Re: [Vo]:SPIN-LATTICE COUPLING

[Nigel Dyer]

It strikes me that this is essentially the mechanism that Neal Graneau 
proposed to be responsible for the arc-liberated emission of energy in 
papers such as


https://www.academia.edu/download/38880867/Graneau-e-a-Arc-liberated-chemical-energy-exceeds-electrical-input-energy-2000.pdf

However, I dont beleive there is a phase change in the water that could 
be associated with such an energy release., which is one of the reasons 
why I dont think Neal's hypothesis holds water,


Nigel

On 13/07/2019 17:14, H LV wrote:
The wikipedia page does not mention the complementary phenomena of 
decalescence.



Definition of /decalescence/

: the decrease in temperature when the rate of heat absorption during 
transformation exceeds the rate of heat input while heating metal 
through a transformation range


On Sat., Jul. 13, 2019, 11:14 a.m. bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
, > wrote:


*Recalescence* is an increase in temperature
 that occurs while
cooling metal  when a change
in structure with an increase in entropy
 occurs. The heat
 responsible for the change in
temperature is due to the change in entropy. When a structure
transformation occurs the Gibbs free energy
 of both
structures are more or less the same. Therefore the process will
be exothermic . The heat
provided is the latent heat
.

This concept described in Wikipedia seems like LENR to me.  It
involves the 2^nd law regarding an increase of entropy in a
coupled system as a result of as a result of a decrease of
potential energy and an increase of kinetic energy.

If the Sandia incident occurred during cooling while magnetization
was ongoing, this alone would deserved a paper IMHO.

However, Gibbs did not consider free energy associated with
nuclear structures as being important in his theory.

Note the BS associated with a constant Gibbs free energy (more or
less the same) in 2 different phases associated with

*Recalescence* .

Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:ThomasGas - is it just another alternative energy scam ?

[Nigel Dyer]

This has much the same feel as Brown's gas, including similar supposed 
health benefits that others have claimed for Browns gas.


Nigel

On 22/07/2020 14:57, Jones Beene wrote:
This turned up today - a "new" hydrogen based fuel... shades of 
Brown's Gas ?


https://thomasinstitute.weebly.com/

Thomas Gas has all the hallmarks of the typical alternative energy 
scam, including no independent verification, no useful data, no peer 
reviewed paper and absurd health claims. But unlike most of these 
scams - is alluring in that they claim to have a long running working 
device. Also - a few other details do check out, so at least it is an 
above-average scam.


Plus - if there is anything to it at all - the description makes it 
sound like it could involve dense hydrogen in some way, but that too 
is not clear. Any new tech with overtones of dense hydrogen gets my 
interest.


Quote:"The prototype of the Thomas Gas Generator is now working for 
over 5 years."


Whoa. That should be easy enough to document, yet there is no 
indication from a reputable source that it is true and no images of 
the device. They have a Facebook page, but I am anti-FB so that is no 
help.


​They continue: "Thomas Gas (TG) is a hydrogen derivative 
 
that is 100 % green, clean, environmentally safe, and has higher 
energy potential than typical hydrogen gas...TG has a net charge of 
+1, non-combustible, superconductor versus Hydrogen with 0 net charge, 
highly combustible, and high conductivity.


The British thermal unit (BTU) is a measure of energy production.  
Molecular hydrogen (H2) carries 2.7X higher energy per unit mass than 
gasoline (1 kg of H2 has approximately the energy content of one 
gallon (2.7 kg) of gasoline).


*Energy Generated by Combustion of Fuels and Hydrogen*
Fuels       BTU/lb.
Gasoline (n-Heptane)  19,314
Natural gas                                      20,267
Conventional gasoline                     18,679
U.S. conventional diesel                  18,397
Crude oil                                           18,352
Hydrogen (H2)                                  52,200
Thomas Gas (TG)                           196,200

As depicted, the energy contained in 1 pound of TG is 10.5 X greater 
than conventional gasoline and

*3.75X greater than H2*.

Is this complete BS?

My guess is that the odds of it being real are slim, but there is 
possibly something there and I am willing to waste a few hours of 
Covid time, trying to find out.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]cancer research

[Nigel Dyer]

I was supposed to be involved in a research project on this, but the 
funding got lost during a complicated series of money transfers in the 
far East.


Nigel

On 28/12/2019 22:53, Jones Beene wrote:
If I understand what you are saying - this is already a well-known 
mechanism called T-cell activation


T Cell Activation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics 







T Cell Activation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics




  mix...@bigpond.com  wrote:

Coeliac disease is caused by the body's own immune system attacking 
other wise healthy cells in the gut due to the presence of a protein 
called gluten.
I wonder if an analogous method could be employed to get the immune 
system to attack cancer cells?

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Old data of interest

[Nigel Dyer]

A very interesting paper, particularly as you say the X ray emmission.   
This does mirror the X-ray emission reported by Vladimir Vysotskii in 
his 'Cavitation/undamped thermal radiation' results which he presented 
at the recent water conference in Frankfurt that I was at.  There were a 
number of us there who feel that the undamped thermal radiation is much 
more likely to be a variety of strange radiation.


As I have mentioned before here (I think) it also looks to be linked to 
the gamma radiation plots at "UPDATE#1-The signal..." of


http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal

My hunch is that the low frequency cutoff may be partly linked to the 
sensitivity of the detector, but may also link to the dimensions of the 
atoms involved, with the radiation being associated with a resonant 
interaction between the nucleus and the electrons of the atoms of the 
material that generates the X-rays.


Nigel

On 08/11/2019 21:01, Jones Beene wrote:
Worth mentioning in the "mystery radiation" inquiry, is this old data 
which presents a possible connection of LENR to dark matter by way of 
the purported characteristic soft x-ray emission at 3.6 keV. The 
citation below is a high quality 25 year old paper from Mitsubishi 
written by Iwamura, presented at ICCF '96.


It can be found at the LENR-CANR library but has been largely 
overlooked, since it came out many years before the astrophysics of 
dark matter - which now purportedly link to a soft x-ray peak, found 
in hundreds of galaxies.


At this time (early 1990s) Iwamura had no clue what they had found, 
and never got back to the same line of research despite mentioning 
that it was of high importance. The paper in question is: Iwamura, Y., 
et al. "Correlation between behavior of deuterium in palladium and 
occurrence of nuclear reactions"... Sixth International Conference on 
Cold Fusion,1996.


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYcorrelatio.pdf

The relevant data is easy to miss (I hope that I have not 
misinterpreted it). Please have a look at the second graph (Fig 4) on 
page 6 - the lower one which correlates the energy of the mystery 
radiation to the count rate over about one week of run time.


As you can see, the low end of the energy scale is exponentially 
higher in counts, and the range seems to be highest at the detector 
threshold, so with more modern detection, one can imagine that it 
could even have been higher (due to the steepness of the line at 
cutoff). For instance,there appears to be about 1000 counts at 50 keV 
but 100,000 counts at the low end, which is arguably around the dark 
matter signature at 3.6 keV.


In short, the range which has the highest count rate is consistent 
with dark energy photons but the authors did not recognize that, of 
course, and made no mention of what it could be except to note its 
importance. So essentially this partial finding which now looks 
important in retrospect, was not pursued.


Fortunately, the data is here and stands on its own... at least in the 
imagination of LENR optimists.


Jones

(having survived recent California wild fires and electrical power 
disruption...)

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Nigel Dyer]

My hunch is that normally the interaction of neutrinos with dense mass 
is indeed next to zero but that the exception is where there are a large 
number of particles that interact with exch other such that they 
exchibit a macroscopc coherence.  This experiment appears to show one 
such example:


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0954-3899/40/5/055201/meta

I beleive that there are others, where different forms of interactions 
result in different, but still effective as far as neutrino interactions 
are concerned, forms of coherence. Most of the matter in e.g. the earth 
is not in this state, so neutrinos pass almost straight through.


Nigel

On 07/08/2019 14:01, Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos 
with dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite 
you have also to show why the experiments are wrong.


On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to 
describe the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational 
mass is different from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.



Jürg



Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:

Dear Bob C.

I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the interaction 
between electron and nucleus. However, my picture is definitely 
non-standard. At the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, 
the neutrino (considered to be similar to photons) would be in the 
"longitudinal photon" mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating 
(probably averaging to zero) and therefore not subject to accurate 
measure. This oscillation (if time dilated) could explain the GSI 
time anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly).


With all of the contradictions and problems with present neutrino 
models, I would consider alternative models to be nearly as valid as 
"accepted" models. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang 
mom, mass, and even charge to be suspect. While what you have added 
in your most recent email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping 
that you might have something that was absolutely convincing. I'll 
make a couple comments there.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 > wrote:


Andrew—

Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and
carry spin angular momentum.   In addition they are considered to
consist as leptons of anti and regular matter which can
annihilate into pure EM energy like many particle anti-particle
pairs.

I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos
have a magnetic moment, or al least harbor magnetons.   It seems
they are much like massless photons and travel when not caught up
in a nucleon at c. n free space (4-D space and time.)  In this
regard they are real particles vs virtual quarks.

Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering
their small rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic
electrons as they pass thru their electro-magnetic field (or
their unique combination of space, time, angular momentum and
magnetic field dimensions.)

A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, _AN IMPERFECT
PICTURE, _addresses the concepts associated with some of these
dimensions.  Nigel Dyer’s family blog includes pertinent excerpts
from this book, which is out of print as far as I know.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_

__

W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s  papers and Jurg
Wyttenbach’s papers address the nucleon structure which seems to
involve neutrinos.  IMHO the coupling is at the Planck scale and
involves magnetic fields—no electric fields  associated with
intrinsic charge.

Bob Cook

*fm: *Andrew Meulenberg 
*Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
*To: *VORTEX 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

Bob,

You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin.
Can you provide some references to support them?

In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of
angular momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think
that it is well accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to
bound electrons via the Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that
Schwinger, along with his papers on cold fusion, was mocked for
suggesting that internal nuclear energy could be shared with the
potential energy of electrons and thus the lattice. However, as a
central force, this energy transfer cannot convey ang mom.

My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with
the internal structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and
possible sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no
longer providing just central forces. While the interaction is

Re: [Vo]:Article on Dennis Danzik - Inventor of EarthEngine (magmo)

[Nigel Dyer]

There is also this patent from 1982

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1982003300A1/en?oq=WO+82%2f03300

Nigel

On 17/05/2019 14:50, JonesBeene wrote:


BTW – this German patent turns up

https://patents.google.com/patent/DE4304132A1/en

The information in the patent could be instructive – IF – there is any 
anomaly at all in the Danzik device.


They are suggesting a low rpm anomaly – which could involve spin-spin 
coupling interactions on several levels.


---

I agree with Terry that there is no known reason in physics for this 
device to work.


And… there are lots of reasons including centuries of experience as 
witnessed in a litany of failed attempts - for this kind of device not 
to work.


Curiously, Terry was involved in a magmo project which was arguably 
related to this one in that it involved a large very mass of very 
strong magnets.


In both cases, if the experimental  device had indeed worked - and 
thereby violated the LoT (big IF) then… at its most fundamental basis… 
there would have been some kind of “super-size it” effect which 
converts disorder into order on a sufficient scale to pass a 
thermodynamic tipping point … or so the argument goes.


Such a hypothetical negentropy effect -  in the most general terms, 
would somehow employ magnetic precession and unbalanced field effects 
as an ordering principle. The LoT can be viewed as the overriding 
force for disorder (randomness) in nature and the magnetic field 
itself creates some amount of order out of disorder. But so far in 
human history – no one has been able to overcome this tendency for 
disorder by simply scaling up to a larger mass of ordered material.


Nevertheless, I predict that humans will keep on trying to “supersize 
it”  – even if Dennis Danzik adds his name to a long list of failures…


Several tons of ordered mass may not work - but next time someone 
(with disdain for “laws”) will try to assemble several tens of tons 


*From: *Terry Blanton 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Article on Dennis Danzik - Inventor of EarthEngine 
(magmo)


Pulse driven flywheels.  They have a big yellow battery driving them. 
See Bedini.


The magnetic cycle is conservative.

Re: [Vo]:Possible LENR-based consumer product

[Nigel Dyer]

:-)

On 01/04/2019 04:58, AlanG wrote:

Just announced by Quantum Heat:

https://goo.gl/DbWyn1

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Nigel Dyer]

Last week I was made aware of a 1982 petent taken out by Johann Grander 
on a magnetic motor.  The text only appears to be available in German so 
I spent an hour or so with Google translate converting it to English.


https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1982003300A1/it

Nigel

On 27/03/2019 15:48, JonesBeene wrote:


Magnetic motors magically appear in cyberspace from time to time, but 
usually they will demagnetize quickly or never work to begin with.


Supposedly, however,  there is one version  which  has been operating 
in Las Vegas for a while.


At least it is aptly located… Place your bets…

https://overunity.com/18188/iec-earth-engine-first-magnet-motor-installed-in-las-vegas/dlattach/attach/172437/image// 



This image is eye-candy and not the actual device  which is said to be 
working. It is reminiscent of the RAR hype, for sure.


This is the IEC site – they definitely want your investment dollars 
and expect to raise a quarter billion - but is the technology for real?


https://ie.energy/index.html

If it is real this time (and it could be according to people who have 
seen it running) -  the Company is  going about the early stage 
process in what appears to be  the wrong way. They do have good 
Universities in Nevada and Az. However, they apparently  think that 
skirting the experts is the best  way to proceed… and there are a lot 
of gamblers out there who routinely bet fortunes on riskier ventures. 
Time will tell.

Re: [Vo]:viktor Grebennikov

[Nigel Dyer]

Chris

I think you are right about the spin. Another probably related effect is 
the strange radiation seen by various Russian groups. Perhaps the most 
relevant to the rotary motion physics is the fact that one of the 
generators of strange radiation is small peices of metal that are spun 
very very fast.  I am trying to get a good understanding of what we do, 
and do not, know about Lorentz transforms and the electroweak SU(2) 
theories.  I feel there is something going on with the link between spin 
and chirality and then the Higgs field.


Nigel

On 12/03/2019 20:53, Chris Zell wrote:


You’re welcome.

I have noticed that there a lot of gadgets claiming free energy thru 
the years that seem to be based on rotary motion being interrupted or 
modulated.  Maybe all the way back to Bessler.


Stuff with slipping belts,  strange off center movements and so on.   
There’s also Linevich’s patent about unbalanced rotation – which he, 
in turn, claims to have developed from observing a defective pump 
shaking violently.


If the Aspden effect is real, then it could easily be free energy – 
maybe derived from the spin within atoms transitioning from virtual to 
the real world.  I get the impression that particle spin might not be 
conservative as to the usual laws of thermodynamics.


Is it possible that this effect exists and nobody ever noticed it 
formally?  Hard to believe but I can’t say it’s impossible.  I would 
think somebody in the inertial storage field might have noticed an 
anomaly.


*From:* bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 3:10 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:viktor Grebennikov

Many thanks to Ron, Chris and Fran for bringing  Aspden back into the 
light.


   [

Sent from Mail 
 
for Windows 10




*From:*Ron Kita mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:46:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:viktor Grebennikov

Hi Fran,

I find Grebenikov  most interesting. Birds gave us the concept of 
flight...and beetles gave us gravity  repulsion. Here is the lastest 
from last week on chiral dielectric and repulsive casimir forces. 
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.125403 



If you look at Grebennikov you will see that he cites naphthalene for 
"odd effects". The benzene ring cavity is a resonator...and NASA has  
a patent on it. 
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/39/6d/f3/4955546c970788/US8696940.pdf 



Ad astra, Ron Kita, Doylestown PA http://www.chiralex.com 
 
IMHOgravity will be mastered in 2020...IF it wasn t conquered earlier.


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:58 AM Roarty, Francis X 
mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote:


  I almost dismissed the viktor grebennikov articles
but the cavity effect is intriguing and the videos Ive seen of the
way the beetle wing levitates above another wing looks similar to
meisner effect. It also fits into my pet theory that casimir
cavities can dialate ambient gas molecules in the cavities into
different relativistic states that act like brakes on inertia,
remember my relativistic interpretation of casimir effect.. that
all the virtual vacuum lengths still exist between casimir
geometry but are dialated to fit?  If the videos are true then
maybe mother nature figured out how to stack cavities without
cancelling out. I havent been able to find much new information or
synthetic cavity research, any suggestions or related? I would
have like to see a wing pair better isolated from the bench in
most videos – like on glass isolated and elovated up while one
wing levitates to eliminate some of the variables.

Re: [Vo]:RE: cooling engine Maxwellian demon

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob -

A couple of other possible candidates that might make use of the lepton 
flux (neutrinos?).


Many years ago I spent an afternoon with Mae-wan Ho when she was at the 
Open University.  We got to talk about the energy efficiency of 
organisms and she talked about how many are more efficient than they 
should be.  In recent years I have wondered if there is a cnnection 
between this and the lepton flux ideas.


The other example is possible the Reid cell that I have heard Marcus 
Reid present a couple of times.


Nigel

On 12/03/2019 20:10, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Fran--

The following link discusses various ideas about the experience and 
antigravity devices attributed to viktor grebennikov.


