RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:How to go from force to energy - Casimir heating or cooling
On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:08 PM OrionWorks said .. In my own Finite Element Method Magnetic computer simulation studies one of the personal tenants that was finally driven home to me was the apparent fact that static forces, no matter how powerful those forces might be measured to exist at, do not in themselves allow for the extraction of exploitable excess energy. I was never able to discover anything close to an asymmetry. People keep trying finesse an asymmetry out into the open... I've tried for years as well... but to no avail. [/quote] Steven, I agree that Casimir geometry is static even where gradients between different geometries occur but you can overcome this with a 3rd body in motion relative to these gradients To exploit these changes. This would be worthless if you have to provide the motive force to this 3rd body because you are then limited by COE. You are applying the same criteria Garet Moddel used to discount 2 of the 3 models for rectifying energy from Casimir cavities. I chose the 3rd and most obvious model which employs gas law for motive force. I know Casimir force and gas law are both related to HUP and dispersion forces but gas law is very local and steers the atom randomly while Casimir force is an average static value for a less local area formed by the plate geometry such that it's value is unaffected by the hydrogen's motion. In this case nature provides both the gradient proportional to change in cavity geometry and the motive force in the form of standard gas law. I should also mention that nature doesn't WANT to do this - it would rather close the plates and relieve the Casimir force like we see in stiction or the difficulty we have in producing strong skeletal catalysts because the molten metals oppose this geometry and will not normally form cavities. Turtur seems to promote an EM method of exploiting ZPE which I haven't studied yet but I would say it must also obey this same sort of 3rd body interaction where nature provides the motive force to move a 3rd FIELD relative to a static gradient... In his video a high voltage potential with little or no current drawn to maintain the potential is the static gradient. I did note a large poster of Tesla on the wall in Turtur's video and his method does remind me of Tesla's posit that High Voltage solidifies the ether. I think the HV field can be shaped to provide the gradients similar to change in Casimir geometry but am unsure what equates to a 3rd body in his video where a floating wheel is encouraged to spin (reportedly will even spin in vacuum). Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:How to go from force to energy - Casimir heating or cooling
On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 2:34 Jones Beene said The key leap of faith for Casimir heating is *asymmetry* in a narrow range that operates via access the Dirac epo field. I would call it a small logical step and not a leap - We know reactors like those used by BLP and others heat hydrogen into disassociating and we know nature wants them to re-associate almost immediately such that your asymmetry only becomes a control issue of organizing the migration of these atoms according to bond state relative to the suppression gradient . According to Turtur If the electrons (which are supplied with zero-point-energy by nature in order to keep their orbits) can be oversupplied with zero-point-energy, it would be imaginable that they might be lifted into an excited state (an energy level above the ground state), from where they lose their covalent bonding - Turtur is saying the same thing I have been positing that you can discount the energy needed to disassociate a covalent bond by the random motion of h2 relative to changing Casimir geometry. He also recognizes the importance of PWM schemes in these devices - I think there is an efficiency window where you need to cash in your discount on disassociation or the ZPE will simply repel the covalent bonds pushing h2 back into a geometry with less opposition - the PWM rapidly drives these bonds over the disassociation threshold before the molecule can equalize. The energy to circulate gas is equivalent to pushing a drill into a piece of wood while the rotation of the drill bit is equivalent to the random motion of gas supplied by HUP/ZPE. Regards Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 2:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:How to go from force to energy - Casimir heating or cooling I've been thinking further about how it might be possible to go from a force (pressure) to continuous energy via Casimir geometry. Normally, any force like gravity or inertia is a one-way street, unless there is a disconnect in the overall symmetry which can be exploited by a rapid transaction rate. It can be positive or negative. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827893.500-how-to-create-temperatures-below-absolute-zero.html Fran Roarty has explored the possibilities of time distortion and relativistic effects, so I will not repeat that, but it could be related. Here is another slant. The force must be applied via rapidly sequential phase changes using an intermediary (like pycno-hydrogen) so that thermodynamically, the system acts like a see-saw or pump around a certain threshold temperature. It does this because the intermediary can be either a fermion or a composite boson, depending on compreture. As a composite boson, monatomic hydrogen can act as an energy carrier for a characteristic value of ZPE. A few months ago, Claus Turtur republished his expanded ZPE hypothesis that includes numerous improvements over what we saw two years ago, including the formula at the end of section 9, which emphasizes the importance of 6.8 eV. Unfortunately, Turtur still does not have the precise rationale for this value - i.e. the