron and the impossibilities that implies. Also, it does little good to avoid accepting the reality of this particular device by stating that you do not have one to test. I bet you don't have an LHC either. And yes, it is hand waving when you claim that the Doppler shift is the reason for the up conversion in frequency. It can readily be shown that the electrons change
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. I'm wondering about three things that might mitigate the detection of penetrating radiation. First would be successful enrichment to 62Ni and 64Ni to a high degree. Second would be the possibility that 62Ni and 64Ni are special and participate in the reaction in a way that other isotopes of nickel do not (recall that this was a topic of discussion for many weeks at one point). Third is the possibility that in recent cases where there was a vigorous NiH reaction and someone there to detect radiation (e.g., the recent Elforsk test), perhaps the detector was not configured to detect at levels that would have been relevant. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Eric-- A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. I'm wondering about three things that might mitigate the detection of penetrating radiation. First would be successful enrichment to 62Ni and 64Ni to a high degree. Second would be the possibility that 62Ni and 64Ni are special and participate in the reaction in a way that other isotopes of nickel do not (recall that this was a topic of discussion for many weeks at one point). Third is the possibility that in recent cases where there was a vigorous NiH reaction and someone there to detect radiation (e.g., the recent Elforsk test), perhaps the detector was not configured to detect at levels that would have been relevant. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. This is far from anything I have experience with or know about, although I can envision how it might work. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Unfortunately it wasn't a single thread that I can point you to. The detail related to one of Rossi's patent applications and to a counterclaim made by Defkalion, as well as a similar but distinct claim made by Defkalion in relation to different isotopes of nickel. In Rossi's application, I do not recall the specific isotopes, although I suspect they were 62Ni and 64Ni. The key point of the discussion was that some isotopes might be more reactive than others. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Eric-- Thanks for the lead. I will do a little digging myself. There appear to be many Ni complex organic compounds that should have bond resonances to C atoms that depend upon the mass of the Ni isotope. Tuned electric or magnetic excitation should be able to selectively break the bond for any particular Ni isotope. I do not think separation would be difficult. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. This is far from anything I have experience with or know about, although I can envision how it might work. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Unfortunately it wasn't a single thread that I can point you to. The detail related to one of Rossi's patent applications and to a counterclaim made by Defkalion, as well as a similar but distinct claim made by Defkalion in relation to different isotopes of nickel. In Rossi's application, I do not recall the specific isotopes, although I suspect they were 62Ni and 64Ni. The key point of the discussion was that some isotopes might be more reactive than others. Eric
