Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Unfortunately, even though Y E Kim engaged with me in the past, he seems to have chosen not to engage on this particular subject, wherein his theory is given a leg up. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com May 27 (10 days ago) to Yeong Hello Dr. Kim: It would seem that your BEC theory has gotten yet another leg up. I realize that this paper was posted more than a year ago, but I just ran across it today on arxiv.org by way of Vortex-L. Could you please let me know your thoughts on this paper, for attribution on the 2 websites we've mentioned in the past. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Thank you, best regards, and Happy Memorial Day Kevin O'Malley *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3024348/posts *arxiv.org ^http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf * | March 2012 | M. Viteau1, M. Bason1, J. Radogostowicz2;3, N. Malossi1;2, O. Morsch1, D. Ciampini1;2;3, and E. Arim Posted on *Monday, May 27, 2013 10:56:04 AM* by *Kevmo *http://www.freerepublic.com/~kevmo/ Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf We have performed two-photon excitation via the 62P3=2 state to n=50-80 S or D Rydberg state in Bose-Einstein condensates of rubidium atoms. The Rydberg excitation was performed in a quartz cell, where electric fields generated by plates external to the cell created electric charges on the cell walls. Avoiding accumulation of the charges and realizing good control over the applied electric field was obtained when the fields were applied only for a short time, typically a few microseconds. Rydberg excitations of the Bose-Einstein condensates loaded into quasi one-dimensional traps and in optical lattices have been investigated. The results for condensates expanded to different sizes in the one-dimensional trap agree well with the intuitive picture of a chain of Rydberg excitations controlled by the dipole-dipole interaction. The optical lattice applied along the one-dimensional geometry produces localized, collective Rydberg excitations controlled by the nearest-neighbour blockade. PACS numbers: 03.65.Xp, 03.75.Lm ……… V. CONCLUSIONS We have demonstrated the controlled preparation of Rydberg excitations in large ensembles of ultracold atoms forming structures of localized collective excita- tions, either self-generated by the long-range interactions between Rydberg atoms or imposed by an optical lattice. Our results can straightforwardly be extended to two- and three-dimensional lattice geometries and to even larger lattice spacings that will allow selective Rydberg excitation on a single site. Furthermore, appropriate detection techniques such as microchannel plates should allow direct observation of the distribution of Rydberg excitations in the lattice. Classical and quantum correlations, and highly en- tangled collective states are expected to be created, as pointed out in [42] for one dimensional Rydberg gases and in [43] for one-dimensional optical lattices. Our results pave the way towards their controlled creation. -- *TOPICS:* Science http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/science-chat/index; *Click to Add Topic* http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3024348/add-topic *KEYWORDS:* canr http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/canr/index; cmnshttp://www.freerepublic.com/tag/cmns/index; coldfusion http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index; lenrhttp://www.freerepublic.com/tag/lenr/index; *Click to Add Keyword*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3024348/add-keyword -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate -- -- To: *All; y'all; et al* Interesting discussion on Vortex regarding this http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg81294.html On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the dissipated energy would have to be very energetic and easily detected ***That would account for the very occasional neutron being observed, right? And it also would account for how few of them get observed as well. They only happen when a multiple-fusion event takes place inside the BEC and there isn't enough BEC infrastructure to absorb the energy. . Also, how is this mass-energy coupled to the unreacted hydrons? The BEC is not stable at high temperatures, which would be present inside the BEC when mass-energy was released. I would expect this release would destroy the BEC, leaving the fused hydrons to dissipate energy by the normal hot fusion method. ***I would expect it as well. Like an explosion taking place inside a house, the structure blocks much of the energy while it is
Re: [Vo]:Superabsorbers
This very new paper is a great find for LENR. It is another piece in the very complicated LENR puzzle. Super-absorption in a LENR system is what a chain reaction is in a nuclear system. As infrared light (photons) aka heat is absorbed by a system of dipoles, the energy is increased and the electron tunneling that moves electrons away from their associated holes (ions) becomes increasingly more powerful. In Nanoplasmonics, this “dark mode” near field EMF absorption process is called Fano resonance. EMF power increases in a positive feedback mode within a small volume until the concentrated EMF begins to produce nuclear heat. The Superabsorbent ring in figure one of the reference is just a two dimensional projection of a three dimensional nano-particle. Nano-particles act as a super EMF absorbing structure which concentrates heat photons into a small volume between the nanoparticles. If there is little energy loss in this dipole system, and the limit of EMF increase is very large, the concentrated EMF becomes so great that the nuclear forces inside the nucleus become unbalanced and the nucleus disintegrates. . When all the various small volumes of EMF concentration form a Bose Ernestine condensate, the pumping of concentrated EMF is shared between each small volume in superposition and nuclear disintegration happens as a probabilistic phenomenon triggered by virtual particle creation out of the vacuum. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: A new arxiv paper, possibly related to missing LENR em-emissions - Superabsorption of light via quantum engineering ABSTRACT: Almost 60 years ago Dicke introduced the term superradiance to describe a signature quantum effect: N atoms can collectively emit light at a rate proportional to N^2. Even for moderate N this represents a significant increase over the prediction of classical physics, and the effect has found applications ranging from probing exciton delocalisation in biological systems, to developing a new class of laser, and even in astrophysics. Structures that super-radiate must also have enhanced absorption, but the former always dominates in natural systems. Here we show that modern quantum control techniques can overcome this restriction. Our theory establishes that superabsorption can be achieved and sustained in certain simple nanostructures, by trapping the system in a highly excited state while extracting energy into a non-radiative channel. The effect offers the prospect of a new class of quantum nanotechnology, capable of absorbing light many times faster than is currently possible; potential applications of this effect include light harvesting and photon detection. An array of quantum dots or a porphyrin ring could provide an implementation to demonstrate this effect. http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1483 Perhaps also of interest - SUPER-ABSORPTION ABSTRACT: The concept of Super-Absorption has been proposed based on the correlation between deuterium flux and excess heat, and based on the selective resonant tunneling model. The experimental evidence for this correlation is shown in the D/Pd system with a Calvet high precision calorimeter. A theoretical model is set-up to show how the resonant tunneling effect will correlate the deuterium flux to the generation of excess heat. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiXZsuperabsor.pdf http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiXZsuperabsor.pdf
