Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with but under a different guise? Nigel On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law* In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was achieved. This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart at the speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects being viewed. Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. Dave -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 3:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particlesmoving towards each other then can they not be thought of asgenerating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields wouldform the basis of an additional attraction alongside the columnforce. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame ofreference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a betterway of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocityterm for the colomb attraction not just something that we arefamiliar with but under a different guise? Nigel On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: He is certainly not the first person to formulate avelocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think hisformulation is the first to make use of a distinction betweenthe velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If Ihave understood him correctly, it would mean if one was onlyinterested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in aperfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by thestandard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but heconcedes that there still may be a significant portion ofgravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM,John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It would make sense, a Doppler likeeffect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work ofBernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law* In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1-v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of hiswork. He has many bold and wonderful ideasin his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
I produced something like that from my model. My model taken to the extreme states that electrons are rigid. One of my theorems is, Electrons do not bounce. They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest energy state. This is the root cause of Fermi statistics. The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction. They interact through a process of elastic failure. Elastic failure is a classical property. Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg. Impedance matched systems do not bounce. Electrons propagate through channels of matching impedance. The quantification of the velocity of the process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition. That's what I got out of cold fusion. Frank Z
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
From: John Berry It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. Since Stewart is stuck in the ice, he may be delayed with his Doppler radar metaphor. So here is another slant on it. Since gravity already produces its own Doppler shift (we call it redshift), it would be an interesting exercise to look at this possibility in extra dimensions. that is of gravity itself being the 4-space relic of a 3-space electric field - which is of course, another way to look at electrogravity. The Doppler shift is the frequency shift caused by relative motion, but the gravitational version - which is redshift - does not involve apparent motion in 3-space, but it does if you consider to the effect as being over billions of years. IOW the relative motion is in hidden in spacetime. Because clocks in a strong gravitational field tick slower - the effect is similar to light leaving the surface of a strong field which will gradually have its frequency extended so that the signal (light spectra) arrives at a longer wavelength. You can also think of gravitational redshift on light as photons losing energy as they work their out of the strong gravitational field but it is no different than if it was a strong electric field, other than that time must be considered. For whatever reason, the Finn's seem to mull over these things more than most of us (probably the long winters) http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO18PDF/NR18JAA.PDF Phil did not see his shadow so let's let the Finns sort it out.
[Vo]:The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect
The possibility of an inverse (or reverse) Mossbauer effect comes up from time to time in LENR. The key concepts are recoilless nuclear resonance and FRET, which is type of superradiant fluorescence. We have discussed FRET for many years on vortex, since it is strongly correlated to nanoscale geometry and that was even before we knew about SPP (surface plasmon polaritons). In effect, FRET connects SPP to LENR via an Inverted Mossbauer Effect. Heck, you can impress friends and confuse enemies with this mantra SPP+FRET=LENR (If it were possible to squeeze those letters onto a vanity plate, it would be worth it). This is a complex hypothesis going back to the shock wave of PF, and which has some relevance to the broader subject of gammaless emission. The first time I heard of it was circa 1990 in an article by Scott Chubb. Another name associated with this niche is Kozima, who labeled lithium to beryllium as a GLR (or gammaless reaction) like an Inverted Mossbauer Effect. Of keen interest in bringing all of this up now, 24 years later, is that Ni-61 and K-40, both of which are assumed to be involved in the Rossi effect - are Mossbauer isotopes. And they are more accurately called gammaless (GLR) than was beryllium. To backtrack: Chubb apparently got the idea from Cockcroft and Walton's experiments in the early 1930s which was the first reported accelerator driven nuclear reaction, and it involved Lithium bombarded with protons. The reaction proceeds via excited Be-8. Two alphas are seen in the ash and with far less peak photon radiation than expected. However, lots of x-rays are seen, since the alphas are hot, as well as the protons. To the modern day cynic, trying to understand the Rossi effect - this 80+ year old experiment is actually better proof against the idea of a gammaless reaction - than for it. Of note. In modern usage there is no consensus for a definition distinguishing X-rays and gamma rays. The older and common practice in physics is to distinguish between the two types of radiation based on their source: X-rays being emitted by electrons and gamma being emitted by the nucleus. This definition has several problems, since many times the method of generation is not known, and hard