RE: EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
At 1:39 PM 10/18/4, Keith Nagel wrote: [snip bunch of good stuff] ... I also seem to remember that what initially puzzled researchers is that the particles all deflected an equal distance, rather than distribute based on their (random) orientation as they entered the magnet. Right there the 3D spin model as assumed in our discussion fails. I feel the spinning ball model results in a 2/3 probability of a match. However, the model wherein each possible combination has an arbitrary weight, as I presented, accounts for much more than the spinning ball model. In fact, I think all possible stochastic process results, without instantaneous knowlege of Both Alice and Bob's choices, are accomodated. There are only 16 possible combinations of results. There has to result from any such process columns A B and C, no matter what process is used. Those are the only possibilities. Given that, corresponding columns D, E and F also are necessary. The only way the final outcome of any such process can affect the 16 possible outcomes is to change their frequency. This is true no matter how many dimesions from which those final outcomes are chosen. This is true even if an infinite number of angels ride with each particle and can all interact to make the final choices. The are three and only three sensors available to Alice and Bob each, and final results for each must be produced because none of the three can be left out a priori as a possibility. None can be left out without knowing at least slightly in advance, or instantaneously, what choices Alice and Bob both made. A choice must be provided for each of the 3 axes. The lower bound of 5/9 probability of match, when axes are chosen at random, and only hidden variables are involved, is thus an absolute lower boundary, and is not dependent at all on a ball-like model of spin. It is a boundary that is inherent to the experiment design. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: SAFE fission spacecraft engines..ref colorful graphics
At 12:48 am 19-10-04 EDT, you wrote: In a message dated 10/19/2004 12:37:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did he really believe that? I believe so. With all respect, I think you may be mistaken. == Democritus expanded the atomic theory of Leucippus. He maintained the impossibility of dividing things ad infinitum. From the difficulty of assigning a beginning of time, he argued the eternity of existing nature, of void space, and of motion. He supposed the atoms, which are originally similar, to be impenetrable and have a density proportionate to their volume. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/democrit.htm = Mind you, I think what you believe he believed is a much better idea than what he actually did believe. Atoms which are relatively atomic, rather than absolutely atomic. A bit like temperature really.8-) Little atoms have tiny atoms, Within, which must delight 'em, And tiny atoms have teeny atoms, So on, ad infinitem Grimer
Propulsion paper
Dear Vortex, Won't subscribe for long because of traffic. Thought the propulsion paper might interest you. http://luna.brighton.ac.uk/~roc1/index.htm All the best, Remi.
RE: EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
At 1:39 PM 10/18/4, Keith Nagel wrote: [snip bunch of good stuff] ... I also seem to remember that what initially puzzled researchers is that the particles all deflected an equal distance, rather than distribute based on their (random) orientation as they entered the magnet. Right there the 3D spin model as assumed in our discussion fails. I can't seem to get anything right the first time lately! There are 8 poossibilites, not 16. Corrected version of last post follows below. I feel the spinning ball model results in a 2/3 probability of a match. However, the model wherein each possible combination has an arbitrary weight, as I presented in DRAFT #6, accounts for much more than the spinning ball model. In fact, I think all possible stochastic process results, without instantaneous knowlege of Both Alice and Bob's choices, are accomodated. There are only 8 possible combinations of final results. There has to result from any such process columns A, B and C, no matter what process is used. Those are the only possibilities. Given that, corresponding columns D, E and F also are necessary. The only way the final outcome of any such process can affect the 8 possible outcomes is to change their frequency. This is true no matter how many dimesions from which those final outcomes are chosen. This is true even if an infinite number of angels ride with each particle and can all interact to make the final choices. There are three and only three sensors available to Alice and Bob each, and final results for each must be produced because none of the three can be left out a priori as a possibility. None can be left out without knowing at least slightly in advance, or instantaneously, what choices Alice and Bob both made. A choice must be provided for each of the 3 axes. There are exactly 8 ways this is possible. The lower bound of 5/9 probability of a match, when axes are chosen at random, and only hidden variables are involved, is thus an absolute lower boundary, and is not dependent at all on a ball-like model of spin. It is a boundary that is inherent to the experiment design. