[Vo]:ICCF24 proceedings uploaded

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE

Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion

Proceedings of ICCF24 Solid State Energy Summit, Mountain View, California,
July 25–28, 2022

VOLUME 38, May 2024

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzk.pdf




I have not added this title or individual papers to the index. That will
take a while. I figured readers here will want to see this now.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Sorry!

This is a kidding set of e-mails. Photons did always lead to evaporation 
of water since the earth is covered by water. Even more surprising is 
that ice does sublimate just from solar irradiation...


So following such hoax science today is standard to diffuse a field by 
usst claiming something is new.


J.W.


On 27.04.2024 23:35, H L V wrote:

How light can vaporize water without the need for heat


Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from 
a surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' 
could be important for understanding climate change and for improving 
some industrial processes.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm

quote:
"The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle 
of 45 degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of 
polarization, called transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in 
green light -- which, oddly, is the color for which water is most 
transparent and thus interacts the least.
Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that 
can explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, 
showing that the photons of light can impart a net force on water 
molecules at the water surface that is sufficient to knock them loose 
from the body of water. But they cannot yet account for the color 
dependence, which they say will require further study."


Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[MSF]

Nice to see someone else got around to discovering this effect. I observed this 
phenomenon 15 or 20 years ago, using a 532 nm laser. As these dorks will 
finally get around to discovering, this effect varies greatly with the 
refractive index of the material and the degree of polarity. Nitromethane has a 
very strong response at longer wavelengths. As far as the greatest effect 
happening at 45 degrees, it's probably really 53 degrees, Brewster's angle for 
water. As you move the laser across the surface the liquid, you can see a 
deflection of the reflection following the spot of contact. Easy to do, anyone 
can do it.

I finally gave up long ago, trying to convince credentialed physicists of some 
of my strange discoveries. Submitting papers to science publications is useless 
for me, as I discovered decades ago, no credentials. I once had a physicist at 
UCLA who would agree to put his name on one of my discoveries so it could be 
published, but he had the bad taste to die on me.

I can't be the only one to have discovered this phenomenon long ago, but it's 
one of those things you sort of think, "So what?"

On Saturday, April 27th, 2024 at 2:35 PM, H L V  wrote:

> How light can vaporize water without the need for heat
>
> 
> Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from a 
> surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' could be 
> important for understanding climate change and for improving some industrial 
> processes.
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm
>
> quote:
> "The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle of 45 
> degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of polarization, called 
> transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in green light -- which, 
> oddly, is the color for which water is most transparent and thus interacts 
> the least.
> Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that can 
> explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, showing that the 
> photons of light can impart a net force on water molecules at the water 
> surface that is sufficient to knock them loose from the body of water. But 
> they cannot yet account for the color dependence, which they say will require 
> further study."
>
> Harry

[Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[H L V]

How light can vaporize water without the need for heat


Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from a
surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' could be
important for understanding climate change and for improving some
industrial processes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm

quote:
"The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle of
45 degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of polarization,
called transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in green light --
which, oddly, is the color for which water is most transparent and thus
interacts the least.
Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that can
explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, showing that
the photons of light can impart a net force on water molecules at the water
surface that is sufficient to knock them loose from the body of water. But
they cannot yet account for the color dependence, which they say will
require further study."

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

In the late 19th and early 20th century the physics community began to
enshrine mathematical ingenuity as the best way to resolve the tensions
between theory and experiment and grew increasingly dismissive of
philosophical questioning and speculation.

The theory of Special Relativity is typically presented as "saving"
Maxwell's equations from logical inconsistency.
It did this by introducing some extraordinary new physics  instead of
uncovering some metaphysical conceits within the theory.
I am not talking about the Galilean transformation. I am talking about the
more elementary question: what does it mean to be in motion?

Why should we insist on treating every type of motion as being a quality
that is defined by convention with respect to a frame of reference?
Einstein believed it was necessary and in order to save the laws of physics
he formulated the theory of special relativity. However, it seems to me the
_phenomena_ of electromagnetism  rather than Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism is telling us something different. Some types of motion
should be treated as a relational quality that occurs between frames of
references rather than being quality that is determined within a given
frame of reference.

Consider the Lorentz force on a charged particle q moving with velocity v:

Force = qE + q(v x B)

E and B are the electric and magnetic fields.

Since relativists think v is determined by the frame of reference the value
of v will be zero in the frame of reference of the charged particle. This
leads to the paradox that the laws of nature are not the same in all frames
of reference.  From a relativist understanding of velocity there are only
two ways to resolve this paradox: either there must be an absolute frame of
rest known as the aether or one must adopt the extraordinary postulates of
the special theory of relativity. However, this choice represents a
reliance on a particular conception of velocity to tell one how to
interpret the equations of motion. If one adopts a relational understanding
of motion rather than relative understanding, the velocity is not prone to
disappear with a change of frame.

It is worth noting that Weber's theory of electromagnetism , which was the
leading contender to Maxwell's theory at the time,  made explicit use of
relational motion. Although Weber developed his theory in order to avoid
postulating the existence of magnetic fields, I don't see why his concept
of relation velocity can't be applied to situations involving Faraday's
magnetic fields.

Harry



On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:18 PM MSF  wrote:

> Faraday's message to Maxwell parallels Aristotle's complaint about the
> Egyptians. Aristotle implied words to the effect that the ancient Egyptians
> thought that the physical world should obey mathematics instead of math
> describing reality. There's a lot of that going on today. The so-called
> standard model is, in my opinion, a mathematical castle in the air.
> On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 5:14 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on
> electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
> Maxwell's equations were first published in 1862. It seems Maxwell
> interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an
> aether.
>
> I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of
> his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
> Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all
> mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an
> experimentalist can understand:
>
> "There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
> engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
> own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully,
> clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be
> a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their
> hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it
> must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a
> perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no
> full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results
> neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can
> think and work from them.
> If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
> writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular
> useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to
> them?"
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too
>> happy about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether.
>> And he repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in
>> conventional mathematical form.
>> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[MSF]

Faraday's message to Maxwell parallels Aristotle's complaint about the 
Egyptians. Aristotle implied words to the effect that the ancient Egyptians 
thought that the physical world should obey mathematics instead of math 
describing reality. There's a lot of that going on today. The so-called 
standard model is, in my opinion, a mathematical castle in the air.
On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 5:14 AM, H L V  wrote:

> Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on 
> electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
> Maxwell's equations were first published in 1862. It seems Maxwell 
> interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an aether.
>
> I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of his 
> work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
> Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all 
> mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an 
> experimentalist can understand:
>
> "There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician engaged 
> in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his own 
> conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, 
> and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be a great 
> boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their 
> hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it 
> must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a 
> perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no 
> full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results neither 
> above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can think and 
> work from them.
> If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians, writing 
> on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular useful 
> working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to them?"
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too happy 
>> about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether. And he 
>> repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in conventional 
>> mathematical form.
>> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF  wrote:
>>
>>> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he 
>>> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had 
>>> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>>>
>>> MIchael
>>> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V  wrote:
>>>
 This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard 
 Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)

 "The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation 
 as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to 
 connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to 
 dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I 
 believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful 
 phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the 
 surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for 
 the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of 
 action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant 
 of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which 
 may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform 
 medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or 
 water."

 The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the 
 vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. 
 However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the 
 transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked 
 together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's 
 lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While 
 the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly 
 morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle 
 down into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force 
 between the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between 
 the mirrors. At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in 
 tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the 
 observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

 Harry

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on
electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
Maxwell's equations were first  published in 1862. It seems Maxwell
interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an
aether.

I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of
his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all
mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an
experimentalist can understand:

"There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully,
clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be
a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their
hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it
must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a
perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no
full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results
neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can
think and work from them.
If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular
useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to
them?"

Harry

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:

>
> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too
> happy about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether.
> And he repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in
> conventional mathematical form.
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF 
> wrote:
>
>
> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he
> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had
> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>
> MIchael
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard
> Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>
> *"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation
> as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to
> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to
> dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I
> believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful
> phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the
> surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for
> the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of
> action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
> of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which
> may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform
> medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or
> water."*
>
> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the
> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect.
> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the
> transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked
> together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's
> lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While
> the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly
> morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down
> into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force between
> the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between the
> mirrors. At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in tandem
> with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the
> observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[MSF]

Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too happy 
about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether. And he 
repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in conventional 
mathematical form.
On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF  wrote:

> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he 
> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had 
> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>
> MIchael
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V  wrote:
>
>> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard Philips 
>> on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>>
>> "The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as 
>> a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to 
>> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to 
>> dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I 
>> believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful 
>> phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the 
>> surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for 
>> the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of 
>> action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant 
>> of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which 
>> may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform 
>> medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."
>>
>> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the 
>> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. 
>> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the 
>> transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked 
>> together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's 
>> lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While 
>> the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly 
>> morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down 
>> into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force between the 
>> mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between the mirrors. 
>> At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in tandem with the 
>> entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the observed null 
>> result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[MSF]

This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he 
posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had read 
everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.

MIchael
On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V  wrote:

> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard Philips 
> on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>
> "The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as 
> a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to 
> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to dismiss 
> the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I believe, 
> can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful phaenomena of 
> polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the surface of 
> disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for the 
> vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of action, 
> whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant of two or 
> more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which may be 
> considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, 
> like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."
>
> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the 
> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. 
> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the transmission 
> of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked together by 
> "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's lines of force 
> have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While the MM apparatus 
> is being built the lines of force would be constantly morphing but once the 
> apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down into static lines. When 
> the experiment begins the lines of force between the mirrors can be likened 
> to straight fibre optic cables between the mirrors. At this stage since the 
> lines of force would be moving in tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's 
> qualitative theory predicts the observed null result of the Michelson-Morely 
> experiment.
>
> Harry
>
> Harry

[Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

This is a quote from a letter written by  Michael Faraday to Richard
Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)

*"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation
as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to
connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to
dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I
believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful
phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the
surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for
the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of
action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which
may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform
medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or
water."*

The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the
vacuum is what the  Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect.
However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the
transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked
together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's
lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While
the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be
constantly morphing  but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly
settle down into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of
force between the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables
between the mirrors.  At this stage since the lines of force would be
moving in tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory
predicts the observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

Harry




Harry

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear waste

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:56:25 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Uranium is at least 10'000x more harmless than Plutonium
>

Storing plutonium is wasteful anyway. Use it as fuel.

>So its a bad idea...
>
>
>J.W.
>
>
>On 01.04.2024 21:10, Robin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why not store nuclear waste in worked out Uranium mines? After all, "nuclear 
>> material" was stored there for billions of
>> years before we dug it up.
>>
>> Crypto currency mining deliberately wastes energy.
>> Surely there is a better way to do this?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear waste

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Uranium is at least 10'000x more harmless than Plutonium

So its a bad idea...


J.W.


On 01.04.2024 21:10, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Why not store nuclear waste in worked out Uranium mines? After all, "nuclear 
material" was stored there for billions of
years before we dug it up.

Crypto currency mining deliberately wastes energy.
Surely there is a better way to do this?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Nuclear waste

[Robin]

Hi,

Why not store nuclear waste in worked out Uranium mines? After all, "nuclear 
material" was stored there for billions of
years before we dug it up.