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
No dear Mark, this is a modest blog, an average of 150 views per day I don't want to be popular. I started the blog on 15 Dec 2010. Had over 10,000 views in July 2012 when I published an interview about DGT's scientific- technological principles and last month. The main idea I am promoting- LENR vs LENR+ is not understood by many colleagues...but will be. Peter On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Good news from Dr. Kim, and about DGT, however, what I find even more interesting are the number of pageviews: 138,263. Peter, is this number a total for your entire site, or just that page? Because if it was just the page, then you had 138K views in one day! That is hard to believe… but if so, that means the world is waking up to LENR and is showing a lot of interest. -Mark Iverson ** ** ** ** *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:15 PM *To:* akira shirakawa; Arik El Boher; Brian Ahern; CMNS; Dagmar Kuhn; doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff aries; Lewan Mats; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steven Krivit; Sunwon Park; Tsirlin, Mark; vlad; VORTEX *Subject:* [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change ** ** *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html ** ** -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Thanks for the clarification. -mi From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:42 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change No dear Mark, this is a modest blog, an average of 150 views per day I don't want to be popular. I started the blog on 15 Dec 2010. Had over 10,000 views in July 2012 when I published an interview about DGT's scientific- technological principles and last month. The main idea I am promoting- LENR vs LENR+ is not understood by many colleagues...but will be. Peter On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Good news from Dr. Kim, and about DGT, however, what I find even more interesting are the number of pageviews: 138,263. Peter, is this number a total for your entire site, or just that page? Because if it was just the page, then you had 138K views in one day! That is hard to believe. but if so, that means the world is waking up to LENR and is showing a lot of interest. -Mark Iverson From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]: Mail filtering was Of NAEs and nothingness...
Hi, On 7-6-2013 4:46, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: Is there some way to be a part of this that does not involve dozens of email messages per waking day to my account? Is there not some way to make an online forum? It would be very difficult to deal with Vortex emails going to one's inbox, given the volume of traffic here. In a Gmail account, it is possible to set up a filter that routes Vortex emails to a subfolder (label) and bypass the inbox entirely. There may be something comparable with Yahoo! mail. If Yahoo! does not give you a way to do this, you might set up a Gmail account specifically for mailing list traffic. I'm using ThunderBird (a sisterprogram of FireFox) for managing my mailboxeS and it allows me to filter on several different aspects (e.g sender, subject etc.) and it keeps things a lot better manageable. My experience is that it works best directly via the IMAP protocol on the mailbox. This requires to pick a decent provider such as Gmail, AOL/AIM, etc. which offers this IMAP functionality. Of course you also need to look into the setting of the non-standard parameters for adding your mail account. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Great interview Peter (and response to Mary). Thank you for sharing with us. As i started learning about the LENR field Dr. Kim's papers were some of the first I ever came across and as an amateur I did not fully comprehend a majority of what i read but never the less enjoyed reading them all the same. I am excited to see what his new papers that were mentioned have to offer. Joe Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Yeong is a great scientist and he is very generous and friendly. And he has great courage and takes responsibilty- he is an authority in two fields of physics and even more. You can now find all his papers at the iste of his University mentioned in the Interview.. His presenation at ICCF-18 will be a historic one. As regarding Mary, no problem with her, she has more social functions in this affair, some quite positive in long range, you will see. Peter On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote: Great interview Peter (and response to Mary). Thank you for sharing with us. As i started learning about the LENR field Dr. Kim's papers were some of the first I ever came across and as an amateur I did not fully comprehend a majority of what i read but never the less enjoyed reading them all the same. I am excited to see what his new papers that were mentioned have to offer. Joe Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Thursday June 6th Harry said Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE must be balanced by a diluted region outside the cavity walls that responsible for this segregation of vacuum pressure. although vacuum wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE violation..you aren't getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself won't give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the random motion of gas is unusable energy that can't be considered under conservation of energy -They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You have Ed's energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current moving gas atoms while the other is a locally accumulated pressure - a small gravity hill with a concentrated peak in the cavity and a wide valley extending out from the cavity walls that segregates the pressure we consider isotropic out here in the macro world. Anomalous cooling and retarded radioactive decay of gases are harder to detect but have both been reported..just not as concentrated or as frequently as anomalous heat and accelerated decay. My posit is that beyond diffusion the random motion of gas is harnessed to keep Ed's hydrotron resonanting or pushing my near disassociation f/h over the threshold so it can form another molecule. Fran
Re: [Vo]: Mail filtering was Of NAEs and nothingness...