**

https://www.keelynet.com/docs/an-anti-gravity-platform-of-v-s-grebennikov.pdf 



**

*At page 73 there is a discussion/hypothesis presented regarding a 
possible physics model to explain the reported phenomena. *


**

*It suggests a “lepton” flux from the sun and engineered schemes for 
“shielding” the flux, resulting in a pressure like force on regular 
mass objects being “shielded”. (“Shielded”  is my term to 
qualitatively describe the process being hypothesized.)*


**

*The hypothesis presented made me think of a flux of energetic 
neutrinos  carrying momentum that the special molecular structures of 
the anti-gravity devices incorporated from beetle wing cell 
characteristics  first observed by  G*rebennikov in the 1980’s.


Since light is reported to also be shielded by the anti-gravity device 
engineering, it brought to mind current day stealth aircraft.


The effect on light also suggests the electro-magnetic nature of the 
“lepton flux” with momentum, as actually being an electro-magnetic 
phenomena with  an unusual oscillation along the time axis as it moves 
through 4-d space time.


Recent entries on Vortex-L address this idea about neutrino 
characteristics.


Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Another magnetic based overunity system

[Nigel Dyer]

I think one of the things that should be checked with this is whether it 
gives off low energy (5-10keV) gamma rays or X rays.  I have been 
looking at the strange radiation data from Russia, which seems to be 
linked with LENR, and one of the most intriguing results is that it is 
also possible to produce strange radiation from a small disk spinning 
very fast.  There also seems to be a connection between the strange 
radiation and the low energy X rays that are reported by people such as 
Vysotskii.
If it is giving off such radiation then that would be an indication that 
there might be something in this, but it would also mean that it is 
probably not suitable for home installation.


On 16/02/2019 00:52, Jones Beene wrote:
Looks like they are taking orders - $8000 for the model below... at 
least that should mean a purchaser could step forward with a review at 
some near term date.


This is made in Korea, which has a history of magnetic motors that 
operate for a short time until the magnets demagnetize.


There is minute probability that this thing works for an extended 
period... plus the warranty could be practically worthless so wait for 
that honest (positive) review before you buy,



5KW MAGNETIC GENERATOR 








5KW MAGNETIC GENERATOR

We are glad to announce that we opened our product for preordering. 
First of all, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHIN...




On Friday, February 15, 2019, 1:01:23 PM PST, Axil Axil 
 wrote:


https://youtu.be/EmdKVecQhXs

[Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium

[Nigel Dyer]

While looking for an article in a a copy of Nature from 1926 (as you do) 
I came across the following article describing how small quantities of 
helium had been seen when hydrogen was absorbed into palladium at room 
temperature. There is nothing new under the sun.

https://www.nature.com/articles/118526a0?fbclid=IwAR3cI0_tWhMXny-_5VwiIZBr-OmiXLocmzd7gWgBCC1LKNtPHOShckdpUD4

The article I was really looking for was one of the early Klein papers 
on there being a fifth dimension, following up an idea that this might 
be part of the explanation of how hydrogen gets converted to helium.

Re: [Vo]:Digitizing an old graph from Fleischmann

[Nigel Dyer]

Indeed, but it would have been so much easier if the PhD student had 
kept his raw data for us to produce the graph for the paper


On 06/12/2018 15:24, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Nigel Dyer mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:

I have also had to digitize an old graph recently, and used the
following webpage very succesfully

http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/app3_12/


That works pretty well, doesn't it? About the same as GetData.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digitizing an old graph from Fleischmann

[Nigel Dyer]

I have also had to digitize an old graph recently, and used the 
following webpage very succesfully


http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/app3_12/

Nigel

On 05/12/2018 22:26, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I am digitizing an important old graph from Fleischmann. The process 
is illustrated here:


https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5782-digitizing-an-old-graph-from-fleischmann/?postID=98837#post98837

Re: [Vo]:Dark Matter as a "sterile antineutron" and the LENR connection

[Nigel Dyer]

I've had a quick scan through the paper, and it looks very much at 
things at the large/galatic scale.  IMHO it is worth looking at whether 
this might link in with LENR, but that would require taking the ideas 
down to the opposite scale and working out how it fits in with QFT and 
the standard model (a beyond the standard model version), in that at the 
end of the day whatever this negative mass stuff might be it would have 
to interact with the stuff we know about to be a candidate mechanism for 
LENR.  My hunch is that there is a connection between LENR and the Higgs 
field through the role of neutrinos.  As Higgs is in turn the basis for 
the current mass orthodoxy, adding a negative mass based interaction 
into the model might be exactly what is needed.  To start we need a hint 
as to possible non-gravitational interactions between negative and 
positive mass stuff, for which the paper does not provide any guidance


Nigel

On 05/12/2018 22:15, CB Sites wrote:
Sorry;  If you saw this previously, apparently I made a typo in the 
URL.  It should be;


https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:43 PM CB Sites > wrote:


Wow.  I just read a science brief on a new theory that explains
Dark-matter and Dark-energy in a very odd way.  Ponder this one
for a moment.  Empty space has a negative mass.  Not zero mass but
something with a minus sign in front of it!  This is a new model
worked out by Dr. Jamie Farnes of the Oxford e-Research Centre
published in 'Astronomy and Astrophysics'.  So because empty space
has negative mass, it has negative gravity and thus the universe
is accelerating as it expands from negative gravity.

Maybe CNF has tapped into negative mass in the empty space of the
lattice voids?  Or maybe it's more like stuff from the old movie
'Flubber'.  Either way, it's an interesting perspective on Dark
matter and Dark energy.

[Vo]:Strange Radiation

[Nigel Dyer]

I have recently been looking at "Strange Radiation" and have found a 
very good review from 10 years ago, whose title indicates that it is 
about LENR, but in fact it is mainly about strange radiation.  It is at 
http://www.second-physics.ru/reviews/LENR-ru.pdf


Like many of the documents/papers, it is Russian, so I have used Google 
translate to make an English version.  It provides links to many of the 
source documents, and many of the ones I have tried seem to work, but 
many are also in Russian.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2dLoBI87GRfBrmSwajA7aNTxNYTHGp7/view?fbclid=IwAR1StcfmbrP2s5ofK1OnXosrZzs6EpZHK0VAWywMThfcez9GdD2hKqQOsb8

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Richard Jowsey

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob
I think that the thing to bear in mind is that Richard has started with 
relativity, and appears to be heading towards the smaller scale given 
that on ResearchGate he says that is current project is a unified field 
theory, which is where I think some of these questions might be answered.
I think that the answers are likely to have more than a hint of Jessup 
in them.


Nigel


On 21/11/2018 15:54, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Nigel and Robin—

How does Jowsey handle electric charge?

And how is icharge associated with mass?

Is there a relation between gravity and the electric/magnetic field 
that fills the vacuum?


I like Jessup’s explanations .

Bob


*From:* mix...@bigpond.com 
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:20:01 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Richard Jowsey
In reply to  Nigel Dyer's message of Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:22:41 +:
Hi,

This is brilliant.
[snip]
>I have just come across the work of Richard Jowsey
>
>http://www.jowsey.org/physics/
>
>For some time I have been thinking that it should be possible to create
>a space-time model that has something of this form.  It certainly seems
>to match in well with some of the other ideas I have been looking at.
>Nigel
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:off topic computer violated

[Nigel Dyer]

The change is that websites and apps are now able to send 
notifications.  On the standard web browsers such as Edge, Safari, 
Chrome and Explorer this can only happen with websites if you click 
'Yes' when the website asks if it can send notifications.  I have 
allowed Facebook to send notifications, but said no to all of the other 
websites, and only get Facebook notifications.  Another possibility is 
that you have installed an app where, somewhere deep in the small print 
which you accepted (and which noone reads) , it said that you were 
granting it permission to send notifications from advertisers.  Its not 
clear how this happened on your PC however.


Nigel

On 20/11/2018 02:41, Frank Znidarsic wrote:
I got these side ins 
coming from the right side of my screen.  They are called 
notifications.  I have been working a long time to get rid of them.  I 
don't know how I got them in first place.  Dog food, pro health, 
vanity news, and the list kept growing.  There was no direct way to 
kill them.  Oh your back again, no thank you.


I finally got to the bottom of it.  They were coming in directly 
through Windows 10.  I went to the gear on lower left side of Windows 
and set the notifications to off.  All of them, Facebook everything.  
I have now reclaimed my computer.


Who would have the nerve to be so invasive?

Frank Z

[Vo]:Richard Jowsey

[Nigel Dyer]

I have just come across the work of Richard Jowsey

http://www.jowsey.org/physics/

For some time I have been thinking that it should be possible to create 
a space-time model that has something of this form.  It certainly seems 
to match in well with some of the other ideas I have been looking at.

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:push me, pull you

[Nigel Dyer]

To a mathmatician/physicist it is monotonic because they will force us 
to acknowledge the mismatch (albeit small) in masses/springs etc 
together with the effect of friction.

The engineers will see it as constant velocity.


On 12/08/2018 20:01, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

The C-O-M motion is monotonic, not constant.

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:34 AM, H LV > wrote:


Nifty physics demo:

Two carts are connected together on an air track with a spring.
Under bright lights you can see the coupled oscillation of the
carts back and forth, but under black lights you can see that the
center of mass moves at a constant velocity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amfw2nABke4

Re: [Vo]:LENR was discovered in 1982/1983 (if not before)

[Nigel Dyer]

Before I think.

Nine years ago I was on a walk organised by our Church and got chatting 
to an elderly gentleman who I had not spoken to before. We got to 
talking about LENR as I had just started getting involved.  He told me 
that during the second world war he was involved in developing 
containers for hydrogen.  Their team became aware that in one very 
specific circumstance they were seeing what appeared to be excess heat.  
They brought this to the attention of their superiors and were told that 
they could not afford the time to investigate it (To coin a phrase, 
there was a war on).  He told me that when he heard the Pons and 
Fleishmann news many years later, it came as no surprise.


Nigel


On 12/07/2018 15:28, JonesBeene wrote:


And this wasn’t “fracto-fusion” which has been disputed, nor was it 
the Farnsworth Fusor (1964) which was labeled as “warm fusion”  (ICE).


As we now know, LENR driven by a chemical reaction (combustion shock 
wave) was invented around 1980, probably in several places including 
the USA, for military uses. (tritium-free bomb trigger).


In fairness to our friends from the North – it is time to acknowledge 
that LENR was invented, produced and well-document in Canada 35 years 
ago, well before it turned up in Utah. In fact, the Canucks  might not 
have been the first to do it, but so far as the online record is 
concerned, they have the belated honor of presenting the first report.


Problem was, the experimental work back then (during the depth of the 
Cold War with Russia) was for done for weapons research - and our 
Pentagon effectively silenced the similar work in the USA. Of course, 
filing a patent was out of the question. This work (due to its 
application as a bomb trigger) was and still is – a huge proliferation 
risk.


A typewritten report available online is entitled “EXPLOSIVE-DRIVEN 
HEMISPHERICAL IMPLOSIONS FOR GENERATING FUSION PLASMAS” By D. Sagie 
and I. 1. Glass at the University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace. 
There is no doubt about the importance of this work, or the high 
quality of the experiment - but it is seldom mentioned and does not 
appear on the LENR-CANR library.


Google Scholar did publish the paper online some 30+ years later, but 
not many took notice of its significance. For one thing, this 
information upsets the common misperception that Pons and Fleischmann 
invented cold fusion. They did not, unless one wishes to redefine it 
in such a way that eliminates simple chemical reactions.


That credit, which is nothing less than the discovery of LENR (using 
any reasonable definition of “low energy”) - should  in a perfect 
world – be attributed to Glass and Sagie. However, other researchers 
whose work was squelched by the Pentagon are probably out there. You 
can track down the large file (42 megs)  through this link.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhFl...25..269G

The University of Toronto (Aerospace) had at that time  a dedicated 
 “explosive-driven-implosion facility” and it  was used by Glass et al 
 to produce stabIe, centered and focused hemispherical implosions to 
generate neutrons from D-D reactions using only the energy of 
combustion.  This was a CHEMICAL REACTION only. The reaction was 
actually simply the result of a  self-generated shock wave from 
self-detonation of the pure deuterium gas in oxygen.


A high resolution scintillator-detection system measured the neutrons 
and y-rays resulting from the fusion of deuterium. “Several approaches 
were used to initiate fusion in deuterium.


The simplest and most direct proved to be in a stoichiometric mixture 
of deuterium-oxygen…”


QUTOE: “this is the only known work where fusion neutrons were 
produced by chemical energy in a direct manner.”

Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[Nigel Dyer]

That's why it is sometimes necessary to get inside the community.   
Don't tell Nature Genetics but I am a telecoms engineer who stopped 
doing biology at 14 because I wanted to do music instead, and wheedled 
my way into a university Life Sciences dept many years later when I was 
made redundant from my job in telecoms.


Nigel

On 07/07/2018 20:17, H LV wrote:
Experts are much more likely to accept criticism from fellow experts 
within their community than from experts outside their community.
For example egyptologists who present themselves as experts on the 
Sphinx and the Pyramids don't want to hear the geological and 
climatological
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of 
years early than they claim.


Harry

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:


I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong. I think it
would be better to say that people (including scientists) are
sometimes wrong.

To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives
rise to the problems we now have with people distrusting the
science of vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all
sometimes wrong, and should admit it when we are, as I will be
doing during my talk at the water conference in October.  It is my
experience that scientists do admit they are wrong if presented
with good data.  We managed to get the Nature genetics editors to
admit that a paper that they published a year earlier was largly
incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) by presenting
them with some good data.

Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough, and yet the
experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been
designed to produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was
not.

As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack
of developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy
theorists fire.

Nigel


On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Quote of the Day

“People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As
scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”

— Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of
Confidence Project, a website where psychologists can report
flaws in their own work.

https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a
website where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe
this is it.

There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in
fizzix smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in
fact no group on the planet has performed more misguided science
than ITER and its predecessors. Despite good intentions they have
been completely dishonest and reckless with spending.

Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy…
“pathological” come to mind but I suspect there is more poor
science in medicine than any other endeavor. The financial
rewards are the easiest to come by, since sick, rich people will
gladly hand over their last dollar for the miracle cure.

Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial
inventor is a mysterious death. If that happens to the former
head of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult
then self-materializes around the dead  inventor, especially if
he/she dies unexpectedly after talking to investors – and/or was
“in touch with angels” beforehand.

One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has
hundreds of dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was
murdered, despite the contrary evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk

If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which
is not out of the question, it could be the start of a new
religion… perhaps with Stan as the baptizer, so to speak.

Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.

Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[Nigel Dyer]

I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong.   I think it 
would be better to say that people (including scientists) are sometimes 
wrong.


To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives rise to 
the problems we now have with people distrusting the science of 
vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all sometimes wrong, 
and should admit it when we are, as I will be doing during my talk at 
the water conference in October.  It is my experience that scientists do 
admit they are wrong if presented with good data.  We managed to get the 
Nature genetics editors to admit that a paper that they published a year 
earlier was largly incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) 
by presenting them with some good data.


Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough,  and yet the 
experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been designed 
to produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was not.


As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack of 
developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy 
theorists fire.


Nigel


On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Quote of the Day

“People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As 
scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”


— Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of 
Confidence Project, a website where psychologists can report flaws in 
their own work.


https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a website 
where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe this is it.


There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in fizzix 
smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in fact no group 
on the planet has performed more misguided science than ITER and its 
predecessors. Despite good intentions they have been completely 
dishonest and reckless with spending.


Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy… “pathological” 
come to mind but I suspect there is more poor science in medicine than 
any other endeavor. The financial rewards are the easiest to come by, 
since sick, rich people will gladly hand over their last dollar for 
the miracle cure.


Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial inventor 
is a mysterious death. If that happens to the former head of Theranos, 
Elizabeth Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult then self-materializes 
around the dead  inventor, especially if he/she dies unexpectedly 
after talking to investors – and/or was “in touch with angels” 
beforehand.


One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has hundreds 
of dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was murdered, despite 
the contrary evidence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk

If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which is not 
out of the question, it could be the start of a new religion… perhaps 
with Stan as the baptizer, so to speak.


Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Nigel Dyer]

Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at 
least that is what they claimed it would do...


http://rarenergia.com.br/

Nigel


On 31/05/2018 18:27, Vibrator ! wrote:
I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously 
'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.


A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.

I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component 
variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing 
consistency - no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All 
values have also been checked with manual calcs.  The results are 
incontrovertible - this is neither mistake, nor psychosis.




It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that 
time is stare in disbelief at the results.


Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from 
first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the 
maths do, confirming the theory.


I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the 
CoM violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent 
upon the former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct 
causal relationship.



This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.


But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it 
to the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know 
about it, and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile 
crank-emails to universities and govt. departments etc.?


I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.


Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with 
making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to 
sit on - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?


I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them, 
just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...  
it's just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can 
actually be measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.  
Simply no room for error or ambiguity. Unequivocal 'free' energy; 
currently around 190% of unity.  You definitely want to see this, and 
i desperately want to share it.


