Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

I am not sure what we are arguing about here.

Harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:41 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
> >So if you could extract useful energy from the earth's rotation it would
> mean it is possible to violate the conservation of angular momentum.<
>
> Harry, are you trying to set a sneaky word trap?  Closed system is the key
> phrase here.  You can borrow angular momentum from one portion of the
> closed system to give to another portion but the overall angular momentum
> of the system is conserved.  Therefore, you can not take *angular
> momentum* from a closed system and turn it into heat.  You can take *angular
> energy* that is typically available in a rotating closed system and
> convert that into heat such as with a braking device.  That is different.
> The RAR device might somehow borrow angular momentum from the Earth for a
> period of time, but the complete system momentum will be conserved.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:02 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
>  So if you could extract useful energy from the earth's rotation it would
> mean it is possible to violate the conservation of angular momentum.
>
>  Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Axil Axil]

My current clue to the detail underpinning  of LENR and its relationship to
spin is the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect.

In a nutshell, a magnetic field can shield the coulomb barrier. How the
magnetic field does it is by creating vortex quasi particles that chase
the fermion around (aka compound fermion). The more of these quasi
particles that are generated, the more screening that is produced.

The magnetic field couples to the Higgs field (aka the vacuum) with the aid
of the fermion as it minimizes its coulomb repulsion and in so doing
produces spin and charge quasi particles.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Jones--Bob Cook here--
>
> I know the Zeeman effect and studied it way back when.  The Stark effect I
> am not familiar with, however it sounds like it splits an energy state of
> the quantum system to introduce different resonance frequencies as
> influenced by the local electric field.  It may also affect the spin
> quantum states.  I do not understand the coupling between an electric field
> and the spin state of a QM system.  It may occur through the electric
> quadrapole moment of the system in question.  My experience inflated to its
> max amounts to less than .01 atmosphere.
>
> If you recall at the beginning of this line of questions on the spin
> issue, my first input was aimed at getting somebody identified that knows
> the coupling mechanisms well.  Its been a long time--50 years-- since I
> have quantitatively addressed the subject.
>
> I need to get a good text book and do some study.   The one I mentioned by
> Roy in a previous comment may be useful.
>
> I would not dismiss anyone like Mills.  He is smart and has been working
> in the field for a long time.  Jones is in the same category.   I think the
> Italian group at Bologna may have been the real leaders in theory, with
> Focardi being the best.  It took Rossi to make it practical from an
> engineering standpoint.
>
> My experience has primarily been in the fission reactor arena with waste
> management as a add-on late in life.  However, what you say about the devil
> is in the details is absolutely correct from this experience.  There may be
> several devils in the LENR process.  I think Rossi has them collared though.
>
> In the Jones experiment I would definitely look at the effect of electric
> dipole oscillating fields as well as electric  quadrapole oscillating
> fields.  The orientation of these fields with respect to the external
> magnetic field should be checked as to effect.  A look at the magnetic
> moments of the nuclei in the system and any known magnetic or electric
> resonances would be prime input frequencies to check for effects on energy
> output as was seen in the Jones experiment.  (Rossi must have good data in
> this regard for the Ni system.)
>
> The Mossbauer effect may relate to coupling of lattice vibrations and
> nuclear high spin state decay--energy fractionation in the lingo of
> Hagelstein.  If that were the case, stimulation of the lattice may allow
> high (excited) spin states to exist since fractionation would be more
> probable.
>
> Can you explain your idea of an "inverse Mossbauer effect" for Ni-61 a
> little better.
>
> Keep in mind that these QM systems try to decay to the lowest energy state
> possible considering conservation laws of energy and angular
> momentum--spin--etc.   Given the big energy sink of the He-4 particle, I
> would not be surprised to find it in the Ni system as a product.  It would
> be interesting to know the pressure increase or decrease in the Rossi
> reactor with time which would shed light on hydrogen depletion and helium
> production, if any.   Without helium production the reactor pressure should
> go to 0 as the hydrogen is used.  Would not that be nice.
>
>
> Bob
> - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:03 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...
>
>
>  -Original Message-
>> From: Bob Cook
>>
>>  I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma
>>> mater...
>>>
>>
>> With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
>> this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
>> puzzle connecting LENR to NMR.
>>
>> The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
>> reference to the "Stark shift" in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
>> be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.
>>
>> The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
>> spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
>> magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
>> values written all over it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect
>>
>> Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
>> predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one
>> which
>> is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must pro

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

I know the Zeeman effect and studied it way back when.  The Stark effect I 
am not familiar with, however it sounds like it splits an energy state of 
the quantum system to introduce different resonance frequencies as 
influenced by the local electric field.  It may also affect the spin quantum 
states.  I do not understand the coupling between an electric field and the 
spin state of a QM system.  It may occur through the electric quadrapole 
moment of the system in question.  My experience inflated to its max amounts 
to less than .01 atmosphere.


If you recall at the beginning of this line of questions on the spin issue, 
my first input was aimed at getting somebody identified that knows the 
coupling mechanisms well.  Its been a long time--50 years-- since I have 
quantitatively addressed the subject.


I need to get a good text book and do some study.   The one I mentioned by 
Roy in a previous comment may be useful.


I would not dismiss anyone like Mills.  He is smart and has been working in 
the field for a long time.  Jones is in the same category.   I think the 
Italian group at Bologna may have been the real leaders in theory, with 
Focardi being the best.  It took Rossi to make it practical from an 
engineering standpoint.


My experience has primarily been in the fission reactor arena with waste 
management as a add-on late in life.  However, what you say about the devil 
is in the details is absolutely correct from this experience.  There may be 
several devils in the LENR process.  I think Rossi has them collared though.


In the Jones experiment I would definitely look at the effect of electric 
dipole oscillating fields as well as electric  quadrapole oscillating 
fields.  The orientation of these fields with respect to the external 
magnetic field should be checked as to effect.  A look at the magnetic 
moments of the nuclei in the system and any known magnetic or electric 
resonances would be prime input frequencies to check for effects on energy 
output as was seen in the Jones experiment.  (Rossi must have good data in 
this regard for the Ni system.)


The Mossbauer effect may relate to coupling of lattice vibrations and 
nuclear high spin state decay--energy fractionation in the lingo of 
Hagelstein.  If that were the case, stimulation of the lattice may allow 
high (excited) spin states to exist since fractionation would be more 
probable.


Can you explain your idea of an "inverse Mossbauer effect" for Ni-61 a 
little better.


Keep in mind that these QM systems try to decay to the lowest energy state 
possible considering conservation laws of energy and angular 
momentum--spin--etc.   Given the big energy sink of the He-4 particle, I 
would not be surprised to find it in the Ni system as a product.  It would 
be interesting to know the pressure increase or decrease in the Rossi 
reactor with time which would shed light on hydrogen depletion and helium 
production, if any.   Without helium production the reactor pressure should 
go to 0 as the hydrogen is used.  Would not that be nice.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook

I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma 
mater...


With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
puzzle connecting LENR to NMR.

The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
reference to the "Stark shift" in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.

The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
values written all over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one 
which

is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must progress to
something nuclear to achieve thermal gain. That lack of full understanding
is why BLP has been unable to show anything more interesting than
spot-welder "firecrackers" in 2014.

But this finding of Steven Jones - of an RF signature at ~430 kHz 
coincident
with a large energy spike in LENR could be a smoking gun which opens up 
the

entire field to a higher level of understanding.

The obvious next step - when one knows the signature for gain (assuming 
this

is it) - is to apply input power at that frequency (or maybe a quarter wl)
and look for positive feedback.

After all the surname of NMR is resonance. Heck, we could be looking an
"inverse Mossbauer effect" in 61 Ni.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Axil Axil]

more

Heating of the hydrogen envelope of the NiH reactor is do to the
absorption of the  XUV (soft X rays and extreme ultraviolet) radiation is
mostly driven by photoionization and the generation of photoelectrons.
Photoelectrons excite, ionize, and dissociate atoms and molecules until
they lose enough energy and become thermalized i.e., share their energy
with thermal electrons in Coulomb collisions. Thermal electrons share their
energy with ions and eventually, the reactor structure. Such volume heating
rate is usually fitted by the external parameter - photoheating efficiency
which determines the temperature profiles in the hydrogen gas. This value
is a ratio of absorbed energy accumulated as a hydrogen heat to the
deposited energy of the  XUV radiation.



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> regarding
> MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014 Friday January 31, 2014 (Full Lecture)
>
> A lot of time was spent looking for a two level receiver that can split up
> a gamma photon into many low energy photons.
>
> A electron photon pair was not considered for some reason. I see the NAE
> as a EMF Cuisinart that slices, dices and blends all the photons that dare
> to enter it. The NAE  must have a resonance frequency in the soft x-ray
> range. A one to two nanometer NAE size will  put its  resonance photon
> frequency into the soft x-ray range,
>
> So whatever photon that enters into the optical based NAE will be chopped
> up and rebuilt into soft x-rays.
>
> When these x-rays are released from the NAE upon its destruction, it is
> thermalized by absorption through additional  photoluminescence
> processes.
>
> This optical NAE process may be the reason that Mills sees XUV in his
> reactions.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> I would suppose that the resonance would only be seen if a very large
>> magnetic field were applied to the active material.  If LENR activity is
>> being observed along with a large external field then the spectrum of that
>> field would likely demonstrate a peak around the resonant region.  I am
>> assuming that the box containing the nickel and hydrogen mix passes enough
>> of the low frequency signal of interest.  The box will act like a low
>> pass magnetic filter due to its conductivity and we might be left only
>> observing the signals appearing slightly above DC.
>>
>> My suspicion is that a working system offers the best possibility for
>> answering the question.  Actually, that might be the only reliable method
>> due to the interactions.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Jones Beene 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:30 pm
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...
>>
>>
>>  *From:* David Roberson
>>
>> How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in
>> this case?
>>
>> Hmm You want simple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably
>> see something with hydrogen loaded wire - but the challenge would be the
>> length. 100 meters or so would be required for 1/4 wl but it could be tried
>> with much less.
>>
>> If a meaningful test could be as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed
>> coil at various frequencies around 429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as
>> cathode can be loaded electrolytically. You would be looking for a massive
>> difference in ring time, in a simple test. If it doesn't show up, move on
>> to something else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Axil Axil]

regarding
MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014 Friday January 31, 2014 (Full Lecture)

A lot of time was spent looking for a two level receiver that can split up
a gamma photon into many low energy photons.

A electron photon pair was not considered for some reason. I see the NAE as
a EMF Cuisinart that slices, dices and blends all the photons that dare to
enter it. The NAE  must have a resonance frequency in the soft x-ray
range. A one to two nanometer NAE size will  put its  resonance photon
frequency into the soft x-ray range,

So whatever photon that enters into the optical based NAE will be chopped
up and rebuilt into soft x-rays.

When these x-rays are released from the NAE upon its destruction, it is
thermalized by absorption through additional  photoluminescence
processes.

This optical NAE process may be the reason that Mills sees XUV in his
reactions.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I would suppose that the resonance would only be seen if a very large
> magnetic field were applied to the active material.  If LENR activity is
> being observed along with a large external field then the spectrum of that
> field would likely demonstrate a peak around the resonant region.  I am
> assuming that the box containing the nickel and hydrogen mix passes enough
> of the low frequency signal of interest.  The box will act like a low
> pass magnetic filter due to its conductivity and we might be left only
> observing the signals appearing slightly above DC.
>
> My suspicion is that a working system offers the best possibility for
> answering the question.  Actually, that might be the only reliable method
> due to the interactions.
>
>  Dave
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:30 pm
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...
>
>
>  *From:* David Roberson
>
> How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in
> this case?
>
> Hmm You want simple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably
> see something with hydrogen loaded wire - but the challenge would be the
> length. 100 meters or so would be required for 1/4 wl but it could be tried
> with much less.
>
> If a meaningful test could be as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed
> coil at various frequencies around 429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as
> cathode can be loaded electrolytically. You would be looking for a massive
> difference in ring time, in a simple test. If it doesn't show up, move on
> to something else.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[David Roberson]

I would suppose that the resonance would only be seen if a very large magnetic 
field were applied to the active material.  If LENR activity is being observed 
along with a large external field then the spectrum of that field would likely 
demonstrate a peak around the resonant region.  I am assuming that the box 
containing the nickel and hydrogen mix passes enough of the low frequency 
signal of interest.  The box will act like a low pass magnetic filter due to 
its conductivity and we might be left only observing the signals appearing 
slightly above DC.

My suspicion is that a working system offers the best possibility for answering 
the question.  Actually, that might be the only reliable method due to the 
interactions.

 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:30 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



 

From:David Roberson 
 
How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actuallyexists in this 
case?  
 
Hmm…. You wantsimple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably see 
something withhydrogen loaded wire – but the challenge would be the length. 100 
metersor so would be required for ¼ wl but it could be tried with much less.
 
If a meaningful test couldbe as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed coil at 
various frequencies around429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as cathode can be 
loaded electrolytically. You wouldbe looking for a massive difference in ring 
time, in a simple test. If it doesn’tshow up, move on to something else. 
 


 

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[David Roberson]

>So if you could extract useful energy from the earth's rotation it would mean 
>it is possible to violate the conservation of angular momentum.<

Harry, are you trying to set a sneaky word trap?  Closed system is the key 
phrase here.  You can borrow angular momentum from one portion of the closed 
system to give to another portion but the overall angular momentum of the 
system is conserved.  Therefore, you can not take angular momentum from a 
closed system and turn it into heat.  You can take angular energy that is 
typically available in a rotating closed system and convert that into heat such 
as with a braking device.  That is different.  The RAR device might somehow 
borrow angular momentum from the Earth for a period of time, but the complete 
system momentum will be conserved.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 9:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


So if you could extract useful energy from the earth's rotation it would mean 
it is possible to violate the conservation of angular momentum.


Harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

As you say, the rotation rate of the Earth can be modified by devices located 
on the earth.  The issue is that whatever you use to modify that rotation must 
not change the overall angular momentum of the system which includes the Earth 
and that device.   For example the bullet fired by the gun below could change 
that rotation rate until it comes to rest again on the Earth.  Of course, the 
rate could be changed if the bullet does not return to the exact same location 
as it began if you really want to get technical.  Remember, it is angular 
momentum that is conserved, not rotation rate alone.  The location of the 
bullet at rest might lead to a different moment of inertia for the system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine



Yes, but those laws do not prohibit the Earth's rotation from being slowed (or 
quickened) by means located only on the Earth. (e.g. on a smaller scale a 
satellite's spin can be slowed by using the built in control thrusters.) Those 
laws only say it is impossible to generate useful energy from the Earth's 
rotation by means only located on the Earth. 


Harry  


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Strange as it may seem, any activation force or torque is going to result in a 
reaction that keeps the total momentum in balance.  When a bullet is fired from 
a gun momentum is conserved since the gun is driven backwards with an amount of 
momentum equal to that carried away by the bullet.  The gun is much heavier 
than the bullet so it recoils at a far lower velocity.  In this case the energy 
imparted upon the bullet is much greater than that delivered to the gun since 
energy is proportional to velocity squared.  That is a good reason to have a 
heavy weapon. :-)

Angular momentum works in a similar manner.  The key thing to remember is that 
both linear and angular momentums are conserved.  Any force you generate is 
matched by a reaction force of equal and opposite magnitude.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the rotation of 
the earth. 
It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.


Harry

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Jones Beene]

 

From: David Roberson 

 

How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in
this case?  

 

Hmm…. You want simple, right? Do you have a good DSO? One would probably see
something with hydrogen loaded wire – but the challenge would be the length.
100 meters or so would be required for ¼ wl but it could be tried with much
less.

 

If a meaningful test could be as simple as measuring the Q of a pulsed coil
at various frequencies around 429 kHz then a nickel wire coil as cathode can
be loaded electrolytically. You would be looking for a massive difference in
ring time, in a simple test. If it doesn’t show up, move on to something
else. 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[James Bowery]

I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting out.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
>>> fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be
>> crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it?
>>
>
> I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. It
> is a small world. People are not going to do research without word getting
> out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone starts
> spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire grad
> students and consult with people, and word will get out.
>
> If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of thousands
> instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who does not
> spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere with
> shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If someone asked
> me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would say go to the
> racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit
> than you would putting the money in cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

So if you could extract useful energy from the earth's rotation it would
mean it is possible to violate the conservation of angular momentum.

Harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> As you say, the rotation rate of the Earth can be modified by devices
> located on the earth.  The issue is that whatever you use to modify that
> rotation must not change the overall angular momentum of the system which
> includes the Earth and that device.   For example the bullet fired by the
> gun below could change that rotation rate until it comes to rest again on
> the Earth.  Of course, the rate could be changed if the bullet does not
> return to the exact same location as it began if you really want to get
> technical.  Remember, it is angular momentum that is conserved, not
> rotation rate alone.  The location of the bullet at rest might lead to a
> different moment of inertia for the system.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 8:09 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
>  Yes, but those laws do not prohibit the Earth's rotation from being
> slowed (or quickened) by means located only on the Earth. (e.g. on a
> smaller scale a satellite's spin can be slowed by using the built in
> control thrusters.) Those laws only say it is impossible to generate useful
> energy from the Earth's rotation by means only located on the Earth.
>
>  Harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Strange as it may seem, any activation force or torque is going to
>> result in a reaction that keeps the total momentum in balance.  When a
>> bullet is fired from a gun momentum is conserved since the gun is driven
>> backwards with an amount of momentum equal to that carried away by the
>> bullet.  The gun is much heavier than the bullet so it recoils at a far
>> lower velocity.  In this case the energy imparted upon the bullet is much
>> greater than that delivered to the gun since energy is proportional to
>> velocity squared.  That is a good reason to have a heavy weapon. :-)
>>
>> Angular momentum works in a similar manner.  The key thing to remember is
>> that both linear and angular momentums are conserved.  Any force you
>> generate is matched by a reaction force of equal and opposite magnitude.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:37 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>>
>>  The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the
>> rotation of the earth.
>> It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.
>>
>>  Harry
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[David Roberson]

As you say, the rotation rate of the Earth can be modified by devices located 
on the earth.  The issue is that whatever you use to modify that rotation must 
not change the overall angular momentum of the system which includes the Earth 
and that device.   For example the bullet fired by the gun below could change 
that rotation rate until it comes to rest again on the Earth.  Of course, the 
rate could be changed if the bullet does not return to the exact same location 
as it began if you really want to get technical.  Remember, it is angular 
momentum that is conserved, not rotation rate alone.  The location of the 
bullet at rest might lead to a different moment of inertia for the system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine



Yes, but those laws do not prohibit the Earth's rotation from being slowed (or 
quickened) by means located only on the Earth. (e.g. on a smaller scale a 
satellite's spin can be slowed by using the built in control thrusters.) Those 
laws only say it is impossible to generate useful energy from the Earth's 
rotation by means only located on the Earth. 


Harry  


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Strange as it may seem, any activation force or torque is going to result in a 
reaction that keeps the total momentum in balance.  When a bullet is fired from 
a gun momentum is conserved since the gun is driven backwards with an amount of 
momentum equal to that carried away by the bullet.  The gun is much heavier 
than the bullet so it recoils at a far lower velocity.  In this case the energy 
imparted upon the bullet is much greater than that delivered to the gun since 
energy is proportional to velocity squared.  That is a good reason to have a 
heavy weapon. :-)

Angular momentum works in a similar manner.  The key thing to remember is that 
both linear and angular momentums are conserved.  Any force you generate is 
matched by a reaction force of equal and opposite magnitude.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the rotation of 
the earth. 
It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.


Harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two are not 
interchangeable.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


Oh, now I get the point.
You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation of the 
earth then you put into the mechanism.


On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than generate 
useful energy, then 
such a mechanism would be considered useful.

:- /


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence. 


harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:


Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of the 
earth. 


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.  
wrote:


You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian 
problems from dynamics 101 can be so
mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear 
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
of problems.
 
Hoyt 
 

From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 
As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, whatever 
system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it comes up 
with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from the 
rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You can come up 
with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our gyroscopes on 
railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was particularly 
'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15 years later my brain is still 
up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may have happened 
with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the 
forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to extract energy 
from the earths magnetic field.

Nigel

[Vo]:Subscription

[Gustavhoffman]

Please take me off your list

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[pagnucco]

Bob,

No the bath is not a condensate.  It can be disordered - quoting the paper:

 "With help of the spin-echo phenomenon it is possible to extract work
  from a disordered ensemble of spins having random frequencies. This
  ensemble can even be strongly disordered in the sense that the
  relaxation time T2* induced by the disorder is much smaller than both
  the T2-time and the response time of the bath."

If I can find some additional references on this, I will post them.
Very surprising results.

-- Lou Pagnucco

> Lou--
>
> Bob Cook here-
>
> Do you know if the Bose thermal bath that the second referenced report
> talks
> about is the same thing as a Bose -Einstein Condensate (BEC)?
>
> Bob
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...
>
>
>> Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
>> from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
>> apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.
>>
>> A couple of references:
>>
>> "Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin"
>> http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf
>>
>> "Work extraction in the spin-boson model"
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018
>>
>> -- Lou Pagnucco
>>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>> Attn: spin doctors
>>>
>>> Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
>>> connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
>>> gain
>>> in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
>>> Steven
>>> Jones' finding of an RF signature.
>>>
>>> Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of
>>> an
>>> RF
>>> signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
>>> frequency
>>> is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
>>> nucleus.
>>> The stronger the field the more robust the signal
>>>
>>> OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal -
>>> we
>>> must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
>>> (deuterium)
>>> even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
>>> but
>>> only with hydrogen or deuterium.
>>>
>>> See where this is heading?
>>>
>>> Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than
>>> LENR -
>>> it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.
>>>
>>> _
>>>
>>>
>>> For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
>>> Stimulation
>>>
>>> After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
>>> hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
>>> permanent
>>> magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to
>>> 5
>>> °
>>> C
>>> (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced
>>> by
>>> two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as
>>> described
>>> earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached
>>> 13.5
>>> °
>>> C
>>> in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to
>>> 3.5
>>> °
>>> C when the magnet was removed.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[David Roberson]

This line of inquiry might lead to something important.  The large field that 
DGT reported was varying with time if I recall correctly and that behavior can 
definitely by described as a spectrum of signals.  The low frequency RF that 
you are considering can penetrate into the nickel surface a moderate distance.  
The electrons on and just blow the surface will likely be driven in large 
numbers as they attempt to counter the incoming field and this joint movement 
may be important as well.

I have been considering a low frequency magnetic field, perhaps even DC, since 
one of that nature can penetrate entirely through the nickel particles.  What 
if the DC like component of the field establishes a resonant condition for one 
or both types of nuclei at a second frequency.   Now, coupling between nearby 
NAE exits at a relatively low frequency especially if the "Q" of these 
resonances is high.  At this point it is not clear how the fusion event is 
initiated, but there appears to be a path for energy to exit the active spots 
via the magnetic coupling.  And, if we are so fortunate, the energy leaving the 
reaction point will reinforce the original field in a positive feedback manner 
with a gain greater than unity.   Under this condition, the magnetic field and 
the LENR energy both will grow together and some of the coordinated field will 
penetrate the case and be measured by DGT and others.

How would we determine that a low frequency resonance actually exists in this 
case?  Is the data presented by Dr. Jones adequate to suggest this is true?   
Is there reason to think that NMR can occur at low frequencies when a very 
large magnetic field is applied to either or both nickel and hydrogen?  We 
probably should also consider the behavior of the ash components as we search 
for the underlying effects.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 6:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

> I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater...

With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
puzzle connecting LENR to NMR. 

The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
reference to the "Stark shift" in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.

The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
values written all over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one which
is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must progress to
something nuclear to achieve thermal gain. That lack of full understanding
is why BLP has been unable to show anything more interesting than
spot-welder "firecrackers" in 2014.

But this finding of Steven Jones - of an RF signature at ~430 kHz coincident
with a large energy spike in LENR could be a smoking gun which opens up the
entire field to a higher level of understanding.

The obvious next step - when one knows the signature for gain (assuming this
is it) - is to apply input power at that frequency (or maybe a quarter wl)
and look for positive feedback.

After all the surname of NMR is resonance. Heck, we could be looking an
"inverse Mossbauer effect" in 61 Ni.






 

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

Yes, but those laws do not prohibit the Earth's rotation from being slowed
(or quickened) by means located only on the Earth. (e.g. on a smaller scale
a satellite's spin can be slowed by using the built in control thrusters.)
Those laws only say it is impossible to generate useful energy from the
Earth's rotation by means only located on the Earth.

Harry

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Strange as it may seem, any activation force or torque is going to result
> in a reaction that keeps the total momentum in balance.  When a bullet is
> fired from a gun momentum is conserved since the gun is driven backwards
> with an amount of momentum equal to that carried away by the bullet.  The
> gun is much heavier than the bullet so it recoils at a far lower velocity.
> In this case the energy imparted upon the bullet is much greater than that
> delivered to the gun since energy is proportional to velocity squared.
> That is a good reason to have a heavy weapon. :-)
>
> Angular momentum works in a similar manner.  The key thing to remember is
> that both linear and angular momentums are conserved.  Any force you
> generate is matched by a reaction force of equal and opposite magnitude.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:37 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
>  The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the
> rotation of the earth.
> It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.
>
>  Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>>  You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two
>> are not interchangeable.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>>
>>  Oh, now I get the point.
>> You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation
>> of the earth then you put into the mechanism.
>>
>>  On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than
>> generate useful energy, then
>> such a mechanism would be considered useful.
>>
>> :- /
>>
>>  harry
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>> ...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a
>>> consequence.
>>>
>>>  harry
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>>
  Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation
 of the earth.

  harry


 On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <
 hoyt-stea...@cox.net> wrote:

>  You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple
> newtonian problems from dynamics 101 can be so
> mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
> maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
> of problems.
>
> Hoyt
>
>  *From:* Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
> As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
> whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths 
> it
> comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
> from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
> You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
> difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole 
> and
> the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
> 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do 
> it),
> and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
> hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
> appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
> field.
>
> Nigel
>  
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Blaze Spinnaker]

If cold fusion is real, you can be assured that the smart money knows a lot
more about it than you do.These people get paid millions of dollars a
year to be on top of things like this.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>
> Why is it too early?
>>
>
> It is too early because practically no one believes cold fusion is real,
> despite all those papers downloaded from LENR-CANR.org. The people who
> attended ICCF18 and the people in North Carolina are about the only ones in
> the world who believe it.
>
>
>
>>   I think the smart money (a very large chunk of the money) gets out
>> before word gets around.
>>
>
> There is no smart money with regard to cold fusion. If there were any, the
> research would be funded. I mean that if a smart, extremely wealthy person
> such as Bill Gates believed that cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no
> to invest in it.
>
> There is no smart money and no stupid money in cold fusion. Except in
> North Carolina, and DARPA.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
>> fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
>>
>
> Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be
> crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it?
>

I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. It
is a small world. People are not going to do research without word getting
out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone starts
spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire grad
students and consult with people, and word will get out.

If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of thousands
instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who does not
spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere with
shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If someone asked
me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would say go to the
racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit
than you would putting the money in cold fusion.

- Jed

[Vo]:The Connection Between Inertial Forces and the Vector Potential

[James Bowery]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0611167.pdf

I draw your attention, in particular to the equation:

*p* = µ*v* + q*A*

This is old and accepted physics.  However, the q*A* term is addition to
Newton's 2nd law, is it not?

Moreover, it appears to be dynamic.  A number of changing physical
quantities can affect it and not just slightly either.

There seems to be a psychological problem involving *A*.  People keep
making noises like it is "just a computational device -- not an actual
physical quantity".  It is this psychological problem that fascinates me.
 As the late Tom Etter alluded in the title of his Physics Essays
paper "Process,
System, Causality and Quantum Mechanics:  A Psychoanalysis of Animal
Faith"
the analysis we should be doing may be more psychological than physical.

