Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and would still experience the SR style of time dilation... Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed up in these rotating frames or train frames*! But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame as the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to imagine this as it will do your head in :) John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On second thought, I am not so sure about the linear example. I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The linear example you describe below. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! You give me faith in humans! Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. You should illustrate that as well. harry On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem longer. The effect would be diminished. The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet paradoxically. If that does not help, then the linear example is: Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one on the ground frame. Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground frame clock. Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making sure they both see the same light at the same time. Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest route, but it looks indirect to the train. How can both measure C for the light? Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be expected? Obviously assume a vacuum is present. Thanks for taking a look, John
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the other frame dilated. My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in time. So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you can't make a clock go faster like this. And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results again. The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and would still experience the SR style of time dilation... Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed up in these rotating frames or train frames*! But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame as the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to imagine this as it will do your head in :) John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On second thought, I am not so sure about the linear example. I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The linear example you describe below. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! You give me faith in humans! Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. You should illustrate that as well. harry On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem longer. The effect would be diminished. The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet paradoxically. If that does not help, then the linear example is: Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one on the ground frame. Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground frame clock. Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making sure they both see the same light at the same time. Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest route, but it looks indirect to the train. How can both measure C for the light? Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be expected? Obviously assume a vacuum is present. Thanks for taking a look, John
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
Ok, here is the way to really hit this one home, but it it a little more complex. So hopefully you can follow that in a large way there is a similarity between the Wikipedia argument and mine. Let's setup a hybrid for fun, we will place mirrors either side of the of the sensors in my experiment and move them closer together. Let's have a periodic light source release red photons (it must repeat since the red photons will be lost out the side every so many bounces) from the moving frame and the stationary frame will launch blue photons. Now we have a rotating and non-rotating censor that can each count each colour of photon that passes though it. So from the rotating frame the red light has a more direct path and the rotating sensor must detect more red photon passes. From the lab frame the blue photons have bounced more times since they have the more direct route and must register higher on the stationary sensor. If you watched the data coming in from the 2 sensors which might be a fraction of a mm apart, they obviously could not agree on when a photon is present or which colour! But even this doesn't work since how can the mirrors reflect light from a frame they aren't in Since the mirrors are biased to their frame (whatever that is) then um well, er.. Well how can you describe reality with a theory of unreality. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the other frame dilated. My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in time. So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you can't make a clock go faster like this. And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results again. The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and would still experience the SR style of time dilation... Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed up in these rotating frames or train frames*! But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame as the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to imagine this as it will do your head in :) John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On second thought, I am not so sure about the linear example. I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The linear example you describe below. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! You give me faith in humans! Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. You should illustrate that as well. harry On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means.
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Thank you Alan G. How?I really want to do this. I am lacking in my knowledge of digital signal processing. What software? Once I process the signal how do I get a 1 or 0 out of my old computer? I used to know how to get out a one with C and Basic. How do I get the two software packages talking? I am about ready to turn the detector over to Howard for testing. #5 plastic is straws and bottle caps. They either colored or to small to be detected. I just wanted to do better. I used to do something like this with the 9 pin D connectors on yesterday's computers. I needed a way to stop a serial line printer upon buffer full at my old job in 1995. It was an odd situation with some old but critical PLC's that needed to print to a new serial printer. The system worked fine until the office management installed a LAN printer and took away my old computer and printer. It was a long story the old computer was no longer supported, they said. I objected. We will get rid of the computer when we upgrade the PLC's, I said. It was not an office computer or printer. I was overridden and mad about it. All of the PLC software was on floppies. I transferred the software and wrote a C program to print out the ladder logic. It's been a while and I don't remember all of the details. I was too busy for this but now I had to do something. The Basic program could transmit an ASKI character with all zeros. I don't remember what character this was anymore. This resulted in a zero followed by a string of ones on the output line. It looked something like this 0111. The ones made a long pulse. The signal did not return to zero between the ones. I filtered the pulse with a resistor and a capacitor. The zero reset the capacitor through a signal diode. The string of all ones produced a high voltage in a detector and turned on an output. This output- was sent to the CTS pin. I could send the string of ASKI characters to the 9 pin D's output with C or Basic. I don't know if I can do this with a USB connector. Perhaps that needs to be my next product. A USB to single digital output. Frank -Original Message- From: AlanG a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find On 2/27/2014 10:17 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: #5 Plastic lets the light through in colors. Use a cheap camera sensor and lookat the color counts. Assuming the light source isbroad-spectrum, the #5 image should have a pretty high range ofcolor delta compared to the others. AlanG It's only software...