What should i do though?  How does one proceed, in this kind of situation?

Re: [Vo]:Plastic bags

[Nigel Dyer]

There have been some studies about this, covered in a recent Scientific 
American article


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-oceans-clogged-by-millions-of-tons-of-plastic-trash/

Most of the plastic in the oceans comes from rivers in Asia and Africa.  
The problem is that there is often no organised waste collection in 
these countries so the plastic just gets dumped into the rivers.  We can 
burn or dissolve all the plastic we like in the west and it will not fix 
the problem.  Fixing it requires a change in the culture of collecting 
waste in a number of Asian and African countries.


Nigel

On 26/05/2018 01:54, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Hi,

Plastic bags are made primarily of hydrocarbons.

1.  Dissolved in a solvent, they might make a useful diesel fuel.
2.  Bundled and compressed the bags might be burned instead of coal.
3.  Added to a blast furnace, they could replace, or augment coal.
4.  Subjected to pyrolysis, they might yield lighter hydrocarbons that
 could be used in the chemical industry.

All of these options are better than them swimming around in the ocean.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

As far as I understand the details, the sea-quarks are a not 
unreasonable explanation for the probe data. Interestingly, the Stubbs 
alternative proposal removes sea-quarks but then effectively introduces 
sea-electrons as the main constituent of muons.  The Stubbs model would 
need to be extended to include an explanation for the evidence that is 
consistent with free (but shortlived) mesons, which currently have a 
relatively simple explanation as being quark-anti quark pairs.


Nigel


On 23/05/2018 18:35, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Nygel--

How do you reconcile the Stubbs evaluation of real probe data?

Bob

Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

Up until a year or so ago I might have gone along with the idea that 
quarks do not exist.  However, my son has produced a nice paper from 
which the fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos and quarks) emerge 
in such a beautiful way that I am now completely convinced that they are 
real.   The challenge is to get the paper accepted, something this group 
will be well familiar with


Nigel

On 23/05/2018 06:47, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Robin—

Quarks are merely a mathematical scheme to help make sense of high 
energy physics.  IMHO the do not exist.  I will send you a separate 
study of electron scattering experiments that shed light on the 
structure of protons and neutrons.


Bob Cook

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10

Re: [Vo]:The ultrafast 6s orbital of certain heavy metals

[Nigel Dyer]

Interesting...

I have reproduced a version of Vysotskii's undamped thermal waves 
results which he detects using a peizo-electric detector with a high 
frequency range (which I could only get from the states). The results 
suggest that whatever is being detected is travelling far faster than 
the velocity of sound.  The detectors are made of PZT = lead zirconate 
titanate.  Could this unusual property of lead be a clue to what is 
going on with the Vysotskii measurements?


Nigel


On 17/04/2018 16:10, JonesBeene wrote:


Despite its 150 year-old history, the lead-acid battery is not as 
well-understood as one might suspect.  On paper it should hardly work 
at all.  Tin – a similar metal to lead will not work when substituted.


More recently, in experiments in 2011 it was demonstrated that most of 
the power of the lead-acid batter: 80%+  – or roughly 10 V out of the 
13 V of the electrical potential- comes from relativistic electron 
effects (as opposed to redox chemistry) ! This is due to the unusually 
fast 6s orbital of lead and a few other heavy metals. The relativistic 
electrons (they are paired) could relate to why lead shielding (or 
normal radioactivity) could actually increase the signal from muon 
interaction, rather than shielding against it.


https://phys.org/news/2011-01-car-batteries-powered-relativity.html

Possibly - the relativistic electron effect has relevance to LENR in 
the form of trace elements found in electrodes by chance-  and there 
are a few candidate elements which have the 6S electron. But palladium 
or nickel do not.


Yet from the earliest days of P, some electrodes worked better than 
others of the same nominal composition. In their hero effort in France 
only 2 of 7 Pd electrodes worked. In commercial metallurgy – anything 
less than 1% contamination is seldom reported since it is either not 
deemed to be critical or the alloy assay techniques are not accurate 
for low percentages.


In fact, “Coolessence” the Colorado Lab now defunct, did some 
interesting work with lead and palladium. No one took notice.


The element mercury is another candidate dopant which has the 
relativistic 6s electrons. There are at least 4 metals of interest.


Mercury is found in palladium ore (temagamite 
) and could inadvertently be 
present as a trace element in Pd electrodes as a fractional percent 
but never mentioned. The reason Hg is a liquid relates to the 
relativistic orbital which is also found in the element bismuth. It is 
possible that traces of mercury, lead or bismuth could be  the 
“mystery element” – the hidden  reactant in certain palladium 
electrodes which work better than pure metal. BTW - Silver does not 
have the relativistic electrons but gold does.


The “inert pair effect” of lead, mercury, gold and bismuth refers to 
the tendency in these heavy metals for their 6s electrons in the 
valence cloud to resist oxidation - and the effect could possibly be 
put to planned use by doping with higher levels. In fact, although not 
well known, hydrogen can react with lead to form a gas called 
Plumbane, PbH4, but this is not well characterized or studied, since 
it is unstable. Lead is a Mills catalyst and so it is reasonable that 
densification activity with hydrogen would lead to a more stable form 
of the molecule along with excess energy. The chemical instability 
could be a plus in terms of asymmetry.


It would be interesting to see if plumbane, which is a gas at ambient 
temperature (surprisingly) could be reacted or densified in such a way 
that one or more of the four protons drop to the 54.4 eV redundancy 
state. This would be a fabulous rocket fuel, even with the high 
density of led, no?


The further possibilities of having chemical access to relativistic 
electrons and/or as a method to densify hydrogen or turn a heavy 
element into a gas  are mind boggling. The name ‘Led Zeppelin’ comes 
to mind.

Re: [Vo]:LENR in a battery?

[Nigel Dyer]

It appears to be a real patent visible if you go to 
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and search for


15/330,224

Nigel


On 17/03/2018 01:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Strange that there is no patent number – only an application number 
but they call it a patent.


Justia has been know to screw up in the past and the Inventor: Victor 
M. Villalobos has claimed fantastical inventions before. I would love 
to see this proved with an actual experiment -  but as of now, serious 
doubts are raised. Of course, it is possible that Goodenough’s device 
relates to ZPE and this inventor could lay claim to it -- but will we 
ever know what is going on scinetifically, now that there are legal 
ramifications?


In the past USPTO would never grant a patent on anything to do with 
ZPE or cold fusion, but things change…


Anyway this is curious – shall we say…?

*From: *Nigel Dyer <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>**

And there is this 'Zero Point Energy Magnetic Battery'

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180059704

Nigel

JonesBeene wrote:

The recent announcement from University of Texas of a far more
powerful solid-state "glass” battery technology from John
Goodenough's lab has yet to sink in for most of the scientific
community. There is evidence of a ten-fold increase in energy
density between charges, so long as there are rest periods. IOW
the device seems to recharge itself when given the time to do so.

The extreme interest in this technology is due to the reputation
of Goodenough, the inventor the Li-ion battery in several versions
including the one used by the Tesla automobile.  Goodenough is
still active in the field at 94 years of age and that is another
miracle in this unfolding story about a device that seems to defy
physics. Curiously, this technology is reminiscent of EESTOR which
is just down the road and still operating (under the radar) after
disappointing dozens of VCs with millions of dollar spent and no
product. Must be something in the water down there in the Lone
Star state, even though both technologies are water free.

Similarly to that EESTOR fiasco, the reaction among the “experts”
in the battery field strong skepticism tinged with jealousy. But
Goodenough and his reputation makes things more interesting this
time around. The growing conclusion from published early data is
 that this battery breaks the laws of thermodynamics and that is
the most significant aspect of story from our perspective… but in
truth the gain could be coming from ambient heat and not the
chemicals in device – which technically is more like a
self-charging capacitor than a redox battery. This sounds a bit
like “water memory” in that we have mobile molecules that want to
return to a earlier state even after giving up energy and dropping
to a more stable state.

Although lithium is one of the chemicals, sodium works as well or
better so this is apparently not anything nuclear with respect to
Li, or is it? The glass electrolyte apparently contains lithium,
even in the case of  sodium as the  charge carrier. Nor is dense
hydrogen involved (unless it is trade secret). The one critical
material required is an alkali from Column 1, which indicates that
the manipulation of loosely bound electrons is the key. Many here
on vortex might remember back in the previous century there were
experiments and much talk about self-charging capacitors. Even
data. This not a new claim and in fact there is little doubt that
there are anomalies when you get to level of hundreds of Farads in
a small area, which is due to some kind of paradigm shit … but the
conservative opinion remains that these are measurement problems
and not thermodynamic violations.

Given everything that is unfolding, it is even likely that there
will be a fit between the extreme dielectrics of EESTOR and the
glass electrode of Goodenough. I would like to see a merger of the
two. Ultra dielectrics have not gone away.

Bottom line: Imagine the repercussions of  an electric car with
ten times less battery cost than the new Tesla… or even four time
less. The market for crude oil would crash, no?

That possibility will ruffle some feathers, especially in Texas
where even students are armed. If I were John Goodenough, I would
insist on adding some guards around the Texas Materials Institute
and more security. He has a few good years left, it would seem.

The only bad news from this technology is that there will not be
very much demand for LENR if you can produce a low cost battery
which recharges itself … unless of course the recharging is itself
a form of LENR. This is not ruled  out.

Re: [Vo]:LENR in a battery?

[Nigel Dyer]

It appears to be a real patent, finally published on March 1st

https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

Nigel


On 17/03/2018 01:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Strange that there is no patent number – only an application number 
but they call it a patent.


Justia has been know to screw up in the past and the Inventor: Victor 
M. Villalobos has claimed fantastical inventions before. I would love 
to see this proved with an actual experiment -  but as of now, serious 
doubts are raised. Of course, it is possible that Goodenough’s device 
relates to ZPE and this inventor could lay claim to it -- but will we 
ever know what is going on scinetifically, now that there are legal 
ramifications?


In the past USPTO would never grant a patent on anything to do with 
ZPE or cold fusion, but things change…


Anyway this is curious – shall we say…?

*From: *Nigel Dyer <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>**

And there is this 'Zero Point Energy Magnetic Battery'

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180059704

Nigel

JonesBeene wrote:

The recent announcement from University of Texas of a far more
powerful solid-state "glass” battery technology from John
Goodenough's lab has yet to sink in for most of the scientific
community. There is evidence of a ten-fold increase in energy
density between charges, so long as there are rest periods. IOW
the device seems to recharge itself when given the time to do so.

The extreme interest in this technology is due to the reputation
of Goodenough, the inventor the Li-ion battery in several versions
including the one used by the Tesla automobile.  Goodenough is
still active in the field at 94 years of age and that is another
miracle in this unfolding story about a device that seems to defy
physics. Curiously, this technology is reminiscent of EESTOR which
is just down the road and still operating (under the radar) after
disappointing dozens of VCs with millions of dollar spent and no
product. Must be something in the water down there in the Lone
Star state, even though both technologies are water free.

Similarly to that EESTOR fiasco, the reaction among the “experts”
in the battery field strong skepticism tinged with jealousy. But
Goodenough and his reputation makes things more interesting this
time around. The growing conclusion from published early data is
 that this battery breaks the laws of thermodynamics and that is
the most significant aspect of story from our perspective… but in
truth the gain could be coming from ambient heat and not the
chemicals in device – which technically is more like a
self-charging capacitor than a redox battery. This sounds a bit
like “water memory” in that we have mobile molecules that want to
return to a earlier state even after giving up energy and dropping
to a more stable state.

Although lithium is one of the chemicals, sodium works as well or
better so this is apparently not anything nuclear with respect to
Li, or is it? The glass electrolyte apparently contains lithium,
even in the case of  sodium as the  charge carrier. Nor is dense
hydrogen involved (unless it is trade secret). The one critical
material required is an alkali from Column 1, which indicates that
the manipulation of loosely bound electrons is the key. Many here
on vortex might remember back in the previous century there were
experiments and much talk about self-charging capacitors. Even
data. This not a new claim and in fact there is little doubt that
there are anomalies when you get to level of hundreds of Farads in
a small area, which is due to some kind of paradigm shit … but the
conservative opinion remains that these are measurement problems
and not thermodynamic violations.

Given everything that is unfolding, it is even likely that there
will be a fit between the extreme dielectrics of EESTOR and the
glass electrode of Goodenough. I would like to see a merger of the
two. Ultra dielectrics have not gone away.

Bottom line: Imagine the repercussions of  an electric car with
ten times less battery cost than the new Tesla… or even four time
less. The market for crude oil would crash, no?

That possibility will ruffle some feathers, especially in Texas
where even students are armed. If I were John Goodenough, I would
insist on adding some guards around the Texas Materials Institute
and more security. He has a few good years left, it would seem.

The only bad news from this technology is that there will not be
very much demand for LENR if you can produce a low cost battery
which recharges itself … unless of course the recharging is itself
a form of LENR. This is not ruled  out.

Re: [Vo]:LENR in a battery?

[Nigel Dyer]

And there is this 'Zero Point Energy Magnetic Battery'

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180059704

Nigel

On 15/03/2018 13:53, JonesBeene wrote:


The recent announcement from University of Texas of a far more 
powerful solid-state "glass” battery technology from John Goodenough's 
lab has yet to sink in for most of the scientific community. There is 
evidence of a ten-fold increase in energy density between charges, so 
long as there are rest periods. IOW the device seems to recharge 
itself when given the time to do so.


The extreme interest in this technology is due to the reputation of 
Goodenough, the inventor the Li-ion battery in several versions 
including the one used by the Tesla automobile.  Goodenough is still 
active in the field at 94 years of age and that is another miracle in 
this unfolding story about a device that seems to defy physics. 
Curiously, this technology is reminiscent of EESTOR which is just down 
the road and still operating (under the radar) after disappointing 
dozens of VCs with millions of dollar spent and no product. Must be 
something in the water down there in the Lone Star state, even though 
both technologies are water free.


Similarly to that EESTOR fiasco, the reaction among the “experts” in 
the battery field strong skepticism tinged with jealousy. But 
Goodenough and his reputation makes things more interesting this time 
around. The growing conclusion from published early data is  that this 
battery breaks the laws of thermodynamics and that is the most 
significant aspect of story from our perspective… but in truth the 
gain could be coming from ambient heat and not the chemicals in device 
– which technically is more like a self-charging capacitor than a 
redox battery. This sounds a bit like “water memory” in that we have 
mobile molecules that want to return to a earlier state even after 
giving up energy and dropping to a more stable state.


Although lithium is one of the chemicals, sodium works as well or 
better so this is apparently not anything nuclear with respect to Li, 
or is it? The glass electrolyte apparently contains lithium, even in 
the case of  sodium as the  charge carrier. Nor is dense hydrogen 
involved (unless it is trade secret). The one critical material 
required is an alkali from Column 1, which indicates that the 
manipulation of loosely bound electrons is the key. Many here on 
vortex might remember back in the previous century there were 
experiments and much talk about self-charging capacitors. Even data. 
This not a new claim and in fact there is little doubt that there are 
anomalies when you get to level of hundreds of Farads in a small area, 
which is due to some kind of paradigm shit … but the conservative 
opinion remains that these are measurement problems and not 
thermodynamic violations.


Given everything that is unfolding, it is even likely that there will 
be a fit between the extreme dielectrics of EESTOR and the glass 
electrode of Goodenough. I would like to see a merger of the two. 
Ultra dielectrics have not gone away.


Bottom line: Imagine the repercussions of  an electric car with ten 
times less battery cost than the new Tesla… or even four time less. 
The market for crude oil would crash, no?


That possibility will ruffle some feathers, especially in Texas where 
even students are armed. If I were John Goodenough, I would insist on 
adding some guards around the Texas Materials Institute and more 
security. He has a few good years left, it would seem.


The only bad news from this technology is that there will not be very 
much demand for LENR if you can produce a low cost battery which 
recharges itself … unless of course the recharging is itself a form of 
LENR. This is not ruled  out.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

I think there is every possibility that what is measured is a secondary, 
Bremstallung like effect.


One other factor is that whatever is being measured is outside the 
alumina and steel container of the active ingredients of the glow 
stick.  If the gamma was generated from the 'active ingredients' some 
would be absorbed by the alumina and steel, and absorbance normally 
increases at low energies, so having the largest gamma emmision at the 
low energies is counter intuitive. Interestingly this puts the results 
in a similar place to Vladimir Vysotskii's measurements of gamma rays 
from water cutting systems, where the peaks is at 1 to 5 kHz.  He came 
to the conclusion that what he was measuring was a secondary effect as a 
result of interaction of primary energy/particles that was being 
released with the outer surface of the steel container.  Perhaps that is 
also what is being seen here.  It would be interesting to know where the 
low energy peak was.  Could it also have been in the 1-5kHz region 
perhaps, in which case this could be very similar to the Vysotskii result.