Here are some preliminary thoughts:

In physics there seem to be dimensions that crop up in interesting ways --
two of which are "action" and "information", with  "information" related to
measurement.  Action, unless there is some good way to interpret it in
terms of information, seems to be more immediately pertinent.  Here's a
quote from the William O. Davis article "The Fourth Law of
Motion"that hooked me on
"action" as a proximate key:

What form should the Equation of Motion now take if we assume a force
proportional to the surge as well as a force proportional to acceleration?
The simplest assumption, and one which seems to be supported by preliminary
data, is that the new force is additive, in the same way that forces due to
viscous drag and displacement are additive. In other words, we now write
the equation of Motion:

F = Ma + Aa(superdot)   (5)

Where A is a new term which we have labeled 'intractance' and which has
units of mass-seconds. Because the solutions of the equation in some cases
yield the ratio A/M as the critical action time (CAT) of the system, we
have in those cases assumed that the intractance is the product of the mass
and the CAT:

A = DM   (6)

Let us now see how this equation of motion can be used to analyze and
predict the anomalous behavior of a simple system. Starting transients
normally are considered only in connection with the beginning or the end of
a motion and hence are accorded no particular attention. However, there are
certain types of cyclic motion where the transient behavior is continuous,
or repetitive and we will see later that even certain single transients may
have critical importance in understanding natural events.


Note that Davis's "A" has dimensions of mass*time.  Dimensional analysis
tells us that this can be viewed as action if we convert mass to energy so
that instead of mass*time we have energy*time.

I'll leave my comments about "Davis Mechanics" there for the moment since
this special-relativisitc unity between "intractance" and action seems to
me to be a lot to digest.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[James Bowery]

Thinking further along these lines:

The Israelis are up there with the Italians in tolerance of cold fusion
research among their ranks.  Moreover, they are _very_ adept at covert
activity -- particularly relating to geopolitics regarding the middle east
such as oil.

What I would look for as an "intelligence signature" would be firms with
known Israeli ties making investments consistent with the discounting of
the long-term value of middle eastern crude assets in the ground, while
other firms are not.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:51 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
>> fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
>>
>
> Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be
> crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it?
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[David Roberson]

That is what they want you to believe. :-)

It would be very advantageous to know when they will start to discount LENR.  I 
would think that it is too early at this stage.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Blaze Spinnaker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


Why is it too early?   I think the smart money (a very large chunk of the 
money) gets out before word gets around. 



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  
wrote:


How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD





It seems to me that it is too early for there to be any price movements in 
connection with cold fusion.  If we're "early adopters" of sorts, I'm guessing 
we'll have to start seeing activity among the early majority adopters before 
the markets will take cold fusion into account.  It is hard to shake disbelief 
and even open up one's mind to the possibility of cold fusion.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

[David Roberson]

OK.  Energy is proportional to velocity squared.  If you double the velocity, 
you have four times as much energy as in the first case.  Also the direction of 
the motion is not important.  For example, a ball moving to the right has a 
certain amount of energy and a second one moving to the left with the same mass 
and velocity will have the same amount as well.  Energy adds, so you have two 
times the amount contained within one.

Momentum is proportional to velocity directly.  The direction of the movement 
is important since momentum is a vector quantity, unlike energy.  The two ball 
case above results in a net momentum for the system of zero.  The two vectors 
are equal and point in opposite directions so they cancel.

Energy and momentum require different rules of behavior and can not be 
interchanged.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:47 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two are not 
interchangeable.

Dave


Let's explore this separation between energy and momentum.




harry
 

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[James Bowery]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
> fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
>

Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be
crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it?

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[David Roberson]

Strange as it may seem, any activation force or torque is going to result in a 
reaction that keeps the total momentum in balance.  When a bullet is fired from 
a gun momentum is conserved since the gun is driven backwards with an amount of 
momentum equal to that carried away by the bullet.  The gun is much heavier 
than the bullet so it recoils at a far lower velocity.  In this case the energy 
imparted upon the bullet is much greater than that delivered to the gun since 
energy is proportional to velocity squared.  That is a good reason to have a 
heavy weapon. :-)

Angular momentum works in a similar manner.  The key thing to remember is that 
both linear and angular momentums are conserved.  Any force you generate is 
matched by a reaction force of equal and opposite magnitude.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the rotation of 
the earth. 
It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.


Harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two are not 
interchangeable.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


Oh, now I get the point.
You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation of the 
earth then you put into the mechanism.


On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than generate 
useful energy, then 
such a mechanism would be considered useful.

:- /


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence. 


harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:


Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of the 
earth. 


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.  
wrote:


You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian 
problems from dynamics 101 can be so
mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear 
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
of problems.
 
Hoyt 
 

From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 
As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, whatever 
system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it comes up 
with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from the 
rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You can come up 
with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our gyroscopes on 
railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was particularly 
'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15 years later my brain is still 
up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may have happened 
with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the 
forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to extract energy 
from the earths magnetic field.

Nigel

[Vo]:Re: [Vo] RAR gravity engine

[MJ]

The other machine built here in my city seems to be not aligned 
North/South.


http://goo.gl/maps/UOXzY

Mark Jordan


On 09-Feb-14 20:55, Brad Lowe wrote:

The Gilman machine appears aligned North and South.
The building it is housed in is parallel to "600 East Rd."

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=1793-1795+N+600+East+Rd,+Gilman,+IL+60938&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x880daff58a57d933:0xe98a8990679a2e17,1795+N+600+East+Rd,+Gilman,+IL+60938&gl=us&ei=RaxIUvHcGYqo2wWnoYBA&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA

This is from looking at "Foto Oficial 07".
The "back" of the machine is on the East wall, lengthwise (and 
longitudinally) running N-S.


- Brad

Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

I am not real up on what happens at the Curie point.  Axil had some comments 
on that issue.


It will take a little time to digest what you say below.  However, I agree 
with your last sentence.  The complexity includes the coupling with spin of 
all the particles in the QM system being considered.  The Pd system may be 
less complex.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts




From: Bob Cook

* Ni is a ferro magnetic metal which can retain an alignment of the
electrons so as to create a permanent magnet and B field after the
elimination of an external field.  Pd which is paramagnetic loses its
internal B field when an external magnetic field is removed.

Bob,

Nickel does not exactly "lose" its B field at the Curie point. In Ahern's
testing of lattice samples based on the Arata experiments, the thermal 
gain

which was seen was indeed associated with the Curie point of Ni at around
350C. But note that some observers have not appreciated the most important
fine detail of that magnetic transition.

The Curie point is where a material's permanent magnetism changes to 
induced

magnetism, but the internal field does not necessarily fade away or
randomize, especially if that material is "loaded" so to speak. The field
lines can be imagined as shifting between antiferromagnetic and
ferrimagnetic alignments when hydrogen is loaded into a nickel matrix, or
even adsorbed by a surface layer - since hydrogen favors 
antiferromagnetism.

This is a profound difference in the context of sequential phase-change
manipulation in nickel (or palladium) and it points to a non-nuclear
mechanism for gain (actually it is nuclear, but not in an obvious way).

When fully loaded, then - a ferromagnetic lattice (like Ni or an alloy) 
will

benefit from the opposite spin alignment of hydrogen which maintains
internal antiferromagnetic order across the Curie point via inductance. 
And

one detail of Ahern's work was to try to maintain the cell on the knifes
edge of the transition temperature. This Curie point is also a 
phase-change.

Phase changes can be surprisingly energetic in themselves (in the 1+ eV
range)

Thus, there is a suspicion that phase change itself can be the anomalous
energy source in some systems - instead of LENR. But isn't that a cop-out?
How would this kind of phase change system be ultimately powered - so as 
not

to violate CoE?

That is the $64 question, but phase change, magnons, spin coupling and QCD
are all interconnected ... and Ni-H is probably, in its ultimate 
incarnation
in the E-Cat - a strong force reaction where proton average mass is 
depleted
over time, just as excess energy is put into the system by spin coupling 
to

protons in QCD color charge dynamics.

Proton mass cannot be quantized because quark mass is not quantized and
there is about a 7 ppm variation in mass across any sample. This allows
protons to give up several keV via spin coupling to magnons - and retain
full identity as protons. This limitation explains why Ni-H system will 
not

have the level of energy which we associate with nuclear energy.

Alloys and dopants can make a large difference in that Curie point value,
but it corresponds nicely to an important THz excitation spectra which is
within what can be called the NASA range - of important IR levels of
quasi-coherency (5-30 THz) which is the photons that interact with SPP
(surface plasmon polaritons).

The magnetic interaction in Ni-H is very complex, but is now unfolding.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

> I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater...

With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
puzzle connecting LENR to NMR. 

The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
reference to the "Stark shift" in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.

The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
values written all over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one which
is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must progress to
something nuclear to achieve thermal gain. That lack of full understanding
is why BLP has been unable to show anything more interesting than
spot-welder "firecrackers" in 2014.

But this finding of Steven Jones - of an RF signature at ~430 kHz coincident
with a large energy spike in LENR could be a smoking gun which opens up the
entire field to a higher level of understanding.

The obvious next step - when one knows the signature for gain (assuming this
is it) - is to apply input power at that frequency (or maybe a quarter wl)
and look for positive feedback.

After all the surname of NMR is resonance. Heck, we could be looking an
"inverse Mossbauer effect" in 61 Ni.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Jed Rothwell]

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

Why is it too early?
>

It is too early because practically no one believes cold fusion is real,
despite all those papers downloaded from LENR-CANR.org. The people who
attended ICCF18 and the people in North Carolina are about the only ones in
the world who believe it.



>   I think the smart money (a very large chunk of the money) gets out
> before word gets around.
>

There is no smart money with regard to cold fusion. If there were any, the
research would be funded. I mean that if a smart, extremely wealthy person
such as Bill Gates believed that cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no
to invest in it.

There is no smart money and no stupid money in cold fusion. Except in North
Carolina, and DARPA.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Brad Lowe]

The Gilman machine appears aligned North and South.
The building it is housed in is parallel to "600 East Rd."

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=1793-1795+N+600+East+Rd,+Gilman,+IL+60938&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x880daff58a57d933:0xe98a8990679a2e17,1795+N+600+East+Rd,+Gilman,+IL+60938&gl=us&ei=RaxIUvHcGYqo2wWnoYBA&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA

This is from looking at "Foto Oficial 07".
The "back" of the machine is on the East wall, lengthwise (and
longitudinally) running N-S.

- Brad




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:37 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the
> rotation of the earth.
> It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>>  You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two
>> are not interchangeable.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>>
>>  Oh, now I get the point.
>> You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation
>> of the earth then you put into the mechanism.
>>
>>  On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than
>> generate useful energy, then
>> such a mechanism would be considered useful.
>>
>> :- /
>>
>>  harry
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>> ...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a
>>> consequence.
>>>
>>>  harry
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>>
  Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation
 of the earth.

  harry


 On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <
 hoyt-stea...@cox.net> wrote:

>  You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple
> newtonian problems from dynamics 101 can be so
> mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
> maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
> of problems.
>
> Hoyt
>
>  *From:* Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
> As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
> whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths 
> it
> comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
> from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
> You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
> difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole 
> and
> the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
> 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do 
> it),
> and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
> hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
> appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
> field.
>
> Nigel
>  
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Why is it too early?   I think the smart money (a very large chunk of the
money) gets out before word gets around.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
> How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD
>>
>
> It seems to me that it is too early for there to be any price movements in
> connection with cold fusion.  If we're "early adopters" of sorts, I'm
> guessing we'll have to start seeing activity among the early majority
> adopters before the markets will take cold fusion into account.  It is hard
> to shake disbelief and even open up one's mind to the possibility of cold
> fusion.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD
>

It seems to me that it is too early for there to be any price movements in
connection with cold fusion.  If we're "early adopters" of sorts, I'm
guessing we'll have to start seeing activity among the early majority
adopters before the markets will take cold fusion into account.  It is hard
to shake disbelief and even open up one's mind to the possibility of cold
fusion.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Jed Rothwell]

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD
>

Coal is being clobbered by natural gas and wind. Coal is only used for
electric power generation and in steel production.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Blaze--Bob here--

I would not touch coal with a 20 foot pole.  

What about natural gas--does it have any future?

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Blaze Spinnaker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD



  On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:



  It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto 
the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the 
price of oil down quickly.


An economist told me that is sure to happen with cold fusion. Even a strong 
rumor that cold fusion is real might trigger that.




James Bowery  wrote:


  I'm not sure where I stored Jed's book on my computer but I presume he 
analyzed the critical point in EROEI where it no longer makes sense to use 
various grades of the in-the-ground reserves even as chemical feedstocks.  As 
long as a given grade of reserve remains valuable as chemical feedstock, the 
other valuations will remain to the extent they are related to those grades.


I did not do the maths, but I read papers about this, and corresponded with 
petrochemical engineers.


Plus I heard from a group of oil company honchos via Hal Putoff. (They 
wanted to know about cold fusion.) See chapter 13:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf



Here's the story in a nutshell, from that chapter:





". . . I have discussed cold fusion with petroleum experts several times. 
They begin by saying that it will not matter in the long run if the market for 
oil fuel dwindles away, because oil has many other uses as an industrial raw 
material for things like plastic. Nineteen percent of oil is used in non-energy 
applications, but experts say that the market will grow in the future. When Hal 
Puthoff met with the presidents of Pennzoil, Texaco, Marathon, Coastal, and 
other oil companies, they told him they would welcome zero-cost energy. He 
paraphrased them: "When we take our precious resource out of the ground to make 
nylons, plastics, drugs, etc., we don't use up much and we have a large profit 
margin. When we take it out of the ground to power automobiles and heat 
people's homes, it's like heating your home by burning van Goghs and Picassos. 
Please take this burden off our industry. And, by the way, let us buy some to 
make our refineries more efficient." With all due respect, I think these 
executives were kidding, or this was false bravado. No sane executive would be 
so sanguine at the prospect of losing 81% of his business. Why should the oil 
company care what the customer does with the product? They get the same $40 per 
barrel whether the customer burns the stuff or makes nylon out of it. In any 
case, I think these executives are wrong. They will lose 100% of their 
business. Oil will be worth nothing. I have asked experts: "Could you 
synthesize oil from raw materials? If I gave you carbon and water, could you 
make any hydrocarbon petrochemical you like?" They say yes, but it would take 
fantastic amounts of energy. It would take as much energy to synthesize oil 
from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus some overhead. This 
would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth. It does not occur to 
them, at first, that the plant would be cheap to run if energy costs nothing. . 
. ."




