Horace,
Horace, Robin,
Thank you for the equations and comments you supplied at the bottom. And the
updates in subsequent posts, They will help make easy work of my spreadsheet.
MY Apologies to Robin for saying the space between lattices isn't a cavity in
previous post! I had to reconsider my position.
[snip]
I think the hydrino state, if it exists, is likely a very unstable
short lived state. It can be re-inflated by the vacuum, which is a
very good thing because that re-inflating energy is provided free by
the vacuum.
[end snip]
I agree (it) can inflate and deflate as it moves between regions with
different Casimir values but regarding the existence of the hydrino and the
short lived duration of this state if it exists at all we already know our
theories differ. I don't believe in the HYDRINO as defined by Mills having a
fractional ground state but I do believe in "relativistic hydrogen" as defined
by Naudts and that it is a normal stable atom inside an accelerated inertial
frame that only appears smaller and faster from our perspective. This fits
better with Beck and Mackey proposal of longer vacuum flux associated with
greater gravitational activity.up conversion gives you less active cavity and
down conversion would give you a more active gravity well.
[snip]
> building on that false premise I was shooting myself in the foot, The
> calculated Casimir force is much higher and up converts the ratio of
> short/long vacuum fluctuations curving space-time proportionally.
>>This is, and is based on, a conglomeration of phantasmagoric
>>hypotheses which makes no sense to me - so I'll not comment.
[end snip]
OK, I know you don't buy my "relativistic" up conversion but I seem to
recall your papers are based on Puthoffs' wavelength suppression model.
Ignoring the "how" of wavelength discrimination, do you subscribe to there
being a difference in the population of long wavelength fluctuations inversely
proportional to plate spacing in the cavity? I hadn't considered your
perspective previously but even a non relativistic model would still result in
fewer of the longer wavelength fluctuation which Beck and Mackey propose are
more gravitationally active. My suggestion that the unrequited force
established by bracing the plates apart represents an equivalent acceleration
can be ignored if Beck and Mackeys' theory is proven. Their theory skirts my
"relativistic view" and focuses on gravitational activity of longer wavelengths
vs shorter wavelengths above 2 Thz. I have difficulty picturing this
differential producing the radial acceleration dictated by confinement, but
from your experience a force resulting in radial acceleration may be perfectly
acceptable. My point is I don't expect you to buy into my idea of twisted
space-time inside a cavity but we may have some common ground concerning the
restriction of long flux (Putoff) and was wondering where you stand on the
Beck-Mackey proposal of increased gravitational activity of long vacuum flux
below 2 Thz?
> I intend
> to put the standard Casimir formula for non ideal metals into a
> spreadsheet
> so I can compare the results between normal Casimir spacing and
> reduced
> spacing for fractional radii (home repairs are delaying me).
>>This then is the force between spheres. Casimir plates are made of
>>atoms. It would be astounding to make casimir plates out of hydino
>>matter. Maybe possible, but difficult in the extreme.
I am not sure why you say the force is between spheres, I am open to
additional forces that I have overlooked but I am presently working under the
concept of a tiny atom with random motion experiencing natural variation in
local plate spacing. The Casimir force is constant but varies based on very
local geometry of the plates. I think the value of force developed between the
gas atom (sphere?) and the local atoms in the plate (sphere?) is
inconsequential compared to the summed values created between the plates. Gas
law is moving these atoms around creating relative motion to the plates and
changing the population of longer vacuum flux proportionally to the local
spacing. Depending on your interpretation this would either change orbital
acceleration or inertial frame because the confinement precludes any
significant linear acceleration. I am not denying there are some important
considerations on how this force effects the radius but reading your posts I
just feel I may be missing something?
> Whether you subscribe to hydrino, relativistic or other scenario the
> Narrowest possible plate spacing is reduced by a factor of 137 assuming
> >Bourgoins' math is correct.
>>It is technically very difficult to obtain plate spacings of less
>>than a micron.
Difficult to produce yes, Haish and Model prototyping cost is an
obstacle due to their planned .1 micron array of milled columns and Model has
expressed interest in finding another self assembly or chemical route to
producing the arrays. Natural cavities like skeletal catalysts have widths on
the order of 10 nm and I would assume narrow down to closing at their bottom
seam but these cavities only have one way in and out and do not meet the Haisch
-Moddel need for a feed through array. I recently read something on graphite
that it forms natural defects about 2nm apart -the article was about an
unexpected magnetic property of graphite.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091004141152.htm
> I seem to recall the narrowest dimensions mentioned for a Casimir
> force was approximately 10 atoms wide so I would model the minimal
> spacing
> at 10x Bohr diameter/137 making the opening too small for even a
> single
> "normal" atom.