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: I'm using ThunderBird (a sisterprogram of FireFox) for managing my mailboxeS and it allows me to filter on several different aspects (e.g sender, subject etc.) and it keeps things a lot better manageable. I use Thunderbird too. I like it. But I prefer to compose mail directly with Gmail. It does a better job cleaning up messages with the remove formatting button (*T*x icon). Gmail also does a better job putting the messages in conversations, whereas Thunderbird does a better job sorting them by date, author, or finding them. My experience is that it works best directly via the IMAP protocol on the mailbox. Yup. After a year or so I recommend you download them and store them locally. I do not fully trust the cloud. - Jed
[Vo]:Engineering News coverage
This is pretty good. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Engineering News coverage
Why is it pretty good? This is old news already... 2013/6/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This is pretty good. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Engineering News coverage
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why is it pretty good? This is old news already... Good in the sense that the author did not attack or belittle cold fusion, and he did not quote Krivit or some astrophysicist saying cold fusion is impossible. There was this nonsense: in 1989, byStanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann could not be replicated. I added a message pointing out this is incorrect. - Jed
[Vo]:2008 Scientific American --Flying Saucer Design- LENR
Greetings Vortex, Not sure why we have not seen the prototype, but LENR just might be useful: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-first-flying-saucer Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown, PA
[Vo]:Mössbauer effect in Ni-61
The Mössbauer effect has been observed in Nickel-61. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v121/i5/p1344_1 Although this nickel isotope is not Rossi's chosen one for gain, there is a fair chance that treated nickel would be enriched in Ni-61 by the same process that Rossi uses to enrich in Ni-62. If true, the Ni-61 could operate as a resonant emitter of RF to possibly remove energy from the inner capsule. Curiously the resistance wire would then be appropriately placed to collect and recycle that RF in a positive feedback loop. There is relevance of the Mössbauer effect (ME) to anomalous photon emission, in general. The HotCat qualifies for anomalous IR emission, and the emission has not necessarily been tied to any process yet. Any further information can help to frame a more accurate understanding of the dynamics. The nickel isotopes in the Rossi HotCat would likely be sputtered on the inner wall of the tube - in essentially a 2D layer; and Ni-62 would provide excess energy in a higher spectrum, possibly a soft X-Rays. Unlike the ME effect in normal NMR techniques there is no external keV gamma source, but instead there is the internal source of radiation, possibly related to a Rydberg hole of nickel. The Mössbauer effect would be easy to spot in the HotCat, if it is there, so there is no reason to speculate. We can calculate the NMR frequency, and an applied magnetic field of .5 T should produce RF in the range of 2 MHz. If RF is seen when a magnetic field from an large NIB magnet is moved near the operating HotCat, or even if RF is seen at all - then this speculation is meaningful. If no RF is seen, then Mössbauer is probably not relevant. This assumes that the nickel is enriched not only in Ni-62 but also in Ni-61. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
are'nt gamma the way to compensate momentum ? and neutron the expected nuclear products? by the way I appreciate the way yeong kim explain why lattice is not free space : even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams. a much more sexy explanation than my microelectronic experience that QM in solid is ... strange... ( ;-) ) 2013/6/7 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Probbably Huizenga himself has used different variants, this is like folklore. I confees I have not read the Huizenga and Taubes books, have seen them when visting at Gene Mallove's office in 1998 but I was not too interested- they were discussed over and over. Peter On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Lou, I also think the frequency of photons emitted in an NAE are going to be frequency shifted proportional to their contracted state. In my old animation circa 2010 I show a red photon for H2 disassociation outside casimir plates while f/H2 photons emitted inside plates are blue where the moving plates represent different values of Casimir geometry. http://byzipp.com/finished1.swf Fran From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... On Thursday June 6th Harry said Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE must be balanced by a diluted region outside the cavity walls that responsible for this segregation of vacuum pressure... although vacuum wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE violation..you aren't getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself won't give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the random motion of gas is unusable energy that can't be considered under conservation of energy -They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You have Ed's energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current moving gas atoms while the other is a locally accumulated pressure - a small gravity hill with a concentrated peak in the cavity and a wide valley extending out from the cavity walls that segregates the pressure we consider isotropic out here in the macro world. Anomalous cooling and retarded radioactive decay of gases are harder to detect but have both been reported..just not as concentrated or as frequently as anomalous heat and accelerated decay. My posit is that beyond diffusion the random motion of gas is harnessed to keep Ed's hydrotron resonanting or pushing my near disassociation f/h over the threshold so it can form another molecule. Fran
RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
In contrast, the only miracle required for a version of the Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground state) is that it happens at all… since everything else is standard physics. … or stated another way – it would be a miracle in itself if the experimental proof offered (predictable UV emission lines and thermal gain) can be explained another way with fewer miracles. Despite being less generally accepted, this explanation is far ahead on “Conservation of Miracles” criteria. From: Harry Veeder Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated * (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions * (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays * see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles
RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Jones Does Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground state) = IRH? Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change In contrast, the only miracle required for a version of the Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground state) is that it happens at all… since everything else is standard physics. … or stated another way – it would be a miracle in itself if the experimental proof offered (predictable UV emission lines and thermal gain) can be explained another way with fewer miracles. Despite being less generally accepted, this explanation is far ahead on “Conservation of Miracles” criteria. From: Harry Veeder Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated • (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions • (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays • see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles
RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Yes. From: Roarty, Francis X Does Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground state) = IRH? Fran From: Jones Beene In contrast, the only miracle required for a version of the Rydberg redundancy explanation (redundant electron ground state) is that it happens at all… since everything else is standard physics. … or stated another way – it would be a miracle in itself if the experimental proof offered (predictable UV emission lines and thermal gain) can be explained another way with fewer miracles. Despite being less generally accepted, this explanation is far ahead on “Conservation of Miracles” criteria. From: Harry Veeder Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated * (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions * (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays * see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Either Kim incorrectly quotes Huizenga's book or the second ( and more popular?) version misrepresents Huizenga's three miracles. Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue quickly. Harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Probbably Huizenga himself has used different variants, this is like folklore. I confees I have not read the Huizenga and Taubes books, have seen them when visting at Gene Mallove's office in 1998 but I was not too interested- they were discussed over and over. Peter On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Not only do the photons and dipoles couple very strongly in the lattice, they also couple to the quantum vacuum as evidenced by the appearance of *vacuum Rabi splitting *in the spectroscopic analysis of the associated EMF photon radiation.The appearance of virtual dipoles drive the dipoles in the lattice. Other photons add to the energy of the dipoles over what is provided by vacuum energy. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Lou, I also think the frequency of photons emitted in an NAE are going to be frequency shifted proportional to their contracted state. In my old animation circa 2010 I show a red photon for H2 disassociation outside casimir plates while f/H2 photons emitted inside plates are blue where the moving plates represent different values of Casimir geometry. http://byzipp.com/finished1.swf ** ** Fran ** ** *From:* francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] *Sent:* Friday, June 07, 2013 8:41 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... ** ** On Thursday June 6th Harry said Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes*** * as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. ** ** Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE must be balanced by a “diluted” region outside the cavity walls that responsible for this “segregation” of vacuum pressure… although vacuum wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE violation..you aren’t getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself won’t give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the random motion of gas is unusable energy that can’t be considered under conservation of energy –They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You have Ed’s energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current moving gas atoms while the other is a locally accumulated pressure – a small gravity hill with a concentrated peak in the cavity and a wide valley extending out from the cavity walls that segregates the pressure we consider isotropic out here in the macro world. Anomalous cooling and retarded radioactive decay of gases are harder to detect but have both been reported..just not as concentrated or as frequently as anomalous heat and accelerated decay. My posit is that beyond diffusion the random motion of gas is harnessed to keep Ed’s hydrotron resonanting or pushing my near disassociation f/h over the threshold so it can form another molecule. *** * Fran
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:29:30 PM Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue quickly. I have an early edition (he revised it later) but it's in my office and I won't be there until early next week.
[Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
References: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-einstein-spooky-action-common-large.html *Einstein's 'spooky action' common in large quantum systems, mathematicians find* If you like mathematics that can choke an elephant try this as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2264v3.pdf *ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES* Why does a Ni/H reactor form a Bose-Einstein condensate throughout its entire volume? STANIS LAW J. SZAREK provides the answer; the dipoles throughout the reactor are forced to become totally entangled when the percentage of dipole entanglement exceeds 20%. The Ni/H reactor will formulate a very large entangled system when it is in operation. As a large system, it has no choice but to become totally entangled. Infrared Photon tunneling between the individual Nano-cavities is the method by which quantum entanglement is spread Josephson like from one nano-cavity to its immediate neighbors. When the Ni/H reactor is not totally entangled, it renders the nuclear energy it produces from the decoherent nano-cavities as gamma radiation. However, if the 20% entanglement threshold is reached, the energy produced by the LENR reaction is thermalized through the process of frequency sharing as in a large super atom. When a Ni/H reactor is not yet totally entangled, it will produce gamma radiation. This can happen when the reactor is heating up upon startup or cooling down at shutdown. In the LeClair reactor, the 20% entanglement threshold is never reached and a significant proportion of its energy output is rendered as gamma radiation. A Ni/H reactor must exceed this 20% dipole entanglement threshold before its energy production phase is initiated to avoid the inconvenience of gamma production.