Actually, they can probably synthesize enough petrochemicals for the 
feedstock and lubricant markets from organic sources such as garbage. This is 
done already with depolymerization, as I explained in the next paragraph. This 
would be a lot cheaper and safer than extracting oil from the Middle East and 
shipping it thousands of miles around the world. You can find local sources of 
garbage everywhere in the world. The people who have garbage will pay you to 
take it from them. You make money at both ends. The only reason oil is cheaper 
today is because they extract and ship so much of it already, they can ship an 
extra 19% with economies of scale. Using today's oil industry to produce only 
19% of today's output would be a losing proposition.


- Jed

[Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

[H Veeder]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two are
> not interchangeable.
>
> Dave


Let's explore this separation between energy and momentum.


harry

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Blaze Spinnaker]

How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>
>
>> It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
>> the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the
>> price of oil down quickly.
>>
>
> An economist told me that is sure to happen with cold fusion. Even a
> strong rumor that cold fusion is real might trigger that.
>
>
> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> I'm not sure where I stored Jed's book on my computer but I presume he
>> analyzed the critical point in EROEI where it no longer makes sense to use
>> various grades of the in-the-ground reserves even as chemical feedstocks.
>>  As long as a given grade of reserve remains valuable as chemical
>> feedstock, the other valuations will remain to the extent they are related
>> to those grades.
>>
>
> I did not do the maths, but I read papers about this, and corresponded
> with petrochemical engineers.
>
> Plus I heard from a group of oil company honchos via Hal Putoff. (They
> wanted to know about cold fusion.) See chapter 13:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
>
> Here's the story in a nutshell, from that chapter:
>
>
> ". . . I have discussed cold fusion with petroleum experts several times.
> They begin by saying that it will not matter in the long run if the market
> for oil fuel dwindles away, because oil has many other uses as an
> industrial raw material for things like plastic. Nineteen percent of oil is
> used in non-energy applications, but experts say that the market will grow
> in the future. When Hal Puthoff met with the presidents of Pennzoil,
> Texaco, Marathon, Coastal, and other oil companies, they told him they
> would welcome zero-cost energy. He paraphrased them: "When we take our
> precious resource out of the ground to make nylons, plastics, drugs, etc.,
> we don't use up much and we have a large profit margin. When we take it out
> of the ground to power automobiles and heat people's homes, it's like
> heating your home by burning van Goghs and Picassos. Please take this
> burden off our industry. And, by the way, let us buy some to make our
> refineries more efficient." With all due respect, I think these executives
> were kidding, or this was false bravado. No sane executive would be so
> sanguine at the prospect of losing 81% of his business. Why should the oil
> company care what the customer does with the product? They get the same $40
> per barrel whether the customer burns the stuff or makes nylon out of it.
> In any case, I think these executives are wrong. They will lose 100% of
> their business. Oil will be worth nothing. I have asked experts: "Could you
> synthesize oil from raw materials? If I gave you carbon and water, could
> you make any hydrocarbon petrochemical you like?" They say yes, but it
> would take fantastic amounts of energy. It would take as much energy to
> synthesize oil from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus
> some overhead. This would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth.
> It does not occur to them, at first, that the plant would be cheap to run
> if energy costs nothing. . . ."
>
>
> Actually, they can probably synthesize enough petrochemicals for the
> feedstock and lubricant markets from organic sources such as garbage. This
> is done already with depolymerization, as I explained in the next
> paragraph. This would be a lot cheaper and safer than extracting oil from
> the Middle East and shipping it thousands of miles around the world. You
> can find local sources of garbage everywhere in the world. The people who
> have garbage will pay you to take it from them. You make money at both
> ends. The only reason oil is cheaper today is because they extract and ship
> so much of it already, they can ship an extra 19% with economies of scale.
> Using today's oil industry to produce only 19% of today's output would be a
> losing proposition.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the
rotation of the earth.
It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb.

Harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>  You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two
> are not interchangeable.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
>  Oh, now I get the point.
> You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation
> of the earth then you put into the mechanism.
>
>  On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than
> generate useful energy, then
> such a mechanism would be considered useful.
>
> :- /
>
>  harry
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> ...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a
>> consequence.
>>
>>  harry
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>>  Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation
>>> of the earth.
>>>
>>>  harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <
>>> hoyt-stea...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
  You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple
 newtonian problems from dynamics 101 can be so
 mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
 maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
 of problems.

 Hoyt

  *From:* Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
 *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
 whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it
 comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
 from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
 You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
 difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and
 the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it),
 and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
 hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
 appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
 field.

 Nigel
  

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[H Veeder]

Quite right...I was wrong ...although now we have some "excess heat" ;-)

I brought the figure skater into the discussion to explore the relationship
between internal energy and rotational motion.
Exploration permits discovery. This is as true in conceptual world as it is
in the material world.

The nuclear energy of an atom is like the skater's chemical energy. A
skater atom is different from Mill's hydrino atom.
The former would change mass into energy in order to shrink, whereas Mill's
hydrino liberates energy in order to shrink.

Harry



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Harry, I believe I understand what you are saying.  The girl pulls her
> arms in rapidly, but the movement is along a single line to her side which
> does not generate a torque as far as I am aware.  If no torque is produced,
> then there can be no change in angular momentum.
>
> She does produce energy by moving her arms, but this would appear as heat
> once her arms come to a stop by her side.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 2:38 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
>
>  Dave, I am saying if you carefully measured her final speed while
> considering losses due to friction and drag, her final speed would be
> slightly greater than could be explained by conservation of angular
> momentum alone. This is because she does some work in order to bring her
> arms inwards. In effect she has converted some internal chemical energy
> into angular momentum. Or is this wrong?
>
>  Harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:33 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Harry, the skater pulls her arms inwards but that does not contribute to
>> her rotating motion directly.  The increased speed is due to the reduction
>> of her moment of inertia and the conservation law requires for her to spin
>> faster so that the product of her moment of inertia and angular velocity is
>> constant.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:05 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
>>
>>
>>  A spinning figure skater is often used to demonstrate the principle of
>> conservation of angular:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug
>>
>>  However, the skater also exerts some muscular energy to pull her arms
>> inward, so doesn't this boost the angular momentum slightly?
>>
>>  Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[David Roberson]

 You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry.  The two are not 
interchangeable.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


Oh, now I get the point.
You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation of the 
earth then you put into the mechanism.


On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than generate 
useful energy, then 
such a mechanism would be considered useful.

:- /


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence. 


harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:


Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of the 
earth. 


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.  
wrote:


You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian 
problems from dynamics 101 can be so
mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear 
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
of problems.
 
Hoyt 
 

From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 
As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, whatever 
system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it comes up 
with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from the 
rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You can come up 
with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our gyroscopes on 
railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was particularly 
'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15 years later my brain is still 
up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may have happened 
with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the 
forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to extract energy 
from the earths magnetic field.

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[David Roberson]

I do not think that this type of conversion is possible without outside 
influence.  The total angular momentum of the system is conserved.  The same is 
true for the linear momentum.  Show how your proposed cooling works and I 
strongly suspect that some outside coupling is required.

If it were possible to convert angular momentum into linear momentum, then 
reactionless motors would be common.   Please show how to make your conversion 
without an outside influence.   You will not be able to do so.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum



You said
"Any forces which operate between the collection of objects taken as a system 
are not able to convert angular momentum into linear momentum or vice versa."


One gas with linear momentum can  affect the angular momentum of another gas to 
cool that gas.


This is how helium is liquefied. Yes, this refrigeration process takes energy 
but linear/angular energy interaction is possible.










On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Axil, you need to include the influence of the outside forces that are required 
to force the Xenon into the coherent direction.  This does not happen without 
assistance.

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum




In explanation, when Xenon is forced to move in acoherent direction in a group, 
translational, rotational and vibrational energyis converted to directional 
energy and the Xenon atoms are cooled but stillenergetic. 
 
Typical set-up for cooling noble gases is the supersonicbeam technique. 
 
Such cooling can be done using radio frequency or a high stream jet of high 
pressure gas whenthe ionized Xenon atoms are forced to move back and forth in 
unison. Anykinetic energy that the Xenon atoms have is converted to directional 
energy.
 
So in plain language, Radio frequency or a high speed gas jet will catalyzethe 
formation of Xenon clusters as the atoms of Xenon are cooled by coherentmotion. 
 
The Roundup



Think of a collection of Noble gas atoms as a herdof cattle. To begin with the 
cattle roam around on the prairie aimlessly withboundless energy but not 
applied to any purpose. To build a herd for a cattledrive, the cowpunchers prod 
the cattle into a tight bunch during the roundup. Thenthe drovers get the 
cattle to all go in the same direction as a herd. Thedrovers pack them close, 
shoulder to short ribs. The cows have little room butto march forward hardly 
able to move their heads. The cattle are all contentedand well behaved and 
centered on the mindless march forward, but they are stillare exerting a large 
amount of energy as they stumble forward to cover ground.
 
In this analogy, the cowpokesare radio frequency radiation (RF) and the 
constraining coils. Papp talks aboutusing RF in his engines.
 
Xenon is easy to excite using RF because itsbinding energy is low: many orders 
of magnitude lower than hydrogen. The RFalso produces clusters because the RF 
get noble gas atoms to all go in the samedirection and the coils pack them 
tight.. Xenon strongly interacts with RFbecause these molecules have good 
dipole characteristics like water.
 
Noble gases are cooled and now cancombine and readily form clusters that can be 
very complex.
 
For example,Helium and Xenon form a family of atomic clusters that behaves like 
argon.
 
Excited Clustershave a positively charged ionic core composed of possibly 
hundreds or thousandsof ionized atoms. Around this core of positive charge ions 
swarm a looselyconnected flight of electrons orbiting on the outside of the 
cluster core andcan be easily removed from the cluster by ionization.




On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I just wanted to make a statement about conservation of momentum.  Linear 
momentum and angular momentum are different animals and can not be converted 
freely.

Recently, I have seen proposals that suggest that one can convert linear 
momentum into angular momentum and that is clearly not possible.  You can 
visualize linear momentum as pertaining to motion of an object or group of 
objects that are progressing as a group past an observer.  The center of mass 
of the objects is in motion and can be used to calculate the total linear 
momentum of the subjects.

Angular momentum is measured and calculated by observing the rotation of the 
center of mass of a system of objects.  Think of a planet in motion around its 
central star as an example of this type of momentum.  An observer can be 
stationary with respect to the center of mass of the objects and calculate the 
magnitude of the collective angular momentum they contain.  And, since he is 
stationary with respect to the center of mass of the objects, they have no 
linear momentum according to his determination.   Any forces which operate 
bet

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Nigel Dyer]

Solar heating sets up a set of convection cells - very simplisticly ; 
air rises at the equator, falls at approx 30 N rises at 60 and falls at 
the poles.   Without coriolis these would just go north-south.  With 
corriolis they end up with a substantial Westerly component; see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_wind_patterns. The energy that 
drives this system is solar radiation from the sun heating the earth and 
causing the convection currents, and it is this that blows ships and 
windmills.


But, you will then ask, what drives the 300 mile an hour winds on 
Jupiter which is so much further from the sun?   It turns out that we 
dont really know, but it appears some people think that thermal energy 
from within the plant might be driving them.


Nigel

On 09/02/2014 21:32, Bob Cook wrote:

Nigel and Hoyt--Bob here--
I would say the trade winds are a good example of the extraction of 
energy from the rotation of the Earth.  Heat certainly is generated 
and Man has used these winds to cross the oceans for years.
Nigel, what is the external body in the case of trade winds that is 
present for the extraction of energy from the Earth's rotation?

Bob
- Original Message -

*From:* Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Sent:* Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:15 AM
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple
newtonian problems from dynamics 101 can be so

mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre
non-linear maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds

of problems.

Hoyt

*From:*Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on
this, whatever system you come up with, when you actually go
through the maths it comes up with the same answer, and that is
that you cannot extract energy from the rotation of the earth
without reference to some external body.  You can come up with
complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our
gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and the
equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure
that 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my
son to do it), and that is what may have happened with the RAR
machine. Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the
forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to
extract energy from the earths magnetic field.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 16:16, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight
tube, the tube would experience a lateral force and if allowed
to move

against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.

Hoyt

*From:*David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell
that has its apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is
not given extra energy from the earth, but instead travels in
a free path.  The earth rotates out from beneath the original
aim point.  A similar process must be happening to the air
flowing due to wind.

Dave







   

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus  protection is active.

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[David Roberson]

The momentum borrowed by the pendulum will be returned once the pendulum comes 
to rest.  At that time, the earth will spin faster as required to keep the 
total angular momentum constant.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence. 


harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:


Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of the 
earth. 


harry




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.  
wrote:


You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian 
problems from dynamics 101 can be so
mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear 
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
of problems.
 
Hoyt 
 

From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 
As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, whatever 
system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it comes up 
with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from the 
rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You can come up 
with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our gyroscopes on 
railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was particularly 
'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15 years later my brain is still 
up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may have happened 
with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the 
forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to extract energy 
from the earths magnetic field.

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[David Roberson]

Harry, I believe I understand what you are saying.  The girl pulls her arms in 
rapidly, but the movement is along a single line to her side which does not 
generate a torque as far as I am aware.  If no torque is produced, then there 
can be no change in angular momentum.

She does produce energy by moving her arms, but this would appear as heat once 
her arms come to a stop by her side.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum



Dave, I am saying if you carefully measured her final speed while considering 
losses due to friction and drag, her final speed would be slightly greater than 
could be explained by conservation of angular momentum alone. This is because 
she does some work in order to bring her arms inwards. In effect she has 
converted some internal chemical energy into angular momentum. Or is this wrong?


Harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:33 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Harry, the skater pulls her arms inwards but that does not contribute to her 
rotating motion directly.  The increased speed is due to the reduction of her 
moment of inertia and the conservation law requires for her to spin faster so 
that the product of her moment of inertia and angular velocity is constant.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum





A spinning figure skater is often used to demonstrate the principle of 
conservation of angular:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug



However, the skater also exerts some muscular energy to pull her arms inward, 
so doesn't this boost the angular momentum slightly?