Nigel

On 11/03/2018 00:13, Bob Higgins wrote:
Neutral particle flux probably won't create substantial 
electromagnetic noise and certainly no gamma.  Best case is that it 
would occasionally knock off some electrons that would excite the 
characteristic x-ray emission of their host atom.  They will excite 
acoustic noise that would quickly be converted to heat.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

Hey guys
Perhaps we could forget I mentioned Rossi.  Its the graph, which does 
look as if it contains interesting data, that interested me.


Nigel

On 10/03/2018 22:23, Adrian Ashfield wrote:
As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, 
I see no point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is 
not going to show anything more of the QX until they are in production 
and he hopes that will be before the end of 2018.




-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 4:34 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory.
This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  
let’s hear or see this evidence !
Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and 
hopefully there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it 
will not be called JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with 
those robots which he promised were coming to Boston back in 2012 for 
that other factory, the one which was to make the prE-Scat before IH 
entered the picture.

But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?!
Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with 
any honest and independent showing of a working device. Why build a 
factory without a product to show ?
Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being 
tested at a local University before you go over to the factory?
He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a 
reliable place with a top level  physics department - to test and show 
it off.

*From: *Brian Ahern 
There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.
*From:*Adrian Ashfield >

*Sent:* Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like
I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there 
are signs that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some 
independent evidence that he has indeed started a factory to produce 
them and he remains optimistic production will start in 2018.


If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly 
insulting to suggest he "stumbled" upon it.

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene >
To: vortex-l >
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like
There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than 
Rossi) on this site.
If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because 
he is a dishonest scam artist.
There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something 
valid at this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.

*From: *Brian Ahern 
The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to 
Andrea Rossi ! Why would you site this site?

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

I think there is a real possibility that some detectors are not 
detecting what we thought they were detecting.  I had not considered 
that possibility in this case, but I will keep that in mind.


On 10/03/2018 20:11, JonesBeene wrote:


BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular 
detector as 1/f^2 noise  ??

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

It is like both like a Maxwellian distribution and Bremstrahlung, but 
neither of these give a 1/f^2 distribtion. If you overlay a 1/f^2 line 
over the red dots the fit is perfect, indeed it is so good that it 
almost looks as if that is how it was generated.


On 10/03/2018 15:46, JonesBeene wrote:


Looks quasi-Maxwellian to me.

Where is the inverse peak?

*From: *Nigel Dyer <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>

I have been looking at the graph titled

"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is

between 0 and 100KeV"

 at

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal

which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like

experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen

right at the start.

It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse

frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something

about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find

any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.

Any ideas?

Nigel

[Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Nigel Dyer]

I have been looking at the graph titled
"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is 
between 0 and 100KeV"

 at
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like 
experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen 
right at the start.
It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse 
frequency squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something 
about the underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find 
any other examples of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.

Any ideas?
Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Nigel Dyer]

I agree about Pollack, indeed I have him to blame for my interest in 
LENR. I agree that there may well be a closer link between LENR and 
Jerry's exclusion zone ideas.  Indeed, that lies behind the neutrino 
ideas that I posted here a month or so ago.


Nigel


On 30/01/2018 17:04, Brian Ahern wrote:


Pollack is amazing.His work is uncomfortable for the old guard to 
incorporate into their world view. CF/LANR should face his 
observations since they are both looking at effects in liquid water at 
low electric fields.

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Nigel Dyer]

I tend to think that his ideas on this specific aspect, the formation of 
'exclusion zones' at the surfaces of blood vessels may also be an 
important factor, and that the two effects may well work in tandem.



On 30/01/2018 12:27, Brian Ahern wrote:


see gerald pollack for the flow issue.




*From:* Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk>
*Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 2:56 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that 
could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are 
observed on the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion 
that it was completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano 
drumming.  I wondered if the surface structure of red blood cells 
(with its spectrin networks) have evolved to make use of this to help 
them move through blood vessels, but never followed it up


Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Nigel Dyer]

Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are 
observed on the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion 
that it was completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano 
drumming.  I wondered if the surface structure of red blood cells (with 
its spectrin networks) have evolved to make use of this to help them 
move through blood vessels, but never followed it up


Nigel

On 26/11/2017 14:58, JonesBeene wrote:


In reply to  Jack Cole's message:

>I found a link to the full paper. Maybe that will help us understand 
more.


>

>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06301.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence Claims from Cavitation.

[Nigel Dyer]

For various reasons I am convinced that there is something very 
interesting going on with cavitation and the associated 
sonoluminescence. However, I am not convinced that the Jamie Buturff 
video sheds much light on this.  Too much of it is what I call physics 
word soup.   Physics words that mean something, in combinations that 
don't, or at least they don't without a lot more explanation and 
supporting evidence.


The effect of electrostatic fields on living organisms is fascinating.   
Many years ago I visited Mae-wan Ho in her lab where she showed that 
static magnetic fields have strange effects on the growth of drosophila 
larvae.  The link between the DNA sequence and the morphology of an 
organism is poorly understood and the electrostatic and magnetic 
experiments give us hints which I still don't think we know how to 
interpret.  Interestingly, when I went to the youtube video one of the 
suggested videos was by Rupert Sheldrake, who I also think may have 
identified other useful hints.   The idea that the organism(DNA) is able 
to resonate with information from previous generations in a Sheldrake 
like manner might explain how it somehow seems to pick up structures of 
ancestral plants/animals in some circumstances.  Its as if the field has 
shifted the tuning/resonance so that the organism more closely resonates 
with long dead ancestors. To be organism/variety specific any such 
resonance would have to be a complex multifrequency sort of resonance, 
and the results would suggest that there is a general trend for these to 
shift in one direction over many generations, such that the 
electrostatic field can shift them all back in a roughly synchronised 
manner.   There is a general tendency for repetitive DNA regions (which 
I think are at the heart of this) to grow in length, which would be 
consistent with a general lowering of resonant frequencies, so perhaps 
the electrostatic field shifts them back up again.


This going back in time is also seen in plant breeding where there is a 
tendency for plant varieties to revert back to their ancestral wild-type 
forms in some conditions.


Nigel

On 16/12/2017 02:44, Harvey Norris wrote:
This morning seemed unusual in that it was like uncovering layers of 
of onion which led me on a path of discovery which started from here; 
Using electrostatic fields to manipulate plants and animals. 
http://revolution-green.com/using-electrostatic-fields-manipulate-plants-animals/#comment-29441 

This subject interests me in comparisons to my own examples too 
numerous to mention here. This then led to the following Ebner effect 
video; https://youtu.be/i69p0lldbGY
From there on the sidelines were other videos where I became 
fascinated with many structured water videos. In the end I found the 
following claim concerning sonoluminescence.

Blood Plasma, Sea Water, and Sonoluminescence
https://youtu.be/1owZDWRvYAQ
Flow induced cavitation is mentioned 4 min into video. At 5 1/2 min. 
he claims that these cavitation bubbles he obtains would be altered if 
he changed the flow pattern. Most remarkable claims I have not heard 
of before, but I am purchasing his minimal porto flow unit. I think 
that vortex list once mentioned Gary Paterson? that claimed over unity 
from cavitation effects but I did not know that this also involved the 
sono thing emiting light, which seems most bizaare. I welcome comments 
and reply from vortex list since I dont recieve intial mailings for 
some ungodly undecipherable reason but I might recieve replies. HDN
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Nigel Dyer]

I've sat through a number of talks at fringe science conferences that 
were modelled on the two excellent you tube videos. The speakers usually 
give every impression that they fully believe the nonsense that they are 
presenting is correct.  There must be some fascinating psychology at 
work.  I assume that it has a syndrome name. If not then I am sure we 
could give it one.


Nigel

On 29/11/2017 15:39, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is a copy of the video of Rossi's D show with the full audio 
track:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ya7fcYQhOOQo8a7EDNPHma5r25eJvxDY/view

The version now at YouTube has chunks of the audio track cut out. 
Someone at LENR-forum was kind enough to upload the previous version 
with the full audio track. It will be available for a limited time, so 
download it if you want it.


Here are two semi-comprehensive descriptions of Rossi's theory as it 
applies to automotive transmissions and big data. In the first video, 
be sure to see the repair section starting at 1:55.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzHq1Ssi0r8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJsuJOk1DA

- Jed

[Vo]:Measurement of low deuterium levels

[Nigel Dyer]

I wish to measure the deuterium levels in some deutero depleted water, 
where I expect the levels to be in the range 1 to 10 ppm. Does anyone 
have any suggestions?  I was hoping that someone might offer this as a 
service, but Google didn't find anything

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Phonon–Nuclear Coupling

[Nigel Dyer]

One of the systems mentioned in Hagelstein's 2015 paper 
(http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0601.pdf) is the 
Vysotskii system where what appears to be a coherent collapse of 
cavitaion bubbles causes a shock wave to travel through a metal plate 
and generate a very sharp pulse of 1-5keV X-rays from the metal surface 
on the other side. I have just come back from a conference where 
Vysotskii presented this.


I felt that it was very clever and appeared to show some very 
interesting coherent energy conversion phenomena, but there did not 
appear to be any evidence of LENR


Nigel

On 27/10/2017 23:09, JonesBeene wrote:


Hi Robin

The neutron “hopping” modality is indeed one way that gain could happen.

In fact you are probably referring to Hagelstein’s 1993 paper where he 
introduces this concept wrt palladium.


I do not think he was envisioning iron as the active metal at that time.

Perhaps he will be reminded of this possibility.

I like it but it also demands that the 2.4 MeV gamma is attenuated via 
the down-conversion aspect – so there are two miracles involved.


… or do you get both miracles for the price of one when you have up 
and down conversion together  ???

Re: [Vo]:Grand theory of Philippe Hatt

[Nigel Dyer]

As you already know, I find this sort of work fascinating.  The hope is 
that looking at the data in a different way might result in seeing some 
connection that has been missed when we just look at the standard model 
and which might in turn inform our understanding of the standard model.


What is intriguing is how little quarks figure in the document, the only 
bit being when Phillip looks at the three generations of quarks.  The 
basis for the three generations of matter is particularly poorly 
understood, so if this approach provides an insight then that would be 
useful.   On an initial skim through I have not spotted any obvious leads


Nigel


On 05/10/2017 15:37, JonesBeene wrote:


This theory will not appeal to everyone but it has attractive features 
which “tend to grow on you”. Thumbs up from me.


http://philippehatt.com/

http://philippehatt.com/document1.pdf

The author (like Peter Gluck and Cervantes) is quite fond of, and 
skilled at neology – making-up new English words – which some find 
annoying.


The author (like Einstein) finds that the precision and simplicity of 
the basic Universal dynamic (massification/demassification) points to 
a kind of superior intelligence – which some find annoying


Not me, in fact with a little editing this could be made into grand 
 literature - of some arcane but enjoyable genre… “beyond hard sci-fi” 
or… it could win the Nobel if correct. Take your pick.


Apparently this thinking is not new, and others have already borrowed 
heavily from it. It was presented at Sochi recently, mainly for 
Russians, but the author’s name was misspelled. Not that anyone noticed…

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form ofLENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

Thank you for introducing me to Boscovich.  I had not encountered him 
before, but clearly should have.


Nigel

On 29/09/2017 21:23, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
from my studies of physics history, what "they" (educators of physics) 
do is dumb down the history when teach to physics students; so "they" 
miss out teaching that unified field theory presented in 1758 by 
Boscovich, because not part of the curriculum that are told to teach 
so miss it out; supposedly for the purpose of making the subject 
easier to understand in the sense of being able to pass exams.


So, when you have people like Tesla working on physics pre-Quantum and 
pre-relativity revolutions, the type of physics they were working on 
which they knew about was Boscovich theory.






On Friday, 29 September 2017, 20:58, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:



missed out unified field theory presented in 1758

From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav 
Stoiljkovic 








From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav
Stoilj...

"From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory": talk by retired 
Professor Dragoslav Stoiljkovi...







On Friday, 29 September 2017, 20:04, Axil Axil  wrote:


For a 100 year history of LENR including Moray and Papp, see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0mMpfrsf8

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Chris Zell > wrote:


Unfortunately this leaves you blind to scams by experts Rossi,
Papp, Mills and Mayer.
I’m not sure that Papp and Meyer were complete scams. Papp in
particular, seemed to have something.  The Feynman incident
suggests to me that there was something real about his claims.
Beyond that, I’ve never read a credible explanation for what Moray
was able to demonstrate.

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form ofLENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

I imagine that would be Stanley Meyer. or was that a comment on the 
misspelling?


Nigel

On 29/09/2017 17:13, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Brian-

I do not know of the Mayer person you mention?

I guess he could be part of the hot fusion bunch, however—lots of scam 
artists there.


Bob Cook

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10


*From: *Che 
*Sent: *Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:15 AM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel 
form ofLENR?


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Brian Ahern > wrote:


If you believe in MiB, then it is axiomatic that you believe in
UFO conspiracies as well.

Unfortunately this leaves you blind to scams by experts Rossi,
Papp, Mills and Mayer.

What a stupid thing to assert. NOT 'axiomatic'. Actually a NON SEQUITUR.

So who's blind here, eh?

*From:*Che >
*Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2017 10:17 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a
novel form ofLENR?


On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Brian Ahern > wrote:
>
> LeClair hides behind the conspiracy curtain. "He can't do any
demos or the Men in Black will get him."

Whatever the truth of anything else being claimed here on this
eList -- the so-called 'MiB' are very, VERY, *VERY* real. Forget
Hollywood.

People who predictably scoff at the very real threat posed to
regime opponents of all kinds, are themselves not to be taken
seriously, hear..? Such as yourself clearly do not understand how
REAL power is used in this World. 'OU' researchers are obviously
(to non-fools) MOST definitely 'of interest' to Status Quo
'Concerns': who want to KEEP things that way... (Got it?)
Regardless. Ruthlessly and MOST criminally, if necessary. VERY
'Mafia'... and today, **most clearly right up to the oligarchic
U.S. President himself** (Gawd help us...). Take a GOOD look at
that publicity-seeking buffoon: because _behind_ him are similar
others who *avoid* the limelight he seeks. And for good reason.
THEY wield this awful power over us, which frightens so many.

So we should be kinder to these people; and maybe understand the
perhaps *justified* paranoia of those now in possession of
something *possibly just worth stealing*... or shutting them up about.

(Sheesh. Why does this have to be spelled out to pompous fools who
won't listen anyway...)

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form of LENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

Thanks for your thoughts.   I must admit that a mechanism based on 
coherence has long been a favoured hypothesis of mine.  It is not a 
complete coincidence that the company I have formed as a vehicle for 
this is called 'Coherent Water Systems'.  I have known John Swain for 
many years, indeed he was responsible for me being involved in LENR, and 
he also strongly advocates mechanisms based on coherence 
https://www.scientific.net/KEM.495.124.  I also agree with him that such 
mechanisms are also likely to be present in biological systems 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603137.pdf, indeed it is this that was 
responsible for us finding ourselves at the same conferences.


There were a number of things that made me start considering 
alternatives, particularly the electrospray experiments where the 
experimental evidence for energy gain is good - I have been through the 
raw data.  However its only 1/2 mW and the COP is not wonderful so not 
something we will be using in power stations (yet).  I feel that the 
very directional water jets that seem to be associated with this effect 
are telling us something.


Note also the component of my model where the fusion is initiated by the 
acceleration of protons through a potential difference is something that 
John Swain has also considered (https://www.scientific.net/KEM.644.57).


Nigel

On 29/09/2017 15:53, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Nigel—

I read your paper twice and have the following comments:

 1. As Jones points out, hiding .511Mev EM radiation from
electron/positron reactions is not likely IMHO.  Therefore I doubt
it occurs during CES.
 2. The model which includes high kinetic energy products is also hard
to imagine in the water system without generation of EM radiation
that  should be easy to observe.  Therefore, I doubt energetic
particles are present in CES.**
 3. *I consider that the cavitation produces a coherent system that is
coupled by electric and/or magnetic fields and within a very short
time frame changes its potential energy to phonic (vibrational)
kinetic spin energy of the entire coherent system of the remaining
particles including the electrons.*
 4. *As the coherent system collapses, the constituents give up heat
(vibrational L energy--spin energy) to the surround water in a
normal slow transfer of heat and increase of enthalpy.*
 5. *Finally, all the model’s assumptions about virtual neutrinos and
other virtual particles  are unnecessary and only uggest a
non-real mechanism associated with understanding high energy
physics experiments, not like condensed matter LENR of coherent QM
systems.*
 6. *A good model which explains how spin quanta are redistributed
within a coherent system in *_whole number multiples_*of Planck’s
constant divided by 2 pie (h/2pie) is warranted with  conservation
of angular momentum and total energy IMHO.*

**

*Bob Cook*

**

**

Re: [Vo]:Fuel injectors, cavitation, and efficiency

[Nigel Dyer]

It is certainly recognised that cavitation is an important factor when 
injecting diesel into the engine and the injectors are designed with 
this in mind.  The normal assumption is that it helps air/fuel mixing 
but there may well be more to it than that.


I think the arguments that there are significant potential gradients 
within cavitation bubbles as they collapse(e.g. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/1.567892) are pretty 
convincing, and the mechanism is essentially fluid independent, ie it is 
not dependent on the polarised nature of water molecules. It would 
therefore be present when cavitation bubbles in diesel collapse and may 
well be a factor in igniting the diesel.


