Re: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

[H Veeder]

If static a charge is really a looping DC current, it resembles the
current in a superconductor since it would not dissipate. However, unlike
superconductors, the absence of resistance does not need to be explained in
terms of other particles since it would be innate property of
this current. Therefore it would be appropriate to call these
entities super-currents.

If electrons are super-currents then the phenomena of superconductivity,
although it is extraordinary in terms of our current knowledge, will not
seem astounding. Instead, it is the ordinary phenomena electrical
resistance that seems astounding.

Harry


On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> If charge is understood as a DC current loop perhaps it can shed light on
> this:
>
>
> http://phys.org/news/2013-03-electrons-cuprate-superconductors-defy-convention.html
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:06 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> The definition of a coulomb as being in amperes times seconds is showing
>> that charge is the integral of current over time into some region of space.
>>  This is consistent with what I would expect.
>>
>>  If the moving charge of an electron were to be distributed over the
>> space it occupies without any gaps in the flow, then there would be no
>> external radiation as far as I know.  This would be equivalent to a DC
>> current that is always flowing at a constant rate and path.  I think of the
>> net structure as being a very large sum of individual loops of flowing
>> charge.  The magnitude of the charge in any one constant loop can be
>> different than the other loops, but must be constant over its particular
>> flow path.  This should work for any three dimensional shape that each
>> constant current path follows, such as the quantum orbitals associated with
>> atoms.
>>
>>  To make an arrangement of this nature work, you must give up the
>> concept of a point sized electron charge in motion around the nucleus.
>>  Instead, the electron charge must be stretched out over its three
>> dimensional path.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Aug 7, 2013 12:08 am
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides
>>
>>  It could be that charge as a static entity is fundamentally an
>> illusion. Perhaps it is a useful illusion, but it is still an illusion.
>> Notice that the coulomb, the unit of charge, is defined in terms of
>> Amperes X Seconds.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb
>>
>> Perhaps all charged particles are self-sustaining currents.
>>
>>
>>  Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, I have a question that I would like for you to answer.  You speak
>>> of a balance between classical radiation and some zero point balancing act
>>> as the reason that the electron remains in an orbit around the central
>>> proton in hydrogen without radiation.  In most, if not all of the systems
>>> that I have played with, the radiation that is observed within the far
>>> field can be determined by integration of an infinite number of individual
>>> radiating elements.  Each one generates a far field pattern that is either
>>> enhanced or balanced out by others.
>>>
>>>  This balancing act is why a constant DC current does not radiate
>>> energy away from the source supply and the reason that a huge MRI magnet
>>> can put out such a large field without radiating away the drive energy.
>>>  So, why would we not be able to calculate the ZPE field you describe as
>>> merely a second component which vector sums with the original field that
>>> would have resulted in radiation without that balance?  This type of
>>> balance would be equivalent to a negative radiation source with a pattern
>>> that is exactly out of phase with the original one generated by the
>>> orbiting electron.
>>>
>>>  Calculation of far field patterns due to current can be quite
>>> enlightening as the net effects appear to violate COE in many cases.   The
>>> simple DC loop current case is an interesting example to consider.  Each
>>> differential element of current around the loop should radiate energy to
>>> the far field in a well defined manner.  But, when the vector sum of all of
>>> the radiating elements is completed, a balance is found that demonstrates
>>> that no net far field is seen.  Perhaps something of this nature occurs
>>> with an atom and the orbiting electron.
>>>
>>>  Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Roarty, Francis X 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Cc: puthoff 
>>> Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 9:32 am
>>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides
>>>
>>>   Mark,
>>> Just finished Puthoff’s 2012 paper and although I like his conclusion
>>> below I still feel he is avoiding giving credit to the creation and
>>> annihilation of pairs as powering all atomic and subatomic motion, he
>>> refers to a “balance” between photon emission and ZP absorption but appears
>>> to be paying homage to our ingrained assumption in physi

Re: [Vo]:magnetic monopoles in the Ni/H reactor

[Axil Axil]

The neutron based experimental techniques that Prof. Alan Tennant used to
prove that monopoles exist in specially configured  materials can also be
used to prove that the magnetic fields that originate inside the Ni/H
reaction chamber are anapole magnetic fields.