Harry

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

Oh, now I get the point.
You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation of
the earth then you put into the mechanism.

On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than generate
useful energy, then
such a mechanism would be considered useful.

:- /

harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> ...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence.
>
> harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of
>> the earth.
>>
>> harry
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. > > wrote:
>>
>>> You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian
>>> problems from dynamics 101 can be so
>>>
>>> mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
>>> maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
>>>
>>> of problems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hoyt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
>>> whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it
>>> comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
>>> from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
>>> You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
>>> difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and
>>> the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
>>> 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it),
>>> and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
>>> hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
>>> appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
>>> field.
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Bob Cook]

Nigel and Hoyt--Bob here--

I would say the trade winds are a good example of the extraction of energy from 
the rotation of the Earth.  Heat certainly is generated and Man has used these 
winds to cross the oceans for years.  
Nigel, what is the external body in the case of trade winds that is present for 
the extraction of energy from the Earth's rotation?

Bob
- Original Message - 
  From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:15 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


  You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian 
problems from dynamics 101 can be so

  mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear 
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds

  of problems.

   

  Hoyt 

   

  From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
  Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

   

  As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, 
whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it 
comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from 
the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You can 
come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our 
gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was 
particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15 years later my 
brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may 
have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the 
analysis of the forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to 
extract energy from the earths magnetic field.

  Nigel

  On 09/02/2014 16:16, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight tube, the tube 
would experience a lateral force and if allowed to move

against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.

 

Hoyt

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has its 
apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra energy from 
the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth rotates out from 
beneath the original aim point.  A similar process must be happening to the air 
flowing due to wind.

Dave

 

 

 

  

 

   




--
  This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active. 
   

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Jed Rothwell]

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:


> It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
> the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the
> price of oil down quickly.
>

An economist told me that is sure to happen with cold fusion. Even a strong
rumor that cold fusion is real might trigger that.


James Bowery  wrote:

I'm not sure where I stored Jed's book on my computer but I presume he
> analyzed the critical point in EROEI where it no longer makes sense to use
> various grades of the in-the-ground reserves even as chemical feedstocks.
>  As long as a given grade of reserve remains valuable as chemical
> feedstock, the other valuations will remain to the extent they are related
> to those grades.
>

I did not do the maths, but I read papers about this, and corresponded with
petrochemical engineers.

Plus I heard from a group of oil company honchos via Hal Putoff. (They
wanted to know about cold fusion.) See chapter 13:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Here's the story in a nutshell, from that chapter:


". . . I have discussed cold fusion with petroleum experts several times.
They begin by saying that it will not matter in the long run if the market
for oil fuel dwindles away, because oil has many other uses as an
industrial raw material for things like plastic. Nineteen percent of oil is
used in non-energy applications, but experts say that the market will grow
in the future. When Hal Puthoff met with the presidents of Pennzoil,
Texaco, Marathon, Coastal, and other oil companies, they told him they
would welcome zero-cost energy. He paraphrased them: "When we take our
precious resource out of the ground to make nylons, plastics, drugs, etc.,
we don't use up much and we have a large profit margin. When we take it out
of the ground to power automobiles and heat people's homes, it's like
heating your home by burning van Goghs and Picassos. Please take this
burden off our industry. And, by the way, let us buy some to make our
refineries more efficient." With all due respect, I think these executives
were kidding, or this was false bravado. No sane executive would be so
sanguine at the prospect of losing 81% of his business. Why should the oil
company care what the customer does with the product? They get the same $40
per barrel whether the customer burns the stuff or makes nylon out of it.
In any case, I think these executives are wrong. They will lose 100% of
their business. Oil will be worth nothing. I have asked experts: "Could you
synthesize oil from raw materials? If I gave you carbon and water, could
you make any hydrocarbon petrochemical you like?" They say yes, but it
would take fantastic amounts of energy. It would take as much energy to
synthesize oil from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus
some overhead. This would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth.
It does not occur to them, at first, that the plant would be cheap to run
if energy costs nothing. . . ."


Actually, they can probably synthesize enough petrochemicals for the
feedstock and lubricant markets from organic sources such as garbage. This
is done already with depolymerization, as I explained in the next
paragraph. This would be a lot cheaper and safer than extracting oil from
the Middle East and shipping it thousands of miles around the world. You
can find local sources of garbage everywhere in the world. The people who
have garbage will pay you to take it from them. You make money at both
ends. The only reason oil is cheaper today is because they extract and ship
so much of it already, they can ship an extra 19% with economies of scale.
Using today's oil industry to produce only 19% of today's output would be a
losing proposition.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[Axil Axil]

You said
"Any forces which operate between the collection of objects taken as a
system are not able to convert angular momentum into linear momentum or
vice versa."

One gas with linear momentum can  affect the angular momentum of another
gas to cool that gas.

This is how helium is liquefied. Yes, this refrigeration process takes
energy but linear/angular energy interaction is possible.





On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Axil, you need to include the influence of the outside forces that are
> required to force the Xenon into the coherent direction.  This does not
> happen without assistance.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
>
>   In explanation, when Xenon is forced to move in a coherent direction in
> a group, translational, rotational and vibrational energy is converted to
> directional energy and the Xenon atoms are cooled but still energetic.
>
>  Typical set-up for cooling noble gases is the supersonic beam technique.
>
>  Such cooling can be done using radio frequency or a high stream jet of
> high pressure gas when the ionized Xenon atoms are forced to move back and
> forth in unison. Any kinetic energy that the Xenon atoms have is converted
> to directional energy.
>
>  So in plain language, Radio frequency or a high speed gas jet will
> catalyze the formation of Xenon clusters as the atoms of Xenon are cooled
> by coherent motion.
>
>  *The Roundup*
>
>   Think of a collection of Noble gas atoms as a herd of cattle. To begin
> with the cattle roam around on the prairie aimlessly with boundless energy
> but not applied to any purpose. To build a herd for a cattle drive, the
> cowpunchers prod the cattle into a tight bunch during the roundup. Then the
> drovers get the cattle to all go in the same direction as a herd. The
> drovers pack them close, shoulder to short ribs. The cows have little room
> but to march forward hardly able to move their heads. The cattle are all
> contented and well behaved and centered on the mindless march forward, but
> they are still are exerting a large amount of energy as they stumble
> forward to cover ground.
>
>  In this analogy, the *cowpokes* are radio frequency radiation (RF) and
> the constraining coils. Papp talks about using RF in his engines.
>
>  Xenon is easy to excite using RF because its binding energy is low: many
> orders of magnitude lower than hydrogen. The RF also produces clusters
> because the RF get noble gas atoms to all go in the same direction and the
> coils pack them tight.. Xenon strongly interacts with RF because these
> molecules have good dipole characteristics like water.
>
>  Noble gases are cooled and now can combine and readily form clusters
> that can be very complex.
>
>  For example, Helium and Xenon form a family of atomic clusters that
> behaves like argon.
>
>  Excited Clusters have a positively charged ionic core composed of
> possibly hundreds or thousands of ionized atoms. Around this core of
> positive charge ions swarm a loosely connected flight of electrons orbiting
> on the outside of the cluster core and can be easily removed from the
> cluster by ionization.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to make a statement about conservation of momentum.  Linear
>> momentum and angular momentum are different animals and can not be
>> converted freely.
>>
>> Recently, I have seen proposals that suggest that one can convert linear
>> momentum into angular momentum and that is clearly not possible.  You can
>> visualize linear momentum as pertaining to motion of an object or group of
>> objects that are progressing as a group past an observer.  The center of
>> mass of the objects is in motion and can be used to calculate the total
>> linear momentum of the subjects.
>>
>> Angular momentum is measured and calculated by observing the rotation of
>> the center of mass of a system of objects.  Think of a planet in motion
>> around its central star as an example of this type of momentum.  An
>> observer can be stationary with respect to the center of mass of the
>> objects and calculate the magnitude of the collective angular momentum they
>> contain.  And, since he is stationary with respect to the center of mass of
>> the objects, they have no linear momentum according to his determination.
>> Any forces which operate between the collection of objects taken as a
>> system are not able to convert angular momentum into linear momentum or
>> vice versa.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Lou--

Bob Cook here-

Do you know if the Bose thermal bath that the second referenced report talks 
about is the same thing as a Bose -Einstein Condensate (BEC)?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.

A couple of references:

"Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin"
http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf

"Work extraction in the spin-boson model"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of 
Steven

Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an
RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen 
(deuterium)

even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than 
LENR -

it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 
°

C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced 
by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as 
described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 
°

C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 
3.5

°
C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[David Roberson]

Axil, you need to include the influence of the outside forces that are required 
to force the Xenon into the coherent direction.  This does not happen without 
assistance.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum



In explanation, when Xenon is forced to move in acoherent direction in a group, 
translational, rotational and vibrational energyis converted to directional 
energy and the Xenon atoms are cooled but stillenergetic. 
 
Typical set-up for cooling noble gases is the supersonicbeam technique. 
 
Such cooling can be done using radio frequency or a high stream jet of high 
pressure gas whenthe ionized Xenon atoms are forced to move back and forth in 
unison. Anykinetic energy that the Xenon atoms have is converted to directional 
energy.
 
So in plain language, Radio frequency or a high speed gas jet will catalyzethe 
formation of Xenon clusters as the atoms of Xenon are cooled by coherentmotion. 
 
The Roundup



Think of a collection of Noble gas atoms as a herdof cattle. To begin with the 
cattle roam around on the prairie aimlessly withboundless energy but not 
applied to any purpose. To build a herd for a cattledrive, the cowpunchers prod 
the cattle into a tight bunch during the roundup. Thenthe drovers get the 
cattle to all go in the same direction as a herd. Thedrovers pack them close, 
shoulder to short ribs. The cows have little room butto march forward hardly 
able to move their heads. The cattle are all contentedand well behaved and 
centered on the mindless march forward, but they are stillare exerting a large 
amount of energy as they stumble forward to cover ground.
 
In this analogy, the cowpokesare radio frequency radiation (RF) and the 
constraining coils. Papp talks aboutusing RF in his engines.
 
Xenon is easy to excite using RF because itsbinding energy is low: many orders 
of magnitude lower than hydrogen. The RFalso produces clusters because the RF 
get noble gas atoms to all go in the samedirection and the coils pack them 
tight.. Xenon strongly interacts with RFbecause these molecules have good 
dipole characteristics like water.
 
Noble gases are cooled and now cancombine and readily form clusters that can be 
very complex.
 
For example,Helium and Xenon form a family of atomic clusters that behaves like 
argon.
 
Excited Clustershave a positively charged ionic core composed of possibly 
hundreds or thousandsof ionized atoms. Around this core of positive charge ions 
swarm a looselyconnected flight of electrons orbiting on the outside of the 
cluster core andcan be easily removed from the cluster by ionization.




On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I just wanted to make a statement about conservation of momentum.  Linear 
momentum and angular momentum are different animals and can not be converted 
freely.

Recently, I have seen proposals that suggest that one can convert linear 
momentum into angular momentum and that is clearly not possible.  You can 
visualize linear momentum as pertaining to motion of an object or group of 
objects that are progressing as a group past an observer.  The center of mass 
of the objects is in motion and can be used to calculate the total linear 
momentum of the subjects.

Angular momentum is measured and calculated by observing the rotation of the 
center of mass of a system of objects.  Think of a planet in motion around its 
central star as an example of this type of momentum.  An observer can be 
stationary with respect to the center of mass of the objects and calculate the 
magnitude of the collective angular momentum they contain.  And, since he is 
stationary with respect to the center of mass of the objects, they have no 
linear momentum according to his determination.   Any forces which operate 
between the collection of objects taken as a system are not able to convert 
angular momentum into linear momentum or vice versa.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

I feel I'm getting a little more entertainment out of the explanation about
> the use of the jerk vector to obtain energy from the unbalanced wheel than
> I should.
>

No double entendre intended.  The scheme just sounds so wishful and
fanciful that it's hard not to be a little amused by it.  That is not to
say it might not be getting at something interesting.  I'm equal parts
smirking at it and mystified by it.  Maybe there is a way to do an end run
around one of the third- or fourth-order derivatives of the position vector
in order to get the RAR to work.  Terry has pointed us to the description
of a fellow named Grimer; I do not recall if we have seen RAR's own
description of the theory behind their contraption.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:All these tiny knocks and crannies

[Alain Sepeda]

just to complete your interpretation of what is crack, bumps, ...
It creates topological discontinuities...

It can also create fractal dimensions... QM in non 3D lattice are
exhibiting funny results... 2D, 1D, and 0D are already used for laser, for
superconduction, and many things I don't understand well...

now, imagine what it can be to have a lattice surface which is on average
2.5D (take any number between 2 and 3)... a crack between 2 3D domaine of
2.5D. a crack at a surface having a 1.5D discontinuity...
imagine that temperature change the dimensionality, impurities,
treatments...

not sure it is that, but that is a new frontier of QM. quantum mechanics in
fractal dimension systems...

another concept that may be useful (dunno how) is the theory of
percolation, which may create surpizing sub-lattice. It may propose
interesting concepts to LENR...