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Axil, I agree there is coupling to the vacuum, and more importantly it is not the standard coupling already encompassed by our physical laws and reflected in the periodic chart. IMHO most energy transactions between the vacuum plane and physical plane occur far below the subatomic particle scale where particle pairs grow into existence and then contract back out. I would posit these VP drive all physical manifestations where their incursion stirs up waveforms of optimal geometry to persist in our plane -a neo WSM- Lorentzian ether perspective only because I point to this VP stream as the ether , it is 90 degrees from any spatial axis and it also explains the lack of spatial bias in the Michelson - Morley experiment. I am convinced that quantum geometry can unbalance these rules by segregating the vacuum pressure on scales large enough to where we can introduce physical matter in the form of gas atoms into segregated pressure regions that would otherwise require time and energy to occur at the macro scale. This then permits a self assembly of an HUP or Maxwellian demon to exploit these geometry driven changes in pressure. I also think this coupling can be reversed and we will someday drive hydrogen gas forcefully through NAE to produce reactionless propulsion. Clawing our way through the ether. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:37 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Not only do the photons and dipoles couple very strongly in the lattice, they also couple to the quantum vacuum as evidenced by the appearance of vacuum Rabi splitting in the spectroscopic analysis of the associated EMF photon radiation. The appearance of virtual dipoles drive the dipoles in the lattice. Other photons add to the energy of the dipoles over what is provided by vacuum energy. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Lou, I also think the frequency of photons emitted in an NAE are going to be frequency shifted proportional to their contracted state. In my old animation circa 2010 I show a red photon for H2 disassociation outside casimir plates while f/H2 photons emitted inside plates are blue where the moving plates represent different values of Casimir geometry. http://byzipp.com/finished1.swf Fran From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.netmailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... On Thursday June 6th Harry said Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE must be balanced by a diluted region outside the cavity walls that responsible for this segregation of vacuum pressure... although vacuum wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE violation..you aren't getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself won't give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the random motion of gas is unusable energy that can't be considered under conservation of energy -They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You have Ed's energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current moving gas atoms while the other is
[Vo]:Professor Kim of Purdue and Defkalion
Greetings All, Not sure if this was previously covered: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/professor-yeong-kim-reports-witnessing-positive-defkalion-test/ Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400: Hi, If particle emission doesn't relieve the excited nucleus of its energy (#2), then some other means is required. If that is not gamma emission (and the gammas are clearly absent), then the assumption appears to be that the 4He would need to take off by itself. This clearly violates conservation of momentum. (Hence both numbers 3 are in fact the same thing.) However this requirement is clearly nonsense. The obvious truth is that no 3rd miracle is required if an alternative method of satisfying both conservation of energy and momentum can be found. There are several possibilites:- 1) Takahashi. 2) Ron Maimon. 3) Hydrino fusion (fast electron /or other partner from the shrunken molecule). 4) Prior loss of energy such that by the time the two nuclei merge, there is neither energy nor momentum left to lose. (This would appear to require a new retarding force that does external work however). 5) Loss of energy by some means other than gamma rays after the fusion has taken place (see e.g. Horace's theory). 6) Some form of the Mössbauer effect. Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D ? n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Professor Kim of Purdue and Defkalion
some comments in a letter by Kim (quoted here http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1595-Dr-Yeong-Kim-and-Defkalionp=5082#post5082 ) and we realize that DGT and Kim are already in contact since 2012. We discover Kim opinion on Hadjichristos. However, the significances of both papers [1,2] have not been recognized by both nuclear physics community and “cold fusion” community, for 16 years. It is understandable that nuclear physics community ignored them due to the “cold fusion” controversy. Many in the “cold fusion” community did not appreciate the significance of [1, 2, 3] since most are not trained as nuclear theorists or theoretical physicists. *There was one exception: John Hadjichristos of Defkalion Green Technologies Global* (DGTG) quotes [1] as the first reference in his paper to be published in the Proceedings of ICCF-17. *He happens to be a mathematician who became an excellent scientist!* note also that Kim ELTB theory was tested by National Instruments http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf 2013/6/7 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings All, Not sure if this was previously covered: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/professor-yeong-kim-reports-witnessing-positive-defkalion-test/ Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
[Vo]:Spice Thermal Model Update -- also November Melt-down
Here's a new version. The only significant change is in the components section: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_may2003_spice_130607.php#components Also . http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130601_levi_02B.png Is it my imagination, or is the November hotcat SAGGING in the middle? I've put in straight lines in photohop. It's not lens distortion. Could it be a mirage-like bending of the light as it passes over the top? I wish I could get a higher resolution photo.
Re: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 1:30:54 PM Subject: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FO References: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-einstein-spooky-action-common-large.html Einstein's 'spooky action' common in large quantum systems, mathematicians find If you like mathematics that can choke an elephant try this as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2264v3.pdf ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES You really ought to draw a line here : what's in the article and paper ^^ = comments on how this might affect LENR vv Why does a Ni/H reactor form a Bose-Einstein condensate throughout its entire volume? STANIS LAW J. SZAREK provides the answer; the dipoles throughout the reactor are forced to become totally entangled when the percentage of dipole entanglement exceeds 20%. The Ni/H reactor will formulate a very large entangled system when it is in operation. As a large system, it has no choice but to become totally entangled. Infrared Photon tunneling between the individual Nano-cavities is the method by which quantum entanglement is spread Josephson like from one nano-cavity to its immediate neighbors. When the Ni/H reactor is not totally entangled, it renders the nuclear energy it produces from the decoherent nano-cavities as gamma radiation. However, if the 20% entanglement threshold is reached, the energy produced by the LENR reaction is thermalized through the process of frequency sharing as in a large super atom. When a Ni/H reactor is not yet totally entangled, it will produce gamma radiation. This can happen when the reactor is heating up upon startup or cooling down at shutdown. In the LeClair reactor, the 20% entanglement threshold is never reached and a significant proportion of its energy output is rendered as gamma radiation. A Ni/H reactor must exceed this 20% dipole entanglement threshold before its energy production phase is initiated to avoid the inconvenience of gamma production.