Crypto currency mining deliberately wastes energy. 
Surely there is a better way to do this?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

If these two statements are logical implications of Maxwell's equations,

a) A magnet that is not moving with respect to the aether will not have an
electric field.
b) A magnet that is moving at a constant velocity with respect to the
aether will have an electric field.

Then consider this thought experiment:

You are in a windowless cabin with a hatch on the floor that is
initially closed . It is located on the surface of a large frozen lake
whose ice is perfectly smooth, flat and frictionless. Outside the cabin the
ice is featureless except for a grid of lines that is visible just a few
millimeters beneath the ice surface. The Earth is assumed to be flat and
the cabin has been designed to exclude outside fields  and slide over
the ice in any direction. Inside the cabin there is a bar magnet and an
electric field probe that can detect electric fields.

If the electric field probe tells you the magnet has no electric field, you
can conclude the cabin is at rest with respect to the aether. If the magnet
does have an electric field then you know the cabin is moving at a constant
velocity with respect to the aether. In both scenarios you do not if
the cabin is at rest with respect to the ice or in which direction you are
moving. However, by opening the floor hatch you can determine if you are
moving with respect to the ice and in which direction.

Harry





On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 6:51 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The law of Faraday is very clear any change in magnetic flux induces
> charge hence a field.
>
> Many untrained physicists write j (current) instead of q what is wrong. To
> measure a current you have to cut the ring (rim) of charges what leads to
> dragging forces and movement of charge over e.g. a conductor.
>
> The other things most theoretical physicists get wrong is that they
> believe you can make a derivative of charge and flux at the same point (4
> potential) what is total garbage but nevertheless used in QED...Flux has to
> fill an area (from a volume) and charge occurs at the edge.
>
> May be once read the good old Jackson that explains tat the vector
> potential only can be used in the far field.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 19.03.2024 19:40, H L V wrote:
>
> The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc
> generator is a question that is related to aether theories in particular
> or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. It got me
> wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the presence of an aether
> or a privileged frame of reference that do not involve interferometers and
> radiation.  I am not sure why interferometers became the experiment de jour
> for detecting such things, but they have been studied to death and the null
> result is still open to interpretation.
>
> Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a
> stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does have
> an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states the
> magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this electric
> field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting accounts of how a
> magnet induces a current in a coil depending on whether the coil was at
> rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like nature exhibiting laws which
> changed according to their frame of reference. He developed his special
> theory of relativity, in part, to avoid this conflict.
>
> Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever
> directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field around
> a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. an electroscope
> can measure an electric field without moving relative to the field. Or am I
> missing something about the nature of the produced electric field in this
> case that would prevent such a measurement?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach 
> wrote:
>
>> As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called
>> field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered by
>> fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are in
>> constant motion/rotation.
>>
>> The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms
>> mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same
>> restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field
>> produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - only
>> in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.
>>
>>
>> Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and a
>> sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics
>> (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.
>>
>> There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically
>> only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, one
>> thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. Total
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The law of Faraday is very clear any change in magnetic flux induces 
charge hence a field.


Many untrained physicists write j (current) instead of q what is wrong. 
To measure a current you have to cut the ring (rim) of charges what 
leads to dragging forces and movement of charge over e.g. a conductor.


The other things most theoretical physicists get wrong is that they 
believe you can make a derivative of charge and flux at the same point 
(4 potential) what is total garbage but nevertheless used in QED...Flux 
has to fill an area (from a volume) and charge occurs at the edge.


May be once read the good old Jackson that explains tat the vector 
potential only can be used in the far field.



J.W.

On 19.03.2024 19:40, H L V wrote:
The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc 
generator is a question that is related to aether theories in 
particular or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. 
It got me wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the 
presence of an aether or a privileged frame of reference that do not 
involve interferometers and radiation.  I am not sure why 
interferometers became the experiment de jour for detecting such 
things, but they have been studied to death and the null result is 
still open to interpretation.


Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a 
stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does 
have an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states 
the magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this 
electric field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting 
accounts of how a magnet induces a current in a coil depending on 
whether the coil was at rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like 
nature exhibiting laws which changed according to their frame of 
reference. He developed his special theory of relativity, in part, to 
avoid this conflict.


Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever 
directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field 
around a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. 
an electroscope can measure an electric field without moving relative 
to the field. Or am I missing something about the nature of the 
produced electric field in this case that would prevent such a 
measurement?


Harry







On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  
wrote:


As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so
called field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the
space covered by fields. Of course you never can draw such a line
as all sources are in constant motion/rotation.

The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the
atoms mass that form out the field. This field is attached but
with the same restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field
is the EM field produced by an active sender. Here of course no
stable lines occur - only in case of a cavity with a
sender-resonance we call receiver.


Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a
source and a sink. From this point of view most so called
mathematical physics (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.

There are far to many simplifications in physics models as
historically only point field equations could be solved. As a
consequence of this, one thing most did miss is:  Total potentials
almost never are 1/r. Total because we no longer deal with a 
single point


J.W.


On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:

Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without
the concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation
of all the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the
magnetic field is somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle
must change position in order to match
the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry




On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:



Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a
ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not
rotate with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains
that this movement arises from the field not being
perfectly symmetrically.and homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V 
wrote:

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the
field is made of wire-like filaments which are fastened
to an atom then you would expect the field to translate
and rotate whenever 

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc
generator is a question that is related to aether theories in particular
or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. It got me
wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the presence of an aether
or a privileged frame of reference that do not involve interferometers and
radiation.  I am not sure why interferometers became the experiment de jour
for detecting such things, but they have been studied to death and the null
result is still open to interpretation.

Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a
stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does have
an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states the
magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this electric
field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting accounts of how a
magnet induces a current in a coil depending on whether the coil was at
rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like nature exhibiting laws which
changed according to their frame of reference. He developed his special
theory of relativity, in part, to avoid this conflict.

Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever
directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field around
a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. an electroscope
can measure an electric field without moving relative to the field. Or am I
missing something about the nature of the produced electric field in this
case that would prevent such a measurement?

Harry







On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called
> field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered by
> fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are in
> constant motion/rotation.
>
> The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms
> mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same
> restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field
> produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - only
> in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.
>
>
> Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and a
> sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics
> (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.
>
> There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically
> only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, one
> thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. Total
> because we no longer deal with a  single point
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:
>
> Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
> concept of lines of force.
> When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
> the little compass needles.
> The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field
> is somehow mechanically
> attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
> position in order to match
> the motion of the magnetic.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
>> The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
>> which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the
>> magnet.
>> (There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
>> movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
>> homogeneous).
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:
>>
>>> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
>>> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
>>> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
>>> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
>>> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
>>> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
>>> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
>>> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
>>> the atom.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
 Hi,

 You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
 rotates with the magnet.
 This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
 the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
 to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
 

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called 
field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered 
by fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are 
in constant motion/rotation.


The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms 
mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same 
restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field 
produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - 
only in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.



Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and 
a sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics 
(tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.


There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically 
only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, 
one thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. 
Total because we no longer deal with a single point



J.W.


On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:
Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the 
concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of 
all the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic 
field is somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must 
change position in order to match

the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry




On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:



Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate
with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that
this movement arises from the field not being
perfectly symmetrically.and homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field
is made of wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom
then you would expect the field to translate and rotate
whenever the atom translates and rotates. On the other hand if
you imagine the field is a vector field then the field never
really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude
of the vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves
through that vector space. The way the vector field changes as
the atom rotates and translates gives the appearance of a
field that is moving as if it were fastened to the atom.

Harry


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin
 wrote:

In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31
-0500:
Hi,

You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field
obviously rotates with the magnet.
This is because the field is not a single entity. It is
the sum of all the tiny fields created by the electrons
attached
to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms
all move, taking their individual fields with them. We know
they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways,
instead of rotating, the field moves sideways as well.
IOW, the
atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms.
There is no reason this should change when rotation is
involved
rather than translation.

[snip]
>Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new
experimental evidence on
>the influence of the test circuit (Free to download.
Published 2022)
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it
from solar panels on your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same
with it.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Sorry, the last word should be 'magnet' rather than 'magnetic'.
harry

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:02 AM H L V  wrote:

> Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
> concept of lines of force.
> When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
> the little compass needles.
> The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field
> is somehow mechanically
> attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
> position in order to match
> the motion of the magnetic.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field is
somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
position in order to match
the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry





On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:

>
>
> Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
> The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet, which supports
> the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the magnet.
> (There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
> movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
> homogeneous).
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
>> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
>> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
>> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
>> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
>> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
>> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
>> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
>> the atom.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
>>> rotates with the magnet.
>>> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
>>> the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
>>> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
>>> taking their individual fields with them. We know
>>> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
>>> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
>>> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
>>> this should change when rotation is involved
>>> rather than translation.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence
>>> on
>>> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar
>>> panels on your roof on the alternate days.
>>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>>
>>>

[Vo]:85 papers uploaded to LENR-CANR.org

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded 85 papers. The latest papers are shown here, but there are so
many this list is unhelpful:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009

I have appended another list below, which includes most of the new papers.


I uploaded 4 papers by W. B. Clarke. These cast doubt on results from
Arata, and Case. I recall that he and Mike McKubre did not get
along, although they co-authored some papers.

900. Clarke, W.B., *Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium
Cathodes I: A Negative Result.* Fusion Science and Technology, 2001. *40*
 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBsearchforh.pdf
901. Clarke, W.B., *Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium
Cathodes II: Evidence for Tritium Production.* Fusion Science and
Technology, 2001 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBsearchforha.pdf

903. Clarke, W.B., *Production of 4He in D2-Loaded Palladium-Carbon
Catalyst I.* Fusion Science and Technology, 2003. *43*(1): p. 122-127 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBriproduction.pdf

904. Clarke, W.B., S.J. Bos, and B.M. Oliver, *Production of 4He in
D2-Loaded Palladium-Carbon Catalyst II.* Fusion Science and Technology,
2003. *43*(2): p. 250-255 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBriproductiona.pdf

Clarke had some unkind things to say about Arata. So did Ed and I:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf

Arata was a genius. I think his palladium power approach was fruitful. It
was groundbreaking. But I think he was a little sloppy as an
experimentalist. I am no experimentalist at all, so I hesitate to say that.