On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> At this early juncture, it looks like the LENR reaction is driven by an
> electromagnetic force. What is that force. The electromagnetic field can be
> viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The
> electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by
> moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of
> the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the
> electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz
> force law.
>
>
> But is LENR an electrostatic effect or a magnetic effect?  Dr. Kim posits
> that LENR is basically an electrostatic effect.
>
>
> I have vacillated on this point incessantly and I have changed my opinion
> often but with the guidance of Nanoplasmonic principles and in the face of
> strong experimental evidence, I now believe that LENR is a magnetic effect.
>
>
> This belief is not only informed by what I know about the Ni/H reactor,
> but what has been seen in other types of LENR expressions. This belief is
> rooted in the suspicion that the ultimate LENR causation must be distilled
> down to one deeply embedded physical principle. It is informed by the
> belief that all LENR in its myriad forms are rooted in one common causation
> mechanism.
>
>
> Ken Shoulders spent his career looking into all things EMF, and as a
> pioneer and trailbreaker on this subject, he was at the forefront of this
> subject and was way ahead of his time.
>
>
> The experiments of Ken shoulders led him to the concept of the Exotic
> Vacuum Objects or EVO.
>
>
> An EVO can be conceived of as an atom without a nucleus, or as a spherical
> monopole oscillator. EVs exhibit soliton behavior with number densities
> equal to Avagadro's number. These non-neutral electron plasmoids contain
> various levels of binding energy which exceed that of atoms, and allows for
> new types of reactions with matter.
>
>
> I believe that the Ni/H reactor produces EVOs by the trillions when it
> converts heat into nano-plasmoids.
>
>
> EVOs are a magnetic thing in which electrons flow in a vortex ring. It is
> clearly not an electrostatic structure which by its very nature must be
> static and immovable. EVOs can move. This ability to move from its place of
> creation has been seen in proton-21 experiments, cavitation experiments,
> and experiments involving exploding metal foils.
>
>
> This particle like concentrations of charged currents have been imaged in
> a number of LENR experiments. The experimentalists that observed them
> thought that these strange structures were particles but they were actually
> long lived dark mode quasiparticles of negative charge contained tightly in
> a vortex that had traveled far from the place of their creation.
>
> See Prof. Alan Tennant discovered magnetic monopoles
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zgios9zEuJ4
>
> And explanation of this recent work
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zgios9zEuJ4
>
>
> The Ni/H reactor provides a mechanism that transforms dipole motion into
> coherent and entangled magnetic monopole vortex motion. This resonance
> mechanism supports quantum amplification of this anapole magnetic process
> because of the regular and globally periodic thermally based motion of the
> dipoles throughout the volume of the reactor’s reaction chamber.
>
> http://phys.org/news/2013-08-skyrmions-electronics.html
>
>
> Controlling skyrmions for better electronics
>
> These monopole spin vortexes are known as skyrmions
>
>
> This is a special condition where monopole motion is tremendously enhanced
> in the Ni/H reactor similar to how specific atomic configuration enhances
> monopole formation in its lattice.
>
>
> This monopole formation process is essentially unlimited. The Ni/H reactor
> produces a magnetic anapole singularity in which unimaginable magnetic
> power is concentrated into a volume that is the size of a molecule.
>
>
> It is this super-strong anapole magnetic field that can disrupt the Higgs
> superconductor in the subatomic particles that make up the nucleus of the
> atom.
>
>
>

[Vo]:magnetic monopoles in the Ni/H reactor

[Axil Axil]

At this early juncture, it looks like the LENR reaction is driven by an
electromagnetic force. What is that force. The electromagnetic field can be
viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The
electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by
moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of
the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the
electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz
force law.


But is LENR an electrostatic effect or a magnetic effect?  Dr. Kim posits
that LENR is basically an electrostatic effect.


I have vacillated on this point incessantly and I have changed my opinion
often but with the guidance of Nanoplasmonic principles and in the face of
strong experimental evidence, I now believe that LENR is a magnetic effect.


This belief is not only informed by what I know about the Ni/H reactor, but
what has been seen in other types of LENR expressions. This belief is
rooted in the suspicion that the ultimate LENR causation must be distilled
down to one deeply embedded physical principle. It is informed by the
belief that all LENR in its myriad forms are rooted in one common causation
mechanism.


Ken Shoulders spent his career looking into all things EMF, and as a
pioneer and trailbreaker on this subject, he was at the forefront of this
subject and was way ahead of his time.