x-rays can be stronger than many gammas. In science - one should never be required to define an important parameter based on its source - when only its geometry (or energy content) is overriding. Therefore the modern alternative is to distinguish X-rays from gamma radiation on the basis of wavelength or energy, but in terms of GLR - we are most interested in detectability. The limit of detectability with a thick reactor is generally low keV, and that depends on the Boltzmann tail of the energy distribution, since low keV from a coherent source will not penetrate thick stainless. A useful value for LENR is to define gammaless as radiation lower than 4 keV. If it is in that range it will never be a problem to shield cheaply - and will not be a negative feature that makes LENR subject to regulation by the NRC. Anyway, moving on - beryllium is a light metal which should have an isotope with amu of 8 but it does not. Thus the extremely strong gamma of normal fusion into helium seems to be somehow avoided if Be-8 is formed (since it is another anomaly itself) but if we want to connect that to deuterium and no lithium - this involves a four body reaction with the energy carried away by two alphas and no strong gamma. Elements which are higher and lower in mass than beryllium have 1:1 ratios of protons and neutrons but not beryllium - and this is due to the remarkable stability and other properties of helium-4, which in effect forbids Be-8. In contrast, Ne-10 does not keep boron from having an isotope at 10. Bottom line is that in describing Pd-D, excited Be-8 became somewhat of a metaphor for GLR ... but that connection was a mistake IMO since this reaction is far from gammaless (in the sense of detectability) such as in the Rossi effect. Massive bremsstrahlung radiation is seen with excited Be-8 and it makes a poor metaphor. This has been the preamble for moving onto the Rossi effect, as a possible versions of an inverted Mossbauer effect. For it to be a similar metaphor, we must find the key or the forbidden element - which would be the Be-8 of the Rossi effect. Is it Ni-59 ? Several other posts will be needed. Stay tuned or set your spam filter accordingly. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Nigel, You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge sees a changing electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates a force. However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your criticism has brought clarity to my intuition: Charge is a relative to motion. Harry On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this, including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with but under a different guise? Nigel On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote: He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.) He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm Harry On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery and other vortex members, Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell. He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law* In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. The reverse is true for opposite charges. The revised law: F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3 He goes into more detail here: http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book. http://www.alternativephysics.org/ - * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nigel, You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge sees a changing electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates a force. However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your criticism has brought clarity to my intuition: Charge is a relative to motion. Harry More fully, Charge consists of a basic charge and through the relative motion other charges the basic charge can increase or decrease. harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Jones, Thanks for the lead in, here is some more weird thoughts/doppler stuff I have been blogging. I think gravity is a type of quantum vacuum entanglement that decays space between all of these vacuum branes in the universe (like our Sun's core and the Earth core). Vacuum is streaming between branes (in our solar wind), decaying our 3 dimensions as well as itself is decaying through hawking radiation (full spectrum, very weak). It pops back out as protons in the solar wind as it decays, creating water vapor wherever it encounters oxygen, like in our atmosphere: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-solar-space-source-laboratory.html I think the Earth core and possible the Sun are massive 6-D torroidal vacuum cores. It is responsible for our weakly ionizing radiation background on Earth, which increases during storms. The weather unfolding along jet streams is really the inflation phase of this vacuum decaying from high energies to low energy clouds in our atmosphere, creating more water vapor. It pulls a vacuum in our gaseous atmosphere, creating low pressure disturbances. That is the reason Doppler Radar is able to detect the weather due to the vacuum in our atmosphere, which forms strings and particles and is bending it and lensing it. Which is unfortunate for us humans because I think we are all getting vacuum formed and this stuff is redirecting and attenuating doppler microwave radiation back to Earth around the radar towers, creating chronic hypoxic conditions in waterways(ionizing dissolved oxygen from the water) killing fish and triggering algae blooms and in bloodstreams creating chronic hypoxic conditions in biology triggering an increase in autism, alzheimers and some cancers. Our Earth brane and human brains are becoming hypoxic in areas around radar towers. I have statistics on both now. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/08/sending-out-an-sos/ http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/14/never-hire-me-to-do-research/ Also, after plotting sinkholes nightly for a year, yes I am a geek, I have concluded the atmosphere is triggering many of them through a local increase in ionizing vacuum energy discharge (protons act like an acid-proton donor) during storms and such, which is increased around the overlappng doppler radar towers. The eight corvettes that just plummeted into a sinkhole in Kentucky happened to be in an atrium with a glass ceiling directly above where the sinkhole opened and within 50 miles of 3 or 4 high powered radars. I think metal conducts this stuff (think st. elmos fire) but that it penetrates through most organic stuff. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/15/little-red-corvette/ I have also concluded many of the mirages that humans see over water, including magnified ships over the ocean are actually gravitational lensing and string lensing, which is also bending the doppler EMR at the same time. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/13/milwaukeemiragemiraclesay-5-times-fast/ In other words guys, we reside in a vacuum with a little bit of air and water vapor surrounding us. We reside on the crust from a LENR decaying Earth core brane, which suffers chronic indigestion, else we would all be sucked in. Best I can figure and yes it/I am strange. Stewart On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* John Berry It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric fields. Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this way. Since Stewart is stuck in the ice, he may be delayed with his Doppler radar metaphor. So here is another slant on it. Since gravity already produces its own Doppler shift (we call it redshift), it would be an interesting exercise to look at this possibility in extra dimensions... that is of gravity itself being the 4-space relic of a 3-space electric field - which is of course, another way to look at electrogravity. The Doppler shift is the frequency shift caused by relative motion, but the gravitational version - which is redshift - does not involve apparent motion in 3-space, but it does if you consider to the effect as being over billions of years. IOW the relative motion is in hidden in spacetime. Because clocks in a strong gravitational field tick slower - the effect is similar to light leaving the surface of a strong field which will gradually have its frequency extended so that the signal (light spectra) arrives at a longer wavelength. You can also think of gravitational redshift on light as photons losing energy as they work their out of the strong gravitational field but it is no different than if it was a strong electric field, other than that time must be considered. For whatever reason, the Finn's seem to mull over these things more than most of us (probably the long winters) http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO18PDF/NR18JAA.PDF Phil did not see his shadow so let's let the Finns sort it out...
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: First, the light will know to turn itself off, and second, there won't be a particular need to turn it off. I'll get my beloved regular old lightbulbs back and will say goodbye to compact fluorescents forever. Probably not. Compact fluorescent (CFL) are cheaper per unit cost than incandescent lights. The initial sale price is higher, but the cost is cheaper over the life of the bulb because they last so long. LED lights are rated to last 20 years, and some come with lifetime guarantees, meaning as long as you own it, they will replace it. The lifetimes are 50,000 hours for an LED and 1,200 hours for an incandescent. The LED cost is $36 versus $1.25, so it is marginally cheaper over a lifetime. CFL cost $4 and last 10,000 hours so they are much cheaper. See: http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html For commercial, office or industrial applications, CFL and LED lights are far cheaper for another reason. They are replaced much less often. Replacing one usually calls for a maintenance person to bring a ladder and spend several minutes replacing the bulb and disrupting operations. That ends up costing more than the bulb. Obviously, with the cost of today's electricity both CFL and LED lights save a tremendous amount of money for energy. Per 50,000 hours of illumination, taking into account the unit cost of the bulbs, they cost about $88 versus $353 for incandescent lights. Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in commercial apps. An expert described the advantages of CFL over incandescent by saying: this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970. We spend much more now so this is not comparable and disproves your former assertion ... It is comparable. You are missing the point. The unit cost of energy falls but overall consumption will increase. The total amount spent may also increase, although I doubt that individual consumption will cost more. Society as a whole may spend more when you include things like massive desalination projects. and you still do not have a grasp of the time issue, wrt energy and IP and trade secrets etc. LENR will not happen quickly and it will cost slightly more for many years, due to the novelty if nothing else. It may not take many years. That is hard to say. It is in the interests of Rossi and other IP holders to bring out cold fusion as quickly as possible, and to lower the cost as rapidly as possible. For two reasons: patents do not last long; and with a product of this nature you earn more selling many units at a low cost than you do selling a few at a high cost. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect
Dyslexic correction of previous post: In contrast, Ne-10 does not keep boron from having an isotope at 10. This should be In contrast, B-10 does not keep neon from having an isotope at 20. And yes, there are other reasons why helium has special stability in the periodic table, so this is not a particularly strong metaphor - but it does suggest that there are indeed forbidden isotopes at a few specific atomic mass levels - which are in effect reserved by other elements, such as in the case of He-4 which keeps Be-8 from stability. If there were not an LENR connection, this would be the end of the story but there is more. For instance wrt the Rossi effect, 100% of cobalt is amu 59 which seems to be reserved by cobalt (element 27). IOW - this isotopic level - amu 59 - belongs to cobalt, even though Co is to the left of nickel in the PT, which is element 28... and nickel's main isotope is Ni-58 - which is one of the few instances in nature where a lighter amu element follows a heaver one (as the main isotope). Notably, Ni-59 decay is gammaless. However, this is not the nickel Mossbauer isotope which is Ni-61. Nickel seems so commonplace, at first ... so few-cents-worth - yet this element has 7 unusually strong physical anomalies, which could relate to LENR and in comparison with other metals is an oddball. The 7 anomalies. It is ferromagnetic, has a Mossbauer isotope, has the heaviest stable isotope (as a % of the most common isotope Ni-58 vs Ni-64), is lower amu than the next lower mass z (the most common isotope is lower amu than Co), has the highest innate stability (Ni-62 has highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide 8.7945 MeV), has an unstable isotope with gammaless decay - and has two adjoining Rydberg levels in electron orbitals. Wow. Could this all be coincidental? What's in a name? The German word nickel came from Old Nick which was a name for the devil; and the reasons for that historic association are arcane ... but in the modern day context of LENR, where the devil is in the details - let's just say nickel may be our Maxwell's demon. The unification of good and evil, no less? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Nigel, The collision of two oppositely charged particles can be far more energetic when they collide within a current than in isolation. How much more depends on the current strength/density and particles' location. The particles borrow field momentum from the magnetic vector potential(A) the current collectively creates. For example, see - '(Section 213) Two kinds of momentum' The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. III Ch. 21 http://www.feynmanlectures.info/docroot/III_21.html If the two particles collide with nearly the same momentum (in the lab frame), suddenly they see an almost immediate drop in the magnetic vector potential which generates an additional huge electric field(E) gradient propelling the particles into each other, i.e., see Feynman's (Equation 21-16) E = -dA/dt As Feynman notes: That electric field is enormous if the flux is changing rapidly, and it gives a force on the particle. The force is the charge times the electric field, and so during the build up of the flux the particle obtains a total impulse (that is, a change in mv) equal to #8722;qA. In other words, if you suddenly turn on a vector potential at a charge, this charge immediately picks up an mv-momentum equal to #8722;qA. If you are interested in how the vector potential stores momentum, sse- Thoughts on the Magnetic Vector Potential http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/thoughts.pdf The extra energy picked up by light particles like electrons and positrons will be far higher than by much heavier protons and nuclei. (Another different approach to calculating the extra energy is via the Darwin Hamiltonian/Lagrangian.) This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. -- Lou Pagnucco Nigel Dyer (Sat, 15 Feb 2014) wrote: I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference. I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in commercial apps. That makes sense. I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents and LEDs. LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them. CFLs make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking. I'm going to guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess. I'm reminded of Neil Young's explanation for why he thought that CDs didn't sound as good as records -- something along the lines of being able to hear the skips in the binary encoding of the CD as the laser was passing over. He was no doubt mistaken on that point. Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium vapor. San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a good day, uses this for their street lamps. This is what it looks like at night there: http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2013/1101/20131101__streetlights~1_300.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/HPS-lamps.jpg What these images don't adequately convey is the strain on your eyes that you feel when you're there at night. If the members of the city council there are normal people, it is hard to envision the decision making process that led to those lights being installed. I suspect the members are all accountants. An expert described the advantages of CFL over incandescent by saying: this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat. If that's the case, then I would much prefer LEDs. Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. 2014-02-15 13:04 GMT-02:00 fznidar...@aol.com: I produced something like that from my model. My model taken to the extreme states that electrons are rigid. One of my theorems is, Electrons do not bounce. They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest energy state. This is the root cause of Fermi statistics. The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction. They interact through a process of elastic failure. Elastic failure is a classical property. Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg. Impedance matched systems do not bounce. Electrons propagate through channels of matching impedance. The quantification of the velocity of the process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition. That's what I got out of cold fusion. Frank Z -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Incandescent lights was RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
In cold climates, they make nice localized heaters, and will probably cost less than what your electric furnace would have cost to run, so the efforts to ban them is misguided. ( They're also used in other heating applications and as nice load resistors for electrical testing.) Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona (where we don't need much heat, so I'm replacing everything with LEDs.) P.S. I toured the Boeing Everett Washington 747 plant years ago, and they told us that they didn't need any air heaters, the lamps (metal halide lamps in that case ) and equipment were enough to heat that 100 acre building. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in commercial apps. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
RE: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
But if you could sense the field ( e.g. capacitor plate ), you could send information at infinite speed -- what's wrong with that analysis? From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:22 PM To: John Milstone Subject: Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. 2014-02-15 13:04 GMT-02:00 fznidar...@aol.com: I produced something like that from my model. My model taken to the extreme states that electrons are rigid. One of my theorems is, Electrons do not bounce. They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest energy state. This is the root cause of Fermi statistics. The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction. They interact through a process of elastic failure. Elastic failure is a classical property. Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg. Impedance matched systems do not bounce. Electrons propagate through channels of matching impedance. The quantification of the velocity of the process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition. That's what I got out of cold fusion. Frank Z -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in commercial apps. That makes sense. I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents and LEDs. LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them. CFLs make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking. I'm going to guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess. On a romantic scale I would place the incandescent bulb above LEDs and CFLs, but below candles. Harry
