[Vo]:Fw: [teslafy] Article removed after HDN comment

[Harvey Norris]

 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

 On Friday, March 10, 2017 8:39 PM, "harv...@yahoo.com [teslafy]" 
 wrote:
 

     
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clocks-blurry-quantum-world-fundamental-134642083.htmlWhen
 I posted this reply I was the fifth one to  make one. I see that the oldest 
reply was from 10 hr.s ago. After I lost the page I could not find it in yahoo 
news again so I have bookmarked it here for further reference.
Harvey D Norris39 minutes agoI find this to be somewhat hilarious and would 
direct the readers to the real subject at hand. This article sounds exactly 
what the sacred holders of Einsteinian doctrine would say in order to save 
face, so to speak when so much contradictory evidence confronts them they have 
to postulate something to keep everyone on board and keep them from jumping 
ship. It is a preposterous assumption to assume that time dilation is 
symmetrical from both observers involved. In fact I have made machines that 
compress time as it is measured between three parts and obtained a seeming 
energy gain exactly as if this compressed time was then expanded to act as the 
reciprocal, and NOT symmetrical effect of the original input. What this means 
in laymans terms is shown here; 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/24107343585/in/dateposted-public/
According to relativity traveling through space near light velocities will 
compress the time on the moving frame of reference to that of the non-moving 
one. A 20% time compression would mean that for one second of our time; the 
moving observer would experience one second of time in only 4/5ths of our time. 
Conversely from the moving and constricted frame of reference our time would be 
happening as the reciprocal of this, or 5/4ths of a second happening for every 
one of the moving observers seconds. This would also imply that if we could 
send energy (as electrical amperage) between the time frames, since wattage is 
expressed as joules of energy per second: and each second is not identical to 
each other: that more energy would come out from the expanded side then that 
which came from the constricted time side. We would literally be converting 
time into energy. But because the moving and non moving parts could not be 
connected together to exchange energy we need something called "localized 
relativistic effects" to accomplish this, and science does not accept this as 
being possible.
In fact being one of the few people that actually back up these so called 
"heresies" from doctrine with actual machines proving the truth that time 
itself may be compressed or dilated without movements in space; and then 
received as a reciprocal expansion of the original time dilation; the fact that 
this is not a bonafide conversion of time into energy is something every 
scholar and recipient of social graces from the "status quo" system will reject 
is probably the main reason that this invention will go to Russia which is a 
moral nation that respects the innovation of inventors and inventions that are 
formerly unheard of. For the die hard doctrinaires of relativity I leave with 
the following note; 
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relativity-part-in-General-relativity/answer/Harvey-D-Norris?srid=uJ5lK=575c53f8
  __._,_.___ Posted by: harv...@yahoo.com 
|  Reply via web post  | • |   Reply to sender   | • |   Reply to group   | • | 
 Start a New Topic  | • |  Messages in this topic (1)  |

Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, 
the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you 
waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) 
in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
   Visit Your Group
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
 .  
 __,_._,___#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882 -- #yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp {border:1px 
solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv5738153882 
#yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv5738153882 
#yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp #yiv5738153882hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp #yiv5738153882ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp .yiv5738153882ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp .yiv5738153882ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882ygrp-mkp .yiv5738153882ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv5738153882ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv5738153882 
#yiv5738153882ygrp-sponsor #yiv5738153882ygrp-lc #yiv5738153882hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv5738153882 
#yiv5738153882ygrp-sponsor #yiv5738153882ygrp-lc .yiv5738153882ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv5738153882 #yiv5738153882actions 

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question.
> I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and build
> a theory.
>

Yup.



> Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that Pd
> won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured material...
>

I hope that Pd will not be required. Just in case it is the only thing that
works, I decided to run the numbers to see whether it could produce a
significant fraction of world energy. I think it can.

As I said, Ni or Ti would be a lot better because you could put them in all
machines, including low-duty cycle things like automobiles, or flashlights.
"Low-duty cycle" means the automobile sits in the parking lot most hours of
the day. Really, it is a waste of equipment.

Someone wrote that a computer hard disk and computer RAM have the lowest
duty cycle of any common technology, and they are the biggest waste of
resources. The disk is powered up and spinning, but most of it is not
accessed for years, or never accessed. That is an interesting perspective.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> This is accurate insight with the proviso that palladium could still be
> required, even with graphene, but possibly optimized as much as twenty-fold.
>

I think that is probably true. But I kind of took that into account when I
plugged the power density of 200 W/g for Pd into the spreadsheet. For bulk
Pd, ~50 W/g may be close to the limit. I plugged in 200 W, admittedly
arbitrarily, because I figure the Pd could be in small spots that are
quickly cooled by the surrounding material.