The experiments of Ken shoulders led him to the concept of the Exotic
Vacuum Objects or EVO.


An EVO can be conceived of as an atom without a nucleus, or as a spherical
monopole oscillator. EVs exhibit soliton behavior with number densities
equal to Avagadro's number. These non-neutral electron plasmoids contain
various levels of binding energy which exceed that of atoms, and allows for
new types of reactions with matter.


I believe that the Ni/H reactor produces EVOs by the trillions when it
converts heat into nano-plasmoids.


EVOs are a magnetic thing in which electrons flow in a vortex ring. It is
clearly not an electrostatic structure which by its very nature must be
static and immovable. EVOs can move. This ability to move from its place of
creation has been seen in proton-21 experiments, cavitation experiments,
and experiments involving exploding metal foils.


This particle like concentrations of charged currents have been imaged in a
number of LENR experiments. The experimentalists that observed them thought
that these strange structures were particles but they were actually long
lived dark mode quasiparticles of negative charge contained tightly in a
vortex that had traveled far from the place of their creation.

See Prof. Alan Tennant discovered magnetic monopoles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zgios9zEuJ4

And explanation of this recent work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zgios9zEuJ4


The Ni/H reactor provides a mechanism that transforms dipole motion into
coherent and entangled magnetic monopole vortex motion. This resonance
mechanism supports quantum amplification of this anapole magnetic process
because of the regular and globally periodic thermally based motion of the
dipoles throughout the volume of the reactor’s reaction chamber.

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-skyrmions-electronics.html


Controlling skyrmions for better electronics

These monopole spin vortexes are known as skyrmions


This is a special condition where monopole motion is tremendously enhanced
in the Ni/H reactor similar to how specific atomic configuration enhances
monopole formation in its lattice.


This monopole formation process is essentially unlimited. The Ni/H reactor
produces a magnetic anapole singularity in which unimaginable magnetic
power is concentrated into a volume that is the size of a molecule.


It is this super-strong anapole magnetic field that can disrupt the Higgs
superconductor in the subatomic particles that make up the nucleus of the
atom.

Re: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

[H Veeder]

If charge is understood as a DC current loop perhaps it can shed light on
this:

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-electrons-cuprate-superconductors-defy-convention.html

Harry


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:06 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The definition of a coulomb as being in amperes times seconds is showing
> that charge is the integral of current over time into some region of space.
>  This is consistent with what I would expect.
>
>  If the moving charge of an electron were to be distributed over the
> space it occupies without any gaps in the flow, then there would be no
> external radiation as far as I know.  This would be equivalent to a DC
> current that is always flowing at a constant rate and path.  I think of the
> net structure as being a very large sum of individual loops of flowing
> charge.  The magnitude of the charge in any one constant loop can be
> different than the other loops, but must be constant over its particular
> flow path.  This should work for any three dimensional shape that each
> constant current path follows, such as the quantum orbitals associated with
> atoms.
>
>  To make an arrangement of this nature work, you must give up the concept
> of a point sized electron charge in motion around the nucleus.  Instead,
> the electron charge must be stretched out over its three dimensional path.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 7, 2013 12:08 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides
>
>  It could be that charge as a static entity is fundamentally an
> illusion. Perhaps it is a useful illusion, but it is still an illusion.
> Notice that the coulomb, the unit of charge, is defined in terms of
> Amperes X Seconds.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb
>
> Perhaps all charged particles are self-sustaining currents.
>
>
>  Harry
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Guys, I have a question that I would like for you to answer.  You speak
>> of a balance between classical radiation and some zero point balancing act
>> as the reason that the electron remains in an orbit around the central
>> proton in hydrogen without radiation.  In most, if not all of the systems
>> that I have played with, the radiation that is observed within the far
>> field can be determined by integration of an infinite number of individual
>> radiating elements.  Each one generates a far field pattern that is either
>> enhanced or balanced out by others.
>>
>>  This balancing act is why a constant DC current does not radiate energy
>> away from the source supply and the reason that a huge MRI magnet can put
>> out such a large field without radiating away the drive energy.  So, why
>> would we not be able to calculate the ZPE field you describe as merely a
>> second component which vector sums with the original field that would have
>> resulted in radiation without that balance?  This type of balance would be
>> equivalent to a negative radiation source with a pattern that is exactly
>> out of phase with the original one generated by the orbiting electron.
>>
>>  Calculation of far field patterns due to current can be quite
>> enlightening as the net effects appear to violate COE in many cases.   The
>> simple DC loop current case is an interesting example to consider.  Each
>> differential element of current around the loop should radiate energy to
>> the far field in a well defined manner.  But, when the vector sum of all of
>> the radiating elements is completed, a balance is found that demonstrates
>> that no net far field is seen.  Perhaps something of this nature occurs
>> with an atom and the orbiting electron.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Roarty, Francis X 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Cc: puthoff 
>> Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 9:32 am
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides
>>
>>   Mark,
>> Just finished Puthoff’s 2012 paper and although I like his conclusion
>> below I still feel he is avoiding giving credit to the creation and
>> annihilation of pairs as powering all atomic and subatomic motion, he
>> refers to a “balance” between photon emission and ZP absorption but appears
>> to be paying homage to our ingrained assumption in physics that atomic
>> motion is just an inherent property of matter where I would argue that
>> matter would collapse and time would not even exist without these virtual
>> pairs streaming thru our spatial dimensions perpendicular to space.. [snip] 
>> Atoms
>> therefore constitute open systems engaged in dynamic interactions with the 
>> surrounding
>> vacuum states. Specifically, the on net radiationless characteristic of the
>> ground state is shown here to derive from particle‐vacuum interactions
>> in which a dynamic equilibrium is established between radiation emission
>> due to particle acceleration, and compensatory absorption from the
>> zero‐point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field. Thus, the vacuum
>> field is formally necessary for the stability of atomi