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Sodium vapor lamps are apparently the most efficient light source commercially available, which is why they're widely used in street lighting. At 200 lumens/watt, they are about twice as efficient as typical LED lamps, and have about half the service life. Their construction uses borosilcate glass with a vacuum thermal insulation envelope. Sound familiar? A discarded bulb might make a good core for a Celani cell. AlanG ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp On 2/15/2014 12:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium vapor. San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a good day, uses this for their street lamps.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: CFLs make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking. I'm going to guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess. I think it is because many people perceive the 120 hz flicker in the ionized gas as zero current flows. You don't see this in incandescents because the filament is not as responsive. I'm reminded of Neil Young's explanation for why he thought that CDs didn't sound as good as records -- something along the lines of being able to hear the skips in the binary encoding of the CD as the laser was passing over. I had a professor who ranted against solid state audio amplifiers. He claimed they made the music sound muddy passing through a solid and could not compete with the crystal clear music passing through a vacuum. Actually there is an explanation for vinyl sounding different. There is a phase smearing which occurs in the differentiation of the needle motion which is not present in PCM encoding of audio signals. People explain it as vinyl sounding warmer.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the gamma rays excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be done at a Techshop. Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP. MFMP is not yet ready to say they have, indeed, seen gamma rays excess heathttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/general-updates/359-paper-tigers : We feel we are close, but despite repeated signs of upto 12.5% excess heat and recently signs of gamma, we are sticking to our principle, that of not moving on to worldwide distribution until we have an incontrovertible, repeatable experiment to share. When the gamma spectra solution is fully realised and the mass flow calorimeter experiment ready, we have a good shot of addressing all outstanding criticism. The nominal excess may not be glamorous, but if certain, we will be very satisfied. We thank you.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200: Hi, [snip] Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the gamma rays excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be done at a Techshop. Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP. When the MFMP says they are ready to claim they've sufficient signal to noise and sufficient replicability, they will be in a position to submit that experimental protocol to a judging board along with funds to support replication by those skilled in the art as agreed by the judging board and MFMP. The question is whether it is worthwhile attempting to raise money for the prize prior to MFMP claiming they have achieved said replicability. For the reasons Randy Wuller gives, we can't expect the X-Prize foundation to support such a prize, so it will probably have to be a kickstarter campaign.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200: Hi, [snip] Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. nice. harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I'm guessing they're efficient because their near monochromatic output is near the peak sensitivity of the human eye, so the comparison should be done with yellow LEDs. Hoyt -Original Message- From: AlanG [mailto:a...@magicsound.us] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal Sodium vapor lamps are apparently the most efficient light source commercially available, which is why they're widely used in street lighting. At 200 lumens/watt, they are about twice as efficient as typical LED lamps, and have about half the service life. Their construction uses borosilcate glass with a vacuum thermal insulation envelope. Sound familiar? A discarded bulb might make a good core for a Celani cell. AlanG ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp On 2/15/2014 12:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium vapor. San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a good day, uses this for their street lamps. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in commercial apps. That makes sense. I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents and LEDs. LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them. CFLs make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking. Yes, they have made great progress in recent years improving the spectrum of LEDs. I bought one the other day marked Daylight. It is uncanny how white it is. I do not think they will improve CFLs. I think that technology is on its way out, to be replaced with LEDs. Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium vapor. San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a good day, uses this for their street lamps. I hate, hate, HATE those things! I should join the International Dark-Sky Society. http://www.darksky.org/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations - Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) - Wavelength: 5.44 cm - Pulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs - Pulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step - *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * - 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish - High angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points - Gain: 50 dBi - Sidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way - Cross-Pol: Better than -30 dB - Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) - Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm - Radar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km - Noise Figure: 3 dB - Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
My bet is on the speed being c. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents? Eric
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