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Propulsion paper
Hi Remi, If you have managed to stay on vortex long enough to consider a certain question releating to your prior (non propulsion) ideas, here it is: Since you have been playing around with the Neel temperature and the related frequency near 100 Ghzin the phase Transitions paper of 2 years ago), I have recently and coincidentally wondered about a certain similar application. For those on vortex who don't recognize the Neel temperature, it is analogous to the Curie temperature and the temperature at which an antiferromagnetic material becomes paramagnetic - that is, the thermal energy becomes large enough to upset the magnetic ordering within the material. But unlike the Curie temperature, it can (probably) produce results in an adiabatic process (in which no significant heat is gained or lost sequentially by the system). Have you considered this in regard to Mark Goldes' Ultraconductor? http://ultraconductors.com/primer.html which, one can assume, would show unusual magnetic ordering properties when placed in the path of magnetic flux between a strong magnet and a coil, such that irradiation of the ultraconductor by even milliwatt pulses of RF at 100 Ghz should alter the flux patterns enough to produce fairly intense current in an adjoining coil? Regards, Jones Beene
RE: EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
Hi Horace. You write: The only way the final outcome of any such process can affect the 16 possible outcomes is to change their frequency. This is true no matter how many dimesions from which those final outcomes are chosen. This is true even if an infinite number of angels ride with each particle and can all interact to make the final choices. I may be being boneheaded here, help me out. I thought that I showed by adding extra dimensions it was possible to do exactly what you describe above, changing the outcome probabilities for the three visible axis of measurement. If I didn't, show me where I blew it. Perhaps I'm not understanding all the constraints on the results required by experiment? Here's the 4D table again. I'll add the constraint ( if I understand your argument ) that we only choose the visible axis columns to calculate our final probability. A B C D E F G H 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 AE 16/16 AF 8/16 AG 8/16 BE 8/16 BF 16/16 BG 8/16 CE 8/16 CF 8/16 CG 16/16 96/144 = .666... full table 160/256 = .625 As regards angels flying along with the particles, you'll have to put that question to Thomas or RC, they seem to have a direct line to God. I've been left to figure this stuff out on my own. It's lonely at times, but freedom is a Good Thing don't you know (grin). K.
RE: EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
At 3:06 PM 10/19/4, Keith Nagel wrote: I may be being boneheaded here, help me out. I thought that I showed by adding extra dimensions it was possible to do exactly what you describe above, changing the outcome probabilities for the three visible axis of measurement. If I didn't, show me where I blew it. Perhaps I'm not understanding all the constraints on the results required by experiment? Here's the 4D table again. I'll add the constraint ( if I understand your argument ) that we only choose the visible axis columns to calculate our final probability. A B C D E F G H 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 AE 16/16 AF 8/16 AG 8/16 BE 8/16 BF 16/16 BG 8/16 CE 8/16 CF 8/16 CG 16/16 96/144 = .666... full table 160/256 = .625 OK, just to check that I understand what you are saying I'll attempt to rephrase it. You are saying that nature uses the above table but only columns A, B, and C are applied to Alice's sensors and columns E, F and G are applied to Bob's sensors. We thus can take the above table and covert it to the following form: A B C E F G 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 All I did to obtain this table was to cut and paste the initial 4 dimensional table and delete columns D and H. It seems this is what you inrend bcasue