I met a fellow who was trying to put Pd spots on synthetic diamond. Diamond
is the best heat sink, he claimed.

For a uranium oxide fuel pellet, 25 W/g is the limit, I think. The
zirconium tubes in pressurized water cannot stand up to much higher
temperatures.

- Jed

[Vo]:LENR -A MIRROR SITUATION

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-10-2017-lenr-mirror-situation.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jess Tauber]

I've long been an advocate of mining the planet Mercury (if one can get around the obvious difficulties of such an extreme environment on the surface). Early in the planet's history some unknown cataclysm (possibly similar to that which resulted in the formation of our own moon) blasted off most of the rocky outer crust, leaving the core intact, which means its easier to reach than those of the other rocky planets. The amount of palladium there (not to mention all the other goodies) should tide us over for the foreseeable future.Jess Tauber

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jones Beene]

 Alain Sepeda wrote:


Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question.
I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and 
build a theory.


Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that 
Pd won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured 
material... other metal, alloys, graphene-like structures, why not 
enzyms, dirty plasmas, could be more performant.


This is accurate insight with the proviso that palladium could still be 
required, even with graphene, but possibly optimized as much as twenty-fold.


One major problem is that there is no systematic plan to integrate past 
results and move forward in an optimized and well-funded way. IH could 
have been that vehicle, had Rossigate not happened.


For instance there is good evidence that deuterium loading correlates 
with excess heat, and actual proof that an alloy of 95% nickel and 5% 
palladium loads more deuterium than palladium alone (from Ahern's Arata 
replication). Yet few are aware of this detail - and no supplier offers 
the optimized 95/5 alloy for purchase. I would bet that no one in the 
field is currently using this finding.


In the case of an alloy containing only a small Pd percentage, the 
rarity and high cost of palladium is marginalized.

RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/it-took-4-new-debt-create-1-gdp

Wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[Jones Beene]

 H Ucar wrote:
Here is the video of the experiment https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , 
which I first observed the non-polar repulsion and gave the sign of 
possibility of levtation / bound state.


It is no wonder from watching phenomena like this, that the idea of a 
self-powering magnetic motor is one which will probably never die. Many 
have come close and are still trying - but the issue of demagnetization 
is always there.


Here is another effort that is very alluring and advanced in its 
implementation, but alas, may not be the answer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWggsnpEk_s=1

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Alain Sepeda]

Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question.
I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and build a
theory.

Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that Pd
won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured material...
other metal, alloys, graphene-like structures, why not enzyms, dirty
plasmas, could be more performant.

I compare the situation to the one on semiconductors before we have a
theory.
Germanium, lead oxydes, were the first PN/shottky junctions to works, but
we evolved quickly from germanium, to silicon, then III-V cmpounds
(AsGa,InAs, GaN,...) then SiGe, diamonds...
and technology from junction transitors, to planar, ICs, bipolar to JFET,
MOSFET, VMOS, IGBT... (I'm mixing applications)

just expect the same for LENR

When I was kid I was playing with LED less efficient than incandescent
lamps, no blue... My firs blue les when young adult were so expensive and
weak...
White was pipedream for long.



2017-03-10 0:07 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Someone told me those are Troy ounces, which are heavier than garden
> variety ounce-ounces. Perhaps they also launch a thousand ships. See also
> the millihelen:
>
> "A unit of measure of pulchritude, corresponding to the amount of beauty
> required to launch one ship."
>
>
> Note: this is not included in the Système International d'unités, even
> though that is French.
>
> Okay, let me add there are several conservative assumptions in my estimate
> which I did not enumerate. I am assuming there is practically no
> improvement in related technology, which is silly. For example:
>
> Even with cold fusion central generators, we could have small ones, in 1
> MW range. They could be close to population centers, or in population
> centers where there are now transformers. This would greatly reduce
> transmission and distribution losses (T).
>
> It is unreasonable to assume that thermal conversion efficiency will not
> improve.
>
> The 60% duty cycle may be too conservative. I estimated that from the
> demand for electricity, which falls at night. You cannot turn off a fission
> nuclear plant, but you can turn off natural gas or -- probably -- cold
> fusion, so you probably would. So it would only run 16 hours a day (60%
> duty cycle). However, Elon Musk is now trying to make tremendous numbers of
> batteries very cheaply. If he succeeds, we can leave the cold fusion
> generator on 24-hours a day and store up the electricity. The duty cycle is
> close to 100% and the spreadsheet tells me that's . . . 15% of today's
> electricity in Scenario 1, and 150% in Scenario 2.
>
> Musk is trying to do this so that we can use solar power, or wind power.
> It works out better and cheaper for Pd-D cold fusion power. With Ni or Ti,
> you would not need batteries at all, except for a transient increases in
> demand.
>
> - Jed
>
>