Re: [Vo]:OT: (sort of): Senator calls on the US government to ban Bitcoin.
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Please correct me if I error on the following assumption but I'm assuming BItcoin was conceived to be neutral on the subject of taxation. I'll be curious to know if Mr. Rothwell might have a differing opinion on this matter. It is over my head. I do not understand Bitcoin or taxes enough to comment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
I now remember more. They took away my plant/office printer. It was no longer supported but it was needed. This made more than a bit of trouble for me. I had to print the PLC's output into a file in the new lap top. The D connector on the lap top became a printer emulator. I needed to stop the PLC when the lab top's buffer was full. The Basic program sent a back a series of that went through my detector and then back to the CTS pin on the lap top. This stopped the PLC when the lap tops buffer was full. A print file was then built by the Basic program within the lab top. I could then output the lab top's print file through the LAN system and onto the new office printer. They did not like it when I tied up (the only legal) office printer with 800 pages of ladder logic. No one cared. They sold the plant and got rid of me. I moved on. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:09 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find Thank you Alan G. How?I really want to do this. I am lacking in my knowledge of digital signal processing. What software? Once I process the signal how do I get a 1 or 0 out of my old computer? I used to know how to get out a one with C and Basic. How do I get the two software packages talking? I am about ready to turn the detector over to Howard for testing. #5 plastic is straws and bottle caps. They either colored or to small to be detected. I just wanted to do better. I used to do something like this with the 9 pin D connectors on yesterday's computers. I needed a way to stop a serial line printer upon buffer full at my old job in 1995. It was an odd situation with some old but critical PLC's that needed to print to a new serial printer. The system worked fine until the office management installed a LAN printer and took away my old computer and printer. It was a long story the old computer was no longer supported, they said. I objected. We will get rid of the computer when we upgrade the PLC's, I said. It was not an office computer or printer. I was overridden and mad about it. All of the PLC software was on floppies. I transferred the software and wrote a C program to print out the ladder logic. It's been a while and I don't remember all of the details. I was too busy for this but now I had to do something. The Basic program could transmit an ASKI character with all zeros. I don't remember what character this was anymore. This resulted in a zero followed by a string of ones on the output line. It looked something like this 0111. The ones made a long pulse. The signal did not return to zero between the ones. I filtered the pulse with a resistor and a capacitor. The zero reset the capacitor through a signal diode. The string of all ones produced a high voltage in a detector and turned on an output. This output- was sent to the CTS pin. I could send the string of ASKI characters to the 9 pin D's output with C or Basic. I don't know if I can do this with a USB connector. Perhaps that needs to be my next product. A USB to single digital output. Frank -Original Message- From: AlanG a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find On 2/27/2014 10:17 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: #5 Plastic lets the light through in colors. Use a cheap camera sensor and lookat the color counts. Assuming the light source isbroad-spectrum, the #5 image should have a pretty high range ofcolor delta compared to the others. AlanG It's only software...
Re: [Vo]:OT: (sort of): Senator calls on the US government to ban Bitcoin.
