Re: [Vo]:Defkalion web site account suspended
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: The MIT 2014 LENR Colloquium included in the agenda: Yiannis Hadjichristos Heat Energy from Hydrogen-Metal Interactions and the need for new Scientific Alliances but, I can't find anything on the web about the presentation. Does anyone have a reference? Hadjichristos cancelled at the last minute. The Colloquium organizers were upset by that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion web site account suspended
From Daniel: Alright, if Defkalion cannot answer for themselves, I am not going to do it anymore for free. I realize I'm probably misinterpreting the intent of your message, but the implication I'm making is that you may have been a paid shill for Defkalion. Needless to say, I do not believe that for one second. I don't believe English is your primary language so one must make allowances for that. FWIW, your English is pretty damned good. You recently asked me if why I seem to be talking back to you at you, as if you have no credibility or experience in cold fusion. Actually, It's quite likely that you have more CF knowledge than I. I'm not a scientist nor a CF researcher. I don't work for a patent office, like you do, either. I'm Just an interested observer with a plethora of eclectic and eccentric interests that occasionally causes me to focus in on this controversial matter. CF LENR is a fascinating subject. It's as much a sociological/political phenomenon as it is a scientific investigation in-progress. The politics involved are utterly fascinating... and unfortunately occasionally disgusting. What can I say. I'm hooked. Sometimes it's better that watching another episode of Game of Thrones. Who the hell is Mr. Martin going to kill off in this episode! Oh No! Not him!!! ;-) Let me try to conclude on a personal observation I've made concerning my own behavior actions. I have, at times, made excuses for the behavior actions others and the organizations they might run where excuses I later came to realize were not warranted. I did so because I believed in them or WANTED to believe in them and their organizations - to the point that I had acquired an almost religious-like faith in them - as if they could never do no wrong. One of the truths I've had to learn (a truth I'm STILL in the process of learning) is that most people... ALL people for that matter, are only human. To be human is to occasionally error. There is no fault in that. But as Scotty once said in one of the original Star Trek episodes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Who knows, perhaps DGT can redeem themselves. I'm cool with that. We'll see. PS: I hope you continue to make contributions. Having a dedicated individual like you on this list who works for the patent office can be insightful for the insights gleaned. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Virtual positronium is real positronium at the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per pass. The problem of achieving net gain (in excess of chemical but less than nuclear) is twofold. First challenge is simply to remove heat to prevent a runaway, but not remove too much heat, so that the residual, which provides the energy required for continuity, is not compromised. The second is to avoid recombination losses. This is what Rossi appears to have accomplished catalytically with the E-Cat. Yet, it is arguable that with gain 1, it should be possible to avoid any power input at all - which results in infinite COP. That is partly true, but if there is an absolute need for a threshold of thermal momentum - from continuously applied heat, added heat must be provided if it cannot be retained. The added heat is to provide the kind of solid floor for phonon coherence which is never possible with insulation alone. Since runaway is possible, one cannot solve the problem by
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
The only way a quantum theory of gravity is going to fly is by using extra dimensions decaying to gravitons. The atmosphere around pulsed microwave radar towers is donating protons and dissolving limestone, I have 50 years of data in Florida pointing to it around multiple towers. Our weather phenom are really low pressure vacuum disturbances, not just hot and cold We are in a push-me pull-me with the vacuum our entire lives. We should go from cosmologymeteorologygeology and connect the dots. Jet Streams cause Earthquakes as well as Hurricanes. Jet streams anomalies as possible short-term precursors of earthquakes with M6.0 http://www.pagepress.org/journals/index.php/rg/article/view/rg.2014.4939 Stewart On Sunday, April 13, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Virtual positronium is real positronium at the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per pass. The problem of achieving net
[Vo]:Anti-Gravity -Electrostatic Force and Nobel Prize Laureate- Salam
Greetings Vortex-L, There is a Electrogrtavitics Paper: Gravity as a Secondary Electrostatic Force by Professor Gupta of Luckow University, India. He was inspired by his mentor: Nobel Prize Laureate, Professor Abdus Salam University Trieste...who won the Nobel Prize for discovery of the ElectroWeak Force: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505194 The Salam citation is in the acknowledgement section of the website. Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex also the books Electrogravitics 1 11 by Valone and the Electrogravtic Research of Dr Takaaki Musha formerly of the Honda Corporation ( a descriptor).