What three states? Im thinking there could another factor not in evidence From: ChemE Stewart Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations * Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) oWavelength: 5.44 cm oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs oPulse Repetition Frequency: 3002000 Hz, 1 Hz step * 1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points oGain: 50 dBi oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB * Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) * Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km oNoise Figure: 3 dB * Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What three states? I'm thinking there could another factor not in evidence ... *From:* ChemE Stewart Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations · Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) oWavelength: 5.44 cm oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step · *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * · 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points oGain: 50 dBi oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB · Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) · Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km oNoise Figure: 3 dB · Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My bet is on the speed being c. This sounds most consistent with current expectations of the two possibilities. Here is another section from Wikipedia that seems to argue against the conclusion of the earlier-mentioned experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Apparent_FTL_propagation_of_static_field_effects This same page gives examples of some rates that are observed that are faster than light, including closing speeds (the rate at which two bodies close in on one another) and phase and group velocities. The propagation of an electrostatic field along an entrainment of charged particles gives more the sense of the propagation of a phase or group than of a particle itself, whose velocity is limited by *c.* Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
I posted the earthquake chart on my blog: http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/15/expanded-quantum-capabilities/ and I posted my statistics a month ago. http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/12/26/boom-bang-shake-quake/ I also believe p-Values are only a tool and do not identify cause, they just imply a relationship, which I was seeing visually. Oklahoma City is Home to the National Weather Research Center and along with the air force base has ~ 9 overlapping microwave radars within a 50-100 mile radius (range on dopplers is approx. 150 miles) I have developed a very bad feeling a microwave radars over the past 6 months, especially when 3 or 4 are overlapped. Stewart On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What three states? I'm thinking there could another factor not in evidence ... *From:* ChemE Stewart Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50 mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10? My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30 radar locations · Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band) oWavelength: 5.44 cm oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step · *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) * · 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points oGain: 50 dBi oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB · Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max) · Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km oNoise Figure: 3 dB · Simultaneous dual-polarization On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the Graneau/Papp systems. Even low voltage systems may see localised very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then separated. Nigel On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
You see, that means you are sending information to the past! You are strengthening something that hasn't arrived yet! 2014-02-15 19:30 GMT-02:00 mix...@bigpond.com: In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200: Hi, [snip] Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c. ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the energy required to interpret the signal. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Aha. With those states, you have to think that fracking is involved to some extent- so the only real question is if the fracking is exacerbated by the RF. ROTFL. I see that the Does not seem to be a direct link comment comes from renowned seismic expert.. cough, cough. one Barbara Schneider, Certified Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, and Feng Shui Consultant, and a regular contributor to San Jose Psychic Examiner. . doubt if we should be trusting Babs' insight on this issue, Feng Shui notwithstanding From: ChemE Stewart Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-norm al-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking
[Vo]:RAR engine progress photos
They're moving right along with the second machine. http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2021%20eng.JPG
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Eric, This is a direct consequence of the formula for computing the magnetic vector potential. When all particles flow in a narrow channel, in the same direction, all of their (vector) contributions to the potential are nearly parallel and are additive. When they move in random directions, the vector potential is a sum of random vectors, so destructive interference greatly attenuates it. Toy examples of a four particle fusor vs. an arc might look like - | | V --- --- ^ | | The fusor will only produce relatively small magnetic vector fields. Yes, I think your diagram does convey a correct concept for a plasma arc impacting an +ion rich surface. The impacting electrons will acquire extra energy from the momentum store in the magnetic field. -- LP Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to random motion. It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though. Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized? I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where such an effect might be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