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net mailto:orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Please correct me if I error on the following assumption but I’m assuming BItcoin was conceived to be neutral on the subject of taxation. I’ll be curious to know if Mr. Rothwell might have a differing opinion on this matter. Bitcoin and taxes are two separate subjects. Bitcoin is closer to cash than any other form of money. When payments are made in cash, then a separate log of income and expenses has to be made for taxes. There is no paper trail which may make it easier for tax avoidance, by some. Craig
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
WELL SAID! [snip] The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.[/snip] From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:06 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Sorry about the rant but getting the 1 and 0 out of the computer brings back bad memories. I had an office/ plant computer on my office. I used to print out documents and to print out data from a PLC, a PLC programmer, and local displays in the plant. It was OK and I was happy with it. They then installed a LAN and a LAN printer in the office. I said, I need that printer to print out ladder logic and plant display listings These displays replaced the local annunciation panels. Then one day I went in my office and the printer was gone. I was livid. I tried to buy a new one on a local purchase requisition but information services blocked the purchase. I had to go through them and we no longer supported office printers. We had a small contractor Willtronics. He built me an interface cable so that I could print to a file on my lab top. I used Basic and the input A in the lap top. It worked but over ran the buffer at times. Basic had no control over the CTS pin. I then had Wiltrinics build a cable with a resistor, capacitor, and a diode. I could send back mostly 0's and mostly 1's from the lap top with the basic program. These produced a one and a zero that stopped the transmitting device. Then LAN printer printed on the cracks in the paper. I had the Basic program change new page command command to a 1H1. This took more hours than I had. I stayed over nights (unpaid) to get it done. I closed the door and maintenance would find out I was there and still knock on it with something or another. The plant was sold upon utility deregulation. I was let go and given a package. If there is any conciliation the information services people we also expunged. I explained all of this to the remaining engineer. His eye rolled. When the new owner came in he just bought a new local printer. Daah! If there is any conciliation it happened just now. The fixed retirement was canceled when the plant was sold. It was all in the 401K. I got four more years of service in my package. The extra years came in nice now. Bob Vargo quote, No society has ever survived after it had lost its industrial base. No more rant. Can I do this with a USB? I know nothing about USB drivers. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. Cracks are a topological mechanism. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don't matter if they support the crack topology. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry. Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don’t matter if they support the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry. Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to LENR. Ed Storms Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don't matter if they support the crack topology. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry. Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to LENR. Ed Storms Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
More: Ed: No theory has shown how a cluster of hydrons can form except by proposed formation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). Hydrogen can form nanoparticles call Rydberg matter through condensation of a cooling hydrogen plasma. This is how hydrogen usually arrogates in cluster based fusion. It forms a lattice and becomes a solid. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.1570.pdf see chapter 2 on page 5 On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don't matter if they support the crack topology. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry. Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to LENR. Ed Storms Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don’t matter if they support the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don't matter if they support the crack topology. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
If this huge energy is available, why does it only affect a nuclear process taking place in a chemical environment. Why does the energy not affect chemical reactions that can also occur in the material and require far less energy to initiate? I suggest you answer these questions clearly before proposing mechanisms that have no apparent support from observation. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don’t matter if they support the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If this huge energy is available, why does it only affect a nuclear process taking place in a chemical environment. Why does the energy not affect chemical reactions that can also occur in the material and require far less energy to initiate? I suggest you answer these questions clearly before proposing mechanisms that have no apparent support from observation. From system to system, LENR is subject to a variation of strength. To my way of thinking, this variability in the characterization of the unique mix and match LENR processes instantiated in each LENR system are directly based on the strengths of magnetic fields generated in each LENR system. Magnetic fields interact with the vacuum and produce a number of different breakdown mechanisms as a function of that field's strength. To start this detailing, virtual particle production in the vacuum is one of the sources of the uncertainty in quantum mechanics as particles come randomly into and out of existence. Tunneling and radioactivity is a result of this vacuum based uncertainty. Magnetic fields interact with the vacuum