you get the tabulation: AE 16/16 AF 8/16 AG 8/16 BE 8/16 BF 16/16 BG 8/16 CE 8/16 CF 8/16 CG 16/16 Do I have this all correct? If so, the following is my response. We could also, for convenience and consistency with prior 3 dimensional tables rename E, F, and G to D, E and F. This gives: A B C E F G 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 * 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 * 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 * 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 * 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 * 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 * This is just the original 3 dimensional table, Table 1, but with some rows duplicated. For convenience I have flagged the rows which are handily each duplicates of the row preceeding them. My point was that duplicating entries merely has the effect of weighting those entries. To see a similar table with weights consider Table 5. w A B C D E F g 0 0 0 1 1 1Key: h 0 0 1 1 1 0 i 0 1 0 1 0 1w - weight for given row j 0 1 1 1 0 0A, B, C - Alice's possible observations k 1 0 0 0 1 1D, E, F - Bob's corresponding observations m 1 0 1 0 1 0 n 1 1 0 0 0 1Let T = (g+h+i+j+k+m+n+p) p 1 1 1 0 0 0 Table 5 - Prospective hidden variable table for observations by Alice and Bob We can eliminate the *'ed rows by assigning weights g=h=i=j=k=m=n=p=2 in Table 5. Since, in the above table all the weights are exactly equal to 2, we can normalize them to 1, i.e. g=h=i=j=k=m=n=p=1, so we are then right back to: a b matches - - --- A D 8/8 A E 4/8 A F 4/8 B D 4/8 B E 8/8 B F 4/8 C D 4/8 C E 4/8 C F 8/8 Table 2 - Expected results The same process applies no matter how many dimensions
RE: EPR and Bell Revisited (DRAFT #6)
At 3:06 PM 10/19/4, Keith Nagel wrote: As regards angels flying along with the particles, you'll have to put that question to Thomas or RC, they seem to have a direct line to God. As you must have sensed, the choice of the angels metaphor indeed was not directed to you, but I think it does portray the important notion that regardless of the choice of any set of three deterministic or stochastic boolean functions to compute D, E and F, be the functions finite or not, the final result is merely the weighting of the eight possible outcomes. Such a weighting can not achieve the experimental results. An angel here is really only a metaphor for function or computer program or even arbitraryness. As regards angels flying along with the particles, you'll have to put that question to Thomas or RC, they seem to have a direct line to God. I've been left to figure this stuff out on my own. It's lonely at times, but freedom is a Good Thing don't you know (grin). That is my feeling too. Without quantum reality we would have no freedom at all. Our existence would be lockstep determined at every level at every instant. It sees to me reasonable that the only way God could give us a meaningful world, and yet also freedom, is by providing the randomness of the quantum underpinning of reality. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Neel effect OU with flux gate?
Hi Jones, Is it possible that you are confusing antiferromagnetic, which is a ferromagnetic material where the electron spins in alternating layers of atoms are in opposite directions with magnetic shielding such as is provided by superconductors. Antiferromagnetic to paramagnetic transitions provide only very small changes in mu. Antiferromagnetic to ferromagnetic or paramagnetic to ferromagnetic would provide large changes in mu and would therefore be suitable for magnetic gates. George Holz Varitronics Systems 1924 US Hwy 22 East Bound Brook NJ 08805-1520
Re: EPR and causality
--- Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP In short, causality isn't really violated, it only appears that way to an observer relying on EM signal transmission for his/her information. [snip] This could be argued from a certain point of view in the one way FTL sense. But if we allow round trip FTL signals, we find that according to the relativity of simultaneity and thus the equivalence of all inertial reference frames, as given by SR and later GR, that we can allow events to happen which not only appear to go backwards in time, but really do in measureable ways. Such as, frame A, not moving, can send an FTL signal to frame B, moving at some high fraction of c. Frame B will, according to his view of things (which according to relativity is just as valid as A's) receive the message before it is sent from A. Now, if he sends an FTL signal in reply fast enough (this is nowhere near infinity, just for clarification), frame A will see this signal arrive before A ever sends the first signal. So what