Here are most of the papers I added today:

New to the database and newly uploaded

New: Ambadkar, A., electrolysis of d2o with a palladium cathode compared
with electrolysis of h2o with a platinum electrode: procedure and
experimental details
New: Bockris, J., do nuclear reactions take place under chemical simulation?
New: Bockris, J. O'M., speculative interpretation of overunity experiments
involving water electrolysis
New: Bush, B. F., data for 4he measurement
New: Bush, B. F., comments on "search for 3he and 4he in arata-style
palladium cathodes i: a negative result" and "search for 3he and 4he in
arata-style palladium cathodes ii: evidence for tritium production"
New: Cirillo, D., experimental evidence of a neutron flux generation in a
plasma discharge electrolytic cell
New: De Ninno, A., consequences of lattice expansive strain gradients on
hydrogen loading in palladium
New: Drebushchak, V. A., excess heat release during deuterium
sorption-desorption by finely powdered palladium deuteride
New: Dubinko, V. I., on the role of disorder in catalysis driven by
discrete breathers
New: Fralick, G. C., transmutations observed from pressure cycling
palladium silver metals with deuterium gas
New: Holmlid, L., heat generation above break-even from laser-induced
fusion in ultra-dense deuterium
New: Karabut, A., possible nuclear reactions mechanisms at glow discharge
in deuterium
New: McKubre, M. C. H., conditions for the observation of excess power in
the d/pd system
New: McKubre, M. C. H., electrochemistry and calorimetry in a packed-bed
flow-through electrochemical cell
New: Mizuno, T., excess heat evolution and analysis of elements for solid
state electrolyte in deuterium atmosphere during applied electric field
New: Stepanov. I. N., experimental measurement of excess thermal energy
released from a cell loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium
aluminum hydride
New: Ohmori, T., enrichment of 41k isotope in potassium formed on and in a
rhenium electrode during plasma electrolysis in k2co3/h2o and k2co3/d2o
solutions
New: Srinivasan, M., excess heat and tritium measurements in ni-h2o
electrolytic cells
New: Vysotskii, V. I., the formation of correlated states and optimization
of the tunnel effect for low-energy particles under nonmonochromatic and
pulsed action on a potential barrier
New: Yamada, H., carbon production on palladium point electrode with
neutron burst under dc glow discharge in pressurized deuterium gas


Previously listed in database but not uploaded

On file: Adachi, G., (3)He and (4)He from D2 absorbed in LaNi5
On file: Alguero, M., An interpretation of some postelectrolysis nuclear
effects in deuterated titanium
On file: Asami, N., Material characteristics and behavior of highly
deuterated loaded palladium by electrolysis
On file: Battaglia, A., Neutron emission in Ni-H systems
On file: Belzner, A., Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and
hydrogen in palladium - thermal measurements and experimental considerations
On file: Bertalot, L., Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the
electrolysis of heavy water: heat excess production
On file: Bhadkamkar, A., Electron Charge Cluster Sparking in Aqueous
Solutions
On file: Bockris, J., Nuclear Transmutation: The reality of cold fusion
(Book Review)
On file: Bush, R. T., Electrolytically Simulated Cold Nuclear Synthesis of
Strontium from Rubidium
On file: Celani, F., Further 

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet, which supports
the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:

> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
> the atom.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
>> rotates with the magnet.
>> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
>> the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
>> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
>> taking their individual fields with them. We know
>> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
>> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
>> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
>> this should change when rotation is involved
>> rather than translation.
>>
>> [snip]
>> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
>> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar
>> panels on your roof on the alternate days.
>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
the atom.

Harry


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
> rotates with the magnet.
> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all the
> tiny fields created by the electrons attached
> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
> taking their individual fields with them. We know
> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
> this should change when rotation is involved
> rather than translation.
>
> [snip]
> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels
> on your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[Robin]

In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
Hi,

You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously rotates 
with the magnet.
This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all the tiny 
fields created by the electrons attached
to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move, taking 
their individual fields with them. We know
they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of rotating, 
the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason this 
should change when rotation is involved
rather than translation.

[snip]
>Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
>the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Instead of measuring voltages, another approach would be to measure how the
entire assembly moves in response to the various relative rotations. In
order to observe such effects, the entire assembly should be self contained
so that it is free to slide over a level surface. The relative rotation of
the disc and magnets within the assembly should create a force that would
cause the assembly to deviate from a linear path.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:29 AM H L V  wrote:

> Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
> the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>
> This is an interesting paper from experimental point view. The authors
> designed the test circuit so that it could rotate with the disc or magnet
> instead of remaining stationary.
>
>
> Harry
>

[Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x

This is an interesting paper from experimental point view. The authors
designed the test circuit so that it could rotate with the disc or magnet
instead of remaining stationary.


Harry

[Vo]:cold fusion power cell

[Frank Znidarsic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrVW4IwFINs

Re: [Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

[Jed Rothwell]

I asked the Bot about F's original paper:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf

My questions were mainly about these two paragraphs:

(a) Excess enthalpy generation is markedly dependent on the applied current
density (i.e. magnitude of the shift in
the chemical potential) and is proportional to the volume of the
electrodes, i.e. we are dealing with a phenomenon in
the bulk of the Pd electrodes.

(b) Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode;
this is maintained for experiment times
in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of
electrode volume was liberated. It is
inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes.

*Overview* (auto-generated)
The document is about a study on electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
of deuterium.

*What is the H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen and
deuterium?* (auto-generated
question)
The document mentions that the H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen
and deuterium is of special interest and is explained in Figures 4 and 6 of
reference 2. However, the specific value of the H/D separation factor is
not provided in the document.


[The following are my questions, not auto-generated]
*What is the energy density of the reaction?*
The document does not explicitly state the energy density of the reaction.


*Is the reaction in proportion to surface area or volume?*
Based on the information provided in the document, it is not explicitly
stated whether the reaction is in proportion to surface area or volume.
However, we can make some inferences based on the data provided in Table 1.

Table 1 shows the generation of excess enthalpy in Pd cathodes as a
function of current density and electrode size. The "Excess specific rate
of heating" column provides the rate of excess heating per unit volume (W
cm-3).

>From the data in Table 1, we can observe that the "Excess specific rate of
heating" increases with increasing electrode size (dimensions) and current
density. This suggests that the reaction is likely dependent on the volume
of the electrode rather than just the surface area.

Additionally, the document mentions that the effects of enthalpy generation
are proportional to the volume of the electrodes and that the experiments
are close to the break-even point. This further supports the idea that the
reaction is dependent on the volume of the electrode.

Therefore, based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the
reaction is likely in proportion to the volume of the electrode.


*Could the enthalpy generation be caused by a chemical process?*

No, the enthalpy generation observed in the experiments is not likely to be
caused by a chemical process. The document mentions that the magnitude of
the effects observed in the experiments is too large to be explained by
anything other than nuclear processes. The excess enthalpy generation is
proportional to the volume of the electrodes and can exceed 10 W cm-3 of
the palladium electrode. This level of enthalpy release is inconceivable to
be due to a chemical process. Additionally, the document states that the
effects observed in the experiments are consistent with nuclear processes
and that reactions (v) and (vi) (2D + 2D fusion reactions) are only a small
part of the overall reaction scheme. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that
the enthalpy generation is caused by a chemical process.

Re: [Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

[Jed Rothwell]

Document processing AI is also making progress. Adobe Acrobat just added a
new feature, the AI Assistant. It works with documents in native Acrobat
format, not a scanned document converted to Acrobat. I tried it with my
book, but it said, "the feature only supports files with less than 120
pages." So I tried it with my paper, "How to Fix Global Warming."
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhowtofixgl.pdf

Here are some of the responses from the AI:


*Overview* (generates automatically when you turn on the AI)

The document discusses how cold fusion technology can help mitigate global
warming by eliminating carbon emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration
through reforestation projects.


*Provide a list of the 5 most important points* (one of the many
auto-generated questions that the AI suggests)

   1. Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide, so if it replaces other
   sources of energy, carbon emissions would stop. [1]
   2. Cold fusion can enhance the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by
   reforestation. [2] It can increase the amount of carbon captured by a
   factor of ten and reduce the cost of the project significantly.
   3. Cold fusion technology can be used to stop the natural boom and bust
   cycle of forest carbon by burying charcoal made from deadwood underground,
   speeding up the formation of coal.
   4. Cold fusion devices do not produce dangerous radiation and can safely
   contain tritium.

[The footnotes in square brackets jump to the place in the document where
this assertion appears.]


*What are the two technologies used to expand forests in the carbon
sequestration project?* (Another auto-generated question)

The two technologies used to expand forests in the carbon sequestration
project are indoor farms and "cultured meat" grown from animal cells.


*What is the power density by volume of a cold fusion cathode?* (Auto
generated question)
The power density by volume of a cold fusion cathode is 300 W/cm3. This
information can be found in Table 1 of the document, which compares the
power density of cold fusion cathodes from the best experiments to fission
reactor fuel pellets. The table states that the volume of a cold fusion
cathode is 0.3 cm3 and its power density by volume is 300 W/cm3.


*What did the author in the New York Times have to say about forest
sequestation [spelled wrong!]?* (My question. I deliberately did not name
the author. But I spelled sequestration wrong by accident.)

The author in the New York Times wrote an op-ed titled "Let’s Not Pretend
Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution." The author argues that
while trees can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, relying solely
on tree planting to offset emissions is not a permanent solution. The
author suggests that using trees to offset emissions can be seen as hitting
the "climate snooze button," as the carbon in trees eventually returns to
the atmosphere through forest fires or decomposition. The author emphasizes
the need for more permanent solutions to address climate change.


[Correct]


*What was the name of that author?* (My question. Too ambiguous)

The name of the author mentioned in the document is Jed Rothwell.


*What was the name of the author of the New York Times article?* (My
question.)

The name of the author of the New York Times article is not mentioned in
the document.


[The author is listed in footnote 9. I guess it is asking too much for the
AI to go from the text describing "Let's Not Pretend . . ." to the footnote
listing the author name.]


[This works much better than the AI that I installed at LENR-CANR.org.
Which, alas, I removed. I suppose it works better because: 1. It is only
running on one document; 2. Adobe tweaked the AI bot to work well with
academic documents, with abstracts, tables and whatnot. In one response it
said: "Please double-check my response carefully. Like many AI models, I'm
still learning how to understand tables in documents."]

[Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

[H L V]

AI Generated Videos Just Changed Forever

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

Harry

[Vo]:Mr Bean blamed for poor EV sales

[MSF]

This is hilarious. Trying to blame Rowan Atkinson for failing EV sales. 
Couldn't be that frozen Tesla graveyard in Chicago.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/07/mr-bean-star-rowan-atkinson-blamed-for-slow-ev-sales/

Re: [Vo]:Nissan Leaf

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:12:40 -0500:

Thanks Jed.

[snip]
>I do not think so.
>
>I had an older Leaf, which I gave to my daughter. I do not recall anything
>like that.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Nissan Leaf

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:

Does anyone know if the original version of the Nissan Leaf, released in
> 2010, had bi-directional charging capability?
>

I do not think so.

I had an older Leaf, which I gave to my daughter. I do not recall anything
like that.

[Vo]:Nissan Leaf

[Robin]

Hi,

Does anyone know if the original version of the Nissan Leaf, released in 2010, 
had bi-directional charging capability?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Watch this

[Robin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4I8QThLMJc
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 15 Jan 2024 00:30:33 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>No the earth is not at the magnetic radius. She is inside the tense 
>solar plasma flux.
>
>All mass is magnetic flux mass. E.g. the Bohr radius is the first 
>magnetic resonance radius. The second you get by multiplying it with 
>(pi/alpha)^2. This you then can multiply with the sun's proton's number.


So the second would be 9.8E-6 m (approx.)

Since the mass of the Sun is about 2*10^30 kg, and if we assume that it is all 
composed of Hydrogen, then the number of
protons is about 1E57, which when multiplied by the size here above yields a 
distance of 1E36 light years, or about 1E26
times the size of the known universe.

I suspect there may be something wrong here. ;)

Note that all of the Sun's mass is not Hydrogen, but at least 50% of it is (and 
that's conservative), which would not
really have a significant impact on the conclusion.

In short, I doubt that it is correct to multiply by the number of protons. Or 
did you mean something else by "sun's
proton's number"?