to produce particles in a deterministic way. As the strength of the magnetic fields increase, the probability that the vacuum will generate particles will also increase. This increase particle production in the vacuum increases the rates of tunneling and radioactivity. As the magnetic field gains strength to intermediate levels, the vacuum produces composite particles from fermions. The magnetic field interacts with the various types of fermions to catalyze virtual charge carrying quasi-particle pairs that are bound to the fermions as the fermions attempts to minimize its particular energy level. As the magnetic field reaches it maximum strength, this field produces mesons out of the vacuum which effectively guaranties nuclear disruption in terms of charge screening, cluster fusion, fission, and isotope and radioactivity stabilization In summary, a single primary magnetic field based causation produces strength based mix and match results centered on a hierarchy of magnetically catalyzed vacuum based particle production mechanisms.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Dear Mr Storms I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some components) your approach match my way of mind. do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local component, stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE concept? do you see theories which agree with your vision. clearly not widom-larsen... does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect your p-e-p conclusion ? thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. * I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP.* *Bob* - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Hi Alain, Most of the present theories are focused on the lattice structure. A few people have suggested cracks as the location, but these ideas were not developed to show how this process might function or the resulting nuclear products. I attempted to put all the pieces together. A correct theory has to have all parts work together in a consistent and plausible way, which severely limits the possible combinations of ideas. As an engineer, I'm sure you can appreciate this requirement. In contrast, most theories are created by throwing together a collection of parts that look good but have no function in the machine. I have found the problem to be very difficult for some people to understand. I find that writing a book without the limitations imposted in papers is the only way my insights can be explained and hopefully understood. As a consequence, I'm focusing on this project rather than providing detail and repetition here. The NAE is a gap of a critical size. I make this statement without qualification. This has no relationship to any other concept. This is a crack, which is a well known and well understood flaw in materials. I suggest this flaw supports a nuclear process by the mechanism I have suggested. This proposal is clear and unambiguous. It is also totally consistent with what has been observed. I reject all other theories because they do not produce explanations that are consistent with what is observed. The other theoreticians pick and choose what is consistent and ignore the rest. I find this approach to be unsatisfying. However, it takes a book to show the conflicts. Right now, you have to take my word that such conflicts actually exist. Thanks for the comments. I hope I answered your question. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Dear Mr Storms I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some components) your approach match my way of mind. do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local component, stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE concept? do you see theories which agree with your vision. clearly not widom-larsen... does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect your p-e-p conclusion ? thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed states that various things happen but he does not explain in depth how they happen. Ed states that this or that has been observed, but when it comes to nuclear reactions, it is not now possible to see how these reactions can occur. Here, Ed is claiming that an effect of LENR is the cause. Ed stops at an intermediate stage. The cause of LENR is deeper than Ed has gone in his theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example,
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Fran, Ed and Axil The chemistry can affect local magnetic fields that seem to be influencing the lenr reactions. ALSO lattice vibrational kinetic energy may also be available to provide energy to system, whether in a lattice void or a defect,. to allow LENR transitions . Bob From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:15:16 + Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
On 2/28/2014 6:09 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Thank you Alan G. How?I really want to do this. I would start with a process-control camera module, maybe 320x240 pixels. You shouldn't need more resolution, and keeping the pixel count small means you won't need a fancy image processing chip. Such modules typically use the common I2C or similar serial control and data interface, and some modules will have an on-board micro controller. If I were doing this project, I'd write some firmware that would look at the change in color information between adjacent pixels and the do some simple statistical analysis on the result. The goal is to generate a single value for each image that represents how many colors are contained in the image. Then all you need is a threshold value above which the #5 plastic is detected. Other thresholds based on luminance might be capable of sorting out the other types so that a single detector could do the whole thing. AlanG
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage,
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