Nigel

On 28/09/2017 18:41, JonesBeene wrote:


The history/science of efficient fuel combustion in the ICE is almost 
completely understood, right? Any previously unknown gain in 
efficiency would be a surprise. However, “cavitation” in the sense of 
a mechanism for a net energy gain –is one feature/parameter which is 
not well understood. Brian Ahern has been involved for years with a 
technology of simply adding HV electrons to a diesel, which sounds 
easy but in practice is not simple. Cavitation could improve that task.


In general when a gasoline powered ICE is converted from carburetion 
to manifold fuel injection, there is a 2-3% efficiency gain. And if 
converted to direct injection (GDI) like a diesel, then the efficiency 
gain is closer to 5%, regardless of any change in compression ratio. 
Therefore it is reasonable to suggest net gain is coming from the 
higher pressure cavitation of the injector in GDI. This could be 
optimized by even higher pressure injection (Mercedes has actually 
patented this process). If increased cavitation were to be combined 
with a source of HV electrons then the net gain could be forthcoming 
beyond any expectations.


To backtrack, the higher efficiency of diesel engines is normally 
considered to be related to increased compression ratio – and no doubt 
most of it is. Diesel fuel has slightly more energy content but that 
is negated by higher unburnt particulates. Higher compression ratio is 
the biggest contributor to diesel efficiency, but we need to ask: is 
cavitation responsible for any of the diesel efficiency gain? If so, 
can this finding be used with gasoline too? Can direct injection be 
used to add electrical charge (at the injector)?


In principle, it seems likely that cavitation bubbles would be an 
easier way to channel electrical charge into an engine since bubbles 
would protect against grounding. CES apparently demonstrate that ions 
are gainful, even with no net polarity imbalance, and their work may 
have implications for hydrocarbons. Given new findings about 
cavitation in general, it is possible that a part of the extra 
efficiency of the diesel configuration relates to cavitation, even 
using the standard diesel. This could be optimized for the GDI 
configuration (gasoline direct injection) once it is better 
understood. Moreover, since the cavitation route itself has been 
previously unrecognized as gainful in itself, there may be additional 
ways to make it even better (assuming it is gainful on its own accord).


In cavitation and sonoluminescence  the extra energy content  is said 
to relate to “bubble collapse” and shock waves - with the Casimir 
effect possibly entering into the mix. Nigel has suggested LENR 
possibly catalyzed by the neutrino flux. A “dense hydrogen” or hydrino 
route is also possible and Casimir+UDH would be a hybrid suggestion. 
This niche begs for more study since every 1% gain – when multiplied 
by several hundred million vehicle driven daily is likely to be worth 
about $10 billion to society yearly, not to mention less pollution. 
Even this week, a News story exposes the fact that most SUVs and light 
trucks are getting less than 20 mpg in the 2017 model year. That is 
unacceptable and way too low - we have been lulled into thinking 
gasoline will not surge in price soon, but it will.


Perhaps all of this will be made moot by the upcoming switch to 
battery powered hybrids. That could take years.


We seem to be way too complacent in not providing better fuel economy 
NOW, even if battery power arrives sooner than expected.

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novelformofLENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

You are right about the testing, particularly the state of the steam 
that is generated and we hope that should be rectified soon.


There are a couple of indications that strongly suggest that the steam 
is pretty dry.  If you look at stills from the slow motion system, when 
the steam initially emerges it is totally transparent.  You can see that 
is is there because it refracts the light passing through it so that 
objects in the background are shifted quite considerably.  A couple of 
frames later and it has condensed out into the visible cloud.


Also, the steam can only exit the cavitation chamber through the 
pressure relief valve when the pressure exceeds 10MPa.  From steam 
tables this means that it must be at a temperature of more than 300C.


However, this is too indirect an indication, and as I said we hope to 
rectify this soon.


Nigel

On 28/09/2017 15:37, JonesBeene wrote:
Having talked to another visitor to the facility, it would seem that 
the main problem with the technology using pure water is in 
measurement- and curiously it is almost the same as Rossi’s early 
errors -wet steam. They definitely can produce lots of wet steam and 
generally they have assumed that all of the water going through the 
injector is being converted into dry steam - when in fact only a 
fraction is dry steam and the rest is hot water vapor. This could be 
why you see no independent testing.


The salt water system is more impressive but again, no good data. The 
salt-water gain seems impressive visually. I believe it is a true 
energy anomaly, but getting rid of the salt after the reaction is 
over- probably means that the system cannot be used in a piston engine 
(using salt water as a fuel). This is due to corrosion and 
accumulation on piston rings -- but there could be a solution. Same 
problem with the injectors – a month of slat water and what do you have?

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel formofLENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

Thank you for trying to bring the thread back on topic.  I had not heard 
of the pistol shrimp until I watched the video


Nigel

On 26/09/2017 23:20, JonesBeene wrote:


Not sure if the video was mentioned earlier

https://youtu.be/VUH5WuUmJ2k?t=158

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form ofLENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

I think the appropriate advice is almost 2000 years old.  We need to be 
as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Not one, or the other, but 
both.



Nigel


On 26/09/2017 11:48, Brian Ahern wrote:


If you believe in MiB, then it is axiomatic that you believe in UFO 
conspiracies as well.



Unfortunately this leaves you blind to scams by experts Rossi, Papp, 
Mills and Mayer.





*From:* Che 
*Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2017 10:17 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel 
form ofLENR?



On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Brian Ahern > wrote:

>
> LeClair hides behind the conspiracy curtain. "He can't do any demos 
or the Men in Black will get him."

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form ofLENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

Axil -- To take care is always good advice

I am familiar with Mark's work, indeed I spent a good part of a day with 
him discussing what he has done.  There are some significant differences 
between the two systems, which could well explain why the behaviour of 
the two is somewhat different.


Nigel

On 23/09/2017 00:24, Axil Axil wrote:
Nigel -- My advise (worth what you have paid for it) is to be very 
careful.


Mark LeClair produced a gainful cavitation system using a pump. He 
produces a ton of radiation and radiaoactive isotopes.


DogOne replicated this cavitation reactor and this is what he said:


 *

DogOne duplicated his reaction and got a solution of radioactive
waste.


http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-radiation.html

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form of LENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

It is indeed a successor to the MIST device.  I went out and spent a 
couple of days with Richard Aho and Bill, but no I did not see a working 
stem generator.   I am however working with someone who did on a 
previous visit.  At its heart all the data/video etc that I have seen is 
consistent with water that is at high pressure being converted to steam 
with no additional energy being input at the point when the conversion 
takes place.  Water and steam enthalpy tables show that this is not 
possible without some kind of LENR like activity providing additional 
energy during the conversion process.


Very little scientific investigatory work has been done, which is 
something that I am working to sort out. I am also hoping to build on 
the possible links between it and the electrospray experiment that I am 
also associated with where energy gain was seen, something that I go 
into in the notes.


Nigel

On 22/09/2017 22:04, Jones Beene wrote:


Hi Nigel,

Very interesting indeed … unless this is the old MIST device… but it 
is doubtful that proton fusion is involved, even if there has been a 
breakthrough - especially without measureable radiation.


Did you see any kind of radiation signature?

The main problem with a similar older technology has been lack of 
measurement of all the subsystems. I am assuming that what you are 
working with is derived from the system being promoted by Richard Aho, 
once called MIST:


http://www.rexresearch.com/ahomist/ahomist.htm

My associates visited the facility in Florida several years ago, and 
came away very disappointed since they had been promised to be shown a 
working device.


Despite all the talk, there was no engine then which could actually 
run by itself on water/steam. There were many, many excuses but AFAIK 
it looks good on paper but has not been shown to actually run without 
another system supplying the very high pressure required by the injectors.


Perhaps there has been a bona fide breakthrough and things have 
changed, but … $64 question … Have you actually seen it running on 
water/steam without electrical input and without another system 
supplying the high pressure water? If so, for how long?


Jones

[Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form of LENR?

[Nigel Dyer]

For some months I have been working with Cavitation Energy Systems 
(http://cavitationenergysystems.com/) who have been developing an 
efficient steam generator based on cavitation.  What is not obvious 
until you start going through the details of what they say on the 
website is that there appears to be five times more energy in the steam 
they produce than the electrical energy they use to produce it.
I have met up with them in Florida and gone through the details of the 
system and it does appear to be as they claim.   The question is how 
does it manage to do this?  By combining knowledge of their system with 
other 'excess energy' systems that I am aware of and had dealings with I 
think the mechanism is as follows:


 * As they intended, they use a diesel injector to create a pulse of
   water that is full of cavitation bubbles.
 * When the pulse hits a nearby surface a shock wave travels back
   through the water initiating an almost synchronous  collapse of all
   the bubbles.
 * The potential differences within the collapsing bubbles accelerate
   some free protons such that they have an energy of the order of
   10kV, enough to overcome the coulomb barrier and initiate fusion.
 * The fusion energy is carried away by a virtual neutrino, and there
   is a cascade of virtual neutrinos which distribute the energy as
   kinetic energy among nearby protons and electrons. Some of the
   protons have sufficient energy to initiate a secondary fusion event
   starting a short duration chain reaction.  With others the kinetic
   energy they gain is transferred to the water molecule and
   consequently the water is heated up until it boils.

The way that the bubbles collapse directs the energy away from the 
surface, avoiding the normal problems of cavitation systems where the 
cavitation causes damage to surfaces. The way that the shock wave causes 
all the bubbles to collapse and initiate fusion at close to the same 
time means that the energy from the proton-proton fusion is able to heat 
all of the water, converting it to steam, at which point the chain 
reaction stops.


Not only do they appear to have significant energy gain but it is 
available in a highly usable form, as high temperature steam.  I have 
put together some more detailed notes.


http://thedyers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CES_LENR.pdf

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from proton-proton fusion

[Nigel Dyer]

In fact I have unilaterally removed the offending gamma from the 
Wikipedia page. I dont expect it to return.  The only gamma rays that it 
continues correctly to mention are those associated with the 
annihilation of the positron with an electron.


The Mark Davidson paper is very good.  I will have to get my son to go 
over the variable mass hypothesis as it is very much in his territory.   
Indeed he has some ideas and a paper that he is working on that may be 
very relevant.  The roundup of nuclear anomalies is very good.  I was 
reassured that there were no surprises in the list.


I agree that proton-proton fusion would appear to be low probability.  
However there are still some situations, all of which are included in 
the list where I think it would be premature to rule this out at this 
stage.  I spent some time looking at thunder storm related anomalies, 
which are a lot more complex and 'poorly understood' than the one 
paragraph in the paper would suggest and still think that proton-proton 
fusion might be part of the story.


Bringing the two together, given that the Davidson paper also includes 
radioactive decay variation (ie weak force effects) in the list of 
anomalies, then perhaps he should have included neutrinos and their mass 
in his thinking.  This could then be of relevance if there does turn out 
to be some proton-proton fusion scenarios,  which is why I came to be 
looking at the Wikipedia page in the first place


Nigel

On 31/08/2017 15:22, JonesBeene wrote:


Proton-proton fusion is of such low probability that it is almost a 
waste of time to think that it has relevance in the real world, 
despite the mainstream view. We see gamma radiation in stars with or 
without fusion (even Jupiter and the gas giants have lots of gamma 
emission) but this usually derives from positron/electron events, not 
fusion. A related phenomenon used to be called Wheeler’s “quantum 
foam” but the term has gone out of favor. (Wiki has an entry). A real 
proton/proton fusion event would be akin to winning every prize in the 
lottery on every draw for a year in a row… and has no applicability to 
LENR because of rarity.


There has to be a better crossover explanation - but proton fusion in 
so engrained that it will be difficult to weed out. Even Ed Storms has 
fallen for it.


As an alternative to proton-proton fusion, there is a fully reversible 
diproton reaction with asymmetry. The diproton reaction is the most 
common reaction in the universe but it always reverses quickly. It is 
assumed to be net neutral in energy, mainly because of the assumption 
that proton mass is quantized - but that assumption is probably wrong 
- and each reaction event could have small gain contributory to 
stellar CNO fusion which is real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle


Bottom line, if the proton has variable mass, then the reversible 
diproton reaction alone can power a star or it can be contributory . A 
population of protons which is not quantized can capture and convert 
mass to energy in several ways including the complete annihilation 
event of Holmlid. This has relevance to LENR and at one time here, I 
was promoting an alternative hypothesis for Ni-H gain called RPF – or 
Reversible Proton Fusion... but, alas - there is nothing new under the 
sun, as they say and someone had already thought of it.


In the “small world” category, or maybe it is in the meme category – a 
theorist who lives not far away, came up with the same suggestion 
earlier. “Variable mass theories in relativistic quantum mechanics as 
an explanation for anomalous low energy nuclear phenomena” by Mark 
Davidson. Worth a read.


//

/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012016/pdf 
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012016/pdf>/


//

*From: *Nigel Dyer <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>

In the text of the wikipedia page about proton proton fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

It says that in the first stage, when two protons fuse, a gamma ray

proton is produced.  However this is not shown in the diagram, or in

anyone elses diagram, or in anyone else's text.   Is the wikipedia page

incorrect.   If no gamma ray photon is produced then where does the

excess energy (0.42MeV) from this first stage go?

Nigel

[Vo]:Gamma radiation from proton-proton fusion

[Nigel Dyer]

In the text of the wikipedia page about proton proton fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

It says that in the first stage, when two protons fuse, a gamma ray 
proton is produced.  However this is not shown in the diagram, or in 
anyone elses diagram, or in anyone else's text.   Is the wikipedia page 
incorrect.   If no gamma ray photon is produced then where does the 
excess energy (0.42MeV) from this first stage go?


Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Nigel Dyer]

In a fully open source project (such as some of the software development 
I am involved with) I assume the patent trolls are not able to jump in 
on the stuff that is published.  I assume the danger is that they take 
the open source info and patent some/all of the as yet unpublished 
extensions, which will include extensions that are of value even if they 
dont fully know which ones they are.



On 06/07/2017 14:16, Jones Beene wrote:


Just the opposite - in fact, a version of "open-source" is the way of 
the future for LENR... but it needs refinement. For instance, patents 
can be a necessary evil - if only to keep patent trolls from jumping 
in and obtaining one first.

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

I am not sure why there being no advantage for deuterium means that this 
was not cold fusion.  If there was a fusion process in these situations 
that started with protons then would this also not be cold fusion?  
Given that we are in a territory that is far removed from the standard 
plasma conditions where the orthodox rules for fusion were forged, I 
think we cannot rule out the possibility that there could be proton 
based fusion options.


Nigel

On 03/07/2017 02:03, Jones Beene wrote:
these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or both 
and there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold fusion

Re: [Vo]:Ten New Nuclear Reactors Connected in 2016

[Nigel Dyer]

I was basing my comment on the UK, where currently natural gas and 
petrol each represent more than twice the energy usage than 
electricity.   See chart 1.04 in


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/573269/ECUK_November_2016.pdf

It tends to be statements about energy usage in the UK that I tend to 
encounter which are misleading.


I guess it will be different in other countries, for example countries 
where this is less need for heating but more need for electricity for 
air conditioning.


Nigel

On 03/06/2017 16:59, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk <mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:

Just considering electricity production and ignoring heating and
transportation is a very common way of misrepresenting how much
progress we are, or are not, making in reaching the point where we
have a fully sustainable set of energy sources


That seems kind of harsh. Electricity is a major portion of all 
energy, and the sources and end use of electricity are relatively easy 
to measure, so it is good metric for the whole of energy consumption.

Re: [Vo]:Ten New Nuclear Reactors Connected in 2016

[Nigel Dyer]

Just considering electricity production and ignoring heating and 
transportation is a very common way of misrepresenting how much progress 
we are, or are not, making in reaching the point where we have a fully 
sustainable set of energy sources


Nigel

On 03/06/2017 16:18, Jones Beene wrote:


Yes - Nuclear accounts for 20% of electric production, but almost zero 
percent of the remainder of the total energy mix -- which includes 
energy for heat and transportation, in addition to electricity.

Re: [Vo]:Great quote from Benjamin Franklin

[Nigel Dyer]

John Trowbridge reported something similar in his (remarkable) 1907 
paper "High Electromotive Force" about lightning


"We are beginning to realize, however, that 500 volts, accompanied by a 
currrent of between 10 and 20 amperes is sufficient to destroy human 
life.  One compartment of the storage battery that I have described in 
this memoir, - a compartment affording over 800 volts, -short circuited 
through the body of the janitor of the laboratory, was sufficient to 
knock him senseless".


A case of #overlyhonestresults

Nigel

On 01/06/2017 01:56, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Getting back to Franklin, he pioneered many aspects of electricity. In 
one of his less successful experiments, he almost killed himself with 
electricity from a battery, in 1750. It sounds like a cold fusion 
experiment gone bad. He was trying to electrocute a turkey. He wrote:



"I have lately made an Experiment in Electricity that I desire never 
to repeat. Two nights ago being about to kill a Turkey by the Shock 
from two large Glass Jarrs containing as much electrical fire as forty 
common Phials, I inadvertently took the whole thro' my own Arms and Body.