>
>J.W.
>
>
>On 15.01.2024 00:10, Robin wrote:
>> In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 15 Jan 2024 00:02:25 +0100:
>> Hi Jürg,
>>
>> Would you care to reply to the other questions?
>>
>> [snip]
>>> You are correct! I made a Kopernikus turn and did look at the sun's belt
>>>
>>>
>>> J.W.
>>>
>>> On 14.01.2024 19:53, Robin wrote:
 In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2024 06:43:05 +0100:
 Hi,
 [snip]
> That's the fact. The Van Allen belt is the magnetic resonance region
> (radius) of the SUN. You can calculate it with the spherical metric for
> magnetic mass. Same for the Galaxy MOND radius.
 I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK the Van Allen belts 
 surround the Earth. Do you mean that the Earth
 itself is at the magnetic resonance radius of the Sun?
 Also, how do you determine the magnetic mass of the Sun?
 And what is MOND an abbreviation of?


> J.W.
>
>
> On 13.01.2024 01:55, Robin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by 
>> resonant absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

No the earth is not at the magnetic radius. She is inside the tense 
solar plasma flux.


All mass is magnetic flux mass. E.g. the Bohr radius is the first 
magnetic resonance radius. The second you get by multiplying it with 
(pi/alpha)^2. This you then can multiply with the sun's proton's number.


J.W.


On 15.01.2024 00:10, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 15 Jan 2024 00:02:25 +0100:
Hi Jürg,

Would you care to reply to the other questions?

[snip]

You are correct! I made a Kopernikus turn and did look at the sun's belt


J.W.

On 14.01.2024 19:53, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2024 06:43:05 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]

That's the fact. The Van Allen belt is the magnetic resonance region
(radius) of the SUN. You can calculate it with the spherical metric for
magnetic mass. Same for the Galaxy MOND radius.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK the Van Allen belts surround 
the Earth. Do you mean that the Earth
itself is at the magnetic resonance radius of the Sun?
Also, how do you determine the magnetic mass of the Sun?
And what is MOND an abbreviation of?



J.W.


On 13.01.2024 01:55, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by resonant 
absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 15 Jan 2024 00:02:25 +0100:
Hi Jürg,

Would you care to reply to the other questions?

[snip]
>You are correct! I made a Kopernikus turn and did look at the sun's belt
>
>
>J.W.
>
>On 14.01.2024 19:53, Robin wrote:
>> In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2024 06:43:05 +0100:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>> That's the fact. The Van Allen belt is the magnetic resonance region
>>> (radius) of the SUN. You can calculate it with the spherical metric for
>>> magnetic mass. Same for the Galaxy MOND radius.
>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK the Van Allen belts surround 
>> the Earth. Do you mean that the Earth
>> itself is at the magnetic resonance radius of the Sun?
>> Also, how do you determine the magnetic mass of the Sun?
>> And what is MOND an abbreviation of?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> J.W.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13.01.2024 01:55, Robin wrote:
 Hi,

 Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by resonant 
 absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

You are correct! I made a Kopernikus turn and did look at the sun's belt


J.W.

On 14.01.2024 19:53, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2024 06:43:05 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]

That's the fact. The Van Allen belt is the magnetic resonance region
(radius) of the SUN. You can calculate it with the spherical metric for
magnetic mass. Same for the Galaxy MOND radius.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK the Van Allen belts surround 
the Earth. Do you mean that the Earth
itself is at the magnetic resonance radius of the Sun?
Also, how do you determine the magnetic mass of the Sun?
And what is MOND an abbreviation of?




J.W.


On 13.01.2024 01:55, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by resonant 
absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2024 06:43:05 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>That's the fact. The Van Allen belt is the magnetic resonance region 
>(radius) of the SUN. You can calculate it with the spherical metric for 
>magnetic mass. Same for the Galaxy MOND radius.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK the Van Allen belts surround 
the Earth. Do you mean that the Earth
itself is at the magnetic resonance radius of the Sun?
Also, how do you determine the magnetic mass of the Sun?
And what is MOND an abbreviation of?


>
>
>J.W.
>
>
>On 13.01.2024 01:55, Robin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by resonant 
>> absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

That's the fact. The Van Allen belt is the magnetic resonance region 
(radius) of the SUN. You can calculate it with the spherical metric for 
magnetic mass. Same for the Galaxy MOND radius.



J.W.


On 13.01.2024 01:55, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by resonant 
absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Van Allen belts

[Robin]

Hi,

Perhaps charged particles in the Van Allen belts are energized by resonant 
absorption of ELF radiation from the Sun?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:50:35 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>There is only one physics = reality.
>Santilli, Mills,Holmlid all see the same shrunken hydrogen. Without the H*/D* 
>step there is no CF/LENR.

...but they all have different explanations for it. :)

>For certain coatings we see X-ray spectra in the range from 4keV..16keV (our 
>CsI PMT limit) what indicates that >e.g. D*-D* undergoes certain partly 
>reversible fusion steps. 

Mills goes down in steps of varying size, depending on the current level, which 
may be a good fit for your 4-16keV. Note
that keV energies from Hydrinos doesn't necessarily imply fusion, hence you may 
not be looking
at "partly reversible fusion". Also check out Mills "disproportionation" where 
one Hydrino goes to a lower level while
another goes to a higher level.

>One thing we try to find out are the quantization steps between D*,D*',D*''. 
>Some spectra did tell its 6keV but >this was within powders. Holmlid believes 
>in 1,4,16,64x steps what would mean 1,4,16keV. So 4 D*-D* would >promote 1 
>D*'D*'.
However as you point out, in a powder, you may be getting x-rays from the atoms 
of the powder itself, if one of it's
inner electrons gets knocked out by an energetic particle. This should be easy 
enough to check. The x-ray spectra of the
elements are pretty well known, so you could check the values you measure 
against the tables to see if they match the
elements in the powder. (Assuming, of course, that you know what the powder is.)
>
>What is interesting about this is the fact that the half live goes down for 
>lower energy D*'' but only >noticeable if you have a catalyst. The calculated 
>half live for D*-D* is about 23 hours what matches well with >some P results 
>(long ramp up). But this is speculation until we have better = more controlled 
>experiments.

If Hydrinos are smaller they sit closer to other nuclei, and hence the reaction 
half life is less.
You need a catalyst to create the Hydrinos. Interestingly perhaps, Holmlid uses 
potassium, which is also a catalyst
according to Mills. :)
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Are you referring to the same reaction Prof. Leif Holmlid was talking about?

There is only one physics = reality.
Santilli, Mills,Holmlid all see the same shrunken hydrogen. Without the H*/D* 
step there is no CF/LENR.
For certain coatings we see X-ray spectra in the range from 4keV..16keV (our 
CsI PMT limit) what indicates that e.g. D*-D* undergoes certain partly 
reversible fusion steps. One thing we try to find out are the quantization 
steps between D*,D*',D*''. Some spectra did tell its 6keV but this was within 
powders. Holmlid believes in 1,4,16,64x steps what would mean 1,4,16keV. So 4 
D*-D* would promote 1 D*'D*'.

What is interesting about this is the fact that the half live goes down for lower 
energy D*'' but only noticeable if you have a catalyst. The calculated half live 
for D*-D* is about 23 hours what matches well with some P results (long ramp 
up). But this is speculation until we have better = more controlled experiments.

J.W.

On 03.01.2024 06:29, Robin wrote:

Are you referring to the same reaction Prof. Leif Holmlid was talking about?


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 3 Jan 2024 06:19:31 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Lock at the picture. Only the innermost kernel of thousands of protons 
>will possibly fuse or form H*-H*. H*-H* is an exothermic reaction nearly 
>delivering 500eV.

Are you referring to the same reaction Prof. Leif Holmlid was talking about?
>
>The first step anyway is stripping of Oxigen!

Yes, this part is easily done.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Lock at the picture. Only the innermost kernel of thousands of protons 
will possibly fuse or form H*-H*. H*-H* is an exothermic reaction nearly 
delivering 500eV.


The first step anyway is stripping of Oxigen!


Of course much better science would be needed. But who wants to kill 
standard model physics?


J.W.

On 03.01.2024 06:09, Robin wrote:

At 10 km/s a proton has a kinetic energy of about 0.5 eV. Nowhere near enough 
for fusion. (It would need to be about
1 times more).


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 3 Jan 2024 05:14:56 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>What accelerating free electrons?
>
>This is a kind of hand waving. The bubble implodes so all momenta point 
>inwards. Heat will strip up the electrons what adds a further inward 
>momenta due to photon emission (1/2 of this energy) . Impact speed is 
>7..10km/s.

At 10 km/s a proton has a kinetic energy of about 0.5 eV. Nowhere near enough 
for fusion. (It would need to be about
1 times more).
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

What accelerating free electrons?

This is a kind of hand waving. The bubble implodes so all momenta point 
inwards. Heat will strip up the electrons what adds a further inward 
momenta due to photon emission (1/2 of this energy) . Impact speed is 
7..10km/s.


Crucial is that the electrons almost make up a cylindrical field 
gradient that can align H/D momenta what promotes H*-H*/D*-D*. The final 
fusion happens in contact with the target material that acts very 
differently, with some being inert at all.


Experiments show that low frequencies 20..50khz cause large bubbles and 
large junks of H*/D* produced and > 1.6Mhz leads to single D*-D* fusion 
in average.


J.W.

On 03.01.2024 03:07, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 3 Jan 2024 02:36:56 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]

Factually the best update (2009) about sono fusion is given in ::
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRwhenbubble.pdf

J.W.

Quote from the above paper:

"The initially dense cluster is further compressed and cooled by evaporative 
surface deuterons of the cluster. These
interact with free electrons forming deuterium atoms that surround the cluster. 
These accelerating free electrons
produce an imploding spherical electromagnetic, EM, pulse that squeezes the 
cluster to fusion densities in less than a
picosecond."

What accelerating free electrons?

A Deuteron leaving the cluster surface will simply drag an electron from the 
surrounding material to itself on the way
out. Why would an EM pulse even form, and even if it did, why would it be 
spherical and why would such a spherical EM
shock wave squeeze the remainder of the cluster?

This sounds contrived to me, in an attempt to explain observations with 
conventional physics, so that other scientists
will give the paper some credibility.

Furthermore, why not just assume that at least some of the deuterons in the 
initial jet have sufficient kinetic energy
to result in fusion upon impact?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 3 Jan 2024 02:36:56 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Factually the best update (2009) about sono fusion is given in :: 
>https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRwhenbubble.pdf
>
>J.W.
Quote from the above paper:

"The initially dense cluster is further compressed and cooled by evaporative 
surface deuterons of the cluster. These
interact with free electrons forming deuterium atoms that surround the cluster. 
These accelerating free electrons
produce an imploding spherical electromagnetic, EM, pulse that squeezes the 
cluster to fusion densities in less than a
picosecond."

What accelerating free electrons?

A Deuteron leaving the cluster surface will simply drag an electron from the 
surrounding material to itself on the way
out. Why would an EM pulse even form, and even if it did, why would it be 
spherical and why would such a spherical EM
shock wave squeeze the remainder of the cluster?

This sounds contrived to me, in an attempt to explain observations with 
conventional physics, so that other scientists
will give the paper some credibility.

Furthermore, why not just assume that at least some of the deuterons in the 
initial jet have sufficient kinetic energy
to result in fusion upon impact?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Factually the best update (2009) about sono fusion is given in :: 
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRwhenbubble.pdf


J.W.