Re: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
I will comply with your formatting requirements in the production of future posts like this one. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 1:30:54 PM Subject: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FO References: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-einstein-spooky-action-common-large.html Einstein's 'spooky action' common in large quantum systems, mathematicians find If you like mathematics that can choke an elephant try this as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2264v3.pdf ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES You really ought to draw a line here : what's in the article and paper ^^ = comments on how this might affect LENR vv Why does a Ni/H reactor form a Bose-Einstein condensate throughout its entire volume? STANIS LAW J. SZAREK provides the answer; the dipoles throughout the reactor are forced to become totally entangled when the percentage of dipole entanglement exceeds 20%. The Ni/H reactor will formulate a very large entangled system when it is in operation. As a large system, it has no choice but to become totally entangled. Infrared Photon tunneling between the individual Nano-cavities is the method by which quantum entanglement is spread Josephson like from one nano-cavity to its immediate neighbors. When the Ni/H reactor is not totally entangled, it renders the nuclear energy it produces from the decoherent nano-cavities as gamma radiation. However, if the 20% entanglement threshold is reached, the energy produced by the LENR reaction is thermalized through the process of frequency sharing as in a large super atom. When a Ni/H reactor is not yet totally entangled, it will produce gamma radiation. This can happen when the reactor is heating up upon startup or cooling down at shutdown. In the LeClair reactor, the 20% entanglement threshold is never reached and a significant proportion of its energy output is rendered as gamma radiation. A Ni/H reactor must exceed this 20% dipole entanglement threshold before its energy production phase is initiated to avoid the inconvenience of gamma production.
Re: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 2:58:37 PM I will comply with your formatting requirements in the production of future posts like this one. I didn't mean any disrespect ... it's just that I rushed off into that rather ... tangled paper, looking for an elephant in the room which turned out not to be there. (I didn't necessarily expect to see a LENR, but I DID expect to see a Bose with the Einstein)
RE: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
On Fri June 7th Axil said [snip] Why does a Ni/H reactor form a Bose-Einstein condensate throughout its entire volume? STANIS LAW J. SZAREK provides the answer; the dipoles throughout the reactor are forced to become totally entangled when the percentage of dipole entanglement exceeds 20%. [/snip] Axil, Does this mean that 20% of the hydrogen must be in a redundant ground state, F/h? On one hand it seems like the confinement must be small and conductive to fractionalize but on the other it must reach 20% of the gas to reach entanglement... I keep going back to a relativistic interpretation of casimir effect and Naudt's relativistic explanation of the hydrino to fit the requisite percentage of atoms into a space that appears too small from our macro perspective.. My posit is that hydrogen fractions approaching h/137 see the macro world as slow moving as we see the Paradox twin orbiting an event horizon.. I chose the equivalent acceleration of the black holes gravity well instead of near luminal velocity of an object because it is nearer the situation inside the NAE where fractional hydrogen acting as a local observer sees itself at the top of a gravity well where the bottom of the well is the macro world outside the NAE. My posit is that vacuum engineering at the nano scale via suppression is free and far easier than modifying the isotropy with velocity or gravity wells at the macro scale, It is still partially subject to square law but is trumped by Casimir effect in this geometry - I think there is also some inherent advantage in shielding a zone from longer vacuum wavelengths in that you are segregating a reservoir that wants to equalize without pouring any energy into the construction, it sets the stage for us to employ gas as the mediator between the reservoirs of different potentials present inside the cavity.. like Rossi's tubules the geometry should form a tapestry of different suppression levels. I suspect that f/H2 takes on different values proportional to the tapestry dimensions where the h atoms first associate. As these fractional molecules disassociate and quickly reform they migrate toward a negative minimum of h/137, I can see the 20% threshold being reached as the gas population in the cavity approaches this minimum and there also remains the open question if fractional molecules / IRH can persist for a time outside the geometry in the lattice. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:31 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES References: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-einstein-spooky-action-common-large.html Einstein's 'spooky action' common in large quantum systems, mathematicians find If you like mathematics that can choke an elephant try this as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2264v3.pdf ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES Why does a Ni/H reactor form a Bose-Einstein condensate throughout its entire volume? STANIS LAW J. SZAREK provides the answer; the dipoles throughout the reactor are forced to become totally entangled when the percentage of dipole entanglement exceeds 20%. The Ni/H reactor will formulate a very large entangled system when it is in operation. As a large system, it has no choice but to become totally entangled. Infrared Photon tunneling between the individual Nano-cavities is the method by which quantum entanglement is spread Josephson like from one nano-cavity to its immediate neighbors. When the Ni/H reactor is not totally entangled, it renders the nuclear energy it produces from the decoherent nano-cavities as gamma radiation. However, if the 20% entanglement threshold is reached, the energy produced by the LENR reaction is thermalized through the process of frequency sharing as in a large super atom. When a Ni/H reactor is not yet totally entangled, it will produce gamma radiation. This can happen when the reactor is heating up upon startup or cooling down at shutdown. In the LeClair reactor, the 20% entanglement threshold is never reached and a significant proportion of its energy output is rendered as gamma radiation. A Ni/H reactor must exceed this 20% dipole entanglement threshold before its energy production phase is initiated to avoid the inconvenience of gamma production.