The *Pauli exclusion principle* is the quantum mechanical principle that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. A more rigorous statement is that the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. It is irrelevant where the fermions are: in the walls of the NAE or inside it. For example, in an isolated atom no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers if *n*, *ℓ*, and *mℓ* are the same, *ms* must be different such that the electrons have opposite spins, and so on. In a crack, no two electrons can have the same quantum number. A crack is like a gigantic atom to the electrons where they all must have their own obit(quantum number). On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob -- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
TOKYO (AP) ― The Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange in Tokyo filed for bankruptcy protection Friday and its chief executive said 850,000 bitcoins, worth several hundred million dollars, are unaccounted for. The exchange's CEO Mark Karpeles appeared before Japanese TV news cameras, bowing deeply. He said a weakness in the exchange's systems was behind a massive loss of the virtual currency involving 750,000 bitcoins from users and 100,000 of the company's own bitcoins. That would amount to about $425 million at recent prices. more http://news.yahoo.com/tokyo-bitcoin-exchange-files-bankruptcy-102841684--finance.html On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you spell “Yakuza”? I can’t, but my spell-checker helps J やくざnowadays, but supposedly it comes from 八九三 which are the numbers 8, 9 and 3. (That would be yatsu, ku, san but it could ya-ku-zan or za in card-shark lingo, as 2 in English is deuce.) Apparently there was a card game similar to blackjack, only the object was get 19. If you were dealt an 8, a 9 and then a 3 that's 20 and you were wiped out. So it means a bad hand, or useless, or garbage. It is probably a folk etymology but the sentiments are real enough. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed-- It is my understanding the PEP applies to any QM system. Certainly to atoms but also to crystals like Pd crystals and the semi conductors in transistors and any number of different electronic devices that use voltage control in switching. Bob Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:44:43 -0700 CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote:Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy.Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil-- Are the polaritons found in the crack with its high magnetic field? Bob Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:57:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: The exchange's CEO Mark Karpeles appeared before Japanese TV news cameras, bowing deeply. He said a weakness in the exchange's systems was behind a massive loss of the virtual currency . . . That should be the top story on NHK 7 o'clock news. I think I saw that guy yesterday. He speaks very good Japanese. These corporate bozos are always bowing deeply and apologizing to the public on NHK. Then when the police haul them away, the perps cover their heads with jackets. If they are so mortified, why do they do whatever it is they do anyway? It is usually something foolish. I get it when someone is caught stealing money, but the typical Japanese mass media story is about some two-bit nitwit. Like that guy Samuragochi who pretended he was deaf and he was composing music. It turns out he can hear and someone else was composing the music. Or the architect Aneha who build several apartment buildings and hotels with nowhere near enough steel in the concrete. They had to be torn down. Or some old biddy running a prestigious 5th generation food company in Osaka, who was repeatedly caught adulterating food and selling expired food. Ridiculous flim-flam artists thrive in Japan. I guess because people take things so seriously, they are wide open to grifters and phonies. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Ridiculous flim-flam artists thrive in Japan. I guess because people take things so seriously, they are wide open to grifters and phonies. I don't know how it is now; but, when I was working with Mitsubishi in the 80s, Face was still very important in business. The value of Face to the culture is so embedded that they expect others to believe the same. The idea of grifting is so foreign to their society that it makes them vulnerable targets. Do you know anything about bankruptcy laws in Japan? I had no coins there but I know some who did. Do they divide up any assets to pay off debtors?
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
An interview from last month by Alex of DGT: http://allaboutalpha.com/blog/2014/01/30/energy-at-less-than-0-01-per-kw-an-interview-with-alex-xanthoulis/
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Thanks Alan. I really still have a lot to learn. Its fun! Industrial products are the way to go. Today I'm going to turn over my #1 detector over to the dump owner. #5 false signals should not be a problem since there are no #5 bottles. We shall see how it goes in actual operation. If it works OK we will have our first product. I will video the operation. I hope it is not a fiasco. Next going to try my luck at #2 plastic detection. #2 is transparent at terahertz frequencies. I already have the PIR (passive infrared) detector. I am going to try one of those etched plate Edmond Scientific visible spectrum analyzers as a cheep infrared polarizer. heat source etched plate--- #2 plastic-etched plate 90 deg --- PIR detector We shall see what happens. Maybe I will learn more and advance by two steps. So far the costs have been low and Its been a learning experience. Sold 14 books in Feb. That produced revenue of $2 per day. My cat could live on it. Thank God I had a regular job for 32 years. This starting a business is difficult. Frank -Original Message- From: AlanG a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find On 2/28/2014 6:09 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Thank you Alan G. How?I really want to do this. I would start with aprocess-control camera module, maybe 320x240 pixels. Youshouldn't need more resolution, and keeping the pixel count small means you won't need a fancy image processing chip. Such modules typically use the common I2C or similarserial control and data interface, and some modules will have anon-board micro controller. If I were doing this project, I'd writesome firmware that would look at the change in color informationbetween adjacent pixels and the do some simple statistical analysison the result. The goal is to generate a single value for each imagethat represents how many colors are contained in the image. Then allyou need is a threshold value above which the #5 plastic is detected. Other thresholds based on luminance might be capable ofsorting out the other types so that a single detector could do thewhole thing. AlanG