Dirac epo field and the ionization potential of positronium. He does have some interesting insight on other points. Anyway, it is clear that Casimir heating can serve as a valid alternative explanation for LENR heat - even when radiation shows up, eventually. This point needs further attention, as it is not obvious. As an alternative to LENR, Casimir heating 'implies' but does not explain how nuclear reactions or transmutations (which admittedly can show up) happen in these materials, usually in the form of a weak force reaction. The key point is that nuclear reactions are a secondary QM EFFECT and by-product of prior energy depletion in a time-reversed situation, instead of being the prime CAUSE of the excess heat. Any transmutation will presume the lowest energy available type of nuclear transition - a weak force reaction. This is the rationale for delayed radiation and/or transmutation - in those excess energy reactions that run long enough: the nuclear reaction is a QM book-balancing effect. And let's make it clear that this is completely different from the W-L version of a weak-force modality involving a bogus 'ultra low momentum neutron'. There is simply no such species. This line of reasoning (time-reversed QM reactions) has been proposed by myself and others for years as being the underlying reason why radiation and neutrons are seldom seen in LENR; but first came up with regard to an alternative explanation to Mills/BLP (which can also be seen as a Casimir heating situation). There is a relic of the reaction in ultraviolet radiation due to the relationship of the fine structure constant and the epo field (which is based on 6.8 eV I.P. of positronium, and NOT on the 27.2 eV level). One of the earliest references to Casimir heating
RE: [Vo]:How to go from force to energy - Casimir heating or cooling
From Jones: ... In a nutshell, small changes in internal stress as it relates to compressive strain could provide continuous heating due to quantum fluctuations which are a well-known feature of these cavities. When the medium is fermion-like, it releases energy, but when it is boson-like it absorbs negative energy in 6.8 eV quanta. My grasp of the nitty-gritty physics involved is tenuous at best. (Anything that involves a mathematical power greater than ^2 tends to give me, as well as my computer simulations, conniptions!) Nevertheless, I acknowledge the fact that powers greater than ^2 DO exist, and that they effectively predict the behavior of physics. I also understand what is implied by taking advantage of a theorized asymmetry alleged to be discretely hiding within the system - just waiting to be exploited. Introducing a temporary deviation, this kind of research reminds me of... In my own Finite Element Method Magnetic computer simulation studies one of the personal tenants that was finally driven home to me was the apparent fact that static forces, no matter how powerful those forces might be measured to exist at, do not in themselves allow for the extraction of exploitable excess energy. I was never able to discover anything close to an asymmetry. People keep trying finesse an asymmetry out into the open... I've tried for years as well... but to no avail. I gather there has occasionally been intriguing speculation focusing on the possibility that if we were to acquire a better understanding of how magnetic viscosity operates within certain magnetic materials we might be able to exploit the theoretical existence of an obscure little understood asymmetry through clever constructions of purely mechanical / cyclical systems. It's conceivable that those crazy Dublin guys employed at Steorn might actually be following up on this line of research (along with many other lines of research), but who really knows. To the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able to prove that an asymmetry hides within the folds of magnetic viscosity. From what I have read up on, (and, granted, what I've read is probably limited) magnetic viscosity seems to operate mostly like a time delayed damper field. It's like friction - a delayed reaction. I have not been able to perceive where an asymmetry could possibly exist let alone be finessed out of such viscosity characteristics. But that's just my current opinion on the matter. I suspect a major reason PM research in this area remains undeveloped is the fact that I doubt there exists competently designed simulation software that reliably models all the subtle nuances that might be associated with magnetic viscosity. Keep in mind some of these viscotic-like effects happen very fast! You can't simulate a reliable time-line based models if the phenomenon attributed to viscosity is itself not well-understood, let alone incorporated into the software. Incidentally, years ago I recall seeing an obscure but intriguing You-Tube video of someone attempting to spin a 1 to 2 inch permanent magnet between a series of asymmetrically assembled ferrite bars or disks. At one point the PM started to speed up all on its own. It spun erratically fast before finally petering out several seconds later. There was something definitely odd about the behavior of this magnet... something highly unusual. I wish I had been able to save the short clip. BTW, I'm NOT referring to the work of the individual named Nicoli Telsla's (aka spelled backward's). * * * But now, getting back to speculations on Casimir heating or cooling effects, how much evidence exists that might allow us to speculate on the proposed validity that the materials involved, which are being heated up and cooled, are capable of switching back-and-forth between boson-like and fermion-like states? I could see how an asymmetry might be introduced into the system - IF such transitions DO occur. But DO they? Better yet, CAN they? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:How to go from force to energy - Casimir heating or cooling