On 03.01.2024 00:37, Robin wrote:

Hi,

You might take a look at the work of Dr. Randell Mills 
(http://brilliantlightpower.com/).
A severely shrunken H2 molecule would provide the "constraint" on particle 
location that you are looking for.
Furthermore, the shrunken electrons of the Hydrino molecule can carry away 
excess energy as fast particles, which then
ends up as heat in the fluid. Also, if only one proton (deuteron) of the 
molecule fuses with the target nucleus, the
other proton may carry away the reaction energy.

You may also want to take the following into account:-

1) Water also contains some D. Reactions involving a shrunken HD molecule (or 
individual shrunken atoms) may avoid the
need for weak force reactions. You could see if this is applicable by repeating 
your experiments with water enriched
with heavy water. I wouldn't try using pure heavy water at first, as you 
wouldn't want the experiment to blow up in your
face.

2) The temperatures achieved in a collapsing cavitation bubble, are sufficient 
to create atomic hydrogen from water, and
according to Mills, a water molecule can act as a catalyst for the shrinkage 
reaction.

3) They say there is nothing new under the Sun, and this isn't the first time 
that a cavitation based device has been
reported to produce excess heat. See https://www.hydrodynamics.com/. This was 
reported on vortex-l decades ago, and in
fact the group was initially set up to discuss this device.

4) You may also want to check out https://lenr-canr.org/ for many related 
papers.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

[Robin]

Hi,

You might take a look at the work of Dr. Randell Mills 
(http://brilliantlightpower.com/). 
A severely shrunken H2 molecule would provide the "constraint" on particle 
location that you are looking for.
Furthermore, the shrunken electrons of the Hydrino molecule can carry away 
excess energy as fast particles, which then
ends up as heat in the fluid. Also, if only one proton (deuteron) of the 
molecule fuses with the target nucleus, the
other proton may carry away the reaction energy.

You may also want to take the following into account:-

1) Water also contains some D. Reactions involving a shrunken HD molecule (or 
individual shrunken atoms) may avoid the
need for weak force reactions. You could see if this is applicable by repeating 
your experiments with water enriched
with heavy water. I wouldn't try using pure heavy water at first, as you 
wouldn't want the experiment to blow up in your
face.

2) The temperatures achieved in a collapsing cavitation bubble, are sufficient 
to create atomic hydrogen from water, and
according to Mills, a water molecule can act as a catalyst for the shrinkage 
reaction.

3) They say there is nothing new under the Sun, and this isn't the first time 
that a cavitation based device has been
reported to produce excess heat. See https://www.hydrodynamics.com/. This was 
reported on vortex-l decades ago, and in
fact the group was initially set up to discuss this device.

4) You may also want to check out https://lenr-canr.org/ for many related 
papers.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from B-J. Huang et al.

[Frank Grimer]

Because many thousands of negative pressure are produced within the cavity.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 22:14, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Huang, B.-J., et al., *Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce
> energy and isotope gases.* Scientific Reports, 2024. *14*(1): p. 214.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50824-8.epdf
>
>

[Vo]:New paper from B-J. Huang et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Huang, B.-J., et al., *Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy
and isotope gases.* Scientific Reports, 2024. *14*(1): p. 214.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50824-8.epdf

[Vo]:Nuclear Power Comeback Update

[H L V]

Nuclear Power Comeback Update: Poland Authorizes Small Modular Reactors

from video description:
Nuclear power is back in fashion in many countries because of its potential
to decarbonize even energy-intense industry quickly.
In its latest success, Poland has authorized the construction of 24 small
nuclear reactors at six sites across the country.

https://youtu.be/5_FUsyFpzJk

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Papers about the controversy

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:53:36 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>(Jones said that current density depends on the surface area. That is a 
>geometry error. Current density is a function of surface area.
>It is as if Jones said that mass density varies with volume. Or that joules 
>per gram of fuel depend on how many grams you have.)

"Current density is a function of surface area." is just another way of saying 
that current density depends on surface
area.

Actually whether or not this is true, depends on whether or not one holds the 
current constant when changing the surface
area.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Papers about the controversy

[Jed Rothwell]

Someone suggested I upload papers about the controversies in cold fusion,
and papers by skeptics. So I uploaded some papers about this. I mentioned
these two already:

*Editorials from the early history of cold fusion*, in *New York Times and
others*. 1989. (As I mentioned before)
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/editorials.pdf

APS, *Information from the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1-2, 1989*. 1989.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/APSinformatio.pdf

I added --

Two papers that were published together in New Scientist magazine:
Close, F., *Cold Fusion I: The Discovery That Never Was.* New Scientist,
1991. *1752*: p. 46.
Bockris, J., *Cold fusion II: The Story Continues.* New Scientist, 1991.
*1752*: p. 50.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CloseFwhateverha.pdf


Hoffman, N.J., *Book Review BAD SCIENCE The Short Life and Weird Times of
Cold Fusion.* Fusion Technol., 1994. *25*: p. 225.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HoffmanNJbookreview.pdf


Five papers about the controversy between Jones and Miles, which are
together in one file:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEexaminatio.pdf
The essence of the dispute was summarized by Miles in his second response:

"My journal publications criticized by Jones and Hansen report only
experimental results; hence, theoretical arguments are not germane to this
debate. In science, theory guides but experiments decide."


Miles said some unkind things about Jones, such as:

"More serious errors by S. E. Jones et al. are found in their presentation
of the electrochemical aspects of the cell operation. In particular, they
stated that the exchange current density depends on the electrode surface
area. The exchange current density always has dimensions of A/m2 or similar
units; hence, it cannot depend on the electrode surface area. Furthermore,
there is no such thing as an exchange current density for their reaction 4
in ref 8. This cell reaction consists of the oxidation of hydrogen at the
anode and the reduction of oxygen at the  cathode; hence, there are two
distinctly different exchange current densities associated with the cell
reaction."


(Jones said that current density depends on the surface area. That is a
geometry error. Current density is a function of surface area. It is as if
Jones said that mass density varies with volume. Or that joules per gram of
fuel depend on how many grams you have.)


Skeptics wrote many papers attempting to show theoretical reasons why cold
fusion is wrong. But there are only a few papers by skeptics that attempt
to find actual experimental errors. For a while I thought that Morrison
versus Fleischmann was the only one that was formally published in a
journal:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

I knew there was a dispute between Jones and Miles. I have seen letters
between them. But I forgot that they both published journal papers about
this. So I should say that both Morrison and Jones attempted to find errors.

So did Shanahan. That is rather strange, and more like a theoretical
objection than an experimental one. As I recall, he does not point to any
specific experiment that has the problems he describes.


As always the most recent uploads are listed here:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009

Re: [Vo]:Japanese JT-60SA Precedes ITER

[Terry Blanton]

Personally, I doubt we will ever have reliable hot fusion reactors.  Low
energy fusion, a different story.

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 1:29 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:37:52 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >
> https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Another-Major-Milestone-in-the-Race-for-Nuclear-Fusion.ht
> ><
> https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Another-Major-Milestone-in-the-Race-for-Nuclear-Fusion.html
> >
> >ml
>
> and it's still 30 years away. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Japanese JT-60SA Precedes ITER

[Robin]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:37:52 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Another-Major-Milestone-in-the-Race-for-Nuclear-Fusion.ht
>
>ml

and it's still 30 years away. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Japanese JT-60SA Precedes ITER

[Terry Blanton]

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Another-Major-Milestone-in-the-Race-for-Nuclear-Fusion.ht

ml

Re: [Vo]:Silly battery constraints

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

There is only a car mafia constraint.


Initially there was a plan to change accumulators at "gas stations". But 
this does not allow the manufacturer to charge you 3x more than the 
accumulator's real value  if you buy an expensive car. It also means 
that you have a bit less design freedom.


So you will always have to wait for recharging instead of spending 2-3 
minutes for a ACU change.


Or simply said: Nobody want's that the customer has real choice. Same 
with Apple products or many others...


J.W.

On 10.12.2023 07:32, Robin wrote:

Hi,

One of the constraints placed on battery design is they should be able to 
charge as fast as possible. However this
constraint is a hang over from the gasoline age. The intent is to allow fast charging at 
a "gas station".
However, in future, most cars will charge using power provided by solar panels 
on the roof, either at home or at work.
This will happen on a daily basis while the vehicle is not in use, so there is 
no real need for a fast charging
capability for the majority of cars, which are primarily used to commute anyway.

The only thing that actually needs to change is the mentality of the car 
owners, and this will happen as people get used
to the concept.

Gas stations themselves will become obsolete, and eventually be phased out 
altogether.

If an electric vehicle can drive about 4 hours on a single charge, then that 
should be sufficient, on long trips, as
people stop for meal breaks etc. roughly that often anyway, and the car can be 
recharged during the meal.

This implies that there will be a growing market for recharging bays in the 
parking lots of highway restaurants, and
those that offer this facility, will find that they increase their patronage.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Silly battery constraints

[Robin]

Hi,

One of the constraints placed on battery design is they should be able to 
charge as fast as possible. However this
constraint is a hang over from the gasoline age. The intent is to allow fast 
charging at a "gas station".
However, in future, most cars will charge using power provided by solar panels 
on the roof, either at home or at work.
This will happen on a daily basis while the vehicle is not in use, so there is 
no real need for a fast charging
capability for the majority of cars, which are primarily used to commute anyway.

The only thing that actually needs to change is the mentality of the car 
owners, and this will happen as people get used
to the concept.

Gas stations themselves will become obsolete, and eventually be phased out 
altogether.

If an electric vehicle can drive about 4 hours on a single charge, then that 
should be sufficient, on long trips, as
people stop for meal breaks etc. roughly that often anyway, and the car can be 
recharged during the meal.

This implies that there will be a growing market for recharging bays in the 
parking lots of highway restaurants, and
those that offer this facility, will find that they increase their patronage.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Berryllium-10 nucleus

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

For "small" isotopes it is easy to predict the shape and the exact 4D 
quantum structure.


But *shape is not the driver for LENR.* Cold fusion (LENR) only runs if 
you can transport the excess energy out of the center of mass reaction. 
This is also the reason why hot fusion is bare nonsense. For a 
successful transport you need  resonant structures that can accept 
larger junks of the excess energy. The excited 4-He structure form D*-D* 
electro weak fusion principally can decay via hyper fine radiation 
emission. The half live of this decay path is an estimated 19 hours, 
what explains that it takes a long time to start up excess energy in 
simple CF experiments.


In hot fusion (torus) there is no resonance - just the excess neutron, 
that takes most energy and makes it impossible to gain a reasonable 
amount of energy. A neutron does not heat the plasma! Even worse it 
leads to plasma instability due to vertical (to plasma flux) 
trajectories. The neutron usually ends up in the concrete -  the 
outermost bound of the reactor...


J.W.


On 08.12.2023 22:23, H L V wrote:
A berryllium-10 nucleuswas predicted to have a dumbbellshape and now 
the shape seems to have been confirmed by experiment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVri9slkCQU

Speculation: Could unusually shaped nuclei play a role in LENR?

Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Berryllium-10 nucleus

[H L V]

A berryllium-10 nucleus was predicted to have a dumbbell shape and now the
shape seems to have been confirmed by experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVri9slkCQU

Speculation: Could unusually shaped nuclei play a role in LENR?

Harry

[Vo]:Information from the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1-2, 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded this infuriating collection of documents:


APS, *Information from the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1-2, 1989*. 1989.


https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/APSinformatio.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Safe computing

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

You are a dreamer!

Laws are here to protect the wealthy criminals that also influence, 
steer the large companies and states. These folks don't like security 
for people at all.