OK, I agree, here are a couple more articles http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oklahoma-Scientist-to-Test-if-Fracking-Causes-Earthquakes.html The parts I keyed on in addition to the locations clustered around areas with multiple dopplers, is that many people say they sound more like sonic booms. http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/14/is-fracking-causing-earthquakes/ And as quakes increase in frequency, residents of Oklahomahttp://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259127792/a-sharp-rise-in-earthquakes-puts-oklahomans-on-edge and Texashttp://www.npr.org/2014/02/09/273372026/oil-gas-drilling-seems-to-make-the-earth-slip-and-go-boom are taking notice. More noticeable than the shaking, for many, is the noise these quakes make: a loud boom, like artillery fire. I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with the underground water. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Aha. With those states, you have to think that fracking is involved to some extent- so the only real question is if the fracking is exacerbated by the RF. ROTFL. I see that the Does not seem to be a direct link comment comes from renowned seismic expert.. cough, cough... one Barbara Schneider, Certified Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, and Feng Shui Consultant, and a regular contributor to San Jose Psychic Examiner. ... doubt if we should be trusting Babs' insight on this issue, Feng Shui notwithstanding *From:* ChemE Stewart Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had 3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009 Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct link but it may have some impact http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
From: ChemE Stewart I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with the underground water. This is possible. and worth pursuing, especially if grant money is available. but microwaves would not penetrate very far into the earth, and shale is deep. There are three different ecosystems which need to be analyzed. Surprised you did not mention dark matter, and the Mills identification of this species with fractional hydrogen, which he claims is produced in the solar corona. It is carried to earth in the solar wind. If RF radiation from Doppler radar is involved somehow, and it seems to be more than coincidental, based on limited data - then RF could interact with the atmosphere to nucleate more of the dark-matter arriving from the solar corona into rain, which then percolates with water down to the shale layer. This could alter the normal random distribution of f/H. This process would take several years - but there does seem to be several years of lag time. Have you compared areas with 1) Radar and no shale deposits against 2) areas with both shale and radar and areas with 3) shale only ? If there was enough data to compare all three, you might make a statistical case. Of course, that could require a staff of researchers to put this kind of data together.
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
Jones, I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical charged plasma shells. It will only be large in intense, linear flows. -- LP Jones, You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential. Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small. Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential. -- LP Jones Beene wrote: BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from spherical convergence of ion vectors. The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4 due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far lower voltage potential than colliding beams. Polywell borrowed the idea http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
The best I can theorize, as I have shown on my blog is that there is dark matter(collapsed hydrogen) stringing around the equatorial jet streams (originating from the solar wind) and overhead in the jet streams, triggering low pressure weather events and decaying all of the time and releasing gravitational radiation to the Earth. Somehow the pulsed microwaves are energizing this dark/vacuum, possibly causing it to kink up and break off (through string interactions) and these smaller loops or branched strings (low pressure troughs) of vacuum energy are then accelerating into the Earth around the towers, triggering pressure/seismic events as well as an increase in mesovortex events and even sinkholes around the towers as my statistics are showing. If this is happening it would also possibly trigger an increase in weakly ionizing background radiation in the local surroundings around the towers which is ionizing the dissolved oxygen in the waterways around the towers triggering hypoxia and oxidative stress. That is the only way I can tie it all together. This is only theory, but I have good statistics on an increase in hypoxia, algae blooms/red tide around the radar towers in Florida over two years with strong indications in other States. I make my income from engineering, I am doing my research for fun so I am not looking for grant money, you guys have been a great help in trying to understand what is happening at the atomic/subatomic level Stewart On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with the underground water. This is possible... and worth pursuing, especially if grant money is available... but microwaves would not penetrate very far into the earth, and shale is deep. There are three different ecosystems which need to be analyzed. Surprised you did not mention dark matter, and the Mills identification of this species with fractional hydrogen, which he claims is produced in the solar corona. It is carried to earth in the solar wind. If RF radiation from Doppler radar is involved somehow, and it seems to be more than coincidental, based on limited data - then RF could interact with the atmosphere to nucleate more of the dark-matter arriving from the solar corona into rain, which then percolates with water down to the shale layer. This could alter the normal random distribution of f/H. This process would take several years - but there does seem to be several years of lag time. Have you compared areas with 1) Radar and no shale deposits against 2) areas with both shale and radar and areas with 3) shale only ? If there was enough data to compare all three, you might make a statistical case. Of course, that could require a staff of researchers to put this kind of data together.
[Vo]:Fiery black hole debate creates cosmological Wild West
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129552.400-fiery-black-hole-debate-creates-cosmological-wild-west.html#.UwA-EM6YbyQ Last week famed physicist Stephen Hawking caused an uproar with his assertion that black holes do not existhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24937-stephen-hawkings-new-theory-offers-black-hole-escape.html- at least not as we've defined them for the past 40 years. Rather than letting nothing, not even light, escape their grasp, Hawking says that this point of no return is a fallacy, and black holes will sometimes let trapped light back out.
[Vo]:test for greek letters
This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs. The characters come from this site http://greek.typeit.org/ θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ Harry