Re: [Vo]:Anti-Gravity -Electrostatic Force and Nobel Prize Laureate- Salam
If magnetism is the first-order (velocity dependent) effect of moving electrons in conductor, gravitation is the second-order (acceleration-dependant) effect of revolving electrons in atoms. I have wonders why the magnetic field (the spin component of atoms) must rotate in anti-gravity devices to produce an anti-gravity effect. Angular acceleration provides the second-order (acceleration-dependant) effect required. On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, There is a Electrogrtavitics Paper: Gravity as a Secondary Electrostatic Force by Professor Gupta of Luckow University, India. He was inspired by his mentor: Nobel Prize Laureate, Professor Abdus Salam University Trieste...who won the Nobel Prize for discovery of the ElectroWeak Force: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505194 The Salam citation is in the acknowledgement section of the website. Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex also the books Electrogravitics 1 11 by Valone and the Electrogravtic Research of Dr Takaaki Musha formerly of the Honda Corporation ( a descriptor).
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- You stated: The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O Is that energy based on the differential mass of (H2 molecule + O2 molecule) and 2H2O molecules? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the electron and there is evidence that two photons of 3.4 eV are shed in this reaction and one of them follows the electron. The coupling is electrostatic by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Virtual positronium is real positronium at the one-dimensional interface for an instant. In fact, this time limit is critical, and seems to limit the ratio of gain (when figured this way) to something less than 3.4/1.23 = 2.76 which is the maximum COP available per pass. The problem of achieving net gain (in excess of chemical but less than nuclear) is twofold. First challenge is simply to remove heat to prevent a runaway, but not remove too much heat, so that the residual, which provides the energy required for continuity, is not compromised. The second is to avoid recombination losses. This is what Rossi appears to have accomplished catalytically with the E-Cat. Yet, it is arguable that with gain 1, it should be
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O Is that energy based on the differential mass of (H2 molecule + O2 molecule) and 2H2O molecules? Well yes, it can be stated that way - although it is a chemical reaction... nevertheless - there is mass-to-energy conversion, just as with a nuclear reaction. Obviously, only a tiny mass is involved so we normally do not state it that way. The URL: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/boneng.html shows the gain in energy (loss of mass) at 5.7 eV for two molecules. It would be hard to weigh that photon on a scale with any accuracy :)
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones, I am having a difficult time following your example. The diagram illustrating the energy balance appears to add up properly to me. If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, does your technique still demonstrate an unbalance? Any time I see a process that violates the COE, I ask for greater details describing the parts of the reaction. My suspicion is that the energy will in fact balance when extreme care is taken to include all of the variables. As example, in the case of water formed by stationary molecules of hydrogen it must be important to take into account the phases and thermal energy of the particles. The example given indicates that the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are at zero Kelvin since they have no thermal energy. Water as a single molecule can also be at zero and low energy. But to change a large quantity of water molecules from a vapor into frozen ice you must remove plenty of energy. How are these energy storage methods taken into account? Perhaps you could demonstrate how the numbers balance in the case of gasoline listed above. I suspect the same sort of problem will appear. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 2:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen To continue with the argument that chemical energy from hydrogen can be thermodynamically overunity without violating Conservation of Energy principles, and without any nuclear reaction - due to the ubiquity of interfacial positronium (the Dirac epo field at the interface of 3-space) there is an old subject that keeps cropping up - the water arc explosion. Mills' recent demo, a blatant knockoff of the Graneau ongoing work of twenty years, shows this route to gain. The textbook energy from burning hydrogen in oxygen is 2.85 eV per molecule of H2O - which is both higher than can be achieved in practice and significantly higher than the energy required to split water catalytically. In short there is a large asymmetric energy gap which can be exploited in practice, and which is seen in a re-evaluation of the thermodynamics of Langmuir's torch, and which anomaly continues all the way to LENR, even when water is not used. Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of H2O. Energetically, the process requires very high initial energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, which is actually greater by far than the net yield. This required energy to dissociate the H2 and O2 is about eight times higher than required for splitting water. This is one basis for reports of water fuel and Brown's gas and HHO, going back to Dad Garrett in the Thirties http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg14027.html Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif We should also appreciate that 1.23 volts is the threshold required to split a proton from water using an electrolyte, but it is electrical potential - not mass energy, whereas 2.85 eV as a calculated chemical gain is mass-energy. And it is based on the assumption that it requires 9.7 eV net to dissociate the gases - which is far from true with a spillover catalyst like nickel. Anyway, one can calculate eV from volts by multiplying elementary charge (coulombs); since the energy (eV) is equal to the voltage V times the electric charge, the value of both is the same per atom when there is no recombination. Thus, the standard way of accounting for energy balance in hydrogen redox chemistry may not seem to hold water especially in circumstances where there is spillover-type catalysis, or plasma, and where most of the heat of a (predecessor) reaction is retained in a sequence, without recombination. The only thing holding us back is the notion of conservation of energy. That is where positronium enters the picture. We are not talking about antimatter annihilation - only capturing the binding energy of 6.8 eV of positronium or part of it - which can be done when any proton is split-off and made nascent near the threshold requirement of 1.23 volts per unit of charge in an electron-starved environment. In this case, the electron from Ps is available instead of the free electron from 3-space. A bare proton at Angstrom geometry is as close to one dimensional as possible - and exists at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) until it grabs the electron from somewhere - such as from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. A UV photon comes along with the
Re: [Vo]:Anti-Gravity -Electrostatic Force and Nobel Prize Laureate- Salam
Sheesh, Evgeny Podkletnov twenty years ago was spinning a superconducting disk at a high RPM. He noted a three percent loss of weight for objects placed above the disk. His work was pretty well documented as I recall although of course he lost his job at some Finnish university. This sounds like the same general effect although Podkletnov's effect seems orders of magnitude more robust. Here's an interview with American Antigravity (the best kind:-) ) I will try to dig up more info on this if anyone's interested. http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html Steve High On Apr 13, 2014, at 3:26 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, There is a Electrogrtavitics Paper: Gravity as a Secondary Electrostatic Force by Professor Gupta of Luckow University, India. He was inspired by his mentor: Nobel Prize Laureate, Professor Abdus Salam University Trieste...who won the Nobel Prize for discovery of the ElectroWeak Force: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505194 The Salam citation is in the acknowledgement section of the website. Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex also the books Electrogravitics 1 11 by Valone and the Electrogravtic Research of Dr Takaaki Musha formerly of the Honda Corporation ( a descriptor).
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: David Roberson If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, does your technique still demonstrate an unbalance? No- bare protons must be present for positronium to get involved. We are talking about the need to reach an interface with another spatial dimension - and if the proton approaches one dimensionality, it may be possible to disrupt that other dimension. The main possibility for a continuous energy anomaly with nascent hydrogen seems to be a reactor where H2 is repeatedly split into protons using a spillover catalyst and then recombining, over and over again, sequentially - but where there is no significant nuclear reaction. Sound familiar? If there is excess heat with little gamma radiation and little transmutation - there are only a few possible ways to explain the situation. Mills provides one hypothetical way, but I think his explanation is insufficient for the Rossi effect. A reversible diproton reaction is also possible. Conceivably, several relatively exotic hydrogen reactions could be happening at the same time. This is one of them. The bottom line is that this epo hypothesis is being offered as an alternative for understanding the results which Rossi's collaborators will likely report in a few weeks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:anti-gravity
Sheesh, Evgeny Podkletnov twenty years ago was spinning a superconducting disk at a high RPM. He noted a three percent loss of weight for objects placed above the disk. His work was pretty well documented as I recall although of course he lost his job at some Finnish university. This sounds like the same general effect although Podkletnov's effect seems orders of magnitude more robust. Here's an interview with American Antigravity (the best kind:-) ) I will try to dig up more info on this if anyone's interested. http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html Steve High On Apr 12, 2014, at 8:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is an interesting subject about which I would like more information. I have read a couple of papers that suggest that a large current discharge through a superconductor can generate an apparent momentum kick to nearby objects but it is difficult to accept without plenty of skepticism. Does anyone on the vortex know of proof that any of the anti gravity systems actually function? Better yet, how many among the group believe that this is possible or have witnessed a demonstration? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Apr 12, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:anti-gravity http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010612/full/news010614-6.html Stiff challenge to spacetime A strong magnetic field can flatten space time by imposing a 1 dimensional character on the three dimensional vacuum by aligning the vacuum along straight intense magnetic field lines. What this effectively accomplishes is reduces the intensity of space warping imposed on spacetime by the concentration of matter as defined by general relativity. It follows that a strong magnetic field will reduce the gravity field that a mass imposes on spacetime (aka anti-gravity).