There are highly criminal states like USA that enforce (e.g, Apple, 
Microsoft, CISCO even chips manufactures)  by the "patriot act" private 
protocol that all software/hardware companies code in back doors.



So why do you use crypto keys when e.g the Apple OS is scanning the 
memory and reporting the key to NSA?


What about broad spectrum dark channels in network chips?


Thus simply forget it. You and we are slaves and only fools believe in 
security. Always keep paper cash that can't be tracked and nullified 
with a single mouse click!



J.W.


PS: There are simple ways to cheat this mafia...


On 06.12.2023 22:50, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
A much safer computing paradigm is coming if I looked correctly at 
todays horoscope about what is written in the stars; I think these 
kind of ideas will be huge and completely change the landscape about 
how to enable integrity and catching criminals at the same time as 
well as keep databases over the people in the society. My point is 
that we need to rethink how we manage databases of people. These 
databases leak  today and the wrong people get hold of sensitive data. 
This can be avoided by rethinking how we manage databases and more 
view them as autonomous systems with a clear rule engine and a thin 
link to user space, that decides how and when we can access data. For 
really sensitive data like crypto keys, one could even think of that 
the rules in the rule engine is codified in the constitution or laws 
that cannot easily be changed.


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/safe-smart-computing-stefan-israelsson-xl4wf/
http://isenwriter.com/safe-computing.html


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:ICCF8 proceedings uploaded

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 6 Dec 2023 20:44:35 -0500:
Hi Jed,

I meant, are there any personal favourite papers in the latest proceedings?

>Robin  wrote:
>
>
>> Do you have any personal highlights?
>>
>
>When they held this conference in 2000, the conference organizers told me I
>had to ask individual authors to send me papers. Some authors were anxious
>to have their work at LENR-CANR.org. Others did not want their work
>uploaded. I ended up with several papers, listed here:
>
>https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2130#ICCF8
>
>These include several that I liked, so I bugged the authors to send them.
>Such as McKubre.
>
>
>Miles added a postscript to this one in 2018:
>
>https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcasestudie.pdf
>
>I added a postscript taken from other papers by Fleischmann, explaining his
>complicated heat transfer coefficient notation. I put this in my own paper
>as well:
>
>https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
>
>You need a cheat sheet for Fleischmann's equations.
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:ICCF8 proceedings uploaded

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> Do you have any personal highlights?
>

When they held this conference in 2000, the conference organizers told me I
had to ask individual authors to send me papers. Some authors were anxious
to have their work at LENR-CANR.org. Others did not want their work
uploaded. I ended up with several papers, listed here:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2130#ICCF8

These include several that I liked, so I bugged the authors to send them.
Such as McKubre.


Miles added a postscript to this one in 2018:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcasestudie.pdf

I added a postscript taken from other papers by Fleischmann, explaining his
complicated heat transfer coefficient notation. I put this in my own paper
as well:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

You need a cheat sheet for Fleischmann's equations.

Re: [Vo]:ICCF8 proceedings uploaded

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 6 Dec 2023 17:18:57 -0500:
Hi Jed,

Do you have any personal highlights?

>Proceedings uploaded:
>
>Scaramuzzi, F., ed. *ICCF8 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
>on Cold Fusion*. Vol. 70. 2000, Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy:
>Lerici (La Spezia), Italy.
>
>https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzziiccfprocee.pdf
>
>This is a large document. It may take a while to download.
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:ICCF8 proceedings uploaded

[Jed Rothwell]

Proceedings uploaded:

Scaramuzzi, F., ed. *ICCF8 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
on Cold Fusion*. Vol. 70. 2000, Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy:
Lerici (La Spezia), Italy.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzziiccfprocee.pdf

This is a large document. It may take a while to download.

[Vo]:Safe computing

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

A much safer computing paradigm is coming if I looked correctly at todays
horoscope about what is written in the stars; I think these kind of ideas
will be huge and completely change the landscape about how to enable
integrity and catching criminals at the same time as well as keep databases
over the people in the society. My point is that we need to rethink how we
manage databases of people. These databases leak  today and the wrong
people get hold of sensitive data. This can be avoided by rethinking how we
manage databases and more view them as autonomous systems with a clear rule
engine and a thin link to user space, that decides how and when we can
access data. For really sensitive data like crypto keys, one could even
think of that the rules in the rule engine is codified in the constitution
or laws that cannot easily be changed.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/safe-smart-computing-stefan-israelsson-xl4wf/
http://isenwriter.com/safe-computing.html

[Vo]:Phaethon

[Robin]

Hi,

How can the Earth pass through the tail of various comets and asteroids, 
resulting in meteor showers, if our orbits
don't intersect?

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Phaethon

[Robin]

Hi,

When asking bing when the asteroid Phaethon would impact the Earth, it informed 
me that calculating future paths
involved a lot of computational power and told me it couldn't do that. When 
asked to use Wolfram AstronomicalData to do
the calculation, it kept on spouting the same drivel about NASA assuring us 
that it would not impact the Earth in 2017.
When asked if it was prevented from replying by some rule, it insisted on 
changing the topic of conversation.
Does anyone on this list have access to Wolfram AstronomicalData to do the 
calculation? Since the orbits of both the
Earth and Phaethon are well known, it shouldn't be too difficult.
(Note that the reason I ask is because the Earth annually passes through the 
path of Phaethon.)
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:function before form

[Terry Blanton]

If it won't fit in the hole, you can't use it.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 6:01 PM Robin  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Form should always play second fiddle to function.
> This means that no matter what you are creating, the primary concern
> should always be that it works. Once it's working,
> you can worry about making it look pretty.
>
> This is because, if it doesn't work, no one will use it, no matter how
> pretty it is. OTOH if it does work, people will
> use it, no matter how ugly it is.
>
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

[Vo]:function before form

[Robin]

Hi,

Form should always play second fiddle to function.
This means that no matter what you are creating, the primary concern should 
always be that it works. Once it's working,
you can worry about making it look pretty.

This is because, if it doesn't work, no one will use it, no matter how pretty 
it is. OTOH if it does work, people will
use it, no matter how ugly it is.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Vibrator !]

I'll give an overview of the exploit here:

 • FoR divergence depends on inertial isolation

The body that you wish to accelerate for discount work expenditure must
gain momentum without inertial interaction with its environment.

This thus precludes conventional inertial interactions per N2, in which
force is applied between inertias, invariably incurring N3 and the
equivalence of momentum and counter-momentum deltas, ultimately enforcing
N1.  Because the energy cost of continual acceleration squares with the
accumulating (squaring) displacement over which a given force must be
applied to continue accelerating, accelerating a body by applying a force
between it and any kind of stator or external / ground inertia inherently
enforces PE:KE symmetry.

The only way out of that cage is to source and sink momentum directly to
force * time asymmetries.  An example of this kind of interaction is the
technique we learn intuitively to gain momentum on the park swings as kids
- because angular momentum is the product of angular inertia (mass times
radius squared) and angular velocity, and conserved, changes in mass-radius
from axis incur compensatory and reactionless angular accelerations and
decelerations that conserve net angular momentum.

However with this particular technique, the input workload is mass
displacement against centrifugal force, which squares with angular velocity
right alongside the rotational KE value of the momentum gains.  CoP of work
done against CF force is obviously thus speed-dependent, and inherently
energy-conservative.

Yet this is not the only technique for gaining height and KE on a swing,
nor indeed the fundamental principle itself, which instead simply reduces
to an inbound vs outbound ±F*t asymmetry (really, ±acceleration times time,
or a ±dp/dt asymmetry)..

For instance, here's an alternative technique:

 • drive the swing by holding a motorised flywheel vertically

..so spin up the flywheel in the same angular direction you're descending,
and its corresponding counter-torque will slow your descent, increasing
your soak time under the constant acceleration, and thus boosting your net
momentum gain from the given drop.

Halfway down, de-spin it, so that it comes to a halt as you reach the
bottom of the swing.  Then spin it up to the same speed in the opposite
direction, again despinning it when halfway up, so that it again comes to a
halt at you return to top dead center.  These accelerations and
deceleration are in principle conservative, with no inherent need for
dissipation.

Angular inertia is speed-invariant - 1 kg-m² is always 1 kg-m², no matter
how fast your FoR is already rotating - and a relative acceleration of 1
kg-m² by 1 rad/s always costs half a Joule, regardless of your RPM in
relation to anything else.  Swinging using this technique thus has a
potential to break unity that work done against CF force does not.

The final breakthrough is to swing not against gravity, but G-force - CF
force - in a powered rotation.  If the rotation providing the CF force is
not powered, all internal angular momentum gains come at the expense of the
rotation providing the CF force, conserving net system momentum.

If however the rotation is powered to run at a constant speed, whether
that's by an over-balancing system of weights, or even just a simple motor,
the internal momentum gains become effectively real and absolute.

And in this way, it thus becomes possible to fix the unit-energy cost of
momentum to a speed-invariant value that diverges from its KE value in the
absolute / ground FoR.


 • the state of inertial isolation must be maintained during the harnessing
of the gains

The over-unity body is away in its own little FoR, which breaks energy
equivalence with all other velocity frames.  It is thus inherently
sensitive to any kind of grounding with the absolute FoR - basically, touch
it and you kill it.

The gains must thus be harnessed via non-contact methods - again, without
direct inertial interaction with an external inertia in the common FoR.

This has been accomplished in the current solution by performing work
against CF force when rising back up and inwards, thus incurring positive
inertial torque from the ice-skater effect; the central motor holding the
rotation speed constant then becomes a generator, harnessing the KE gain as
a PE gain.

I must emphasise at this point that "motor" and "generator" in this sense
have no more to do with electronics than chemistry;  they're simply angular
joints controllable for speed, torque, angle or acceleration, hence we're
only talking the language of N2, its inversions and their angular
equivalents;  ie. the gain is being recorded as force * displacement (and
in triplicate, as KE, and also as force * velocity / time).   Torque,
inertia, acceleration and angular displacement - mechanical physics - not
electrical engineering.

Latest test this afternoon found that by shortening the radius of the
divergent FoR it's possible to limit 

Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Vibrator !]

In the last config the best CoP seemed to converge to around 3.5.

Bessler indicated CoP's of 4 were possible, in one passage seemingly
implying a factor of 16:

Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen,
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen,
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt,
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x
Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren,
Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren;

 "He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy
thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four
quarters high."

The latest sim which i finished last night, is designed to be infinitely
adjustable, so i'm going to use it to explore the gradient, find its upper
bounds.

As mentioned though, the gain is constant per cycle, so net gain is just
the per-cycle gain multiplied by the number of elapsed cycles.

Any help getting from here to the first devices would be cool - i'm just an
obsessive hobbyist with no idea how to get this where it needs to be..
This warrants serious attention!

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> We all wait for the first device with COP >2!
>
>
> J.W:
>
> On 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote:
> > Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held
> > objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame.
> >
> > The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high
> > number and you're good - and power density is basically that number
> > times how many cycles a second you'd like.
> >
> > As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and
> > CoAM.  Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in
> > tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta.
> >
> > If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within
> > classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed
> > for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity,
> > there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the
> > corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you..
> >
> > ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved.  It's just an inertial
> > interaction!
> >
> > Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and
> > energy from and to inertia and time!
> >
> > See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major
> > advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory.
> >
> > Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let
> > alone a physics one..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

We all wait for the first device with COP >2!


J.W:

On 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote:
Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held 
objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame.


