As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try: Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with KOH. It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode. I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil. Seems like it can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time... > but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen! > -m > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) > > Mark, > > A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for > "free" energy. > > Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real > > > http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht > ml > > Is it only a matter of time... ? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint > > Let's put some numbers to it... > > From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation: > > F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4) (force per unit area, Casimir original > derivation in 1948) > > F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um. > Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom. > > -mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) > > Hi Ed, > > I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds > here > and helping to focus some of the discussions. I have been too busy to > participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately too > busy so as to avoid others! ;-) Most of the regular-posting Vorts are > open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism. We also are > not > concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying' topics. > > I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very > specific questions about the NAE; please look for it. Now on to your > question... > > RE: "I assume its "normal" EM radiation?" > Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered > normal EM radiation. > > I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the > experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL). The LANL Directory > shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area, > and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail? > > Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you want > a > more accurate explanation: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM > "Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum > Computing" > > http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf > "Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details" > (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) > > http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf > "Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials" > (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) > > http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf > "... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause > drag in a superfluid moving at any speed." > > > -Mark Iverson > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) > > Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions. > I'm > sure all of these issues have been addressed. > > I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher > frequency > than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes through a > material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material, > or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the > material. Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a > fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction. In other > words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls > of the gap. The other photons pass right through the material without > interacting or producing a force. > > What produces the force? The photons that are captured by the gap pass > through the material without interacting until they reach the gap. Only at > the gap is their presence felt by the material, but in the form of heat > energy. For a force to be felt by the material, the photons must interact > and transfer momentum. Does this mean all vacuum photons change direction > when passing through a material and the gap simply removes a momentum > vector > such that a net force remains perpendicular to the gap? > > If this is the explanation, we have still another assumption - a photon can > bounce off an atom without changing its energy (frequency) and in the > process transfer momentum to the atom while the photon goes in a different > direction. Normally, a photon interacts with an electron, sending it in a > different direction but at the same time ionizing the atom to which the > electron was attached. Why does this process not occur when the vacuum > photons interact with matter? > > Ed Storms > > > On May 17, 2013, at 11:22 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > > > Ed: > > Two things... > > > > 1. I don't think Fran's explanation adequately explained the Casimir > > effect... (sorry Fran). > > Theory posits that the vacuum is made up of almost an infinite range > > of frequencies (some have proposed a cutoff frequency, probably > > approaching the Plank frequency). Closely spaced, parallel conducting > > plates will ONLY exclude vacuum frequencies LARGER than the spacing > > between the plates. This is what creates the unbalanced forces which > > want to push the plates together. All vacuum frequencies are pushing > > on the outside surfaces of the plates, but a limited range of > > frequencies are between the plates, so forces pushing plates apart is > > less than outside forces pushing plates together. > > This effect only becomes significant for very small plate separation. > > > > 2. Empirical evidence for the Casimir effect is now fairly well > > established, and has been tested by several groups, including Steve > > Lamoreaux from your old stomping ground of Los Alamos. It has also > > become a practical issue now that nanotechnology has reached the > > commercialization stage. The following is from the Wikipedia article: > > ------------- > > One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay > > at Philips in Eindhoven, in 1958, in a delicate and difficult > > experiment with parallel plates, obtaining results not in > > contradiction with the Casimir theory,[22][23] but with large > > experimental errors. Some of the experimental details as well as some > > background information on how Casimir, Polder and Sparnaay arrived at > > this point[24] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with Marcus > > Sparnaay. > > > > The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. > > Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,[25] and by Umar Mohideen > > and Anushree Roy of the University of California at Riverside.[26] In > > practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require > > phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the > > experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a > > part of a sphere with a large radius. > > > > In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and > > Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded > > in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using > > microresonators.[27] > > --------------- > > > > -Mark > > > > [deleted rest of thread history] > > > > > >