I let the analysis to physicist and mathematicians...
I imagine mixing the topological theory of measure with quantum measure
principle... headache!
(maybe Ed can explain me where I make the mistake. I appreciate when
daydreams/nightmare are bounded by evidences and Occam razor)


2014-02-09 18:51 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil :

>  A fundamental requirement for the production of cold fusion is atomic
> irregularity. As Ed Storms has discovered in looking at all those thousands
> of experiments, Cold fusion occurs when the material that is carrying it is
> gritty, chunky, bumpy, cracked and rough.
>
>
>
> Because of this distinction, cold fusion cannot occur in a pure liquid or
> a gas. But all materials when subjected to just the right processes will
> produce nano crystals. This includes water and hydrogen. Yes, the real
> world is a dusty one and hardly ever pure.
>
>
>
> When electrons flow over the irregular material, it is analogous to a fast
> flowing river coursing over a rocky river bed. The rocky obstructions to
> the flow of water will produce whirlpools and eddy currents.
>
>
>
> From mathematics, the technical term for these irregularities is called
> topological discontinuities. Cold fusion only occurs when topological
> discontinuities are present in a flow of electrons between a conductor and
> a dielectric.
>
>
>
> The flow of electrons must be broken so that they travel in a circle or
> vortex. This vortex of electrons forms a very small optical cavity that
> catches light and heat just like a net catches fish in a river.
>
>
>
> When an experimenter applies an electric current to a metal in water, he
> is producing water particles and metal particles and rough surfaces on the
> metal.
>
>
>
> The material must be at or above a certain temperature because the
> magnetic nature of the material interferes with the formation of the
> electron vortex currents. Nickel must be taken above its curie temperature.
> Palladium is easier to demagnetize and can support electron vortexes in
> boiling water: however, this is not true for nickel because water keeps
> nickel below its Curie temperature.
>
>
>
> Rossi has added some chemical compounds to his gas envelope so that when
> these compounds are heated, Nano crystals would form to get the lumpiness
> of his hydrogen envelop up that would enabled lots of vortex currents of
> electrons to form.
>
>
>
> Through trial and error but not really knowing why, Piantelli has treated
> the surface of his nickel bars because these bumps and lumps that he
> produced in just the right way would disrupt the flow of electrons over the
> surface of the hot nickel bars.
>
>
>
> Through the auspices of blind luck, F&P created metal and water nano-dust
> as an electric current pitted and cracked the surface of palladium
> electrodes in water. The hydrogen and oxygen boiling off the surface of the
> electrodes  were replete with metal dust and complex crystal structures
> born from gas. The electron vortexes that form were few and weak but they
> were enough to show signs of the power that LENR could eventually produce.
>
>
>
> Ken Shoulders produced metal nano-dust when he fired a spark into a metal
> surface, and this dust caught the heat of the spark to produce the
> transmutation of cold fusion.
>
>
>
> *Celani has treated his nickel-copper alloy (Constantan) wires with acid
> to produce a pitted surface to disrupt the electron flow of the current he
> applied. When the copper acid etched pits filled with electrons, heat, and
> light, the conductance of the rough surfaced wire dropped as
> superconducting spots formed on the wire surface in all those tiny pits.
> But the wire needs to be very hot and the current needs to be pulsed
> sharply.*
>
>
>
> In all cases and in myriad ways, and optical cavity of electrons must be
> formed to catch the photons of heat in order for cold fusion to occur.
>
>
>
> Show me an experiment producing cold fusion and I will show you that an
> optical cavity chock full of electrons, heat and light is producing cold
> fusion in that cavity. This complex mixture of electromagnetic forces is
> 

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Blaze--

I would not touch big oil with a 10 foot pole.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Blaze Spinnaker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?



  On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker  
wrote:

Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.





On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  
wrote:

  Put that back to 43%:


  Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a JD from Yale Law School and a BA from the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Scholar. 




  On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden 
(investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at Cherokee, 
BA Economics)  who are the players here.


It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.






On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

  Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR 
release.  


  Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about 
Cherokee.



  I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is 
wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe.
XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.







  On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news 
coming out of BLP and McKubre.


Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next 
indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. 



On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

  Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - 
FL - USA previous job was:


  "Frelance ConsultantEuropean Gaming and Gambling Tech Market"


  -4%


  Now back to 31%.



  On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

This is based on 
  a.. STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
  b.. Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) 
  c.. Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
  d.. Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) 
News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   
Could be updating this probability more frequently.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

Good work..

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



To backtrack from a post 3 months ago. The Rabi frequencies.

We did not know what to make of it, back then, except that there was a
possible fit to one LENR experiment. The Rabi frequency (paraphrased from
two sources) is the frequency of oscillation for a given atomic transition
in a photonic light field. It is associated with the strength of the
coupling between the photons and the transition - flopping between the
levels of a 2-level system which is illuminated with resonant photons. The
Rabi frequency has an interesting cross connection to Rydberg values, and to
NMR.

In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi
frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization
vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the
Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear
magnetization about a static magnetic field.)

OK - There is indeed one RF signal which appears to have a strong
correlation to excess
heating events, in one kind of LENR. This is from the recent paper at ICCF17
by Steven Jones. It is in the range of a Rabi frequency, but it is too early
to say that there is a definitive relationship.

The signal seen in that slide has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This
seems to be a real signature - and a strong one. I have looked high and low
to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but little
turns up. It is "longwave" once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but
not much used anymore.

There is some relevance of 430 kHz to a Rabi frequency and to MRI, and a
real connection to nuclear events - but linking all of these seems remote,
given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be
important. Very strange... not unlike QM itself...
_
From: Jones Beene

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic
magnetic connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding
of gain in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
Steven Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The
importance of an RF signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense
single resonant frequency is seen, which is determined by the external field
alignment of the nucleus. The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF
signal - we must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
(deuterium) even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some
signal but only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and
more than LENR - it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving
force.


_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -
2.3. Magnetic Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with
deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the
field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte
temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds,
the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss
field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started
increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant.
The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

Your message rings true to me.  Here are some additional comments and 
thoughts/conjectures.


I first did NMR experiments in  my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater, 
and we were ever increasing the magnetic field  to get better signals and 
absorption of RF input.  GE has improved since then with practical MRI 
devices.


Pd with a susceptibility of +576 CGS units in the Earth's weak magnetic 
field generates a reasonable B magnetic field in the crystalline matrix.  Ni 
would also, and  it is ferro magnetic to boot.  Heat generation as a 
function of the direction of the external magnetic field, especially for the 
Pd system would be a good experiment to run.   It may cause the reaction to 
slow down and then increase.  The Bockris, etal. experiment, which you 
identified in a previous message,  may have included such redirection of the 
external magnetic field.


Rossi's setup with its nano Ni powder may selectively orient itself in an 
external field and become disoriented  with temperature and lack of magnetic 
field, although, given the ferro magnetic nature of Ni, disorientation may 
not happen too fast.


SRI also probably has good information on this issue in both Ni and Pd 
systems. SRI should be queried.


Another area of investigations by researchers regarding ways of  stimulating 
nuclei was by Pacific Northwest Laboratory in the late 1970's.  Their team 
looked at a number of ways to handle high-level nuclear waste for the DOE or 
ERDA at the time.  The thick report is publically available.  It identified 
electromagnetic stimulation of the nuclei via dipole and   QUADRAPOLE 
moments of radioactive isotopes, as well as neutron irradiation to stimulate 
the nuclei.  The former was thought to be impossible because of electronic 
shielding of the electron cloud around the nuclei and weak signal generation 
capability.  The latter was too expensive.  The idea for both schemes was to 
excite the radioactive nuclei and get them to decay to a stable state.


Since the late 70's the technology for precise control of the energy 
(frequency) by laser input and other schemes has made the electromagnetic 
stimulation of nuclei relatively easy.  The important resonances are not 
those of the electronic cloud of electrons.  That is why MRI's work.


Another item I remember was the work of a nuclear physicist at, I believe, 
the University of Arizona in the early 1980's.  He was Prof. Roy and had 
written a text book on nuclear physics.  He developed a scheme and a patent 
for this scheme to TRANSMUTE radioactive isotopes to non-radioactive 
species.  The invention was written up in the news.  I was never able to 
find the patent.  I concluded it must have become classified--never to be 
heard of again.  Nevertheless I reviewed his text book to see if he said 
anything about nuclear stimulation.  As I recall the textbook had a section 
on nuclear dipole and quadrapole coupling to electromagnetic oscillating 
fields, and I concluded  that this coupling was probably the crux of his 
"invention".


I do not recall if there was a section on spin coupling in Roy's textbook.

Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 °
C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[James Bowery]

I'm not sure where I stored Jed's book on my computer but I presume he
analyzed the critical point in EROEI where it no longer makes sense to use
various grades of the in-the-ground reserves even as chemical feedstocks.
 As long as a given grade of reserve remains valuable as chemical
feedstock, the other valuations will remain to the extent they are related
to those grades.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

> A lot of their valuation is also the tribal knowledge, infrastructure,
> relationships, brand, and good will.If LENR really takes off quickly,
> much of that will quickly go to zero.
>
> It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
> the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the
> price of oil down quickly.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:05 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> How much of their valuation is in the ground reserves?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker > > wrote:
>>
>>> Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.



 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Put that back to 43%:
>
> Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University
> of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a
> BA from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a
> Morehead Scholar.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden
>> (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
>> Cherokee, BA Economics)  who are the players here.
>>
>> It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about
>>> Cherokee.
>>>
>>> I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is
>>> wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing 
>>> universe.
>>>XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news
 coming out of BLP and McKubre.

  Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next
 indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI -
> FL - USA previous job was:
>
> " Frelance 
> Consultant
>  European
> Gaming and Gambling Tech 
> Market
> "
>
> -4%
>
> Now back to 31%.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is based on
>>
>>- STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
>>- Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%)
>>- Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
>>- Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%)
>>
>> News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   Could
>> be updating this probability more frequently.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Blaze Spinnaker]

A lot of their valuation is also the tribal knowledge, infrastructure,
relationships, brand, and good will.If LENR really takes off quickly,
much of that will quickly go to zero.

It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the
price of oil down quickly.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:05 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> How much of their valuation is in the ground reserves?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Put that back to 43%:

 Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University
 of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA
 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a
 Morehead Scholar.


 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden
> (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
> Cherokee, BA Economics)  who are the players here.
>
> It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR
>> release.
>>
>> Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about
>> Cherokee.
>>
>> I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is
>> wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing 
>> universe.
>>XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news
>>> coming out of BLP and McKubre.
>>>
>>>  Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next
>>> indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI -
 FL - USA previous job was:

 " Frelance 
 Consultant
  European
 Gaming and Gambling Tech 
 Market
 "

 -4%

 Now back to 31%.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is based on
>
>- STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
>- Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%)
>- Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
>- Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%)
>
> News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   Could
> be updating this probability more frequently.
>
>
>
>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence.

harry

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of
> the earth.
>
> harry
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
> wrote:
>
>> You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian
>> problems from dynamics 101 can be so
>>
>> mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
>> maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
>>
>> of problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hoyt
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>>
>>
>>
>> As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
>> whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it
>> comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
>> from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
>> You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
>> difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and
>> the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
>> 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it),
>> and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
>> hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
>> appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
>> field.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[H Veeder]

Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of the
earth.

harry


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

> You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian
> problems from dynamics 101 can be so
>
> mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
> maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds
>
> of problems.
>
>
>
> Hoyt
>
>
>
> *From:* Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
>
>
> As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
> whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it
> comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
> from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
> You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
> difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and
> the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
> 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it),
> and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
> hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
> appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
> field.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 09/02/2014 16:16, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:
>
> But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight tube, the tube
> would experience a lateral force and if allowed to move
>
> against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.
>
>
>
> Hoyt
>
>
>
> *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com ]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
>
>
>
> You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has its
> apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra energy
> from the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth rotates out
> from beneath the original aim point.  A similar process must be happening
> to the air flowing due to wind.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! 
> Antivirusprotection is active.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[James Bowery]

How much of their valuation is in the ground reserves?


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

> Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Put that back to 43%:
>>>
>>> Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University
>>> of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA
>>> from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a
>>> Morehead Scholar.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden
 (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
 Cherokee, BA Economics)  who are the players here.

 It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.



 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR release.
>
>
> Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about
> Cherokee.
>
> I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is
> wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing 
> universe.
>XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news
>> coming out of BLP and McKubre.
>>
>>  Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next
>> indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL
>>> - USA previous job was:
>>>
>>> " Frelance 
>>> Consultant
>>>  European
>>> Gaming and Gambling Tech 
>>> Market
>>> "
>>>
>>> -4%
>>>
>>> Now back to 31%.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 This is based on

- STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
- Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%)
- Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
- Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%)

 News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   Could be
 updating this probability more frequently.





>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[H Veeder]

Dave, I am saying if you carefully measured her final speed while
considering losses due to friction and drag, her final speed would be
slightly greater than could be explained by conservation of angular
momentum alone. This is because she does some work in order to bring her
arms inwards. In effect she has converted some internal chemical energy
into angular momentum. Or is this wrong?

Harry

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:33 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Harry, the skater pulls her arms inwards but that does not contribute to
> her rotating motion directly.  The increased speed is due to the reduction
> of her moment of inertia and the conservation law requires for her to spin
> faster so that the product of her moment of inertia and angular velocity is
> constant.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:05 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
>
>
>  A spinning figure skater is often used to demonstrate the principle of
> conservation of angular:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug
>
>  However, the skater also exerts some muscular energy to pull her arms
> inward, so doesn't this boost the angular momentum slightly?
>
>  Harry
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Jones Beene]

To backtrack from a post 3 months ago. The Rabi frequencies. 

We did not know what to make of it, back then, except that there was a
possible fit to one LENR experiment. The Rabi frequency (paraphrased from
two sources) is the frequency of oscillation for a given atomic transition
in a photonic light field. It is associated with the strength of the
coupling between the photons and the transition - flopping between the
levels of a 2-level system which is illuminated with resonant photons. The
Rabi frequency has an interesting cross connection to Rydberg values, and to
NMR.

In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi
frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization
vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the
Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear
magnetization about a static magnetic field.)

OK - There is indeed one RF signal which appears to have a strong
correlation to excess
heating events, in one kind of LENR. This is from the recent paper at ICCF17
by Steven Jones. It is in the range of a Rabi frequency, but it is too early
to say that there is a definitive relationship.

The signal seen in that slide has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This
seems to be a real signature - and a strong one. I have looked high and low
to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but little
turns up. It is "longwave" once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but
not much used anymore. 

There is some relevance of 430 kHz to a Rabi frequency and to MRI, and a
real connection to nuclear events - but linking all of these seems remote,
given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be
important. Very strange... not unlike QM itself...
_
From: Jones Beene 

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic
magnetic connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding
of gain in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
Steven Jones' finding of an RF signature. 

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The
importance of an RF signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense
single resonant frequency is seen, which is determined by the external field
alignment of the nucleus. The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF
signal - we must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
(deuterium) even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some
signal but only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading? 

