Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On 01/09/2012 11:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Thanks Mauro, Would you say that the number of protons and electrons being ejected from the sun remains relatively equal? I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. Electrons are coming in from the surrounding space, and an equilibrium point (at the charge level) should exist somewhere in between, probably located in the reaches of the solar system. That place must be very interesting to study, because there protons and electrons are rejoined. That place would be the (invisible) counterpart of our visible Sun, by the way. And that also gives a more approximate idea of the real Sun, which is comprised by the whole thing. I was also thinking that electromagnetic emission (that is, the Sun's emitted light) can be producing (or contributing to) the charge disbalance in the first place, by gradually depleting the Sun of negative charges. But I'm not sure, because I don't know enough about electromagnetism yet. Regards, Mauro
[Vo]:DGT Visitor Comments
stupendous often posts in the Greek language. His latest post regarding his visit to DGT: Re: About that tour you were offering stupendous Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:26 am Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:12 pm Posts: 24 Well since I had visited DGT's offices in Glyfada, I presume I am among those Greeks referred from DGT. For all it matters and since I am visiting many offices due to my profession I can tell they are real people, hard working and no scam looking at all (I have my top ten list for scammers in any business, they don't fit anywhere in this list ) Furthermore I would like to mention that among them are people well known in Greek business scene that have served for years other fields with honesty and good business practices, which makes me a believer on them. Definitely they want time, not buying out of it, but for e.g. settling things with the monsters of the Greek bureaucracy etc etc. We could them heroes trying to setup such a enormously innovative business in Greece not now that we have problems but anytime !
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Mauro: I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. ... If something like that is happening within the sun it seems to me that this results in a charge imbalance. Regardless of whether the charge imbalance is positive or negative it seems to me that the aggregate electrostatic force could counter the weaker gravity forces. It puzzles me that a speculated imbalance of electrostatic forces doesn't end up counteracting the weaker gravity forces and cause our sun to rip itself apart. Of course, for selfish reasons, I'm glad such an Armageddon doesn't happen! In any case, it suggests to me that any electrostatic charge imbalance that may exist within the sun must not be significant enough to counteract the weaker gravity forces. Perhaps sun spots and corona discharges ARE examples of electrostatic charge imbalances attempting to re-balance the surrounding area by exploding away. Maybe electrostatic imbalances DO happen, but fortunately for us, on a less disastrous scale as far as we earthlings are concerned. Of course, there is also the distinct possibility that something else is going on here... something that I haven't taken into account. I suspect that's most likely the case. I don't claim to be a fizzix exp'prt. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Mauro: I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. ... If something like that is happening within the sun it seems to me that this results in a charge imbalance. Regardless of whether the charge imbalance is positive or negative it seems to me that the aggregate electrostatic force could counter the weaker gravity forces. It puzzles me that a speculated imbalance of electrostatic forces doesn't end up counteracting the weaker gravity forces and cause our sun to rip itself apart. Of course, for selfish reasons, I'm glad such an Armageddon doesn't happen! In any case, it suggests to me that any electrostatic charge imbalance that may exist within the sun must not be significant enough to counteract the weaker gravity forces. Perhaps sun spots and corona discharges ARE examples of electrostatic charge imbalances attempting to re-balance the surrounding area by exploding away. Maybe electrostatic imbalances DO happen, but fortunately for us, on a less disastrous scale as far as we earthlings are concerned. Of course, there is also the distinct possibility that something else is going on here... something that I haven't taken into account. I suspect that's most likely the case. I don't claim to be a fizzix exp'prt. Me neither. I think the problem is with the electrostatic idea... if there are electric currents, then there isn't an electrostatic situation. There's nothing static in a system like the Sun and the Solar System. The solar wind is a subtle (only relatively slow) electrical conductor. Electrical currents are circulating between the Sun's north and South poles, are crossing through the planetary bodies, which offer relatively good conductive paths, and are also being reconnected and fed up with the whole of the surrounding space. Simply because that surrounding space is at different potentials. There's no perfectly isolated electric charge. Moreover: when you have a subtle sea of charged particles, a tenuous plasma, that is a conductive path. And charged particles will unavoidably move from points of more charge to points of less charge. When you add to that that the bodies, including the Sun itself, are translating and rotating, you have an incredibly rich and dynamic situation. Something which is really the opposite, even in a profound sense, of a static, or dead, model.