From: OrionWorks * But now, getting back to speculations on Casimir heating or cooling effects, how much evidence exists that might allow us to speculate on the proposed validity that the materials involved, which are being heated up and cooled, are capable of switching back-and-forth between boson-like and fermion-like states? I could see how an asymmetry might be introduced into the system - IF such transitions DO occur. * But DO they? Better yet, CAN they? Well Steven - that is the $64 question. There seems to be a growing body of robust but unpublished experimental evidence for both anomalous heating and cooling with nanopowder, using spillover hydrogen and based on Lawandy's paper. You will see more and more of this being published in the next few months. Thanks to google books, we have access to old issues of New Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen at cryogenic temperatures - i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very unusual properties as a condensate. http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sC http://books.google.com/books?id=IbbMj56ht8sCpg=PA205lpg=PA205dq=composi te-boson+monatomic-hydrogensource=blots=XlZyp6rE-9sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2 mQZ65VG0hl=enei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCgsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnu m=1sqi=2ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false pg=PA205lpg=PA205dq=composite-boson+monatomic-hydrogensource=blots=XlZy p6rE-9sig=AwMnZv-hCQzTfcbnkN2mQZ65VG0hl=enei=JFwaTab7Oon0tgPSpKjJCgsa=X oi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1sqi=2ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false This paper seems to have been largely forgotten, based on the number of emails questioning that a quasi-BEC can really happen with monatomic H under any circumstances. However, this old article offers no indication that negative temperature could provide an alternative to cryogenic temperature. And certainly no indication that the Casimir cavity can provide a locus for negative temperature. No one can be blamed for being completely skeptical that negative temperature in a Casimir cavity can do this, even on a temporary time frame; and the only 'proof' of it today is the implication from half a dozen papers which indicate that so-called pycno-hydrogen exists (under many different names, even Rydberg hydrogen). Holmlid and Miley claim to have evidence of hydrogen which is a million times denser than liquid. Furthermore - I do not know of any other conceivable way for densification to proceed, other than some kind of BEC-like condensation in a cavity or quantum well; but that is opinion, not fact. Maybe there is another way. At any rate, this whole line of speculation is only offered to provide a working hypothesis - for the benefit of any experimenters who might want to take the Arata, Kitamura, Takahashi, Focardi, Celani, Rossi, and Mills etc findings of energy gain with nickel-based nanopowder and hydrogen - to the next level. Probably none of them have it right but all of them have a piece of the puzzle. BTW it may become obvious soon that the prior emphasis on deuterium going back to 1989 was misguided. We know that H alone is a composite boson which is a singularity in nature - as it is composed of the minimum number of fermions (2) that permit both states to oscillate back and forth. and furthermore that having this minimum number of quantum states to align means it is exponentially easier to condense than deuterium at negative temperature, especially since spin can be aligned magnetically... To some, this realization can be almost a 'eureka moment'. Doh! Why didn't we think of this years ago, like 1990? Well, obviously it took a while for nanopowder techniques to spread around. and Focardi did publish positive findings with Ni-H circa 1990, but nobody took much notice until he found out about nanopowder and improved them. Plus, some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the great Arata himself, who for whatever reason claimed not to find gain in both hydrogen and deuterium, when others have seen equal if not greater gain from hydrogen in the same apparatus. You almost have the sense that Arata was so convinced that it was real fusion, that he may have had blinders on. Or else that somehow, some way, he is doing something completely different and is indeed seeing only real fusion. That goes against Ockham - but there could be several different kinds of major anomalies happening with very similar systems. I never liked Ockham much anyway. Science usually matures to be far more complex than it seemed before - kinda like the fractal that keeps unfolding. Once you find the proper way to look for underlying simplicity, invariably you find layers of ingrained complexity instead. Jones
RE: [Vo]:How to go from force to energy - Casimir heating or cooling
From Jones ... Thanks to google books, we have access to old issues of New Scientist from 1981. On p. 205-6 there is clear indication that we have known for nearly 30 years that hydrogen condensation can happen at cryogenic temperatures - i.e. that monatomic hydrogen is a composite boson independent of the molecular state - which has very unusual properties as a condensate. Holy crap! Monatomic hydrogen is a composite boson? I didn't know that. Interesting. Wonder where that could lead, especially if under the right conditions dancing gobs of bosonic monoatomic hydrogen could be finessed back into fermion-like states. Ka-boom Enuf boom to heat a pot of tea? ... I never liked Ockham much anyway. Science usually matures to be far more complex than it seemed before - kinda like the fractal that keeps unfolding. Once you find the proper way to look for underlying simplicity, invariably you find layers of ingrained complexity instead. It's sure to keep the philosophers employed. Didn't Douglas Adams already address this matter... something about 42. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