[. . . although self-electrocution had not been his intention, he 
still maintained a scientific interest in the results. . . . 
Nonetheless, he also felt some chagrin over the accident.] "You may 
Communicate this to Mr. Bowdoin As A Caution to him, but do not make 
it mor Publick, for I am Ashamed to have been Guilty of so Notorious A 
Blunder."

Re: [Vo]:Measuring Spin

[Nigel Dyer]

Bob

I followed up the lead to Phillip Hatt's ideas.   I find these various 
grand unified ideas that individuals have put together fascinating.  I 
encountered one myself many years ago which I posted up on my website 
and I think mentioned on vortex-l some years ago


http://thedyers.org.uk/nigel/alfred-claude-jessup/

I suspect that a lot could be learnt by soing a careful study of all of 
these ideas and attempt some kind of meta synthesis.  There must be a 
genetic component to this in that my son has come up with his own GUT of 
a kind, but unfortunately it has got stuck in a pre-publication loop.   
When it has managed to leave the loop, vortex-l will be one of the first 
places to know.  What it does do is show the very clear relationship 
between the fundemental particles, quarks, electrons and neutrinos and 
certainly leaves me in no doubts of the reality of quarks.


Nigel

On 28/05/2017 18:59, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


Nigel—


Philippe Hatt’s theory of the composition  and parameters of neutrons 
and protons—charge, mass and magnetic moment---as a system of positons 
and electrons is instructive.  His predictions of these parameters is 
“dead nuts on” with respect to existing experimental accuracy.  (No 
quarks involved or other virtual particles, only real particles.)


Bob Cook

[Vo]:Measuring Spin

[Nigel Dyer]

I have been musing about spin and Leonard Susskinds lectures and books 
have got me thinking in a slightly different way:  There is very much 
LENR related, but I will start with a 'simple' question
In the Stern Gerlach experiment the act of 'measuring' the spin of the 
particle has an effect on the spin, in that the information about the 
spin in the non-measured axis has been destroyed.  In what sense has the 
state of the particles spin been changed and what mediates the change. 
Can it be thought of as in terms of a virtual photon exchange?.  I 
assume that overall there must be conservation of spin, so in what sense 
has the spin state of the rest of the system been changed?

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Nigel Dyer]

My power supply blew up shortly afterwards and although I have bought 
some new ones (they are only a few pounds) I have not set it up again as 
it has been rather overtaken by events


Nigel

On 24/04/2017 02:17, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk 
<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:


If I remember correctly it was something like that. The counter
had to be very close to register clicks, such that it was
consistent with alpha particles, but it was not stopped by a peice
of paper, which would have stopped alpha particles, but which
would allow through a voltage transient.

I believe paper will allow beta particles through, which will also be 
picked up by a GM counter.  I assume you were correct in your 
assessment that the dV/dT was messing with your GM counter.  But I 
doubt a piece of paper would rule out everything interesting.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Nigel Dyer]

If I remember correctly it was something like that.  The counter had to 
be very close to register clicks, such that it was consistent with alpha 
particles, but it was not stopped by a peice of paper, which would have 
stopped alpha particles, but which would allow through a voltage transient.


Nigel

On 23/04/2017 17:53, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk 
<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:


It worked quite succesfully for a couple of days experiments,
during which I found that the high dV/dT it generates causes false
positive clicks on my cheap geiger counter.


What was the approach you used to determine the clicks were false 
positives?  E.g., interposing a thick piece of metal?


Eric

[Vo]:Dr Who and LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

In tonights episode of Dr Who the spaceship they came across had a 
'Fleischmann cold-fusion' drive, complete with calorimeter

Re: [Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

[Nigel Dyer]

One of the key things about the decay path is the role of neutrinos.  
What tends to be ignored is that the experiment is not being conducted 
in a neutral background, but is being conduced in the background of a 
sea of solar and cosmic neutrinos.  The cosmic neutrinos that are a left 
over from the big bang are at such low energies that they will almost 
certainly play no role.  However the solar neutrinos are at a flux and 
an energy that I had recently begun to wonder whether they may 
occasionally catalyse/interact with reactions involving the weak nuclear 
force, which would result in decay probabilities that are slightly 
different from the SM predictions.  So perhaps its not that the SM is 
wrong, its just that they have to add another reaction pathway.


Nigel

On 22/04/2017 04:37, John Berry wrote:
Oh wow,everyone get excited, there is a tiny deviation in the 
production of muons over electrons even though there should be due to 
their energy but it's a bit larger than that!

And as Muons die quickly, they aren't even useful.

This piece gives the view that physics is pretty much complete and the 
most interesting thing that billions of dollars can do is find 
bulls#!+ like that!


The huge gaps in understanding are ignored, but I'm glad they are 
tracking down tiny details.


They are blind to so much!  The standard model can eat our dust!

John Berry

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote:



CERN Declares War On The Standard Model



 Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017
by Matt Williams 


https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/


Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012

,
the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the
existence of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this
end, the Large Hardon Collider beauty experiment
 (LHCb) was
established in 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring
what happened after the Big Bang that allowed matter to survive
and create the Universe as we know it.

Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing
things. This includes discovering five new particles

,
uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter
asymmetry

,
and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring
beta decay. These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press
release
,
could be an indication of new physics that are not part of the
Standard Model.

In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the
decay of B0mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon
and a pair of electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are
subatomic particles that are 200 times more massive than
electrons, but whose interactions are believed to be the same as
those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is concerned).





/The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
/

This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only
predicts that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be
produced with the same probability – with some constraints arising
from their differences in mass. However, in testing the decay of
B0 mesons, the team found that the decay process produced muons
with less frequency. These results were collected during Run 1 of
the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.

The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April
18th, at a CERN seminar

,
where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest
findings. As they indicated during the course of the seminar,
these findings are significant in that they appear to confirm
results obtained by the LHCb team during previous decay studies.

This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility
that new physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the
Standard Model (made possible with the discovery of the Higgs
boson in 2012), investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e.
Supersymmetry

Re: [Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

[Nigel Dyer]

I think that Cosmac has provided my answer, and yes there will be a 
shadow.   Monnshadow looks for the shadow cast by the moon for the 
higher energy cosmically originated neutrinos, and the same physics will 
apply to solar neutrinos.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327789/are-neutrinos-diffused-or-defracted-by-the-moon/327892#327892

Nigel


On 20/04/2017 05:20, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk 
<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:


No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems
not unreasonable


This is an interesting line of speculation.  It might be worth 
raising it at PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com 
<http://physics.stackexchange.com>. I would be interested in knowing 
what mainstream physicists think of it.


This line of speculation is related to my thinking on how the EM 
Drive might produce "propellantless" thrust.  If enough beta decays 
and electron captures were being induced in the device, and the 
neutrinos were emitted anisotropically, i.e., preferentially in one 
direction, that might produce measurable thrust.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

[Nigel Dyer]

The question has been asked

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327789/are-neutrinos-diffused-or-defracted-by-the-moon

I will cross post any interesting answers

Nigel


On 20/04/2017 05:20, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk 
<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:


No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems not
unreasonable


This is an interesting line of speculation.  It might be worth raising 
it at PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com 
<http://physics.stackexchange.com>. I would be interested in knowing 
what mainstream physicists think of it.


This line of speculation is related to my thinking on how the EM Drive 
might produce "propellantless" thrust.  If enough beta decays and 
electron captures were being induced in the device, and the neutrinos 
were emitted anisotropically, i.e., preferentially in one direction, 
that might produce measurable thrust.


Eric

[Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

[Nigel Dyer]

We all know that neutrinos pass directly through things, even big things 
such as the earth.


However it is also known that neutrinos interact with matter as a result 
of the Z boson or neutral current.  This results in small amounts of 
momentum transfer and people have looked at whether this is measureable, 
e.g. by making neutrinos bounce off things that they hit at a very 
shallow angle.


If matter deflects neutrinos in this way then does this mean that 
neutrinos that pass through, for example, the moon will get very 
slightly deflected, in random directions, such that the moon ends up 
acting as a neutrino diffuser.  This will mean that if you are far 
enough away the moon will cast a neutrino shadow.  Is the earth/moon 
distance sufficiently far away such that we are in a solar neutrino 
shadow during a total eclipse?


No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems not 
unreasonable


Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Another article about sloppy research and academic corruption

[Nigel Dyer]

At this point I perhaps ouught to point out my own article in Nature 
Genetics.  If you have access to the full article you will find it says 
that a Nature Genetics paper a year earlier is substantially flawed 
because they had based their conclusions on what is in fact an artefact 
in the data.


http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n1/full/ng.3392.html

The original authors would have spotted the artefact if they had looked 
at the raw data.  If you dont look at the data the paper appears fine, 
which is why it got through peer review.  You cant expect the unpaid 
peer reviewers to load and re process the raw data.  I only checked it 
because the papers conclusions conflicted with the results that we were 
getting


Nigel


On 17/04/2017 16:04, Jed Rothwell wrote:

"The Impostor Cell Line That Set Back Breast Cancer Research

It’s but one example of a major problem in cancer science."

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/04/the_impostor_cell_line_that_set_back_breast_cancer_research.html

A reader comment:

"If people knew what researchers were really like they would be 
stunned. Their personality type is very ruthless and dishonest work 
and conclusion is the norm. I work at a famous university medical 
center and we have a few of the 'stars' here. Most of the time it's 
the postdocs who do the work and the researcher is nowhere near it. 
Their name is on the paper but that's about it. The pressure external 
and from themselves to publish and succeed is insane."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Nigel Dyer]

I built a Marx generator powered by a cheap 7kV generator

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DC-3V-7KV-7000V-Boost-Step-up-Power-Module-High-voltage-Converter-Generator-S52-/122391848213?hash=item1c7f1f6515:g:LqUAAOSwo6lWOc7o

It worked quite succesfully for a couple of days experiments, during 
which I found that the high dV/dT it generates causes false positive 
clicks on my cheap geiger counter.  A useful peice of information. Then 
the gnerator died.  I bought 5 more but have not done anything with them


Nigel
On 16/04/2017 17:41, Frank Znidarsic wrote:

Anatomy of a failed experiment.

Hydrogen loading effects the plasma frequency.  I don't believe the 
nonsense about hydrinos and cracks.   Sub atomic particles and the 
like are just more nonsense at this energy level.


Thermal frequencies are terahertz 10 to the twelfth power hertz.  At 
high hydrogen loading the plasma frequency changes to that  of hot 
thermal vibrations 10 to the thirteen power hertz.  Obliviously silver 
will not achieve the high loading required for hot thermal operation. 
 I was shooting for operation at the high microwave band ten to the 
tenth power hertz.  I want a lower plasma frequency.   That's why I 
tried the helium.




Maybe I shroud dig out my high voltage spark gap exciter.  It delivers 
a wallop upon breakdown.  Then again this thing scares me, maybe not.


Frank

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Nigel Dyer]

In the specific case of LENR/cold fusion, vortex-l provides an excellent 
source of this sort of information.  There have been a number of times 
when I have searched the archive to find whether something had been 
tried or considered and found the information from a discussion at some 
point in the past.  For this I am very grateful to all the 
contributers.  I only wish I had access to similar information for other 
research I am involved with.


Nigel

On 16/04/2017 11:56, John Berry wrote:

So if that was done with cold fusion...

IMO failures in experimental sciences are too specific for it to be 
meaningful.


It might have limited application, but mostly, I don't see it, too 
often success and failure is just an inch apart.


John Berry

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk 
<mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>> wrote:


Excellent article.

I have found that it is possible to find out some of the failures
by going to conferences and talking with people.  For every field
there is usually someone who knows what has been done, and what
has worked and what has not.  The problem is that this is very hit
and miss and the information is not very accessible, which is not
a good way to do science

Nigel

On 15/04/2017 22:06, H LV wrote:

Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

We don’t ask people in other professions to do it, but it’s vital
for speeding up progress in crucial areas of research from
climate to medicine and public health

By Ijad Madisch on April 13, 2017


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-share-their-failures/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_BLOG

<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-share-their-failures/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_BLOG>

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Nigel Dyer]

Excellent article.

I have found that it is possible to find out some of the failures by 
going to conferences and talking with people.  For every field there is 
usually someone who knows what has been done, and what has worked and 
what has not.  The problem is that this is very hit and miss and the 
information is not very accessible, which is not a good way to do science


Nigel

On 15/04/2017 22:06, H LV wrote:

Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

We don’t ask people in other professions to do it, but it’s vital for 
speeding up progress in crucial areas of research from climate to 
medicine and public health


By Ijad Madisch on April 13, 2017

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-share-their-failures/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_BLOG

Re: [Vo]:Greek version of Rossi on PBS

[Nigel Dyer]

We had a very good presentation of Browns Gas by the Hurtaks at the last 
water conference although no overunity was claimed, just that it was 
able to improve the efficiency of an internal combustion energy. This 
looks to be very similar to a classic Browns gas setup


Nigel

On 28/12/2016 04:36, Jones Beene wrote:
PETROS ZOGRAFOS is a Greek inventor who claims to split water in a way 
to get more energy out than was put into the system. Sound familiar? 
Shades of Stanley Meyer. He even uses the "resonance" spiel of Meyer 
and pretends that it is a new thing.


Zografos was apparently featured on PBS tonight but I missed it. His 
videos have been up on You Tube for several weeks however. 
Unfortunately he prefers to keep things mysterious so it is not clear 
if he is an inventive genius or scam artist in the best tradition of 
Stan... not to mention the recent demo of Randy Mills - which is a new 
twist on the old theme.


Zografos has shown several systems in the old videos but he is 
basically comes off as a showman who is almost as disingenuous as AR 
in providing no data. In one system, it was discovered that he was 
consuming aluminum from electrodes in order to split water in a way 
that makes it look super efficient - if, that is ... you forget about 
the energy required to refine the aluminum.


Maybe PBS is new to this kind of scam - the legacy of Yull Brown and 
Meyer and man others others ... or maybe Zografos has found a new 
breakthrough which is real anomaly. His past work was no more than 
smoke and mirrors - but there is always hope for the big breakthrough 
in splitting water with resonance.


That hope for turning water into a fuel is the legacy of Jules Verne 
who created a meme which is by now ingrained in the free-energy 
aspirations of every new age. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox

[Nigel Dyer]

My son (doing a theoretical physics PhD) tends to quote Pirates of the 
Caribbean on this and say that it is not so much a rule as more what 
you'd call guidelines


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0

Nigel

On 13/09/2014 19:47, H Veeder wrote:
Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E 
and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the 
second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb.


http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply

[Nigel Dyer]

I feel that a universal basic income would only work in a society where 
there was sufficient mutual trust and undestanding to make it work.  The 
problem with those who propose such ideas can be that they think that 
everyone else is like them.   I suspect that if that was the case then 
the scheme would work.   You dont have to see much news to realise that 
we are not there yet, which means the scheme would fail (PInker's The 
Angels of our better nature provides some background)


I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce 
artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to 
work.   Ideally the inefficiencies are ones which mean that fewer 
resources, but more people are needed to do what needs to be done.   It 
might be cheaper to buy new rather than repair, but with the appropriate 
inefficiencies we can make it cheaper to repair (using the repair shop 
round the corner) rather than buy new.


However, I cant work out what the inefficiencies would need to be, and 
how they could be introduced.


Nigel

On 09/09/2014 16:58, H Veeder wrote:

​​

America is running out of jobs. It's time for a universal basic income.

http://theweek.com/article/index/267720/america-is-running-out-of-jobs-its-time-for-a-universal-basic-income
​
quote​s

 The idea that work is a bedrock of society, that absolutely 
everyone who is not too old, too young, or disabled must have a job, 
was not handed down on tablets from Mount Sinai. It is the result of a 
historical development, one which may not continue forever. On the 
contrary, based on current trends, it is already breaking down.


The history of nearly universal labor participation is only about a 
century and a half old. Back in the early days of capitalism, demand 
for labor was so strong that all the ancient arrangements of society 
and family were shredded to accommodate it. Marx's Capital famously 
described how women and very young children were press-ganged into the 
textile mills and coal mines, how the nighttime was colonized for 
additional shifts, and how capitalists fought to extend the working 
day to the very limits of human endurance (and often beyond).


The resulting misery, abuse, and wretchedness were so staggering, and 
the resulting class conflicts so intense, that various hard-won 
reforms were instituted: the eight-hour day, the weekend, the 
abolition of child labor, and so forth.


But this process of drawing more people into the labor force peaked in 
the late 1990s, when women finally finished joining the labor force 
(after having been forced out to make room for returning veterans 
after World War II). The valorization of work as the source of all 
that is good in life is to a great degree the result of the need to 
legitimate capital's voracious demand for labor.

​ ​


 As someone with a nice, stimulating job, I agree that work can help 
people flourish. But in an economy that is flatly failing to produce 
enough jobs to satisfy the need, a universal basic income will start 
to seem more plausible — even necessary.

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

[Nigel Dyer]

I have recently come across Torsion Fields, the theoretical fifth force 
that has yet to be experimentally demonstrated.