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and
more than LENR - it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving
force.


_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -
2.3. Magnetic Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with
deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the
field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte
temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds,
the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss
field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started
increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant.
The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.
<>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

> Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> Put that back to 43%:
>>
>> Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of
>> North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA from
>> the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead
>> Scholar.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden
>>> (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
>>> Cherokee, BA Economics)  who are the players here.
>>>
>>> It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR release.

 Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about
 Cherokee.

 I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is
 wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe.
XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.




 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming
> out of BLP and McKubre.
>
>  Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next
> indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL
>> - USA previous job was:
>>
>> " Frelance 
>> Consultant
>>  European
>> Gaming and Gambling Tech 
>> Market
>> "
>>
>> -4%
>>
>> Now back to 31%.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is based on
>>>
>>>- STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
>>>- Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%)
>>>- Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
>>>- Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%)
>>>
>>> News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   Could be
>>> updating this probability more frequently.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

> Put that back to 43%:
>
> Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of
> North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA from
> the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead
> Scholar.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden
>> (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
>> Cherokee, BA Economics)  who are the players here.
>>
>> It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR release.
>>>
>>> Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about
>>> Cherokee.
>>>
>>> I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is
>>> wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe.
>>>XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming
 out of BLP and McKubre.

  Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next
 indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report.


 On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL -
> USA previous job was:
>
> " Frelance 
> Consultant
>  European
> Gaming and Gambling Tech 
> Market
> "
>
> -4%
>
> Now back to 31%.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is based on
>>
>>- STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
>>- Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%)
>>- Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
>>- Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%)
>>
>> News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   Could be
>> updating this probability more frequently.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

So jerk is conserved, snap is conserved, crackle is conserved, pop is
>  conserved and all higher as yet unnamed derivatives are also
> conserved.


If anyone is unfamiliar with or a little incredulous at the use of these
terms, they appear to be more than ones that Grimer coined.  In order of
increasing derivative of the position vector with respect to time, there is
velocity, acceleration, jerk and jounce.  Beyond jounce, the facetious
terms "snap," "crackle," and "pop" have been proposed although not
necessarily adopted [1].

I feel I'm getting a little more entertainment out of the explanation about
the use of the jerk vector to obtain energy from the unbalanced wheel than
I should.

Eric


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jounce

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[pagnucco]

Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.

A couple of references:

"Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin"
http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf

"Work extraction in the spin-boson model"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
> Attn: spin doctors
>
> Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
> connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
> gain
> in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
> Jones' finding of an RF signature.
>
> Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an
> RF
> signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
> frequency
> is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
> nucleus.
> The stronger the field the more robust the signal
>
> OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
> must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
> even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
> but
> only with hydrogen or deuterium.
>
> See where this is heading?
>
> Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
> it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.
>
>   _
>
>
>   For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
> Stimulation
>
>   After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
> hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
> permanent
> magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 °
> C
> (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
> two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
> earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 °
> C
> in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5
> °
> C when the magnet was removed.
>

RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian
problems from dynamics 101 can be so

mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds

of problems.

 

Hoyt 

 

From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 

As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it
comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You
can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult
(our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and the
equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15
years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and
that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides
a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it appear
that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic field.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 16:16, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight tube, the tube
would experience a lateral force and if allowed to move

against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.

 

Hoyt

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has its
apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra energy from
the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth rotates out from
beneath the original aim point.  A similar process must be happening to the
air flowing due to wind.

Dave

 

 

 



 

 



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Jones Beene]

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
Jones' finding of an RF signature. 

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading? 

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 °
C when the magnet was removed.
<>

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[Axil Axil]

In explanation, when Xenon is forced to move in a coherent direction in a
group, translational, rotational and vibrational energy is converted to
directional energy and the Xenon atoms are cooled but still energetic.



Typical set-up for cooling noble gases is the supersonic beam technique.



Such cooling can be done using radio frequency or a high stream jet of high
pressure gas when the ionized Xenon atoms are forced to move back and forth
in unison. Any kinetic energy that the Xenon atoms have is converted to
directional energy.



So in plain language, Radio frequency or a high speed gas jet will catalyze
the formation of Xenon clusters as the atoms of Xenon are cooled by
coherent motion.


*The Roundup*

Think of a collection of Noble gas atoms as a herd of cattle. To begin with
the cattle roam around on the prairie aimlessly with boundless energy but
not applied to any purpose. To build a herd for a cattle drive, the
cowpunchers prod the cattle into a tight bunch during the roundup. Then the
drovers get the cattle to all go in the same direction as a herd. The
drovers pack them close, shoulder to short ribs. The cows have little room
but to march forward hardly able to move their heads. The cattle are all
contented and well behaved and centered on the mindless march forward, but
they are still are exerting a large amount of energy as they stumble
forward to cover ground.



In this analogy, the *cowpokes* are radio frequency radiation (RF) and the
constraining coils. Papp talks about using RF in his engines.



Xenon is easy to excite using RF because its binding energy is low: many
orders of magnitude lower than hydrogen. The RF also produces clusters
because the RF get noble gas atoms to all go in the same direction and the
coils pack them tight.. Xenon strongly interacts with RF because these
molecules have good dipole characteristics like water.



Noble gases are cooled and now can combine and readily form clusters that
can be very complex.



For example, Helium and Xenon form a family of atomic clusters that behaves
like argon.



Excited Clusters have a positively charged ionic core composed of possibly
hundreds or thousands of ionized atoms. Around this core of positive charge
ions swarm a loosely connected flight of electrons orbiting on the outside
of the cluster core and can be easily removed from the cluster by
ionization.


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I just wanted to make a statement about conservation of momentum.  Linear
> momentum and angular momentum are different animals and can not be
> converted freely.
>
> Recently, I have seen proposals that suggest that one can convert linear
> momentum into angular momentum and that is clearly not possible.  You can
> visualize linear momentum as pertaining to motion of an object or group of
> objects that are progressing as a group past an observer.  The center of
> mass of the objects is in motion and can be used to calculate the total
> linear momentum of the subjects.
>
> Angular momentum is measured and calculated by observing the rotation of
> the center of mass of a system of objects.  Think of a planet in motion
> around its central star as an example of this type of momentum.  An
> observer can be stationary with respect to the center of mass of the
> objects and calculate the magnitude of the collective angular momentum they
> contain.  And, since he is stationary with respect to the center of mass of
> the objects, they have no linear momentum according to his determination.
> Any forces which operate between the collection of objects taken as a
> system are not able to convert angular momentum into linear momentum or
> vice versa.
>
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> I thought the justifications for these mechanical over-unity machines came
> from some kind of non-conservation during JERK (the derivative of
> acceleration) and the machines were designed to produce jerk.  Does anyone
> else remember the justification based on non-conservation during jerk?

<><><><><><><><><><>

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

7/7/13
to vortex-l
Grimer seems to think it work:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112238#112238

Grimer:

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:52 pmPost subject:   Another Claim to a
Working Device

Grimer wrote:
I think I am beginning to grasp one of the essential requirements for
a gravity mill.

One must have a closed path for the weights on one side of the main axle but no
closed path on the other.

In other words we must have at least two centres of motion for the weights.

We probably need three but preventing structure as a whole moving relative
to the earth will possibly give us the third.

LOL. It's all to do with the conservation of energy.

Each energy derivative is conserved. The two familiar ones are of
course the first and second derivatives, Momentum and Force x
distance. We can think off these as velocity "energy" and acceleration
energy. We could add conservation of heat within an insulated space as
a third familiar conservation.

But all derivatives must be conserved since we are talking in all
cases of more and more complicated examples of the basic conservation,
the conservation of momentum.

So jerk is conserved, snap is conserved, crackle is conserved, pop is
conserved and all higher as yet unnamed derivatives are also
conserved. Heat covers a range of derivatives depending on the number
of independent particle motions involved.

To return to the subject in hand, if we have a simple closed path
which weaves in and out towards a single axle centre then though we
have plenty of change in acceleration towards the centre (jerk), the
positive jerk on the one side is necessarily balanced by the negative
jerkon the other and so there is no net gain in energy.

However, if we have a major and a minor centre and we loop around the
minor centre on one side but not on the other then we have more jerk
energy on one side than the other. So we can use the jerk vector to
unbalance the wheel - which is basically what Trevor is trying to do -
and the Boys from Brazil as well for that matter.



Extensive discussion in this thread.



Grimer was a former member of Vortex-l.

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[David Roberson]

Harry, the skater pulls her arms inwards but that does not contribute to her 
rotating motion directly.  The increased speed is due to the reduction of her 
moment of inertia and the conservation law requires for her to spin faster so 
that the product of her moment of inertia and angular velocity is constant.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum





A spinning figure skater is often used to demonstrate the principle of 
conservation of angular:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug



However, the skater also exerts some muscular energy to pull her arms inward, 
so doesn't this boost the angular momentum slightly?


Harry

Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Axil Axil]

Here are some pictures of the process of vortex formation

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v8/n5/full/nnano.2013.69.html




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2009/4133/pdf/Andre_Diss-00_Main_final.pdf
>
> When the temperature of magnetic metals gets above the Curie temperature,
> their magnetic nature changes in state to the formation of magnetic vortex
> nano-domains.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, there is a limit in the case of atoms (without getting into nuclear
>> magnetics). In a number of papers, Dennis Letts recognized the possibility
>> that the internal magnetic field for hydrogen, in particular - would be
>> much stronger than an external field which could align it - on the order of
>> 12.5 Tesla for hydrogen.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would probably be the limit - and it is far from infinite... OTHO it
>> is provocative in the context of spin coupling.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>>
>> Just like the Earth's gravity doesn't become infinite as you approach the
>> Earth's center of mass. As you start approaching the sources, or are
>> surrounded by them, the field will depend on the inverse square to each of
>> the sources.  It becomes a distributed source calculation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Axil Axil]

http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2009/4133/pdf/Andre_Diss-00_Main_final.pdf

When the temperature of magnetic metals gets above the Curie temperature,
their magnetic nature changes in state to the formation of magnetic vortex
nano-domains.




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Yes, there is a limit in the case of atoms (without getting into nuclear
> magnetics). In a number of papers, Dennis Letts recognized the possibility
> that the internal magnetic field for hydrogen, in particular - would be
> much stronger than an external field which could align it - on the order of
> 12.5 Tesla for hydrogen.
>
>
>
> That would probably be the limit - and it is far from infinite... OTHO it is
> provocative in the context of spin coupling.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Just like the Earth's gravity doesn't become infinite as you approach the
> Earth's center of mass. As you start approaching the sources, or are
> surrounded by them, the field will depend on the inverse square to each of
> the sources.  It becomes a distributed source calculation.
>
>
>
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
>
>
> There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Jones Beene]

 

 

Yes, there is a limit in the case of atoms (without getting into nuclear
magnetics). In a number of papers, Dennis Letts recognized the possibility
that the internal magnetic field for hydrogen, in particular - would be much
stronger than an external field which could align it - on the order of 12.5
Tesla for hydrogen.

 

That would probably be the limit - and it is far from infinite. OTHO it is
provocative in the context of spin coupling.

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Just like the Earth's gravity doesn't become infinite as you approach the
Earth's center of mass. As you start approaching the sources, or are
surrounded by them, the field will depend on the inverse square to each of
the sources.  It becomes a distributed source calculation.

 

Axil Axil wrote:

 

There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[H Veeder]

A spinning figure skater is often used to demonstrate the principle of
conservation of angular:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug

However, the skater also exerts some muscular energy to pull her arms
inward, so doesn't this boost the angular momentum slightly?

Harry

[Vo]:All these tiny knocks and crannies

[Axil Axil]

A fundamental requirement for the production of cold fusion is atomic
irregularity. As Ed Storms has discovered in looking at all those thousands
of experiments, Cold fusion occurs when the material that is carrying it is
gritty, chunky, bumpy, cracked and rough.



Because of this distinction, cold fusion cannot occur in a pure liquid or a
gas. But all materials when subjected to just the right processes will
produce nano crystals. This includes water and hydrogen. Yes, the real
world is a dusty one and hardly ever pure.



When electrons flow over the irregular material, it is analogous to a fast
flowing river coursing over a rocky river bed. The rocky obstructions to
the flow of water will produce whirlpools and eddy currents.



>From mathematics, the technical term for these irregularities is called
topological discontinuities. Cold fusion only occurs when topological
discontinuities are present in a flow of electrons between a conductor and
a dielectric.



The flow of electrons must be broken so that they travel in a circle or
vortex. This vortex of electrons forms a very small optical cavity that
catches light and heat just like a net catches fish in a river.



When an experimenter applies an electric current to a metal in water, he is
producing water particles and metal particles and rough surfaces on the
metal.



The material must be at or above a certain temperature because the magnetic
nature of the material interferes with the formation of the electron vortex
currents. Nickel must be taken above its curie temperature. Palladium is
easier to demagnetize and can support electron vortexes in boiling water:
however, this is not true for nickel because water keeps nickel below its
Curie temperature.



Rossi has added some chemical compounds to his gas envelope so that when
these compounds are heated, Nano crystals would form to get the lumpiness
of his hydrogen envelop up that would enabled lots of vortex currents of
electrons to form.



Through trial and error but not really knowing why, Piantelli has treated
the surface of his nickel bars because these bumps and lumps that he
produced in just the right way would disrupt the flow of electrons over the
surface of the hot nickel bars.



Through the auspices of blind luck, F&P created metal and water nano-dust
as an electric current pitted and cracked the surface of palladium
electrodes in water. The hydrogen and oxygen boiling off the surface of the
electrodes  were replete with metal dust and complex crystal structures
born from gas. The electron vortexes that form were few and weak but they
were enough to show signs of the power that LENR could eventually produce.



Ken Shoulders produced metal nano-dust when he fired a spark into a metal
surface, and this dust caught the heat of the spark to produce the
transmutation of cold fusion.



*Celani has treated his nickel-copper alloy (Constantan) wires with acid to
produce a pitted surface to disrupt the electron flow of the current he
applied. When the copper acid etched pits filled with electrons, heat, and
light, the conductance of the rough surfaced wire dropped as
superconducting spots formed on the wire surface in all those tiny pits.
But the wire needs to be very hot and the current needs to be pulsed
sharply.*



In all cases and in myriad ways, and optical cavity of electrons must be
formed to catch the photons of heat in order for cold fusion to occur.