Re: [Vo]:Anti-Gravity -Electrostatic Force and Nobel Prize Laureate- Salam
Uh-oh this was supposed to be attached to an earlier antigravity thread in answer to Dave Robinson's question. My apologies I will pay closer attention Steve High On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Sheesh, Evgeny Podkletnov twenty years ago was spinning a superconducting disk at a high RPM. He noted a three percent loss of weight for objects placed above the disk. His work was pretty well documented as I recall although of course he lost his job at some Finnish university. This sounds like the same general effect although Podkletnov's effect seems orders of magnitude more robust. Here's an interview with American Antigravity (the best kind:-) ) I will try to dig up more info on this if anyone's interested. http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html Steve High On Apr 13, 2014, at 3:26 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, There is a Electrogrtavitics Paper: Gravity as a Secondary Electrostatic Force by Professor Gupta of Luckow University, India. He was inspired by his mentor: Nobel Prize Laureate, Professor Abdus Salam University Trieste...who won the Nobel Prize for discovery of the ElectroWeak Force: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505194 The Salam citation is in the acknowledgement section of the website. Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex also the books Electrogravitics 1 11 by Valone and the Electrogravtic Research of Dr Takaaki Musha formerly of the Honda Corporation ( a descriptor).
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
A question: what would be the net effect of all these extra electrons being pulled over from the Dirac Sea? Would this not eventually produce some kind of unholy electrostatic issue. Or worse? Steve High On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, does your technique still demonstrate an unbalance? No- bare protons must be present for positronium to get involved. We are talking about the need to reach an interface with another spatial dimension – and if the proton approaches one dimensionality, it may be possible to disrupt that other dimension. The main possibility for a continuous energy anomaly with nascent hydrogen seems to be a reactor where H2 is repeatedly split into protons using a spillover catalyst and then recombining, over and over again, sequentially - but where there is no significant nuclear reaction. Sound familiar? If there is excess heat with little gamma radiation and little transmutation – there are only a few possible ways to explain the situation. Mills provides one hypothetical way, but I think his explanation is insufficient for the Rossi effect. A reversible diproton reaction is also possible. Conceivably, several relatively exotic hydrogen reactions could be happening at the same time. This is one of them. The bottom line is that this epo hypothesis is being offered as an alternative for understanding the results which Rossi’s collaborators will likely report in a few weeks. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Steve High A question: what would be the net effect of all these extra electrons being pulled over from the Dirac Sea? Would this not eventually produce some kind of unholy electrostatic issue. Or worse? Good question, Steve. The answer may lie in an existing electrostatic compensation mechanism such as the “fair weather” field of earth. There could be other natural leveling mechanisms as well. The aurora phenomenon comes to mind. Needless to say, this subject is only partly mainstream, despite the imprimatur of Dirac. On a “fair” or clear day, there is a fairly strong electric field on the surface of the earth, relative to the ionosphere. The ionosphere can be thought of as a positive electrode above earth, in contrast to the relatively negatively charged earth. “Ground” has a negative charge connotation for a good reason. The gradient can be hundred of volts per meter when a storm moves through. But the point is that electric charges are continuously leveled out on a vast natural scale, so it would probably take a major accumulation of LENR reactors to alter that dynamic balance, if most of them were tapping into the Dirac sea. An E-cat or hundred of them would not be noticed, but a billion of them could be a problem. However, high voltage grid transmission lines are spewing out excess electrons already, so one is led to believe that even strong local fields are self-compensating to some degree. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Perhaps there is a reaction of the type you are describing Jones. I cling to the classical ideas about COE and might overlook this system. My reason for asking about the hydrocarbon was that it is contains a great deal of hydrogen that must be stripped away from the carbon when burned. Once free, I would expect it to behave much like a broken apart hydrogen molecule. Do you understand why free hydrogen taken from a hydrocarbon would be different than the free hydrogen derived from an H2 molecule? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 6:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From:David Roberson If you take another reaction, such as burning of a liquid hydrocarbon, doesyour technique still demonstrate an unbalance? No- bareprotons must be present for positronium to get involved. We are talking aboutthe need to reach an interface with another spatial dimension – and ifthe proton approaches one dimensionality, it may be possible to disrupt thatother dimension. The main possibilityfor a continuous energy anomaly with nascent hydrogen seems to be a reactorwhere H2 is repeatedly split into protons using a spillover catalyst and then recombining,over and over again, sequentially - but where there is no significant nuclearreaction. Sound familiar? If thereis excess heat with little gamma radiation and little transmutation –there are only a few possible ways to explain the situation. Mills provides onehypothetical way, but I think his explanation is insufficient for the Rossieffect. A reversible diproton reaction is also possible. Conceivably, several relativelyexotic hydrogen reactions could be happening at the same time. This is one ofthem. Thebottom line is that this epo hypothesis is being offered as an alternative for understandingthe results which Rossi’s collaborators will likely report in a fewweeks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:anti-gravity