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. You appear to be neglecting H-H fusion by electron capture. This also happens in the Sun, but at a low rate. Hi Robin, If the EC reaction happens in the sun (at a low rate), given the high temperature of the sun, intense gamma radiation, and the massive gravity well... ... then why would anyone think that this route could be a significant contribution to gain in a cold environment, when all of the conditions for nuclear fusion or weak-force reactions are orders of magnitude less conducive to it? Realistically, in terms of known probabilities - one might be better off invoking proton decay than either WL or H-H fusion, or even Ni-H - Cu. I do not understand why so many vorticians seem so desirous to find a nuclear reaction here as the main source of excess heat, when good testing shows no gammas (not just low, but none) and the Swedes found no radioactive transmutation in the ash, and Rossi has proven to dishonest over and over again (his supposed belief in Ni transmutation is worthless). Plus no deuterium or neutrons are seen. It must be a holdover from years of following Pd-D - where there is ample transmutation, ample helium or tritium and moderate gammas. Were it not for our shared background in Pd-D, then it would be absurd to suggest any type of nuclear reaction is happening, based on the weight of evidence in the record. Yes, I do appreciate that Robin's angle (usually) is that Mills' shrinkage to a maximal state obviates many of the problems with EC. There is no huge problem with that, other than Mills' reputation. But if one tries to conflate the Mills modality with the known type of EC, thus to avoid the negativity of Mills to the fizzix mainstream, then if makes little sense to me- how that can help. At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is not in favor here, the preponderance of evidence points Ni-H being a different beast than Pd-D, predominantly non-fusion, non-weak-force. The best evidence, going back to the early nineties (Thermacore) points to substantial thermal gain with few gammas, no neutrons, no neutron activation, no deuterium, tritium or helium ash, and very little 'real' transmutation. The copper and iron seen is easily explainable as electro-migration, a common phenomenon, since it is found in the natural isotopic ratios. Jones
[Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
See: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1685
Re: [Vo]:ICCF15 proceedings on line
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you to upload it on LENR-CANR.org as a multi-part zip file to be downloaded and extracted on users' hard drives for off-line reading . . . It did not compress much with zip. It went from 96 MB to 89 MB. The PDFConverter tools do a better job. I could probably shrink the image resolution and make it smaller, but people like to see good quality images. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1685 It's an hour of audio! Maybe someone who listened to it all can summarize what Storms had to say specifically about Rossi. Will there be a transcript at some point?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:52:17 -0800: Hi Jones, Actually I largely agree with your position. I too think that fusion reactions are unlikely in this case (though not impossible). I'm trying to keep an open mind here. Note also that I think the H+H-D reaction is very unlikely because the reaction cross section is incredibly small. The only reason for my previous post was that you were so adamant that it was ruled out. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. You appear to be neglecting H-H fusion by electron capture. This also happens in the Sun, but at a low rate. Hi Robin, If the EC reaction happens in the sun (at a low rate), given the high temperature of the sun, intense gamma radiation, and the massive gravity well... ... then why would anyone think that this route could be a significant contribution to gain in a cold environment, when all of the conditions for nuclear fusion or weak-force reactions are orders of magnitude less conducive to it? You answer that here below yourself Realistically, in terms of known probabilities - one might be better off invoking proton decay than either WL or H-H fusion, or even Ni-H - Cu. I do not understand why so many vorticians seem so desirous to find a nuclear reaction here as the main source of excess heat, when good testing shows no gammas (not just low, but none) and the Swedes found no radioactive transmutation in the ash, and Rossi has proven to dishonest over and over again (his supposed belief in Ni transmutation is worthless). Plus no deuterium or neutrons are seen. It must be a holdover from years of following Pd-D - where there is ample transmutation, ample helium or tritium and moderate gammas. Were it not for our shared background in Pd-D, then it would be absurd to suggest any type of nuclear reaction is happening, based on the weight of evidence in the record. Yes, I do appreciate that Robin's angle (usually) is that Mills' shrinkage to a maximal state obviates many of the problems with EC. There is no huge problem with that, other than Mills' reputation. ...right here. But if one tries to conflate the Mills modality with the known type of EC, thus to avoid the negativity of Mills to the fizzix mainstream, then if makes little sense to me- how that can help. You appear to be confusing physics with politics. (Whether or not mainstream physicists accept a theory has nothing to do with whether or not nature uses it.) At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is not in favor here, the preponderance of evidence points Ni-H being a different beast than Pd-D, predominantly non-fusion, non-weak-force. The best evidence, going back to the early nineties (Thermacore) points to substantial thermal gain with few gammas, no neutrons, no neutron activation, no deuterium, tritium or helium ash, and very little 'real' transmutation. The copper and iron seen is easily explainable as electro-migration, a common phenomenon, since it is found in the natural isotopic ratios. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