Show me an experiment producing cold fusion and I will show you that an
optical cavity chock full of electrons, heat and light is producing cold
fusion in that cavity. This complex mixture of electromagnetic forces is
truly mysterious and beyond the common sense of just about anybody. Only a
few specialists really understand what could possibly be going on inside
those tiny nano worlds.



Dr. Miley measured the resistance of those cavities and found that the
current flow in these cavities were superconductive. Now who would have
ever expected that?



I strongly suspect that no one in nuclear physics, LENR, or chemistry knows
anything about how to use nano-cavities as an engineering tool and what
tools that these cavities can provide the system designer in producing a
new type of nuclear power.



People are universally mystified in how nuclear reactions can happen
without the appearance of gamma rays and energetic particles, but when only
electrons and photons are the reactive cause, such perplexities are
simplified and easily understood.



Properly massaged and manipulated photons are the only highway were power
from the nucleus can be delivered out of the nucleus and can make its way
directly into heat without the mediation of energetic particle production.



It is my opinion that until someone really understands well how these
nanoscopic cavities work in the production of power, how the light heat and
electrons combine together in these tiny knocks and crannies, and how to
use them in producing LENR little progress in the desig

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Bob Higgins]

I thought the justifications for these mechanical over-unity machines came
from some kind of non-conservation during JERK (the derivative of
acceleration) and the machines were designed to produce jerk.  Does anyone
else remember the justification based on non-conservation during jerk?

Perhaps during jerk, angular momentum can be exchanged with linear momentum
or something.  I don't remember the argument.

Bob

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

>  As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this,
> whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it
> comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy
> from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.
> You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more
> difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and
> the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that
> 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it),
> and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity
> hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it
> appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic
> field.
>

Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Bob Higgins]

This thought is sort of absurd.

The magnetic field only increases with inverse square law when you are well
OUTSIDE all of the sources and they can be considered an equivalent far
point source.  Just like the Earth's gravity doesn't become infinite as you
approach the Earth's center of mass.  As you start approaching the sources,
or are surrounded by them, the field will depend on the inverse square to
each of the sources.  It becomes a distributed source calculation.

Bob Higgins


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field.
>
>
>
> From the inverse square law, how strong can a magnetic field be at one
> nanometer on the walls of a nano-cavity, when it is detected at 18cm to be
> 1.6 tesla? It is at least atomic level (10^5 tesla) or on the high end
> about 10^12 to 10^16 tesla.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Nigel Dyer]

As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, 
whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths 
it comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract 
energy from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external 
body.  You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths 
more difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the 
pole and the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not 
sure that 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my 
son to do it), and that is what may have happened with the RAR 
machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces 
and moments which made it appear that it was possible to extract energy 
from the earths magnetic field.


Nigel

On 09/02/2014 16:16, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:


But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight tube, the 
tube would experience a lateral force and if allowed to move


against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.

Hoyt

*From:*David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has 
its apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra 
energy from the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth 
rotates out from beneath the original aim point.  A similar process 
must be happening to the air flowing due to wind.


Dave

RE: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

*   Ni is a ferro magnetic metal which can retain an alignment of the
electrons so as to create a permanent magnet and B field after the
elimination of an external field.  Pd which is paramagnetic loses its
internal B field when an external magnetic field is removed. 

Bob,

Nickel does not exactly "lose" its B field at the Curie point. In Ahern's
testing of lattice samples based on the Arata experiments, the thermal gain
which was seen was indeed associated with the Curie point of Ni at around
350C. But note that some observers have not appreciated the most important
fine detail of that magnetic transition.

The Curie point is where a material's permanent magnetism changes to induced
magnetism, but the internal field does not necessarily fade away or
randomize, especially if that material is "loaded" so to speak. The field
lines can be imagined as shifting between antiferromagnetic and
ferrimagnetic alignments when hydrogen is loaded into a nickel matrix, or
even adsorbed by a surface layer - since hydrogen favors antiferromagnetism.
This is a profound difference in the context of sequential phase-change
manipulation in nickel (or palladium) and it points to a non-nuclear
mechanism for gain (actually it is nuclear, but not in an obvious way).

When fully loaded, then - a ferromagnetic lattice (like Ni or an alloy) will
benefit from the opposite spin alignment of hydrogen which maintains
internal antiferromagnetic order across the Curie point via inductance. And
one detail of Ahern's work was to try to maintain the cell on the knifes
edge of the transition temperature. This Curie point is also a phase-change.
Phase changes can be surprisingly energetic in themselves (in the 1+ eV
range) 

Thus, there is a suspicion that phase change itself can be the anomalous
energy source in some systems - instead of LENR. But isn't that a cop-out?
How would this kind of phase change system be ultimately powered - so as not
to violate CoE?

That is the $64 question, but phase change, magnons, spin coupling and QCD
are all interconnected ... and Ni-H is probably, in its ultimate incarnation
in the E-Cat - a strong force reaction where proton average mass is depleted
over time, just as excess energy is put into the system by spin coupling to
protons in QCD color charge dynamics. 

Proton mass cannot be quantized because quark mass is not quantized and
there is about a 7 ppm variation in mass across any sample. This allows
protons to give up several keV via spin coupling to magnons - and retain
full identity as protons. This limitation explains why Ni-H system will not
have the level of energy which we associate with nuclear energy.

Alloys and dopants can make a large difference in that Curie point value,
but it corresponds nicely to an important THz excitation spectra which is
within what can be called the NASA range - of important IR levels of
quasi-coherency (5-30 THz) which is the photons that interact with SPP
(surface plasmon polaritons).

The magnetic interaction in Ni-H is very complex, but is now unfolding. 

Jones






 
 


<>

RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight tube, the tube
would experience a lateral force and if allowed to move

against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.

 

Hoyt

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has its
apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra energy from
the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth rotates out from
beneath the original aim point.  A similar process must be happening to the
air flowing due to wind.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Nigel Dyer 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

And the reply is that you cant change the total angular momentum of the
system without reference to something external to said system (e.g. the
moon) so a windmill (or an RAR engine) working within the system can take
angular momentum from the earth (e.g. by spinning), but it will give it back
when it stops, and the earth will be spinning at the same rate and will not
have lost any angular momentum, so we wont have taken any energy from it.

If the RAR system is getting energy from the rotation of the earth it is
doing something with the conservation of angular momentum that current
physics cannot explain, and I would not expect that to come from a system
consisting of 50 tons of ironmongery.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 13:33, Nigel Dyer wrote:

The trade winds are driven primarily from the convection currents that take
their energy from solar heating.  The corriolis force means that the
convection currents do not just go in a north-south direction but swing to
the east or west.  Given all this, at least some of the energy that drives a
windmill sitting in the trade wind comes from solar energy.   I suspect that
trying to work out what proportion (if at all) comes from the spin of the
earth is an interesting maths/physics/engineering question.

I shall pass it to my son to look at.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 06:41, Bob Cook wrote:

A better scheme to extract energy from the Coriolis force is the spinning
earth creates is to erect a windmill or your sailboat in the trade winds
which are caused by this effect. 

 

Bob

 

 

 

 



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Jed Rothwell]

Nigel Dyer  wrote:

 And the reply is that you cant change the total angular momentum of the
> system without reference to something external to said system (e.g. the
> moon) so a windmill (or an RAR engine) working within the system can take
> angular momentum from the earth (e.g. by spinning), but it will give it
> back when it stops . . .
>

Yes. The only way you can reduce the spin of the earth is to have the body
taking the angular momentum not stop. For example, you launch a rocket to
the east, and the rocket never returns to earth, going to Mars instead. The
rocket become something external to the system. The earth slows down. If
the rocket orbits and then lands back on earth, you get back the momentum.

A space elevator might use the earth's spin to launch spacecraft. It would
raise the outbound spacecraft above geosynchronous orbit. Think of a
passenger riding a train up a space elevator. Leaving the earth, the
passengers feels their weight from gravity far above the ground, gradually
fading. It would be zero as the train arrives in the terminal station at
geosynchronous orbit. Then the passengers would get into another train with
the floor upside-down, and the ceiling facing earth. They would travel a
few thousand kilometers above the terminal, toward the counter-weight that
keeps the space elevator from falling to earth. At some point they would
feel weight again. From there, they would board a spaceship, which is then
flung into space with as much force as the person feels in weight. It would
stress the tower, slightly, and tower would pull on the earth, slowing it
down, slightly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum

[a.ashfield]

David Roberson 
 
Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:47:05 -0800 



"There should not be any extra energy than was present in the high velocity gas
and other cloud before the impact.   The energy after the collision is
distributed differently since the large volume of gas would likely be heated by
the collision.  Any additional heat energy that is passed to the large volume
of gas is extracted from the high velocity stream.  Of course there may be
other places that energy can be deposited after the collision, but the total
before and after should be the same.  Consider that the high velocity incoming
gas has a significant quantity of kinetic energy due to its motion.  Once it
has collided, it slows down as it becomes a portion of the larger gas cloud.
That is the source of the extra energy you are seeking."


To restate my problem. How can the momentum of the large volume of gas 
be the same as that of the high velocity jet, that is conservation of 
momentum, while the gas gets hotter?  The energy from the heat must come 
from the momentum of the high speed gas.
My suspicion is that with a large volume of gas it would end up with 
very little momentum, most of the energy would end up as heat.  I know 
that is not the standard answer as this would make it possible to get 
thrust from a closed system.  I suppose my question is /why/ this 
doesn't happen.

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[David Roberson]

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has its 
apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra energy from 
the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth rotates out from 
beneath the original aim point.  A similar process must be happening to the air 
flowing due to wind.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Nigel Dyer 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


  
And the reply is that you cant change the total angular momentum ofthe 
system without reference to something external to said system(e.g. the 
moon) so a windmill (or an RAR engine) working within thesystem can take 
angular momentum from the earth (e.g. by spinning),but it will give it back 
when it stops, and the earth will bespinning at the same rate and will not 
have lost any angularmomentum, so we wont have taken any energy from it.

If the RAR system is getting energy from the rotation of the earthit is 
doing something with the conservation of angular momentum thatcurrent 
physics cannot explain, and I would not expect that to comefrom a system 
consisting of 50 tons of ironmongery.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 13:33, Nigel Dyer wrote:


The trade winds are driven primarily from the convection currents   
   that take their energy from solar heating.  The corriolis force  means 
that the convection currents do not just go in a north-south  direction but 
swing to the east or west.  Given all this, at least  some of the energy 
that drives a windmill sitting in the trade  wind comes from solar energy.  
 I suspect that trying to work out  what proportion (if at all) comes from 
the spin of the earth is an  interesting maths/physics/engineering question.
  
  I shall pass it to my son to look at.
  
  Nigel
  
  
On 09/02/2014 06:41, Bob Cook wrote:
  
  

A better scheme to extractenergy from the Coriolis force is the 
spinning earth createsis to erect a windmill or your sailboat in 
the trade windswhich are caused by this effect. 

 

Bob

 

 

  
  


  

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Nigel Dyer]

And the reply is that you cant change the total angular momentum of the 
system without reference to something external to said system (e.g. the 
moon) so a windmill (or an RAR engine) working within the system can 
take angular momentum from the earth (e.g. by spinning), but it will 
give it back when it stops, and the earth will be spinning at the same 
rate and will not have lost any angular momentum, so we wont have taken 
any energy from it.


If the RAR system is getting energy from the rotation of the earth it is 
doing something with the conservation of angular momentum that current 
physics cannot explain, and I would not expect that to come from a 
system consisting of 50 tons of ironmongery.


Nigel
On 09/02/2014 13:33, Nigel Dyer wrote:
The trade winds are driven primarily from the convection currents that 
take their energy from solar heating.  The corriolis force means that 
the convection currents do not just go in a north-south direction but 
swing to the east or west.  Given all this, at least some of the 
energy that drives a windmill sitting in the trade wind comes from 
solar energy.   I suspect that trying to work out what proportion (if 
at all) comes from the spin of the earth is an interesting 
maths/physics/engineering question.


I shall pass it to my son to look at.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 06:41, Bob Cook wrote:
A better scheme to extract energy from the Coriolis force is the 
spinning earth creates is to erect a windmill or your sailboat in the 
trade winds which are caused by this effect.

Bob

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Nigel Dyer]

The trade winds are driven primarily from the convection currents that 
take their energy from solar heating.  The corriolis force means that 
the convection currents do not just go in a north-south direction but 
swing to the east or west.  Given all this, at least some of the energy 
that drives a windmill sitting in the trade wind comes from solar 
energy.   I suspect that trying to work out what proportion (if at all) 
comes from the spin of the earth is an interesting 
maths/physics/engineering question.


I shall pass it to my son to look at.

Nigel

On 09/02/2014 06:41, Bob Cook wrote:
A better scheme to extract energy from the Coriolis force is the 
spinning earth creates is to erect a windmill or your sailboat in the 
trade winds which are caused by this effect.

Bob
- Original Message -

*From:* Blaze Spinnaker 
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:14 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

Yes, some combination of that and tidal forces from the moon, perhaps.


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
mailto:hoyt-stea...@cox.net>> wrote:

Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the
earth, i.e.

Coriolis effect 

( which as I look at it, is a fudge factor needed to account
for anomalies when you assume you're

in an inertial frame of reference, but really aren't due to
the rotation of the earth.).

One could extract energy from the earth by raising a weight
vertically, then letting it fall

whilst letting it's east-west tendency generate force X
distance.  For example if the

surface of the earth is moving at 1000 km/hour and you raise a
weight such that the speed is

now 1001 km/hour, as you let it fall you could extract 1
km/hour of kinetic energy from it.

I think that'd be a pretty small effect, hence the huge
machine to get anything useful.

It would be interesting to see if it's orientation was
north-south along its rotational axis.

Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona US

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com
]
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton.
He is our

> resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at
some of them

> closely and found they did not work.

Skeptical by experience.  We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded
. . .

every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative.

But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea.




   

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus  protection is active.