Thanks for the link Steve. I am interesting in finding out more about this subject. For folks that suspect that there may be some truth to the stories about UFOs there must be some means of propulsion that is robust and capable of being operated by electricity. Perhaps Dr. Podkletnov has found a clue. Imagine how well an ECAT driving a thermoelectric generator that supplies the power to one of these advanced technologies might function. I am dreaming of future possibilities. Dave -Original Message- From: Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:anti-gravity Sheesh, Evgeny Podkletnov twenty years ago was spinning a superconducting disk at a high RPM. He noted a three percent loss of weight for objects placed above the disk. His work was pretty well documented as I recall although of course he lost his job at some Finnish university. This sounds like the same general effect although Podkletnov's effect seems orders of magnitude more robust. Here's an interview with American Antigravity (the best kind:-) ) I will try to dig up more info on this if anyone's interested. http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html Steve High On Apr 12, 2014, at 8:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is an interesting subject about which I would like more information. I have read a couple of papers that suggest that a large current discharge through a superconductor can generate an apparent momentum kick to nearby objects but it is difficult to accept without plenty of skepticism. Does anyone on the vortex know of proof that any of the anti gravity systems actually function? Better yet, how many among the group believe that this is possible or have witnessed a demonstration? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Apr 12, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:anti-gravity http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010612/full/news010614-6.html Stiff challenge to spacetime A strong magnetic field can flatten space time by imposing a 1 dimensional character on the three dimensional vacuum by aligning the vacuum along straight intense magnetic field lines. What this effectively accomplishes is reduces the intensity of space warping imposed on spacetime by the concentration of matter as defined by general relativity. It follows that a strong magnetic field will reduce the gravity field that a mass imposes on spacetime (aka anti-gravity).
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: David Roberson My reason for asking about the hydrocarbon was that it is contains a great deal of hydrogen that must be stripped away from the carbon when burned. Once free, I would expect it to behave much like a broken apart hydrogen molecule. Do you understand why free hydrogen taken from a hydrocarbon would be different than the free hydrogen derived from an H2 molecule? Dave, Please do not confuse me with an expert on Dirac vis-à-vis LENR. Much of this information and speculation has been floating around on Vortex and other parts of the web for years, and my role in this thread has been simply to try to regurgitate it into a framework that attempts to explain what is actually seen and what is not seen, in the Rossi effect. This is in anticipation of upcoming results showing very few indicia of nuclear reactions. However, these results could instead show evidence that indicates Rossi’s original idea of nickel transmuting to copper. As for why hydrocarbons would seem to be less likely to participate in excess gain reactions following combustion – such as an induced epo interaction, my guess is that carbon is loaded with valence electrons to begin with - which then become free and will flood the local environment, making it less likely that a bare proton will be able to attract negative energy in its short lifetime. In contrast, carbon which is in the form of CNT would have all the valence electrons strongly bound, and therefore would be more conducive to promoting the epo reaction. Just a guess…
Re: [Vo]:anti-gravity
I met Martin Tjmar during one of my lectures. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/jhu.wmv -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 8:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:anti-gravity Thanks for the link Steve. I am interesting in finding out more about this subject. For folks that suspect that there may be some truth to the stories about UFOs there must be some means of propulsion that is robust and capable of being operated by electricity. Perhaps Dr. Podkletnov has found a clue. Imagine how well an ECAT driving a thermoelectric generator that supplies the power to one of these advanced technologies might function. I am dreaming of future possibilities. Dave -Original Message- From: Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:anti-gravity Sheesh, Evgeny Podkletnov twenty years ago was spinning a superconducting disk at a high RPM. He noted a three percent loss of weight for objects placed above the disk. His work was pretty well documented as I recall although of course he lost his job at some Finnish university. This sounds like the same general effect although Podkletnov's effect seems orders of magnitude more robust. Here's an interview with American Antigravity (the best kind:-) ) I will try to dig up more info on this if anyone's interested. http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html Steve High On Apr 12, 2014, at 8:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is an interesting subject about which I would like more information. I have read a couple of papers that suggest that a large current discharge through a superconductor can generate an apparent momentum kick to nearby objects but it is difficult to accept without plenty of skepticism. Does anyone on the vortex know of proof that any of the anti gravity systems actually function? Better yet, how many among the group believe that this is possible or have witnessed a demonstration? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Apr 12, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:anti-gravity http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010612/full/news010614-6.html Stiff challenge to spacetime A strong magnetic field can flatten space time by imposing a 1 dimensional character on the three dimensional vacuum by aligning the vacuum along straight intense magnetic field lines. What this effectively accomplishes is reduces the intensity of space warping imposed on spacetime by the concentration of matter as defined by general relativity. It follows that a strong magnetic field will reduce the gravity field that a mass imposes on spacetime (aka anti-gravity).