RE: [Vo]:How Smart Do You Need To Be To Collapse A Wave Function?

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com 

Jones,

I believe that most physicists would bet against the idea that
wave-function collapse, or equivalently, quantum measurements
could increase energy concentration on a macroscopic scale
- unless there is a compensatory entropy increase somewhere else.

So, it may be that some internal quantum coherence must exist, and
must be destroyed during heat release.

Lou,

Personally, I'm not sold on the physical reality of wave-function collapse
either, but if it is involved in LENR, then the "compensation" part for
explaining the source of excess energy is not difficult (with or without
Mills' theory). It could be rationalized by T-symmetry, for instance.

In fact, when you look at Hagelstein's theory for small packets of energy,
that is remarkably similar to the rationalization which would be used,
except transposed to QM (via "reversed" time). Without QM, there seems to be
no physical model for the reality of the Hagelstein violation.

IOW - Hagelstein proposes to violate CoE locally with small releases of
phonon-coupled energy - following the fusion event, instead of the expected
large release. In contrast, a fuller QM view expressed in the original post
is that medium sized releases of energy via another route (UV photons) would
*precede* (but are causative) of the nuclear event. 

Thus the nuclear even itself is NOT the same classical or thermodynamic
event, due to T-symmetry (time reversal transformation). However, a broader
CPT symmetry holds - and the same amount of mass is converted to energy in
the end, but on a different time scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry

This may add an attractive feature which is missing from Hagelstein (at
least as I understand his theory. 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Norman D. Cook @ ICCF18: Isotope shifts in LENR

[Teslaalset]

If there is substantial support on this approach we finally have a beter
name for this technology : "FIT", Forced Isotopic Transmutation" ;)

Op zaterdag 10 augustus 2013 schreef Teslaalset (robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com
):

> IInteresting analysis of LENR experiments by Norman D. Cook and Valerio
> Dallacasa, presented at ICCF 18. Shifts in isotopic percentages in LENR
> 'fuels'.
> It has some interesting hooks with Rossi's claim on Ni62 being essencial
> and Defkalion menitioning that Ni61 does not participate in Ni-H LENR
> reactions.
>
>
> https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2
>
>
> Norman D. Cook is author of the book "Models of the Atomic Nucleus",
> published by Springer
>

Re: [Vo]:High Tc Superconductivity Record Reaches 38 C

[Teslaalset]

This has been there for a number of years without a proper follow up.


Op zondag 11 augustus 2013 schreef Axil Axil (janap...@gmail.com):

> http://www.superconductors.org/38C_rec.htm
>

[Vo]:High Tc Superconductivity Record Reaches 38 C

[Axil Axil]

http://www.superconductors.org/38C_rec.htm