Re: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
Francis, In this current investigation of LENR it is difficult to understand what is its cause is and what its effects are. The breakdown of how matter and energy really work may not be a cause of LENR but just one of the many effects of the ultimate cause. What happens when a hydrogen atom enters into a region of space time that is ripped and rended where the usual ratios of the fundamental energy strengths are greatly altered, where the values of the fundamental constants of nature are radically changed? Do the orbits of the electron conform to standard quantum mechanical rules or does this hydrogen atom being deprived of its usual nuclear force ratios and the usual characteristics of normal space change it fundamental real world behavior. If in the localized nanoscopic volume, if the energy ratios are changed where the weak force is combined with the electromagnetic force, how does the atom behave? Even through the agency and application of greater LENR force, if the three of the four fundamental forces of nature are further affected so that the strong force is gravely undermined so that its normal ratio of power is altered to approach unity with the electroweak/electrostatic force; how would the hydrogen atom behave? The makeup of the fundamental forces of nature may be so distorted by EMF concentration, that the nature of matter reflects how the universe was just milliseconds after the start of the “Big Bang” When the community of science fully recognizes what a wonderful research tool that LENR can be, they will explore wonders of nature that are currently out of their limited reach. What discoveries that this LENR tool will provide is not yet fully imagined. If the same processes that occur in the core of a supernova can be produced in a nano-volume that can be controlled from the comfort of their desktop, what can an innovative experimentalist come up with? Can you imagine what these future experimentalists will think of the current deriders of LENR for their disruptive behavior for depriving them of the most powerful tool to uncover the secrets of nature that has ever been discovered? On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Fri June 7th Axil said [snip] Why does a Ni/H reactor form a Bose-Einstein condensate throughout its entire volume? STANIS LAW J. SZAREK provides the answer; the dipoles throughout the reactor are forced to become totally entangled when the percentage of dipole entanglement exceeds 20%. [/snip] Axil, Does this mean that 20% of the hydrogen must be in a redundant ground state, F/h? On one hand it seems like the confinement must be small and conductive to fractionalize but on the other it must reach 20% of the gas to reach entanglement… I keep going back to a relativistic interpretation of casimir effect and Naudt’s relativistic explanation of the hydrino to fit the requisite percentage of atoms into a space that appears too small from our macro perspective.. My posit is that hydrogen fractions approaching h/137 see the macro world as slow moving as we see the Paradox twin orbiting an event horizon.. I chose the equivalent acceleration of the black holes gravity well instead of near luminal velocity of an object because it is nearer the situation inside the NAE where fractional hydrogen acting as a local observer sees itself at the top of a gravity well where the bottom of the well is the macro world outside the NAE. My posit is that vacuum engineering at the nano scale via suppression is free and far easier than modifying the isotropy with velocity or gravity wells at the macro scale, It is still partially subject to square law but is trumped by Casimir effect in this geometry – I think there is also some inherent advantage in “shielding” a zone from longer vacuum wavelengths in that you are segregating a reservoir that wants to equalize without pouring any energy into the construction, it sets the stage for us to employ gas as the mediator between the reservoirs of different potentials present inside the cavity.. like Rossi’s tubules the geometry should form a tapestry of different suppression levels. I suspect that f/H2 takes on different values proportional to the tapestry dimensions where the h atoms first associate. As these fractional molecules disassociate and quickly reform they migrate toward a negative minimum of h/137, I can see the 20% threshold being reached as the gas population in the cavity approaches this minimum and there also remains the open question if fractional molecules / IRH can persist for a time outside the geometry in the lattice. Fran ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, June 07, 2013 4:31 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES ** ** References: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-einstein-spooky-action-common-large.html
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
If He took off by itself, how fast would it be moving? Detecting and measuring the speed of He particles would be a way checking for a conservation of momentum violation. harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400: Hi, If particle emission doesn't relieve the excited nucleus of its energy (#2), then some other means is required. If that is not gamma emission (and the gammas are clearly absent), then the assumption appears to be that the 4He would need to take off by itself. This clearly violates conservation of momentum. (Hence both numbers 3 are in fact the same thing.) However this requirement is clearly nonsense. The obvious truth is that no 3rd miracle is required if an alternative method of satisfying both conservation of energy and momentum can be found. There are several possibilites:- 1) Takahashi. 2) Ron Maimon. 3) Hydrino fusion (fast electron /or other partner from the shrunken molecule). 4) Prior loss of energy such that by the time the two nuclei merge, there is neither energy nor momentum left to lose. (This would appear to require a new retarding force that does external work however). 5) Loss of energy by some means other than gamma rays after the fusion has taken place (see e.g. Horace's theory). 6) Some form of the Mössbauer effect. Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D ? n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:QBism
Wanted, dead or alive (not dead and alive) http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2013/scientific-american-article-explains-a- way-to-resolve-quantum-state-paradoxes-123.php The weird part is this: As long as the box is sealed, you have to consider the cat to be both dead and alive. That’s what life is like in the quantum state—at least according to classical interpretation of quantum mechanics. As long as a particle has an even chance of being in one state or another, you have to consider it to be in both states at once. QBism does away with such head-shaking weirdness, von Baeyer writes, by dealing with the “wave function,” a mathematical expression of objects in the quantum state. Traditional explanations treat the wave function as a real property of the object. By contrast, QBism, he explains, treats the wave function as a mathematical tool and nothing more. Under QBism, the wave function has no bearing on the reality of the object being studied, just as the long-division problem to calculate your car’s fuel consumption has no effect on the gas mileage. Remove the wave function, and the paradoxes and absurdities vanish, he says. --- Can Quantum Bayesianism Fix the Paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics? A new version of quantum theory sweeps away the bizarre paradoxes of the microscopic world. The cost? Quantum information exists only in your imagination preview http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-quantum-beyesnism-fix- paradoxes-quantum-mechanics
Re: [Vo]:QBism
Teaser. Do you have a subscription?