>>How do you propose to achieve this?
This is a very good question; I am exceeding my limited skill set in
speculating what kind of materials would have the correct atomic structure
still representing Casimir geometry at this scale. I may need to concentrate on
lattice defects like the graphite mentioned previously since this a "natural"
ready made material. I haven't previously considered the space between lattices
as Casimir cavities - in fact my previous post claims they are the opposite
(flux concentrators VS depletion zones) but am reconsidering my position - the
nuclei of the atoms are the real concentrators in lattice formation so the
surrounding space is already the "starving force" that plate geometry
concentrates into a depletion cavity.
MY Apologies to Robin for saying the space between lattices isn't a cavity
> I realize there are some modifications to how the boundary
> fields of the plates add in very close proximity. I haven't
> actually read
> the Lifshitz work yet to see if this will come into play before the
> minimum
> 1/137 orbital radius proposed by Bourgoin is achieved. I also think a
> temperature coefficient will need to be considered based on the
> difference
> between Mills' results using a reactor and the slow results of
> Arata using
> just Hydrogen and Pd nano materials at room temperature.
>
> Best Regards
> Fran
>
> For two large, neutral, parallel conducting plates separated by a
> distance z
> in vacuum attract each other with the force per unit area
> P(z) =F(z) / S = -(pi^2 *
> reduced h * c)
> / (240* z^3)
> Here reduced h is the reduced Planck constant, c is the velocity
> of light,
> and S is the area of the plates.
The reduced Planck constant is commonly referred to in ascii as h_bar.
The force between two neutral conductive plates (ideally conducting
and zero temperature) of area A with separation z is given by:
F(z,A) = -(Pi^2 h_bar c A)/(240 z^4)
The force Fs(z,R) between a sphere of radius R and plate at distance
z from a plane, where R>>z, is given by Mohideen:
Fs(z,R) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c R)/(360 z^3)
I think the above must be a typo. A more logical formula is:
Fs(z,R) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c R^3)/(360 z^3)
There are also corrections that have to be made for finite
conductivity, roughness of surface, potentials if nonzero, and
temperature. For info on the above see:
http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir/PRL-Mohideen98.pdf
We can thus deduce the force per unit area Fu(z) between plates as:
Fu(z) = F(z,A) / A = [-(Pi^2 h_bar c A)/(240 z^4)]/A = -(Pi^2
h_bar c)/(240 z^4)
Mostpanenko gives the formula for the force F2s between two spheres
of radius R1 and R2 as:
F2s(z,R1,R2) = -K (R1)^3 (R2)^3 / z^7
where K depends on the material involved.
It is important to note that the Casimir force as described above is
between objects consisting of ordinary matter, not individual atoms
at close range. Forces change dramatically due to non zero point
field interactions between atoms at close range.
I think beyond all this there are some wonderful things to discover
about matter in collision. I think there are special states formed
periodically between orbital electrons and nuclei. These states have
delayed existences due to electroweak vacuum transactions that occur
in the nucleus when electrons are present there. These states are
comparatively simple when only hydrogen is involved. However, it just
may be wildly possible, fantasmagorically possible, that, during
atom-atom, or ion-ion collision of heavier atoms, neutral heavy
nuclei can be momentarily formed due to the action of the electron
cloud between the colliding nuclei, resulting in momentarily high
electron populations in one of the interacting nuclei. If such a
nuclear complex can indeed form then transmutation tunneling is
feasible resulting in heavy nucleus fusions that ordinarily would
require much energy, not just to overcome the Coulomb barrier, but to
provide the energy required for the nuclear binding.
I think the hydrino state, if it exists, is likely a very unstable
short lived state. It can be re-inflated by the vacuum, which is a
very good thing because that re-inflating energy is provided free by
the vacuum. Fortunately, the same thing can be said for heavy nuclei
fused by the presence of inter-nuclear electrons. The energy for the
strong force bond formation can be supplied by the vacuum with the
help of the post fusion trapped electrons interacting with the
vacuum. This kind of fusion might be supplied by lattice constrained
helium, resulting in mass 4 increments to lattice atoms, and it might
also account for heavy element fusion in arcs and collapsing bubbles.
This is all totally wild speculation on my part, but speculation
based on experimental evidence.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