if A decides then not to send the signal? A reply from nowhere, literally. These are serious consequences of mixing FTL and relativity theory as it is currently held to be true. However, there is a nice solution to this, it involves modifying the transformation equations so that simultaneity is not relative, but absolute. Therefore, there is an underlying ordering of cause and effect, and no time travel paradoxes occur...the FTL signal just gets there very fast, but never before it is sent. Note that this is perfectly acceptable and compatible with observed relativistic effects, such as Lorentz contraction and Larmor retardation (commonly called time dilation). The only necessary changes involves the distance-related term in the t' transform, thus removing the time 'desynchronization' from our results. The work of Tangherlini and Selleri demonstrates this nicely. --Kyle __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: 100 New British Nukes
In a message dated 10/8/04 8:59:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I seem to recall that someone calculated that the entire island would have to be planted in corn to fuel British automobiles with ethanol. This article: http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1256.html claims it would take 100 new nuclear plants to create enough hydrogen by cracking water. The UK has the whole ocean at its shores, and can use water turbines and windmills to generate a great deal of electrical power, which many land locked nations cannot do. If the UK promoted compressed air cars and electrical cars as is France, then the UK can get most of its car energy needs from electrical energy powered by the ocean waves and air. The UK could also modify corn genes to grow bigger and faster to get 4 times the crop, to be used just to make ethanol, so that only 1/4 of the UK needs to grown corn. Also some sea plants should be able to be grown in the ocean shores of the UK to also make ethanol. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh. Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com Making a difference one person at a time Get informed. Inform others.
Re: Neel effect OU with flux gate?
Hi George, Is it possible that you are confusing antiferromagnetic, which is a ferromagnetic material where the electron spins in alternating layers of atoms are in opposite directions with magnetic shielding such as is provided by superconductors. Yes. My terminology is confusing and non-standard. What I am referring to is antiferromagnetic spin reorientation and the exchange-bias effect where a (virtual ?) antiferromagnetic layer (which can be superconducting or not but is not ferromagnetic, so I guess it would be called virtual) can either expel the flux of a nearby ferromagnet or else, on paramagnetic transition, partially align with it. A true antiferromagnetic effect would be more robust, of course, but is it even possible, and if so how easily switched? BTW... care to share or report on any of your recent efforts at this flux gate approach to OU ? Jones
Cold Fusion And The Future book review copies
Reviewers My Editor have made many suggestions, and the text of this book has been extensively revised. Anyone who would like an updated review copy should please contact me. This includes people who have not seen it yet. It is not secret, but I am still eliminating embarrassing mistakes and waiting for permission to use some of the figures. Per suggestions from Tom Benson, I am trying to increase the fluff quotient of the book, despite what My Editor may say. (Take that!) I plan to upload the entire book to the public section of LENR-CANR.org after ICCF-11. On another subject, does anyone have a handy guide showing the exact decay series for plutonium-238? As far as I can tell, it is all alpha decay, all the time, right down to lead-214, but maybe part of it goes to carbon-14. Or maybe I am reading the chart wrong. - Jed
RE: EPR and causality
Hi Kyle. I think the causality paradoxes you mention will in practice prove to be no impediment to realizing an FTL signaling system. For the purposes of your discussion, consider the sender and receiver to be in the same ref frame. A superluminal signal will appear somewhere between instantly and the time it takes a c delayed signal. You could argue the bit about instantaneity is paradoxical; but from the point of the view of the observers it will be easy to say who is doing the signaling. In such a case a new speed limit of instantly would take the place of c. Nothing can go faster than instantly... The dragons drawn around the map of this new world are for illustrative purposes only and not to be taken too literally. K.
RE: Neel effect OU with flux gate?