Should this fifth force be the 10th spin-spin interaction on the list?
Nigel

On 07/09/2014 20:17, Jones Beene wrote:

Spin coupling is a superset phrase for several types of energy transfer
mechanisms, including angular momentum coupling, magnetic coupling and much
more. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly paper to elucidate all of the
intricacy of this phenomenon, as it applies to LENR. Mention was made of
spin coupling in gravimagnetics by Horace Heffner years ago, and it is too
bad he is not here to bring those comments up to date in a broader context.
It was part of  Julian Schwinger's approach to LENR, far earlier.

Spin coupling exists as a way to transfer energy across vast scales of
geometry, all the way from galaxies down to quarks. Included in the term are

1) magnetic dipole coupling
2) LS coupling of hydrogen and possibly potassium, where the electron spins
interact among themselves in groups to form a total spin angular momentum
(similar to magnons);
3) J coupling, which is also called indirect dipole-dipole coupling which is
mediated through hydrogen bonds connecting two spins.
4) JJ coupling happens between heavier atoms like nickel;
5) Spin-spin coupling
6) Magnon coupling
7) Mössbauer coupling
8) Nuclear coupling, which is stronger at short distances and is
incorporated directly into the nuclear shell model.
9) Subatomic spin coupling of quarks and pions QCD etc.

Certainly there are others under the umbrella of spin coupling.

A focus on spin coupling phenomenon - as the main source of nuclear gain,
without gamma radiation, is new to somewhat new to LENR and it is not clear
who to attribute the idea to, possibly Schwinger in a simpler form - but it
stands as an alternative way to transfer mass-energy from heavy nuclei,
directly to light nuclei, then to electrons, then to magnons (in the sense
of a coherent array). The energy is nuclear, but there is no fusion nor is
it Mills, even if reduced orbitals are involved.

The result is spatial thermal gain which is similar in some respects to the
way a magnetic core of a transformer heats up. Yet in the end the gain is
mass-to-energy - since nuclear mass converts to spin at a basic subatomic
level, starting at the quark level and QCD.

The main problem is that there could be much more going on in any LENR
experiment than spin coupling. In fact, spin coupling can co-exist with
nuclear fusion, beta decay, hydrinos or any other nuclear process. Plus,
gain from spin coupling can make incidental fusion reactions seem more
robust than they in actuality ... or vice-versa. By that, it is suggested
that spin coupling, providing only milli-eV of energy per nucleon, but which
is transferred at terahertz rates, is a mechanism which can provide many
Watts of thermal gain, which can make a few incidental fusion reactions
stand-out as being more important than they are... or vice versa.

This is a complex and interesting angle - for looking at gain in
nickel-hydrogen systems for several reasons. First, of course is that nickel
is ferromagnetic  and many experiments have shown changes around the Curie
point of nickel. Second is the Letts/Cravens effect and the recent NI-Week
demo of Dennis Cravens, and the magnetic work of Mitchell Swartz - all of
which show a strong connection of magnetism to excess heat.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Spin Coupling

[Nigel Dyer]

Wikipedia may not have kind words for the proponents, but that does not 
seem to have stopped other people making serious (I assume) suggestions 
as to how they could be measured, and getting their ideas published in 
Science.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6122/928.abstract?sid=ec0e0993-aeb3-4f3d-9fbc-35c4c0cecb73

Nigel


On 07/09/2014 22:16, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Wiki doesn't have many kind words for many of the torsion field proponents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29

...despite Jack Sarfatti (or maybe because of him)

But there could be a kernel of truth which is related to spin coupling. Terry 
may know what Jack's response is...

Well, attempts at verification of TF by experimental evidence have had
poor results.  Jack invited Gennady over for a storming session about
a decade ago and the result was a falling out.  This often happens
when large egos collide...especially in phrynge physics.  Jack pretty
much labels it as so much BS here (and Jack knows BS):

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/torsion.pdf

All the words in quotation marks above are unnecessary or misleading, or
make no sense at all. Their actual function is to discourage the experts from
trying to figure it out what the author is talking about. It is part of what is
called ”impressionistic style” in theoretical physics. There is nothing wrong
with impressionistic style. Some painters are realist, some surrealist, some
impressionist etc. But it is important to recognize the style. When I see an
impressionistic painting, I usually squint my eyes so as to consciously not to
pay attention to the details. I understand that it is up to me to give the
meaning to the painting, not to the painter. And sometimes I am able to
give this meaning, and sometimes not.

I think the dialog between the two pretty much ended with:

Gennady Shipov

Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected
with primary torsion fields.


Jack

Show equations.

Shipov

It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum.


Jack

Show equations

Re: [Vo]:Someones Kickstarting a free energy device...

[Nigel Dyer]

After SciGen, the program for writing scientific papers, it looks as if 
someone has written a program for generating kickstart cold fusion 
proposals.   Perhaps the all caps output is a limitation of the beta 
release?


Nigel
On 31/08/2014 15:07, Alexander Hollins wrote:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1673957641/free-energy?ref=category_popular

all caps means he's REALLY serious.

Re: [Vo]:LENR, Transmutation and genetic mutations

[Nigel Dyer]

I have been thinking on similar, but not quite the same lines.   I warm 
to some of the suggestions that coherent mechanisms, involving nuclei, 
are significant in LENR, eg. as part of the distribution of the energy 
from nuclear processes into the bulk material which reduces/eliminates 
the emission of ionising radiation.
I have a hunch that the same coherent inter-nuclei interactions allow 
coherent processes involving large regions of DNA to take place, which 
integrate together the DNA sequence information covering that region.  I 
think this happens particularly when the DNA is in specific structures, 
such as the DNA/DNA/RNA triple helical structure. This could then be a 
way of orchestrating mutations such that they are less random than might 
be expected.


Nigel

On 28/08/2014 17:59, H Veeder wrote:
To bring discussion of evolution back to something more on topic for 
this list, I would like to suggest that if anomalous LENR 
transmutations are possible then they might play role in changing in 
DNA. In other words gene mutations might be less random and more like 
orchestrated disturbances.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[Nigel Dyer]

Hi John et al
It can be shown logically that it is impossible to argue against the 
hypothesis that God created the world in 4004 BC such that it had all 
the appearance of there having been Darwinian Evolution up until that 
point, as I have discovered previously.  The possibility that life 
appeared in various other ways (actions of elves, visits from aliens) is 
also difficult/impossible to argue against.   From my perspective, all 
of the evidence that I work with does not require such outside 
interference in order to explain what we have found so far.   We cannot 
explain everything, but each time we get to the bottom of some new 
aspect of what we find, it fits into the self-contained evolutionary 
hypothesis.   If we find something that does not, I will be one of the 
first to spread the news as I am more than happy to consider alternative 
ideas (water, bio-photons, cold fusion etc).   So far, the theory of 
evolution does not seem to require any significant additons.   I regard 
punctuated equilibrium as a minor tweak which I now see as almost having 
been proposed by Darwin.   The bit that will (imho) require something 
new is our understanding of how evolution stores distributed information 
in the DNA.  But if creationists and alien impregnators want to get all 
hung up on evolution then I am quite happy to leave them be: I have DNA 
sequences to analyse.


We can see the impact of the first land animals in the genetics of 
plants.  They have many defence mechanisms to deal with pests etc, but 
it can be shown that land plants spent millions of years not having to 
deal with the problem of animals eating them as the defence mechanisms 
that exist today as defence against animal action in land plants evolved 
comparitively late on. During this period the plants just died and 
became coal.  The phylogenetic trees suggest a time that is consistent 
with the best understanding of when the animals arrived on land and 
started eating the plants.  This can be shown by looking at the 
relationship between the different proteins that are involved in this 
process.   This is one of countless bits of information that I work with 
on a daily basis where everything fits snuggly together based on 
evolutionary ideas.


But God could have created the whole thing in 4004BC such that 
everything had the appearance of having evolved like this.   Who am I to 
argue?


Nigel

On 27/08/2014 04:40, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers.  However I don't 
think you really answered the question I was interested in because you 
are so saturated with the current paradigm.  I sense from your answer 
that you are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in 
comparison to later more complex) self-replicating life form, random 
mutations and selection is sufficient to generate all life as we know 
it.  I don't wish to argue against that view, even though for myself I 
find it impossible to believe.


If you could momentarily put aside the current paradigm and consider 
the possibility that we have been visited by aliens who although 
evolving completely independently on another planet have, incredibly 
as it may seem, ended up with compatible DNA to our own - so that a 
case of hybrid sexual intercourse such as Antonio Vilas Boas 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B4nio_Vilas_Boas case could 
occur.  The implications to evolution of this type of case being true 
are I think quite revolutionary.  It means for instance that the final 
human DNA outcome from the whole evolution process must be completely 
determined from the very beginning!!!


I really don't want to hear arguments about how this is impossible and 
the Vilas Boas case must be fake - I appreciate them fully.  What I 
would like is if you could withhold disbelief sufficiently to consider 
whether there you can see an argument from within your field of 
evolutionary genetics?  For instance, is it possible that there is 
sufficient information programmed into the simplest life forms (or at 
least the ones that unfolded into the forms of life that finally 
resulted in us) to at least allow, if not ensure, that the final 
result would be human?


Also I wonder what is the current guess at the first (and ongoingly 
successful) animal to emerge from the sea?  I saw some large carnivore 
types that were proposed - but how would they live on land without 
other animals to eat?  And if they had to go back into the sea to eat 
(which is their main daily and lifelong task) why not simply stay 
there.  I think it would need to be an animal that could live well on 
land plants and/or insects (which I believe long preceded the 
vertebrates).


John

On 27/08/2014 6:49 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need
to be addressed.  The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of
the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[Nigel Dyer]

Hi John

Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self 
replicating cell originated.   For example all the evidence suggests 
that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and 
splits into chunks to form enzymes etc.   We are currently finding RNA 
has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for 
RNA based lifeforms.


As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, 
no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 million 
years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas 
Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be 
asking themselves the same question, and they are not sexually 
compatible with us.


There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life 
forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive. Darwin 
describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have 
found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea.


However, the more find out about biological processes, the more we seem 
to rule out alternative none DNA/RNA ways that life could occur.   
Basically evolution (and our chemists) seems to have explored just about 
every available option, and there is nothing else that comes close to 
doing what DNA/RNA can do.   If life exists elsewhere, I find it 
increasingly difficult to see how it can be anything other than DNA/RNA 
based.  If it is DNA/RNA based then that would therefore just be an 
example of parallel evolution, which we already have lots of examples of 
within nature. What will then be interesting will be to see what the 
similarities and differences are in the way that the DNA/RNA encodes 
information (e.g. coding for proteins, which is more abitary), which 
would be the only way that we could determine whether there was a common 
ancester.


My particular heresy/unproven hypothesis is that I beleive that some of 
the information in DNA is stored in a 'non-local' form (similar to  
Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields), so in principle could be shared with 
an alien DNA based life form, which could mean that the aliens might 
indeed turn out to be hairy humanoids.  I await the arrival of aliens 
with interest so that these various hypothesies can be tested.


Nigel

On 27/08/2014 10:52, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

Hi Nigel,

Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering 
someone else's query.  I did not remotely suggest recent creation and 
did not think that I promoted alien impregnation. The alien 
impregnation that I spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well 
known case that even the Wikipedia defenders of the faith cannot 
build much of a case against.


Evolution really can't even get started until you have a 
self-replicating cell, so evolution as such cannot have any 
explanation for where the first self-replicating cell came from.  Many 
(if not most?) mainline scientists accept this fact and some well 
known ones go so far as to even suggest an off-world (ie alien) 
source.  I am not concerned whether the source was alien 
impregnation or whatever other mechanism you happen to think might 
have produced the first self-replicating cell.  This is something we 
may never know.  But if even one of the alien visitation cases turns 
out to be true (and it would seem that this could happen any day if 
certain governments would allow it), then I think it must have an 
enormous impact on the theory of evolution and thus maybe even impact 
your job.


So my hope was that you might follow this possibly impending scenario 
through to a logical conclusion.  Suppose tomorrow that we find out 
that there really was a crash at Roswell, and we really did meet live 
aliens or have dead alien bodies to dissect (the sort of stuff that 
this list enjoys dreaming about), it either points to the process of 
evolution being incredibly convergent (and how could that work!), or 
that the process was largely programmed into the first 
self-replicating cell.


So my question again is: from your knowledge of the DNA of the 
earliest known forms of life, is there sufficient information content 
to almost guarantee that humanoid life-forms (very similar to us and 
even sexually compatible) will finally evolve?  Or does the minimal 
state of the DNA of early life forms strongly suggest that there must 
be some emergent phenomenon or meddling along the way in order to 
produce in the end such similar humanoid life forms?


John

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Nigel Dyer]

This summer I read On the Origin of the Species from cover to cover 
for the first time.  I had not realised what a truely remarkable book it 
is.   It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail.  In some 
respects my day job could be described as being an evolutionary 
geneticist, and it is remarkable how much of the detail of what I work 
on was predicted in Darwins book.  He describes in great detail the 
general principles of evolution, which are backed up by the DNA 
sequences that I work on.


Interestingly, Darwin discusses how if you specifically breed for 
variation in a specific characteristic (his example is pigieon beak 
length) then this shows greater variablity in future variations. He also 
discusses how some things show a remarkable fixedness over vast periods 
of time.   This suggests the possibility that evolution may proceed in 
fits and starts: puncutated equilibrium, and yet he then talks very much 
in terms of gradual and continuous evolution, which has become taken as 
the defining feature of Darwinian evolution.  Punctuated equilibrium is 
seen as somethiong of a heresy.


I have always felt that punctuated equilibrium was far more consistent 
with the evidence, both fossil records and from DNA, and I strongly 
suspect that it is associated with the DNA rearrangements that occur 
occasionally (I have been looking at a virus sequence where a section of 
the sequence has become inverted).  There was also a recent paper that 
shows that one of the differences between the hooded crow and the black 
crow, which can interbreed so is arguably a single species, is an 
inversion of part of the DNA sequence.   This will have occurred with 
one individual (a punctuation of the equilibrium), and has subsequently 
allowed the two crow races to drift away from each other, potentially 
leading ultimately to two species.


Nigel


On 26/08/2014 17:21, David Roberson wrote:
Correct me if Iam wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case 
where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no 
longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce 
among its new members.


My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I 
believe that they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a 
wolf in disguise.


Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of 
two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I 
have read about).


I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species 
that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do 
not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are 
knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us.  If these different 
mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once 
they shared a common ancestor species.  At least this would seem to be 
a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of 
evolution to you,

but a quick search came up with this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact 
that it

carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a 
disease-spreading species
(a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new 
diseases suggestion.


/Sunil



From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800

Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are 
thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me 
ONE example.
Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see 
one species change into another.  JUST ONE...

Jojo

- Original Message -
*From:* Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
I have a simple question:
1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?


There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that
Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to
question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity,
or the fact that bacteria causes 

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[Nigel Dyer]

In answer to jwinter

To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need 
to be addressed.  The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of 
the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the 
information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled 
organisms (such as us).  There are countless examples which show how 
duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes 
can create complex proteins from simple proteins.  Indeed the 
relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can 
often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which 
closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the 
species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of 
complex variants in different plants/animals.


The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks 
about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because 
we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, 
although there is absolute evidence that it is.   This is increasingly 
looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and 
robust way (like a hologram).  These can change and mutate and give rise 
to variations in the organism without being lethal.  A lot of the 
statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is 
based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small 
changes are frequently lethal.  The statistics for the rest of the DNA 
is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the 
evolutionary model.


So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA 
could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I 
dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont 
understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet.   However, my hunch is that 
we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding 
rules are, but that is a different topic entirely.


And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably 
shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs.


Nigel

For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field 
about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a 
good time.


I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved 
from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora 
of life forms which past and present have occupied it.  But the 
mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to 
me.  I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes 
cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are 
needed for life - so the question is how did they arise?  Is it 
possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been 
implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form 
sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms 
that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection 
or meddling was necessary along the way?


For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first 
creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates 
evolved from the frog.  So one question would be, is there sufficient 
information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing 
(by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that 
have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to 
postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added 
to the limited information available in frog DNA?


So my question is really this:-  From your knowledge of the DNA 
content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called junk DNA 
between gene coding regions actually contains useful information for 
possible future evolution), is there sufficient information in the DNA 
of simpler looking life forms to allow them to evolve into the more 
complex types, or does information need to be added?

Re: [Vo]:magnetism counteract gravity

[Nigel Dyer]

The summary is correct.   Its a pity really because theory suggests that 
there should/could be such an interaction, which is why there have been 
many attempts to try and measure it.  In all the examples that I have 
found the result comes out the same: no measureable coupling.