See: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1685 Thank Jed, Just finished listening to The Space Show an interview with Dr. Storms. The segment with skeptic Charles Pooley was perhaps the most entertaining part of the show for me. The ensuing interaction between the host (Dr. David Livingston), Storms, and Pooley really drove home to me how fundamentally oriented a professed scientific-based belief can unfortunately become at times. I think Pooley would need the services of a professional deprogrammer to help get him get to that uncomfortable place in his psyche where he might be willing to consider thinking outside of the box. Storms did the best he could by urging Pooley to review the information at Lenr.org. (Lenr-canr.org). Based on what I heard being expressed our of Pooley mouth, a mouth which by the way was constantly interrupting Dr. Storms to the point that the host had to several times tell him to shut up and just listen to what Storms had to say, I suspect there will be nothing... nada... zilch... that could possible result in even the slightest dent in this skeptic's heavily fortified belief structure. On other matters, I'm curious what Jed might have to say about Storms assessment of how CF technology would likely be implemented within the United States. It is Dr. Storms' assessment that energy costs, at least for the common man, might actually go up, temporarily, as we make what might be a costly transition from traditional energy sources over to CF. According to Storms, he envisions the likelihood of a lengthy transition phase, a phase that traditional energy provides will do their best to stretch out for as long as possible before CF eventually overwhelms the industry. Part of the stretching out phase would deliberately be allowed by the government in order to give traditional energy providers enough time to make the transition. I gather Storms was assuming many of these industrial would attempt to adapt or retool in some viable manner. However, according to what I believe Jed has had to say on the subject, I gather Jed remains highly skeptical that most traditional energy providers would be capable of making the transition. Or am I wrong on that? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect there will be nothing... nada... zilch... that could possible result in even the slightest dent in this skeptic's heavily fortified belief structure. Nothing except an iron-clad, robust, high energy, credible, sustained, long lasting, self-running, closed loop, properly replicable, well performed, properly instrumented, controlled, blinded, and calibrated, illustrated, documented and proven demo. C'mon guys, where's the beef? Are Rossi and Defkalion really the best this field has to offer? And are Sterling Allan and Craig Brown and Paul Story really the best popularizers that can be found? BTW Krivit just wrote: As far as Rossi’s story, stay tuned. More information soon. ( here: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/07/the-failure-of-rossis-energy-catalyzer-caught-on-video/) I can hardly wait, LOL.
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Mauro, ... I think the problem is with the electrostatic idea... if there are electric currents, then there isn't an electrostatic situation. There's nothing static in a system like the Sun and the Solar System. Ah! THAT's what I missed in my prior speculation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The sun, which is obviously generating DYNAMIC electrical currents associated fields is probably the reason why electrSTATIC forces do not appear to be an issue. Good! I now feel secure in the knowledge that the sun is not going to blow up due to an imbalance of static charges! ...Of course, specifications are subject to change over the millennium. [I read that in the fine print] ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
I would concur with Steven on the show, especially his description of the segment with Pooley as the most 'entertaining'... I would call it comical. Pooley kept on saying, If you can't explain it, it isn't fusion. Meaning, if you can't explain it according to known theory, then it doesn't exist... perfect example of how the human mind has substituted theory for religious belief, and any experimental evidence to the contrary is dismissed based on conflicting with that theory. Pooley has the scientific process backwards... I also agree with SVJ that Pooley might do a cursory look-see at lenr.org, but won't learn a single thing. Not much new really, so anyone looking for new details will be disappointed. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show See: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1685 Thank Jed, Just finished listening to The Space Show an interview with Dr. Storms. The segment with skeptic Charles Pooley was perhaps the most entertaining part of the show for me. The ensuing interaction between the host (Dr. David Livingston), Storms, and Pooley really drove home to me how fundamentally oriented a professed scientific-based belief can unfortunately become at times. I think Pooley would need the services of a professional deprogrammer to help get him get to that uncomfortable place in his psyche where he might be willing to consider thinking outside of the box. Storms did the best he could by urging Pooley to review the information at Lenr.org. (Lenr-canr.org). Based on what I heard being expressed our of Pooley mouth, a mouth which by the way was constantly interrupting Dr. Storms to the point that the host had to several times tell him to shut up and just listen to what Storms had to say, I suspect there will be nothing... nada... zilch... that could possible result in even the slightest dent in this skeptic's heavily fortified belief structure. On other matters, I'm curious what Jed might have to say about Storms assessment of how CF technology would likely be implemented within the United States. It is Dr. Storms' assessment that energy costs, at least for the common man, might actually go up, temporarily, as we make what might be a costly transition from traditional energy sources over to CF. According to Storms, he envisions the likelihood of a lengthy transition phase, a phase that traditional energy provides will do their best to stretch out for as long as possible before CF eventually overwhelms the industry. Part of the stretching out phase would deliberately be allowed by the government in order to give traditional energy providers enough time to make the transition. I gather Storms was assuming many of these industrial would attempt to adapt or retool in some viable manner. However, according to what I believe Jed has had to say on the subject, I gather Jed remains highly skeptical that most traditional energy providers would be capable of making the transition. Or am I wrong on that? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: It is Dr. Storms' assessment that energy costs, at least for the common man, might actually go up, temporarily, as we make what might be a costly transition from traditional energy sources over to CF. According to Storms, he envisions the likelihood of a lengthy transition phase . . . I can't speak for Ed, but I think he means the price of energy will not fall as rapidly in the first world as in the third world and China, because we already have an energy infrastructure, and we have to do two things: 1. Make an orderly transition so that service is not interrupted. I mean, for example, if an elderly poor person is the last person left on the electric power distribution net in a town where everyone else purchases a cold fusion generator, we will have to see to it the elderly person gets a generator too, even if the community has to pay for it. 2. Clean up the mess from the old system. As I mentioned yesterday, this involves things such as digging up old gas station tanks. In third world countries where they have few gas stations. no regulations, and no social safety net, and no environmental regulations, cold fusion will be easier and faster to implement. I think that is true of most technology. I do not think this will be a long-term problem. After 20 years most of the transition costs should be covered. They will be only a tiny fraction of the money we save anyway, so I doubt this will hurt our competitiveness vis a vis China. Ed thinks it might. I think the advantages of having a mature, existing base of technology and educated citizens outweigh the advantages of a clean slate and no pesky regulations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ICCF15 proceedings on line
Using LZMA algorithm it goes down to 74MB, still too much, but saves 22MB. I used specifically xz (http://tukaani.org/xz/). mic 2012/1/10 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you to upload it on LENR-CANR.org as a multi-part zip file to be downloaded and extracted on users' hard drives for off-line reading . . . It did not compress much with zip. It went from 96 MB to 89 MB. The PDFConverter tools do a better job. I could probably shrink the image resolution and make it smaller, but people like to see good quality images. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: . . .I gather Jed remains highly skeptical that most traditional energy providers would be capable of making the transition. Yup. See the books and articles by Prof. Clayton Christensen for the reasons why. See especially The Innovator's Dilemma. He describes the dynamics that usually prevent established businesses from adapting new technology. He shows many examples from history. It is not unheard of. IBM made major transitions in the 1980s. However, that was after losing the largest amount of money any corporation ever lost up to that time, and after nearly going out of business. It was a near death experience. Most businesses do not survive such things. GM went bankrupt in 2009. The stockholder value was wiped out. In many important ways, the company ceased to exist and another company of the same name is now using some of the factories and employees of the previous entity. It is not what you would call making the transition. The gist of the problem is what you saw with U.S. passenger railroads in the 20th century. First the automobile business took away most of their local business in the 1920s. Then after WWII airlines took away their long distance business. Railroad executives might have invested in Ford Motor. They might have tried to start their own airline. But they never did. They saw themselves in the business of running trains on steel tracks. Not in the transportation business. They had few relevant skills that applied to running an airline. Okay, they knew how to issue tickets and keep track of baggage and freight. They no experience with airplanes. They had no competitive advantage over start-up airline companies, especially not compared to people such as Eddy Rickenbacker, president of Eastern