The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high 
number and you're good - and power density is basically that number 
times how many cycles a second you'd like.


As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and 
CoAM.  Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in 
tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta.


If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within 
classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed 
for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, 
there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the 
corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you..


..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved.  It's just an inertial 
interaction!


Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and 
energy from and to inertia and time!


See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major 
advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory.


Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let 
alone a physics one..






--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Vibrator !]

Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held
objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame.

The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high number and
you're good - and power density is basically that number times how many
cycles a second you'd like.

As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and
CoAM.  Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in tandem,
mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta.

If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within
classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed for
three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, there
could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the corporeal and
sublime - i would not argue with you..

..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved.  It's just an inertial
interaction!

Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and energy
from and to inertia and time!

See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major advance
on what was previously a completely-outsider theory.

Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let alone a
physics one..

[Vo]:Fuel cell electrodes

[Robin]

Hi,

Now that you are using vacuum deposition, you might try any of the transition 
metals on a graphene base.
In particular, Nickel, Iron, or Titanium, all of which interact with Hydrogen, 
and Nickel in particular is used as a
catalyst in organic chemistry.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Silver Palladium "breakthrough" ?

[Jones Beene]

https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2023-11-13-researchers-aim-make-cheaper-fuel-cells-reality

Should not P get a little credit for this catalyst - not to mention J? 

... and/or ... is LENR involved in the improvement ? 

Re: [Vo]:Oh-My-God particle

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:13:10 +0100:
Hi,

The problem with a remote origin is that friction will slow it down. 
Interstellar space is not empty, just scarcely
populated.

>Plasma jets from black holes are ejected up to 60c relative to our 
>motion. Thus I would be modest and concede that we humans still lack the 
>knowledge to fully understand what can happen with matter.
>
>
>J.W.
>
>
>On 28.11.2023 20:11, Robin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Given that it can't have come from deep space, it must have been created 
>> locally. Since nothing local is capable of
>> generating such high energy fundamental particles, a small piece of plasma 
>> from the Sun, rather than a single particle,
>> seems probable.
>>
>> Cosmic rays are detected with multiple detectors all being triggered at the 
>> same time, and the assumption is made that
>> the concurrent arrival of multiple lower energy particles is too unlikely. 
>> However the Sun emits bits of plasma
>> frequently, so it's not inconceivable that a tiny plasma cloud arrives all 
>> at the same time.
>>
>> In short the high energy is due to multiple particles arriving concurrently, 
>> not due to a single high energy particle.
>>
>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>>
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Oh-My-God particle

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Plasma jets from black holes are ejected up to 60c relative to our 
motion. Thus I would be modest and concede that we humans still lack the 
knowledge to fully understand what can happen with matter.



J.W.


On 28.11.2023 20:11, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Given that it can't have come from deep space, it must have been created 
locally. Since nothing local is capable of
generating such high energy fundamental particles, a small piece of plasma from 
the Sun, rather than a single particle,
seems probable.

Cosmic rays are detected with multiple detectors all being triggered at the 
same time, and the assumption is made that
the concurrent arrival of multiple lower energy particles is too unlikely. 
However the Sun emits bits of plasma
frequently, so it's not inconceivable that a tiny plasma cloud arrives all at 
the same time.

In short the high energy is due to multiple particles arriving concurrently, 
not due to a single high energy particle.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Oh-My-God particle

[Robin]

Hi,

Given that it can't have come from deep space, it must have been created 
locally. Since nothing local is capable of
generating such high energy fundamental particles, a small piece of plasma from 
the Sun, rather than a single particle,
seems probable.

Cosmic rays are detected with multiple detectors all being triggered at the 
same time, and the assumption is made that
the concurrent arrival of multiple lower energy particles is too unlikely. 
However the Sun emits bits of plasma
frequently, so it's not inconceivable that a tiny plasma cloud arrives all at 
the same time.

In short the high energy is due to multiple particles arriving concurrently, 
not due to a single high energy particle.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Invention

[Robin]

Hi,

A metal plate containing millions of square pits, each 45.589 nm on a side, 
that is exposed to Hydrogen gas, may emit
electrons with a maximum energy of 40.8 eV minus the work function of the 
metal. These electrons may then be collected
on an anode to drive an external current between the anode and the metal plate.

Alternatively, the plate just gets hot and can function as part of a boiler.

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Video: Making activated palladium with Dr. Edmund Storms

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> A few comments:-
>
> 1) I seem to recall someone else having used Calcium Oxide before.
>

Dufour in transmutation studies.

Iwamura also in transmutation studies.


Note that Ed explains the role of the inert calcium oxide particles here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthenatureoc.pdf (starting on pages 4
and 5)

Re: [Vo]:Video: Making activated palladium with Dr. Edmund Storms

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:59:24 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Wonderful!!
>
>See:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjtPZR55r30

A few comments:-

1) I seem to recall someone else having used Calcium Oxide before.

2) Perhaps unrelated, but 36 microns is the wavelength of a photon with an 
energy of 0.034 eV. If this is divided by the
fine structure constant (alpha) we get an energy of 4.72 eV which is slightly 
larger than the dissociation energy of the
H2 molecule. (This may explain why the Calcium Oxide crystal can't be larger 
than 36 microns.)
A further division by alpha yields 646.745 eV which is close to the value that 
Prof. Leif Holmlid associates with what
he calls H0.

3) I saw somewhere on the Net, that someone showed that the masses of 
fundamental particles are linked by the fine
structure constant. Perhaps alpha is the size reduction you get when you wrap a 
photon into a self reinforcing
structure?

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

[Vo]:Video: Making activated palladium with Dr. Edmund Storms

[Jed Rothwell]

Wonderful!!

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjtPZR55r30

[Vo]:Claytor paper presented at NSF/EPRI Workshop in 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded an early paper by Claytor:

Claytor, T.N., et al. *Tritium and neutron measurements of a solid state
cell*. in *NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Materials*.
1989. Washington, DC.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumand.pdf

Abstract


A solid state "cold fusion" cell was constructed to test for
nonequilibrium D-D fusion in a solid. The stimulus for the design was the
hypothesis that the electrochemical surface layer in the Pons -Fleischmann
cell could be replaced with a metal- insulator-semiconductor (MIS) barrier.
Cells were constructed of alternating layers of palladium and silicon
powders pressed into a ceramic form and exposed to deuterium gas at 110
psia , resulting in a D/Pd ratio of 0.7. Pulses of current were passed
through the cells to populate nonequilibrium states at the MIS barriers.
One cell showed neutron activity and had a large amount of tritium. Other
cells have produced tritium at a low rate consistent with neutron emission
at or below the threshold of observability. The branching ratio for n/p was
about 3 x 10^-9 in all the experiments where a substantial amount of
tritium has been found.


One of the cells produced a substantial amount of tritium:

. . . [T]ritium analysis showed that cell 2 had 1300 times the fill gas
concentration of tritium, amounting to 3.5 x 10^15 atoms of tritium. This
level, although substantially above background, is equivalent to only 65
ppb.


The NSF/EPRI Workshop is described here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf

These experiments are also described here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumgen.pdf

Several other experiments produced large amounts of tritium, such as
Bockris, Storms and Will. See:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf

Skeptics ignore the tritium because it is compelling proof that cold fusion
is a nuclear reaction. They pretend that heat is not compelling, even
though it exceeds the limits of chemistry thousands of times over. They
want to claim that cold fusion does not produce clear evidence of a nuclear
reaction, even though anyone can see that it does. They mean it does not
produce the evidence *they want to see.* They are looking for proof that
cold fusion is actually plasma fusion, and it produces a deadly flux of
neutrons and no significant heat. They want that because it fits
their theories and -- more importantly -- because it means cold fusion has
no practical use, and does not threaten plasma fusion funding. Messinger
correctly described the infuriating, know-nothing attitude of the skeptics
at ARPA-E and elsewhere:

The hypothesis is that excess heat is caused by the release of nuclear
binding energy through low-energy nuclear reactions. But, as I have written
before, and ARPA-E stressed in their funding opportunity announcement, such
kind of evidence for LENR is insufficient due to the ambiguous nature of
heat . . .



I have uploaded a number of new papers lately:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009

Re: [Vo]:different temperatures

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 17 Nov 2023 19:26:01 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin  wrote:
>
>
>> I have an electric heater that can be controlled to within 1/10 of a
>> degree centigrade . . .
>
>
>That is remarkable. That is a laboratory grade thermostat.

I should have said precision, not accuracy. It can be done with a DS18B20, a 
microprocessor, and a relay.
[snip]
Actually, the sensor is under the window, so cold air coming off the window 
will fall onto the desk, and hit the sensor.

>Get an IR camera!
>(Borrow one . . . they are expensive.) 

No, not worth the trouble.
Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:different temperatures

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> I have an electric heater that can be controlled to within 1/10 of a
> degree centigrade . . .


That is remarkable. That is a laboratory grade thermostat.



> The only explanation I can think of is that the house is well insulated
> and has a long time constant, so that early in
> the morning the walls are still warm from the previous afternoon, while
> the air in the room is cool, thanks to contact
> with the cooler glass window, resulting in the thermostat registering a
> low temperature . . .


That is interesting. Put a thermometer near the windows. Get an IR camera!
(Borrow one . . . they are expensive.)

[Vo]:different temperatures

[Robin]

Hi,

I have an electric heater that can be controlled to within 1/10 of a degree 
centigrade, and also temperature monitoring
software that reports the temperature.
I have noticed that early in the morning I am comfortable with a temperature of 
22ºC, but as we approach noon I need the
temperature to be about 25ºC. 
Initially, I thought this was strange because the external temperature is 
colder early in the morning.
The only explanation I can think of is that the house is well insulated and has 
a long time constant, so that early in
the morning the walls are still warm from the previous afternoon, while the air 
in the room is cool, thanks to contact
with the cooler glass window, resulting in the thermostat registering a low 
temperature, while my body still feels
comfortably warm due to thermal radiation from the walls. As the day 
progresses, the temperature of the walls drops,
forcing my body to rely more heavily on air temperature, so I need the 
temperature to be higher.

Thoughts?

Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry


I was quoting wikipedia and I disagree with the quote.


-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR.
The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't 
know but it makes him appear very thorough.



harry


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration 
of Maxwell's electrodynamics 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving 
magnet and conductor problem 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> , 
the negative aether drift experiments 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as 
well as the Fizeau experiment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein>   to develop the theory 
of special relativity in 1905, which presents a  general form of the 
equation for aberration in terms of such theory<<<



no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.

Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so 
was just something added later.


But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might 
also be discarded anon.



-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy) 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)>



harry


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether


Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according 
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of 
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. 
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. 
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately 
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one 
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by 
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say 
that.


And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect 
infinitely fast through the Aether.



What astronomers teach is an assumption.


On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:


In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in 
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars 
as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what 
astronomers teach.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to 
average to C.
Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, 
then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round 
trip C.

But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.



On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:




If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no 
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking 
further and further back in time.

Harry








On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:




If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn tha

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

SR is quite a solid model as it can adequately "predict" the electron 
mass/energy in a storage ring.


I use the word solid because all current models of physics, also called 
standard model, have a very low precision (usually < 4 digits without 
fudging) and thus never can be basic models.


The problem is obvious as since more than 80 years mathematicians 
dominate physics, mostly people with no clue of real physics = experiment.