Nigel

On 17/07/2014 02:14, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton

A new spin on gravity:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1161



Executive summary - no significant coupling of spin to gravity. Here is a nice 
graphic

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-equivalence-principle-effects-spin-gravity-coupling.html

[Vo]:Geiger counters and fast rates of change of voltage gradients

[Nigel Dyer]

I have built myself a marx generator which produces an output voltage of 
the order of 20kV and which can produce a very nice fat spark if the 
output electrodes are close enough.   I have a conventional geiger 
counter and I find it beeps if it is within 5cm of the high voltage 
output.  The distance suggests alpha particles, but a peice of card 
makes no difference so I assume that this is an artefact picked up by 
the large and abrupt change in the voltage gradient.  Oddly I could not 
find any reference to this artefact on the internet.   Is this just 
something that everyone knows but no-one writes down?


Nigel

[Vo]:Triple helixes in DNA

[Nigel Dyer]

Robin

They change the structure of the DNA. Any change in the structure will 
have an effect on gene expression, and they have shown experimentally 
that the presence of triple helixes does appear to be one of the ways 
that nature controls gene expression.   I think triple helixes are more 
significant than that, and when I find a publisher for my book


Nigel
On 24/05/2014 23:58, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Nigel Dyer's message of Sat, 24 May 2014 15:04:02 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]

Triple helixes are not involved in replication.   The DNA/DNA/RNA
version forms when RNA that is produced from the DNA then wraps itself
around the double stranded DNA and it thne restructures itself to form a
triple helix.

What role does the triple helix play in nature, or is this merely a lab
curiosity?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Solar Panels Drain the Suns Energy Experts Say

[Nigel Dyer]

Its a satirical site.The irony is that many Americans don't get 
satire and irony.

Nigel

On 28/05/2014 15:59, Foks0904 . wrote:
Axil, while this article is hilarious and is on par with much of the 
nonsense that comes out of politicized factions such as the 
neo-conservatives, I think this is a satirical article on a satirical 
site. At least I hope so. If it is a satirical site, which I think it 
is, it's really nice work actually.



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com 
mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote:


“Solar panels destroying the sun could potentially be the worst
man-made climate disaster in the history of the world, and
Halliburton will not be taking part in that,” the company stated
in a press release issued Friday morning.  “It’s obvious, based on
the findings of this neutral scientific research group, that
humans needs to become more dependent on fossil fuels like oil and
coal, not less.  Because these so-called `green technologies’ are
far more dangerous to the Earth than any hydrofracking operation
or deep-water drilling station.  What good is clean air when our
very sun is no longer functional?” - See more at:
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say;

This is a sure indicator of the type and brain dead propaganda
that LENR+ will be subjected to from Halliburton and the other big
players in the oil and gas industry. It is hard to imagine what
these people will invent to discredit LENR+.

The anti-science religious right is fertile ground onto which this
sort of idiot food will be planted, It will be truly terrible to
suffer through and impossible to counter... it being bereft of any
logic or substance.




On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com
mailto:foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

Dave, you don't seem to understand that they are America's #1
Independent News Team. Even Halliburton thinks so. What
possible motive could they have to mislead us?


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

And someone paid for this discovery? This ranks up
there with some of the most ignorant things I have heard
during my lifetime.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com
mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com
To: Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 10:25 am
Subject: [Vo]:Solar Panels Drain the Suns Energy Experts Say

As if things weren't bad enough we now learn that solar
energy is dimming the lights.


http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/

Commence Debunking in 3...2...1...

I know, I know. Wyoming is a beautiful high desert state
but not a lot happening at the Wyoming Institute of
Technology. I checked their website-no sir not a lot
happening.
Still with Quantum entanglement and all  can we be really
sure we are not depleting our big friendly sky god ?

Steve High

Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

Triple helixes are not involved in replication.   The DNA/DNA/RNA 
version forms when RNA that is produced from the DNA then wraps itself 
around the double stranded DNA and it thne restructures itself to form a 
triple helix.


This will only happen with pure DNA if the sequences are palindromic.  
Triple helixes can form with non-palinfromid sequences if the copper 
ions bind to the triple helix at specific locations that are related to 
the sequence mismatch.


Nigel

On 24/05/2014 03:55, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Nigel Dyer's message of Wed, 21 May 2014 17:31:32 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]

And not just LENR.  I am currently looking at how this may occur in the
copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes

Are triple helices involved in DNA replication, and if so if the copper attached
to the end of the molecule?


Nigel

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

And not just LENR.  I am currently looking at how this may occur in the 
copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes


Nigel
On 20/05/2014 16:28, Jones Beene wrote:

With all the recent talk about the overlooked magnetic component of LENR -
and spin coupling - at least for Ni-H and the Rossi effect, here is an
excellent older paper which may contain insight on another piece of the
puzzle, even if it was written to explain a completely different phenomenon
(the Hans Coler effect)

For this paper to be particularly relevant to Ni-H, we would need to take a
closer look at the function of the resistance heater in the E-Cat. Is the
50/60 cycle input providing a hidden function in cohering magnetic
precession somehow? Coherence could be inadvertent. It would be interesting
to know if the 60 cycle AC in the USA has different effects than the 50
cycles of Italy since Larmor frequencies are typically microwave spectra.

Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but
without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another
method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a
ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions
can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons, the
conduction electrons themselves must precess and could therefore transport
phase across the lattice.
http://www.overunity.com/14614/the-bearden-meg/dlattach/attach/138654/

Larmor Precessions as Charge Pumps by Cyril Smith, July 2007

There is currently great interest in generating dc currents via spin
dynamics. This
comes from the emerging science of spintronics where research efforts are
directed
towards new means for investigating spin dynamics and development of new
spin
sources. Not surprisingly these efforts concentrate on spin transport, used
as a digital
signal, which offers lower losses than the dissipative charge transport used
in modern
computers. However spin dynamics can also influence charge transport, which
has a
wider application than computing. With global issues forcing new interest in
sustainable energy sources, the prospect of power generation from quantum
spin is
appealing and worthy of serious consideration. Only in recent years has
science
demonstrated the realization of pumping electrons 'uphill' (i.e. against a
potential
gradient) in what has been called quantum ratchets. END of quote

The specific reason that charge pumping by Larmor precession could be
relevant to LENR is to be found in the recurrent hints of oscillation
between ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetic states in the active material
near the Curie point. This could be an important clue in the context of
precession powering the oscillation, yet there are missing pieces of the
puzzle.

As to exactly why this oscillation creates the Ni-H thermal anomaly, we
would almost certainly need to abandon a nuclear fusion scenario in place of
gain via Dirac sea interaction. Since many observers seem wedded to a fusion
scenario, despite the lack of any relevant indicia of a nuclear reaction,
this insight from Cyril may be limited to those on the fringe of the
fringe.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

I have been looking at copper because it has an interesting relationship 
with the DNA triple helix.There is no evidence that iron has such an 
intimate relationship.   The Copper 2+ ion is magnetic, and is 
borderline between being ferro and ferri magnetic, and I suspect that 
biology has learnt how to make good use of this marginal state.
What is then interesting is the possibility of coupling between the 
copper atom's spin state and the spin state of protons of the water 
associated with the DNA.
If anything, what mobile phone usage demonstrates is how resiliant the 
brain is to EM interference, in that while I have no dount it has some 
effect, it is nevertheless very subtle.

Nigel

On 21/05/2014 17:53, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Nigel Dyer


And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the

copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes



Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps,

but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need
another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a
ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions
can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons ...

Nigel - Why not iron, instead of copper? Out of curiosity, I did a brief
googling to see if DNA has an associated RF resonance. This turned up:

Biophysicists have demonstrated that DNA... resonantly absorbs
electromagnetic energy in the microwave range of the frequency spectrum...
They have found in their experiments that microwaves in the 300 MHz to 3 GHz
range can be thermally absorbed by causing a dipolar molecule, such as water
to oscillate in a frictional media, thereby dissipating the energy in the
form of heat...

... which seems a bit high for Larmor precession and seems to be a relic of
water, not DNA, but it is one more reason why cell phones are not
recommended for constant use by teenagers (since the range overlaps)

Re: [Vo]:PDF Sample of Dr. Pollack's new book...

[Nigel Dyer]

I even get quoted at the start:

Unputdownable. Nigel Dyer, University of Warwick, UK.

A useful quote as it gives no indication of how much of the book I agree 
with.


The next water conference is being planned for October. 
http://www.waterconf.org/


My one word recommendation for it is Unmissable.   There may be other 
vortex-l readers who would be interested in attending.   Have a browse 
through the list of speakers at previous conferences, there have been 
some extremely interesting talks over the years (Including Mark LeClair)


Nigel

On 19/04/2014 17:14, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Yet another challenger of the high throne of establishment science 
gets debased...


Prof. Pollack's books are based on discoveries by Dr. Gilbert Ling, 
who lost his funding and job at the university because it contradicted 
well established science.


http://www.gilbertling.org

-Mark

*From:*MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
*Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:07 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* [Vo]:PDF Sample of Dr. Pollack's new book...

The Fourth Phase of Water

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf?1585

-mark

Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim

[Nigel Dyer]

There is a performance report:

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf

I would suggest that the current figure is likely to be right, in that 
100kA at 4V would require some interesting electrical enigineering, so 
was the voltage actually nearer 5kV rather than 5V.  Again however 5kV 
at 100A requires some interesting electrical engineering.   A picture of 
the setup would clarify


Nigel



On 15/03/2014 16:22, Bob Higgins wrote:
If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an 
over-unity COP of 443 (44300%).


I checked the math.  2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH.

What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo. 
 They must mean 500kW input.  This would put their COP to be 44.3% 
which is still good and is not an over-unity claim.



On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:


Solar Hydrogen Trends claim:

Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to
221.5 KWhr at a cost of $1.80

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[Nigel Dyer]

Hi Mark
I beleive that there are two or three closely connected effects that can 
be seen within Jerrys EZ work.  The core effect is that water close to a 
charged surface has a slightly different structure, one of the 
characteristics od this water is that it excludes stuff, small 
particles, dye, and even protons, which is why the water slightly 
further away is acidic.  You are right that this region can be 'pumped' 
by IR and will grow as a result, but it will exist even in a system in 
total thermal equilibrium. We also know that water at a surface has a 
similar property, and I beleive that this is why you get charge 
separation associated with rain drops, and I think that this is why a 
recent paper appears to have shown that it is water adsorbed on a 
surface that is key to the generation of static electricity when you rub 
things together


http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3592522

My hunch that it is the water adsorbed onto the surface of the flour 
granuals that is key to understanding how the charge separation occurs 
in the flour experiment.


Nigel

On 11/03/2014 01:50, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Hi Nigel,

Perhaps they've made progress in the past 20 years!  I did my MS in 
the late 80s.


I am familiar with Pollack's work, but didn't they determine that the 
energy for this Exclusion Zone (EZ) next to an interface was due to 
in-coming photons (i.e., light)???  Not sure if it was IR or UV.   I 
vaguely remember something said about this because it would have very 
significant ramifications for biology (living systems).  That EZ 
represents a 'battery' which is constantly in a state of charge so 
long as there is light... when they cut off the light in their test 
system, the EZ began to break down.  Am I remembering this right?


Thanks for chiming in!

-Mark

*From:*Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
*Sent:* Monday, March 10, 2014 4:41 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder 
cracks


I think there is a link.   I think that one of the simplest 
interpretations of Jerry Pollacks work is that in certain 
circumstances water holds lightly to its protons, and will loose them 
leaving a region of negatively charged (but not alkalie) water.   This 
can happen with water adsorbed on a surface, and you get static 
electricity.  It can happen with suspended water droplets, and can 
result in negatively charged water droplets leaving charged protons 
behind, resulting in large potential differences in clouds. No reason 
to expect excess heat in any of this, just different ways of using 
work energy to create charge separation.


Nigel

On 10/03/2014 03:02, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

Did my master's thesis under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric
physicist, and expert in cloud microphysics.  One of Telford's
areas of interest was cloud electrification, which, at the time,
was still not clearly explained.  My thesis redesigned a novel
airborne electric field measuring device which he and Dr. Peter
Wagner had developed.  One hypothesis about cloud electrification
had to do with the collision of droplets inside the cloud causing
a transfer of electrical charge, but that was only one of several
hypotheses.  When I read the article on the electrification of the
powder, I immediately thought that the mechanism could be related...

-Mark Iverson

*From:*Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:53 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the
powder cracks


Axil, I don't get it.   Why not optimize this for power
generation?  Find a way to generate cracks in a nano material with
a small amount of electricity.  Presumably there is an optimal
material, shape, context in terms of gases present that causes
this, and a better method than just 'shifting a Tupperware container'

This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main
stream press and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms
with the reality something is happening there.

My only question, is that is voltage being reported.  What was the
excess thermal heat?  Going to email them.


On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348

LENR has been talking about this for some time now.

Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[Nigel Dyer]

I wonder if the interaction between the flour and the container produces 
an voltage gradient at the surface which then provides the bias 
(symmetry breaking) that catalysies the creation of the formation of a 
macroscopic voltage gradient.   I have mentioned Jerry Pollacks work in 
another reply on this thread.  The action of a surface as an initial 
catylyst would mirror the way that significant potential gradiants (100s 
of mV not many volts however) can build up in water as a result of 
surface charge at the boundary.


Nigel.
On 13/03/2014 21:18, David Roberson wrote:
I wonder if the fact that a different charge appears on the first 
separating grains which then biases the process to enhance that 
effect.  I always seek out positive feedback mechanisms and this might 
be another.


Something of this nature could make sense since the particles with the 
initial charge impacts other particles nearest to them greater than 
those at a distance.  It would be interesting to determine what 
characteristics are common to the powders most active.  Do they 
polarize easily?  Is the dielectric constant the most important 
parameter?  Of course conductive particles could not behave this way 
since the charges would leak off.


Dave


-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

In reply to  H Veeder's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:16:06 -0400:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
 When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules
 can
 be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule
 breaks,
 it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter
 constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the
 original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in
 molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess
 electrons, thus retaining a negative charge.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html



Here is another story about the same research.  Apparently they detected
the same effect with glass particles.
http://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html

If ions are formed in the way you describe wouldn't these microscopic
charge differences
tend to cancel out at the macroscopic level?

Harry

Yes, I would think so. That's the flaw in my theory. When two different
substances rub together, one will probably have a greater electron affinity than
the other, which would explain bulk polarization of charge, however the same
can't be said for a single substance. I guess that's why they are so puzzled.
Now I am too. :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[Nigel Dyer]

I think there is a link.   I think that one of the simplest 
interpretations of Jerry Pollacks work is that in certain circumstances 
water holds lightly to its protons, and will loose them leaving a region 
of negatively charged (but not alkalie) water.   This can happen with 
water adsorbed on a surface, and you get static electricity.  It can 
happen with suspended water droplets, and can result in negatively 
charged water droplets leaving charged protons behind, resulting in 
large potential differences in clouds. No reason to expect excess heat 
in any of this, just different ways of using work energy to create 
charge separation.


Nigel

On 10/03/2014 03:02, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Did my master's thesis under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric physicist, 
and expert in cloud microphysics.  One of Telford's areas of interest 
was cloud electrification, which, at the time, was still not clearly 
explained.  My thesis redesigned a novel airborne electric field 
measuring device which he and Dr. Peter Wagner had developed.  One 
hypothesis about cloud electrification had to do with the collision of 
droplets inside the cloud causing a transfer of electrical charge, but 
that was only one of several hypotheses.  When I read the article on 
the electrification of the powder, I immediately thought that the 
mechanism could be related...


-Mark Iverson

*From:*Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:53 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder 
cracks



Axil, I don't get it.   Why not optimize this for power generation? 
 Find a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount 
of electricity.  Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, 
context in terms of gases present that causes this, and a better 
method than just 'shifting a Tupperware container'


This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream 
press and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the 
reality something is happening there.


My only question, is that is voltage being reported.  What was the 
excess thermal heat?  Going to email them.



On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com 
mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote:


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348

LENR has been talking about this for some time now.

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report

[Nigel Dyer]

Is this a report of the same demo for which we previously saw the 
video.   I dont think the high voltage arc discharges appeared in the 
video, and seem to be quite different to the low voltage electric arc 
welder style demo.   Both demos come within the patent description.


For the high voltage discharge, Nick does not go into great details on 
the calorimetry, but seems convinced of the results.


Nigel
On 20/02/2014 03:38, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf

A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter.
Everything extrapolated from that. LOL.

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[Nigel Dyer]

I get greek: running thunderbird on windows 7

Nigel

On 16/02/2014 06:36, H Veeder wrote:
This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted 
into this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.


The characters come from this site

http://greek.typeit.org/


θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Nigel Dyer]

I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving 
towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating 
magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of 
an additional attraction alongside the column force.  electric and 
magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference.


I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of  showing this, 
including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way 
of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term 
for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with 
but under a different guise?


Nigel

On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote:
He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent 
version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to 
make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the 
velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would 
mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a 
proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by 
the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of 
approach or recession.)


He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that 
there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not 
explained by his theory. 
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm


Harry


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com 
mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:


It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with
electric fields.

Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be
explained this way.



On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

James Bowery and other vortex members,

Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*

In his model the coloumb force between two like charges
increases when the charges are moving together and decreases
when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.

The revised law:

F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3

He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm

This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold
and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/

-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it
was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like
charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html

Harry