Airlines. He knew a lot about airplanes. He could learn how to issue tickets. The people at Exxon Mobil know how to drill holes in the ground and under the sea. They know how to operate gigantic tankers, and how to refine and deliver thousands of tons of gasoline a day. They have a deep, sophisticated skill set. But they have no experience relevant to competing with Defkalion. They know nothing about installing and maintaining HVAC equipment. All the money in the world will not give them a leg up trying to compete with Peachtree Service Experts, the Atlanta HVAC company that I contract with. Why would I switch my business to a start-up run by Exxon Mobil? They would not be any cheaper. They would have to hire from the same pool of trained local people as Peachtree does. A bunch of guys who used to work in offshore oil wells are not especially qualified to maintain conventional HVAC equipment, and they will not be qualified to maintain cold fusion-powered HVAC equipment either. This isn't hard to understand. I am talking about energy-related companies. I think that GM, Ford and Toyota will be well positioned to transition to cold fusion automobile engines. That is an entirely different dynamic. That is replacing one core technology with another, leaving your business itself in place. Big corporations often do a great job of that. The railroads had no difficulty transitioning from stream locomotives to Diesel. That is not the same as entering a different market segment. Christensen discusses this in detail. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
Jed: You might want to let Ed know that he could have easily slam-dunked Pooley by simply bringing up the case of superconductors where the experimental side pre-dated the theoretical. It took decades and a lot of funding after the effect was shown to be repeatable, to develop a number of reasonable hypotheses. -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show I would concur with Steven on the show, especially his description of the segment with Pooley as the most 'entertaining'... I would call it comical. Pooley kept on saying, If you can't explain it, it isn't fusion. Meaning, if you can't explain it according to known theory, then it doesn't exist... perfect example of how the human mind has substituted theory for religious belief, and any experimental evidence to the contrary is dismissed based on conflicting with that theory. Pooley has the scientific process backwards... I also agree with SVJ that Pooley might do a cursory look-see at lenr.org, but won't learn a single thing. Not much new really, so anyone looking for new details will be disappointed. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show See: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1685 Thank Jed, Just finished listening to The Space Show an interview with Dr. Storms. The segment with skeptic Charles Pooley was perhaps the most entertaining part of the show for me. The ensuing interaction between the host (Dr. David Livingston), Storms, and Pooley really drove home to me how fundamentally oriented a professed scientific-based belief can unfortunately become at times. I think Pooley would need the services of a professional deprogrammer to help get him get to that uncomfortable place in his psyche where he might be willing to consider thinking outside of the box. Storms did the best he could by urging Pooley to review the information at Lenr.org. (Lenr-canr.org). Based on what I heard being expressed our of Pooley mouth, a mouth which by the way was constantly interrupting Dr. Storms to the point that the host had to several times tell him to shut up and just listen to what Storms had to say, I suspect there will be nothing... nada... zilch... that could possible result in even the slightest dent in this skeptic's heavily fortified belief structure. On other matters, I'm curious what Jed might have to say about Storms assessment of how CF technology would likely be implemented within the United States. It is Dr. Storms' assessment that energy costs, at least for the common man, might actually go up, temporarily, as we make what might be a costly transition from traditional energy sources over to CF. According to Storms, he envisions the likelihood of a lengthy transition phase, a phase that traditional energy provides will do their best to stretch out for as long as possible before CF eventually overwhelms the industry. Part of the stretching out phase would deliberately be allowed by the government in order to give traditional energy providers enough time to make the transition. I gather Storms was assuming many of these industrial would attempt to adapt or retool in some viable manner. However, according to what I believe Jed has had to say on the subject, I gather Jed remains highly skeptical that most traditional energy providers would be capable of making the transition. Or am I wrong on that? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? The fact that we build all kinds of neat and wonderful things with the current understanding of electrical charge, doesn't mean we *know* what it is. I think the older generation can grasp the significance of that, but I have concerns about the younger gen... Sometime last year I posted a question as to why the E-field and B-field in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular... someone replied with, because of Maxwell's equations. If you don't understand why that is a non-answer, then you are probably in the younger-gen! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Think of it this way: a proton might be composed of 1836 electrons. Add one more and you have a neutron! T
[Vo]:Recent advances in thermoelectrics...