For the SOP model of mass/force structure I get 8..10 digits precision, 
what is shocking for some folks as it could first time be close to a 
basic model. Thus since about 2 years I try to educate physicists about 
the silly errors we find in all historic models (QM,QED,QCD,GR,..).


The most silly in GR is the 3 rotation anti symmetric stress energy 
tensor that is impossible for real mass As as said most 
mathematicians missed basic physics - here rotor mechanics. Once you 
know the basics you no longer can take serious most peoples in the field.



J.W.

On 12.11.2023 22:10, H L V wrote:

I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR.
The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't 
know but it makes him appear very thorough.


harry

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:


says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's
elaboration of Maxwell's electrodynamics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations>, the moving
magnet and conductor problem
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem>,
the negative aether drift experiments
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>,
as well as the Fizeau experiment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>, led Albert
Einstein <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> to
develop the theory of special relativity in 1905, which presents a
general form of the equation for aberration in terms of such theory<<<


no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.


Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905
paper, so was just something added later.


But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff
might also be discarded anon.


-- Original Message -- From: "H L V"
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday,
12 Nov, 23 At 16:39 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special
Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)
harry
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>>
wrote:

>>>seems <<<

???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an
Einsteinian calculation - its usually not given.

-- Original Message -- From: "H L V"
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18 Subject: Re:
[Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed
of light according to Einstein's theory, astronomers
use a specific finite one way speed of light to
explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration.
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for
nearly 300 years. The amount of observed stellar
aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR
than by classical physics but both assume a finite one
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has
been shaped by experts who don't worry about the
bigger picture.
Harry
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry

mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I
explained but I didn't say that.
And I don't think it is likely to be that we are
moving in effect infinitely fast through the Aether.
What astronomers teach is an assumption.
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

In the video by Veritasium he says the one way
speed of light could in principle be infinite
and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR.
The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't know
but it makes him appear very thorough.

harry

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of 
> Maxwell's
> electrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations>,
> the moving magnet and conductor problem
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem>, the 
> negative
> aether drift experiments
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>, as
> well as the Fizeau experiment
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>, led Albert Einstein
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> to develop the theory of
> special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the equation
> for aberration in terms of such theory<<<
>
>
> no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.
>
>
> Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so
> was just something added later.
>
>
> But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might
> also be discarded anon.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H L V" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>
> I should not have said "seems".
> It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)
>
> harry
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>seems <<<
>>
>>
>> ???
>>
>>
>> When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation
>> - its usually not given.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H L V" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>>
>> Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according
>> to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of
>> light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's
>> have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of
>> observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR
>> than by classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of
>> light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry
>> about the bigger picture.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry <
>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say
>>> that.
>>>
>>> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect
>>> infinitely fast through the Aether.
>>>
>>> What astronomers teach is an assumption.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
>>>> principle be infinite and that
>>>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars
>>>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
>>>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
>>>> astronomers teach.
>>>>
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry <
>>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has
>>>>> to average to C.
>>>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast,
>>>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round
>>>>> trip C.
>>>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
>>>>>> rational basis for claiming
>>>>>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
>>>>>> further and furt

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration 
of Maxwell's electrodynamics 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations> , the moving 
magnet and conductor problem 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem> , 
the negative aether drift experiments 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment> , as 
well as the Fizeau experiment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment> , led Albert Einstein 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein>  to develop the theory 
of special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the 
equation for aberration in terms of such theory<<<



no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.

Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so 
was just something added later.


But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might 
also be discarded anon.



-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy) 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)>



harry


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:



 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether


Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according 
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of 
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. 
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. 
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately 
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one 
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by 
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say 
that.


And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect 
infinitely fast through the Aether.



What astronomers teach is an assumption.


On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:


In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in 
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars 
as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what 
astronomers teach.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to 
average to C.
Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, 
then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round 
trip C.

But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.



On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:




If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no 
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking 
further and further back in time.

Harry








On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:




If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The fi

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)

harry

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>>seems <<<
>
>
> ???
>
>
> When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation -
> its usually not given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H L V" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>
> Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according
> to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of
> light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's
> have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of
> observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR
> than by classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of
> light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry
> about the bigger picture.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry <
> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say
>> that.
>>
>> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect
>> infinitely fast through the Aether.
>>
>> What astronomers teach is an assumption.
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  wrote:
>>
>>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
>>> principle be infinite and that
>>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars
>>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
>>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
>>> astronomers teach.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry <
>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has
>>>> to average to C.
>>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast,
>>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round
>>>> trip C.
>>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
>>>>> rational basis for claiming
>>>>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
>>>>> further and further back in time.
>>>>> Harry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry <
>>>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large
>>>>>> Language Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will
>>>>>> say it is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
>>>>>> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction
>>>>>> of space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
>>>>>> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> not typically explained within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The
>>>>>> constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of
>>>>>> light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the
>>>>>> 1905 paper!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
>>>>>> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
>>>>>> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
>>>>>> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity
>>>>>> of the emitter. >>>>> The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inerti

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>>seems <<<


???

When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation 
- its usually not given.




-- Original Message --
From: "H L V" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether


Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according 
to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of 
light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. 
Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. 
The amount of observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately 
predicted by SR than by classical physics but both assume a finite one 
way velocity of light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by 
experts who don't worry about the bigger picture.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say 
that.


And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect 
infinitely fast through the Aether.



What astronomers teach is an assumption.


On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:


In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in 
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars 
as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what 
astronomers teach.



Harry


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:


I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to 
average to C.
Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, 
then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round 
trip C.

But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.



On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:




If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no 
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking 
further and further back in time.

Harry








On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:




If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language 
Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it 
is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).


If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of 
space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that 
actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special 
Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
but not typically explained within.





But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that!  The 
constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of 
light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of 
the 1905 paper!





What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both 
postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the 
theory being presented, but the foundation of it)


The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of 
the emitter. 

The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial 
frames. way speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.





I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light 
(the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such 
thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.


The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one 
way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.


And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of 
light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether 
Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is 
compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
are equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the 
one way speed of light!





If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying 
mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without 
needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a 
success!


But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by 
believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!


And we will see just how badly below.




But let's see how we got here!




Light, big shock, moves at a speed.

And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it 
relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some 
explanation 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according to
Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of light
to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's have
been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of observed
stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR than by
classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of light.
Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry about
the bigger picture.

Harry

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say
> that.
>
> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect
> infinitely fast through the Aether.
>
> What astronomers teach is an assumption.
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  wrote:
>
>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
>> principle be infinite and that
>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars
>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
>> astronomers teach.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry <
>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to
>>> average to C.
>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast,
>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round
>>> trip C.
>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>>>

 If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
 rational basis for claiming
 that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
 further and further back in time.
 Harry





 On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry <
 jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large
> Language Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will
> say it is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction
> of space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that
> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
> but
> not typically explained within.
>
> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The
> constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of
> light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the
> 1905 paper!
>
> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity
> of the emitter.  The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
> frames.  way
> speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.
>
> I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light
> (the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such
> thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.
> The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the
> one way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.
> And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of
> light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether
> Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is
> compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
> are
> equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the one 
> way
> speed of light!
>
> If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying
> mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without
> needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a success!
> But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by
> believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!
> And we will see just how badly below.
>
> But let's see how we got here!
>
> Light, big shock, moves at a speed.
> And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making
> it relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be 
> some
> explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by which
> this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

criticism of the Hafele Keating experiment is that it is cherry picking.





On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows: “Dear Dr. 
Zapffe, “I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate 
your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount 
of reading for its preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot 
of fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I enjoyed 
writing my own little book (112 references), although it was outside my 
field of work, and I was warned that would do my reputation a lot of 
harm. My experience was rather similar to yours in securing publication, 
and I decided that the only way was to avoid references. The booklet was 
invited, as was a lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings 
of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p. 141 ff.) My 
criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the 
demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a 
theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together 
with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a 
very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense 
written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and 
disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about 
the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless. 
In my view, these tend to confuse the issue. “One aspect of this subject 
which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the 
experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border 
line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result 
required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with 
Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of 
Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in 
Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I 
had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism 
was 
rejected.https://beyondmainstream.org/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/










-- Original Message --
From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 12:20
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established,
but much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<
QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption - 
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.
QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if 
you mix mass and wave solutions.
QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits 
rarely match the measured ones.


Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.


SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress 
systematic errors. See also:: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment> . It's 
all about understanding what/how you do measure!


Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!
For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
>>I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, 
but much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<


QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption - 
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.


QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if 
you mix mass and wave solutions.


QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits 
rarely match the measured ones.




Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.



SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress 
systematic errors. See also:: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment. It's 
all about understanding what/how you do measure!




Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!

For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but 
much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<



Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but 
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.


For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the 
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 00:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether






Discussing about physics needs years long reflection about what 
physical constants mean and how these interrelate and are 
measured.
A constant is an obsession and  assumption that it will continue under 
all conditions.
In the case of Light speed it is an illogical assumption if we apply 
what might be true for the 2 way speed of light is also true for the one 
way speed of light.



Also I have been thinking about this for 25 years, is that enough?



Further we must understand that all current still hyped models 
have been developed with marginal experimental knowledge.

Very true!

 If   somebody believes that e.g. QM is a fundamental model that he 
is a   member of sect not a physicist.
I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but 
much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different 
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.
There is even super-determinism which seems nuts to me that takes a lot 
of the weirdness from QM.



Also the many worlds interpretation removes a lot of weirdness.



Same for GR that already Einstein in 1952 declared being a castle 
in the air. He then argued that the world is made of infinite many 
systems with their own speed of light (c) and thus any relation 
between such systems constructed by SRT/GR are fiction not 
science.

He was a lot more humble than those who continued his theories.
I wasn't aware he said that and will seek an exact quote.


The problem is the photon of which we only can measure the local 
wave number = energy in relation to local "c". Theoretically we 
could find its velocity by taking into account the red/blue shift 
but which model should we use. SRT provably only works for local 
mass but what shall we do with a photon speed of c+v?
Using red or blue shift for speed, or at least adjustments of speed is 
logical.


Though I guess it tells us nothing of the speed of the medium, that only 
cares about relative velocity between emitter and reciever.



Consequence: We have to overcome the today's silly - kindergarten 
physics models and we should start to understand the structure of 
all forms of matter. I could teach 2 term course about all 
failures and errors in current physics - models and also what for 
the models still are good and can be used.


No doubt.



On researchgate.net <http://researchgate.net>  there are 3 running 
discussion about gravity.   Of course 80% of all posters just want 
to promote new ideas and   sometimes one is OK. (myself included..)



https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force 
<https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force>
https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature 
<https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature>


https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/680 
<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/680>


Another idea I came across is that gravity is a result of time dilation!
This idea as it was relayed (by a believer in SR who was teaching it as 
fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg; 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg;>



But, rather than the explanation he gives, it makes me think the 
following.  What if every bit of space emits pressure, well space would 
expand (hmmm, it seems to) and where time dilation is present there 
would be less emission!

And as such there would be a push towards such space.



Only one thing is clear, general relativity is a marginal, just 
mathematical model once the Nobel committee called unphysical. It 
is brilliant math and of no use for our real world, that urgently 
needs a new "infinite" and cheap energy source. May be even that 
is a bad idea as long as the (fascist finance) pigs have the power 
and we then would help them to further destroy the planet.


J.W.
PS: Invest your thinking for the progress of mankind not for 
reasoning about the morgue of