Jones, Interesting. However, the collossal conductivity claimed by Djurek turned out to be a collossal disappointment when we and another superconductor lab each measured two sets of his samples. Perhaps one day he will achieve what he has claimed, but we saw no evidence of it to this point. I've passed this on to our magnetics team. Mark From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Neel effect OU with flux gate? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:49:31 -0700 To lighten your day, let's start out with a spelling pun... or as they say in the South... some of that thar fern spelling, to wit: The Neel effect is in 'grave' need of attention. Few on vortex will get it, but in the more likely event that there are a few experimenters listening with electroplating skills who wish to discover whether the Neel temperature, or the related frequency near 100 Ghz, can be exploited in an overunity flux switching device, here are some suggestions. As mentioned previously the Neel temperature is analogous to the Curie temperature and represents the kinetic motion at which an antiferromagnetic material becomes paramagnetic. Some experimenters here have tried the Curie thermo-cycling technique and found it lacking, of course, which it no doubt is. But unlike the Curie temperature, the Neel effect can (probably) produce results in an adiabatic process (in which no significant heat is gained or lost sequentially by the system). This is due to the fact that an extremely thin layer is sufficient to totally shield, and even more importantly, the frequency range (which substitutes for temperature) is both narrow and of an energy factor which is at least 100 times lower than the mid-terahertz range - which is involved with the Curie technique; where in addition (with Curie cycling) one must modify a large mass of material over a wide spread of energies and all that cycled heat is wasted. The 100 Ghz frequency, which is the substitute for heating, may be easier to attain than one realizes due to the fact that a number of Gunn-type diodes and other solid state oscillators will reach this range and they would require minimum circuitry - some just a battery and relay. Less than a watt should be needed. Getting hold the ultraconductor-type of material might be possible also, even if Mark Goldes' firm is not selling any of it yet. There is an apparently validated claim that colossal conductivity of the type which will likely possess, as a natural consequence of this conductivity, the necessary kind of antiferromagnetic blocking which is needed for flux gating, has been discovered and is not really all that uncommon. Plus it can be manufactured fairly easily: see Colossal Electric Conductivity in Agdefect Ag5Pb2O6 by Djurek, et. al. ... the citation: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0310011 In this paper, a ByströmEvers compound which in this case is a ceramic composed of silver and lead oxide which has been annealed at 500540 K under flow of electric current - which results in colossal electric conductivity which they define as 10^(-9) ohm/cm or about 700% better than copper, but not as good as the Ultraconductor (TM) of Room Temperature Superconductors, Inc. at least in their specifications. Would either of these materials be antiferromagnetic? Although no precise claims seem to have been made for this, either should be antiferromagnetic, according to a least one theory. In the simplest incarnation of this ByströmEvers compound, silver and lead are plated in several thin layers onto a substrate and annealed in air or O2 while passing an electric current through the material. Afterwards this layer is connected to an oscillator and physically interposed between a strong magnet and a coil. Any of the geometries which have been tried in the past, are feasible like (dare I mention) the MEG but also more advanced geometries like that of US Patent #4,006,401 (expired now) of Villasenor de Rivas which describes what seems like the best design for a flux gate type transformer. It is my belief that this thing will work best (if it works at all) at liquid nitrogen temps, especially for a continuously running transformer. But just to scope it and test for robust OU effects, room temperature would be fine. Once you were convinced of a substantial OU, then anyone would jump at the chance to apply cryogenics to it, without much complaint. If there is OU at all, it should be of high enough COP to carry the parasitic load of cryogenics. ... dream on? Jones Half my life's in books' written pages Live and learn from fools and from sages You know it's true: All things come back to you Sing with me, sing for the years Sing for the laughter and sing for the tears Sing with me... if it's just for today Maybe tomorrow the good Lord will take you away... Dream on, dream on, Dream yourself a dream come true... ...with apologies to Steven Tyler
Re: EPR and Bell revisited
I posted in a hurry earlier as I was leaving the house. Some corrections follow. Flow is about 154 ft^3/sec, thus channel is running about 5.5 feet deep. If you want to eliminate horizontal vortices, run a vertical vortex and thus run the pump at lower amperage, simply add some horizontal vanes across the channel near the pump outlet. If you want to run in horizontal vortex mode in order to increase mixing and keep current above 15 amps, simply place vertical vanes all the way across the channel near the pump. That's my guess anyway. Regards, Horace Heffner