Re: [Vo]:QBism
No, sorry. I first saw it on the newsstand and just flipped through it. Harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Teaser. Do you have a subscription?
[Vo]:Just published - Proceedings of JCF13
From pesn.com --- JCF13 - Proc. of the 13th Meeting of Japan CF Research Soc., December 8 - 9, 2012 - WincAichi, Nagoya, Japan Japan CF-Research Society http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf13-proceedings.pdf Previous JCF Proceeding at - http://www.jcfrs.org/proc_jcf.html
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:29:30 PM Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue quickly. I have an early edition (he revised it later) but it's in my office and I won't be there until early next week. Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source. Harry
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If He took off by itself, how fast would it be moving? Detecting and measuring the speed of He particles would be a way checking for a conservation of momentum violation. As an amateur following the field, this is my favorite working hypothesis. The 4He would recoil off of a heavy lattice nucleus, and since it is much smaller than the lattice nucleus, it would retain most of the momentum. It would be traveling approx. 22 MeV at birth. It would not get very far before slowing down. It is difficult to measure the energy of any prompt 4He particles in a LENR system because there will be a housing that shields the internals of the reactor, whether the system is an electrolytic or a gas phase system. There are CR-39 solid state detectors which can be placed within the housing, which accumulate tracks over time of charged particles that make to them. Many CR-39 experiments have been done, and often there are tracks for 4He traveling between 10-17 MeV. Those who do not like the hypothesis that excess heat in Pd/D is being generated by prompt 4He attribute such tracks to side hot fusion reactions that are distinct from the main one generating the heat. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source. The headings that set out the three miracles in his book are (pp. 111-13): 1. Fusion-rate miracle 2. Branching-ratio miracle 3. Concealed-nuclear-products miracle He goes into further detail on each of these, and I do not see a succinct summary anywhere. For (1), he is referring to the problem of overcoming Coulomb repulsion. For (2), he's talking about how you'd have to significantly decrease the rate of the d+d→3He+p and d+d→t+n branches, which are normally ~50 percent each, and increase the d+d→4He+ɣ reaction, which is normally minuscule (on this point I think he's mistaken). For (3), he's concerned about missing gamma rays, among other things. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
I wrote: For (2), he's talking about how you'd have to significantly decrease the rate of the d+d→3He+p and d+d→t+n branches, which are normally ~50 percent each Typo -- that should read, d+d→3He+n and d+d→t+p branches. Eric
Re: [Vo]:QBism
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 21:40:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] QBism does away with such head-shaking weirdness, von Baeyer writes, by dealing with the wave function, a mathematical expression of objects in the quantum state. Traditional explanations treat the wave function as a real property of the object. By contrast, QBism, he explains, treats the wave function as a mathematical tool and nothing more. Under QBism, the wave function has no bearing on the reality of the object being studied, just as the long-division problem to calculate your cars fuel consumption has no effect on the gas mileage. Remove the wave function, and the paradoxes and absurdities vanish, he says. This is what I have been saying for 40 years. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Just published - Proceedings of JCF13
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 8:21:55 PM From pesn.com --- JCF13 - Proc. of the 13th Meeting of Japan CF Research Soc., December 8 - 9, 2012 - WincAichi, Nagoya, Japan Japan CF-Research Society http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf13-proceedings.pdf Steady progress, nothing spectacular that I noticed. From the introduction : Recently, we find a few grandstanding activities based apparently on commercial purposes on various internet sites. We believe, however, that priority has to be given to clarification of the underlying physics and development of scientifically firm and sound technology. It is therefore very important for us to continue and further develop scientific approach. Editor-in-Chief Akira Kitamura, Technova Inc
Re: [Vo]:Just published - Proceedings of JCF13
We are going on this Scientific Way for 24= years and very interesting things were discovered. Howvever if we take in consideration that CF was seen from its very start as a potential new energy source, then Kitamura's way is not the good way. It is a very long way and if we enjoy more traveling than arriving it is OK, for energy a hybrid approach science and engineering is necessary. Kitamura's statement is mirrored by the very spirit of ICCF-18 and vice-versa. Peter On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 8:21:55 PM From pesn.com --- JCF13 - Proc. of the 13th Meeting of Japan CF Research Soc., December 8 - 9, 2012 - WincAichi, Nagoya, Japan Japan CF-Research Society http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf13-proceedings.pdf Steady progress, nothing spectacular that I noticed. From the introduction : Recently, we find a few grandstanding activities based apparently on commercial purposes on various internet sites. We believe, however, that priority has to be given to clarification of the underlying physics and development of scientifically firm and sound technology. It is therefore very important for us to continue and further develop scientific approach. Editor-in-Chief Akira Kitamura, Technova Inc -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