First, a few excerpts from the article found here: http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-quick-cooking-nanomaterials-microwave-to morrow-air.html It's really amazing as to how nanostructures seasoned with just a few atoms of sulfur can lead to such superior thermoelectric properties of the bulk material made from the nanostructures, and allows us to reap the benefits of nanostructuring on a macroscale, Ramanath said. .then. Additionally, the new study shows the Rensselaer research team can make batches of 10 to 15 grams (enough to make several pea-sized pellets) of the doped nanomaterial in two to three minutes with a microwave oven. Larger quantities can be produced using industrial-sized microwaves ovens. And the following point. Those who argue that Rossi's inability to produce/replicate his 30% efficient thermoelectric technology was proof of a scam, have no clue what they are talking about. I have visited the facilities at svtc.com in San Jose, and been involved in some technical discussions about semiconductor wafer fabrication, and I can tell you that it is not uncommon to have difficulty reproducing some performance specs. The excerpt above is an example where a VERY SMALL change in what goes into the process or 'recipe' can make all the difference between success and failure. And it isn't only materials and gases that matter, but temperatures and temperature cycling, and a whole host of other 'process variables'. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Recent advances in thermoelectrics...
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And the following point… Those who argue that Rossi’s inability to produce/replicate his 30% efficient thermoelectric technology was proof of a scam, have no clue what they are talking about. If Rossi had not been scamming, he would have been able to produce at least one sample or maybe a few samples of material yielding 30% efficiency. He could not even provide a sample which worked as well as standard technology. He has not been able to since. If it was not a scam, why would he not have kept trying? Why would he not have *ever* made and shown a single device that met the claims he stated? An efficient TE device would be perfect for producing electricity from E-cat-generated steam. If Rossi knows how to make efficient TE devices, why does he not combine them with the E-cat and close the loop so it runs without external electricity indefinitely until its nuclear fuel runs out? That would be at least months and maybe years, not the silly four hours his typical demos have lasted.
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
I sometime speculate that the electron and the proton are drops of a mix of two electric fluids, which on balance have a corresponding net negative or a net positive charge. Another idea is that there is universal ambient electric fuild, and the difference between the proton and the electron arises because they contain more or less of this ambient fuild. Harry On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? The fact that we build all kinds of neat and wonderful things with the current understanding of electrical charge, doesn't mean we *know* what it is. I think the older generation can grasp the significance of that, but I have concerns about the younger gen... Sometime last year I posted a question as to why the E-field and B-field in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular... someone replied with, because of Maxwell's equations. If you don't understand why that is a non-answer, then you are probably in the younger-gen! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Think of it this way: a proton might be composed of 1836 electrons. Add one more and you have a neutron! T
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Dare to be naive. -- Buckminster Fuller Harry
[Vo]:Larsen (Lattice Energy) proposes a new neutrino antenna
New possibilities for developing minimal mass, extremely sensitive, collective many-body, quantum mechanical neutrino 'antennas' http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-collective-manybody-qm-neutrino-antennasjan-10-2012 A pretty venturesome proposal. It seems testable. The sensitivity is conjectured to be ~10^10 times that of existing detectors. If it were much higher yet, maybe neutrino broadcasting would be possible? One of the references gives Lattice's theory on why LENR transmutations result mainly in stable isotopes - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcnickel-seed-wl-lenr-nucleosynthetic-networkmarch-24-2011
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Harry wrote: On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Your suggestion that it could be simply a difference in the amount of each type of a binary fluid is certainly interesting, but then charge would not be quantized, would it? Or more accurately, we would see fractional charge all over the place. I will agree with the idea that charge has more to do with the underlying medium... If one considers the idea of a polarizable (quantum) vacuum, then I think the likelihood of coming up with a physical explanation for charge is very likely. Why did we even come to think of requiring positive and negative charge as being part of atomic structure? In order to explain basic chemistry; how and why various elements combine to form molecules; why electrons 'hang around' the nucleus to form atoms... Another possibility is that charge is neither positive nor negative. In my physical model of subatomic elements, electrons are coupled to protons because there is a harmonic relationship between their oscillation frequencies, thus, it is independent of mass and size. Proton-proton and electron-electron Cooper pairs is a natural... the E-field and B-field are natural, macroscopic manifestations of the polarized vacuum... -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Dare to be naive. -- Buckminster Fuller Harry