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Frank, I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can. On Friday, February 28, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Alan. I really still have a lot to learn. Its fun! Industrial products are the way to go. Today I'm going to turn over my #1 detector over to the dump owner. #5 false signals should not be a problem since there are no #5 bottles. We shall see how it goes in actual operation. If it works OK we will have our first product. I will video the operation. I hope it is not a fiasco. Next going to try my luck at #2 plastic detection. #2 is transparent at terahertz frequencies. I already have the PIR (passive infrared) detector. I am going to try one of those etched plate Edmond Scientific visible spectrum analyzers as a cheep infrared polarizer. heat source etched plate--- #2 plastic-etched plate 90 deg --- PIR detector We shall see what happens. Maybe I will learn more and advance by two steps. So far the costs have been low and Its been a learning experience. Sold 14 books in Feb. That produced revenue of $2 per day. My cat could live on it. Thank God I had a regular job for 32 years. This starting a business is difficult. Frank -Original Message- From: AlanG a...@magicsound.usjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','a...@magicsound.us'); To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find On 2/28/2014 6:09 AM, fznidar...@aol.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fznidar...@aol.com');wrote: Thank you Alan G. How?I really want to do this. I would start with a process-control camera module, maybe 320x240 pixels. You shouldn't need more resolution, and keeping the pixel count small means you won't need a fancy image processing chip. Such modules typically use the common I2C or similar serial control and data interface, and some modules will have an on-board micro controller. If I were doing this project, I'd write some firmware that would look at the change in color information between adjacent pixels and the do some simple statistical analysis on the result. The goal is to generate a single value for each image that represents how many colors are contained in the image. Then all you need is a threshold value above which the #5 plastic is detected. Other thresholds based on luminance might be capable of sorting out the other types so that a single detector could do the whole thing. AlanG
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
A crack is an EMF Cuisinart. Both the wavelength of the electron and the photon varies widely over time in a random fashion (aka Fano resonance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance When the wavelength of the electron and the photon just so happen to momentarily become equal, they combine to form a polariton. Polaritons have spin and that means that they can produce a magnetic field. A soliton forms (aka NAE) inside the crack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton Over time, an unlimited numbers of polaritons can pack into the crack and produce an EMF black hole of unlimited power. The uncertainty principle increases the energy of the soliton as more polaritons pack into it. It's like a crowded room where each polariton has less and less space to move and their energy goes way up(without limit) and so does the magnetic field that the soliton projects. The gammas from fusions that the soliton produces is feed back into the soliton in a positive feedback loop. Eventually, the soliton breaks up and its energy in x-rays are thermalized by the reactor structure and hydrogen as x-ray energy will do. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Are the polaritons found in the crack with its high magnetic field? Bob -- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:57:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob -- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy
[Vo]:Fake academic papers written by computers
Here is a hysterical story about fake papers written by computers full of baloney being published in various journals and proceedings: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ A sample paper, which was actually published: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf It read like some of the cold fusion papers I have edited. It is very impressive for a computer! I love these PowerPoint slides: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/shenktalk.pdf Some high points: The Framework on p. 8. Complexity * We asked (and answered) what would happen if lazily discrete web browsers were used instead of gigabit switches We're glad you asked! The slide on p. 11, Code Complexity is wonderful random noise. It looks a lot like some of the excess heat results I have seen. This is from: Talks Thanks to the generous donations of 165 people, we went to WMSCI 2005 in Orlando and held our own technical session in the same hotel. The (randomly-generated) title of the session was The 6th Annual North American Symposium on Methodologies, Theory, and Informationhttp://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/analogic_flier.pdf. The session included three randomly-generated talks: - Harnessing Byzantine Fault Tolerance Using Classical Theoryhttp://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/thaddeustalk.pdf Dr. Thaddeus Westerson, Institute for Human Understanding (Max) - Synthesizing Checksums and Lambda Calculus using *Jog*http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/zarqawitalk.pdf Dr. Mark Zarqawi, American Freedom University (Jeremy) - On the Study of the Ethernethttp://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/shenktalk.pdf Franz T. Shenkrishnan, PhD, Network Analysis Laboratories (Dan) You gotta love Institute for Human Understanding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. Such an experimental finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
[Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Prolific inventor, possibly in LENR: Christopher H. Cooper https://www.google.com/search?tbo=ptbm=ptshl=enq=ininventor:%22Christophe r+H.+Cooper%22 Is Chris legit ... or is he more of a patent troll? Over 200 hits and no known data or publications that I can find to back up the claims... at least the excess energy claims. No papers on LENR-CANR or elsewhere pop up on google. Here is why I ask - many of his filings are definitely LENR based, but there is not much evidence that any have been reduced to practice. Most of them seem to have been filed after the Rossi information about tubules or whatever it was. https://www.google.com/patents/US20110255644 However, he appears to be affiliated with a water filtration company, Seldon Technologies of Vermont, which seems to be a player in CNT filters - so it is quite possible that he stumbled onto the energy anomaly via other RD. I would love to see the data - if there is any. attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Putin's plan
Putin’s plan for the reemergence of Russia as a hegemonic influence on world affairs might be characterized with Russia’s successful steps toward “energy super-power” status. How would the emergence of LENR affect Putin’s actions as he realizes that Russia is sure to lose its previous energy hegemony in Europe? Will Putin take the loss of his dream for Russia and its ability to project power with good grace, or will the former KGB spy revert to old form and take matters into his own hands to remove the clear and present threat that he sees as catastrophic to Russia’s national interests as well as the interests of his cadre of criminal plutocrat functionaries? Remember what happened to Georgi Ivanov Markov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov And then there was Alexander Litvinenko… PR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the death of Alexander Litvinenko, a strong critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is the latest in a long line of suspicious deaths that may have been politically motivated. Paul Joyal, Russia expert, security consultant: A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: “If you do, no matter whom you are, where you are, we will find you and we will silence you—in the most horrible way possible”. Paul Khlebnikov, an American business journalist, was gunned down. The first attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II took place on Wednesday, 13 May 1981, in St. Peter's Square at Vatican City. The Pope was shot and wounded by Mehmet Ali Ağca while he was entering the square. The Pope was struck four times, and suffered severe blood loss. Several theories exist concerning Mehmet Ali Ağca's assassination attempt. One, strongly advocated since the early 1980s by Michael Ledeen among others, is that the assassination attempt had originated from Moscow and that the KGB had instructed the Bulgarian and East German secret services to carry out the mission. The Bulgarian Secret Service was allegedly instructed by the KGB to assassinate the Pope because of his support of Poland's Solidarity movement, seeing it as one of the most significant threats to Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. If the NiH reactor more of a thread to Russian hegemony than the Pope was? You decide.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil-- How would you measure such a magnetic field inside a NCE? It must be deduced by other than direct measurement I would guess. However, if possible, it would be conclusive as to your soliton/crack idea. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. Such an experimental finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
There is a spectrographic technique that astrophysicist use to measure the magnetic field strenth around neutron stars and black holes. Such means can be used if the Ni/H reactor had a spyhole where light emissions from the NAE could be indicative of its magnetic field strength. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- How would you measure such a magnetic field inside a NCE? It must be deduced by other than direct measurement I would guess. However, if possible, it would be conclusive as to your soliton/crack idea. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:08 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. Such an experimental finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
[Vo]:Continuous spin particles
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles? I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in this universe is spin. If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields can control the force projections of those particles. This referenced article is supportive of this concept. This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an anti gravity mechanism. I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
Axil do we know Putin's plan? I do not think so. I would say that each country has the government it deserve. It takes many generations to change it. I have no admiration for the Russian government for at least the last 800 year. It has not changed much.Tsarism or communism no difference. It is the leadership / government they always had. They have always been isolationist. They have a tradition of solving internal disputes with radical means. They wish to solve external affairs the same way. Nothing new and much harder as we have so good communication nowadays.. Russia's strengths is not mainly depending on their ability to control European energy supply. If LENR can contribute a decentralized distribution of energy the Russian might see that as the ultimate savior to keep that vast territory under control. As I see it they have a tremendous problem to supply the sparsely populated Asian part of Russia with modern amenities and keep people contempt. Local cheap energy would certainly solve some problems. I think the whole globe needs a LENR solution. I see much more potential losers in the US. US has world domination in all oil trade and is the biggest energy consumer with an infrastructure mainly built to support the same interests. Let us worry about how to get this technology out of the cradle. To me it is like one of those old fashion striptease shows when she was wearing ten layers of under ware. At least to me it became rather boring after the fifth set. In other words the credibility is much more of a problem and it helps the strong oil interest to push LENR at bay.. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Putin’s plan for the reemergence of Russia as a hegemonic influence on world affairs might be characterized with Russia’s successful steps toward “energy super-power” status. How would the emergence of LENR affect Putin’s actions as he realizes that Russia is sure to lose its previous energy hegemony in Europe? Will Putin take the loss of his dream for Russia and its ability to project power with good grace, or will the former KGB spy revert to old form and take matters into his own hands to remove the clear and present threat that he sees as catastrophic to Russia’s national interests as well as the interests of his cadre of criminal plutocrat functionaries? Remember what happened to Georgi Ivanov Markov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov And then there was Alexander Litvinenko… PR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the death of Alexander Litvinenko, a strong critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is the latest in a long line of suspicious deaths that may have been politically motivated. Paul Joyal, Russia expert, security consultant: A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: “If you do, no matter whom you are, where you are, we will find you and we will silence you—in the most horrible way possible”. Paul Khlebnikov, an American business journalist, was gunned down. The first attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II took place on Wednesday, 13 May 1981, in St. Peter's Square at Vatican City. The Pope was shot and wounded by Mehmet Ali Ağca while he was entering the square. The Pope was struck four times, and suffered severe blood loss. Several theories exist concerning Mehmet Ali Ağca's assassination attempt. One, strongly advocated since the early 1980s by Michael Ledeen among others, is that the assassination attempt had originated from Moscow and that the KGB had instructed the Bulgarian and East German secret services to carry out the mission. The Bulgarian Secret Service was allegedly instructed by the KGB to assassinate the Pope because of his support of Poland's Solidarity movement, seeing it as one of the most significant threats to Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. If the NiH reactor more of a thread to Russian hegemony than the Pope was? You decide.
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
It's not reemergence of Russian power, it's its the weaning of its remaining protective power in a too small period of time. At Syria, they are losing to religious fanatics. At Ukrania, they are losing to nationalist fanatics, strongly related to Nazi collaborationists from WWII, that helped them kill Jews, Gipsys, Slavs. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
Don't forget that just prior to Hitler's rise to power -- Russia killed off millions of Ukranians. People never seem to get that connection to Hitler's rise to power. People were terrified of the communists and rightfully so. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It's not reemergence of Russian power, it's its the weaning of its remaining protective power in a too small period of time. At Syria, they are losing to religious fanatics. At Ukrania, they are losing to nationalist fanatics, strongly related to Nazi collaborationists from WWII, that helped them kill Jews, Gipsys, Slavs. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
Let me add one thing. Both countries were being squeezed by austerity measures, though not to the end other countries were, like Spain. But unlike Spain, the separatists were never properly negotiated with. 2014-02-28 19:52 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: It's not reemergence of Russian power, it's its the weaning of its remaining protective power in a too small period of time. At Syria, they are losing to religious fanatics. At Ukrania, they are losing to nationalist fanatics, strongly related to Nazi collaborationists from WWII, that helped them kill Jews, Gipsys, Slavs. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles
More,,, http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1577 On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in Radiation and Forces On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles? I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in this universe is spin. If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields can control the force projections of those particles. This referenced article is supportive of this concept. This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an anti gravity mechanism. I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
I am not talking about WWII, I am talking about now. Nazis were defeated (except for some lunatics that call themselves like this, but they are too few). Russia politics is not related to that one before, except for its protective powers. In Ukraine, these guys were never dealt with properly. That's a bad move from Russia, but the speculative market acted too fast and emptied people's pockets too fast. 2014-02-28 19:53 GMT-03:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: Don't forget that just prior to Hitler's rise to power -- Russia killed off millions of Ukranians. People never seem to get that connection to Hitler's rise to power. People were terrified of the communists and rightfully so. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: It's not reemergence of Russian power, it's its the weaning of its remaining protective power in a too small period of time. At Syria, they are losing to religious fanatics. At Ukrania, they are losing to nationalist fanatics, strongly related to Nazi collaborationists from WWII, that helped them kill Jews, Gipsys, Slavs. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles
Axil-- Check this out--- http://phys.org/news/2014-02-hidden-electrons.html It sounds like pressure may make the electrons react with lattice of a metal oxide in an unusual way yet to be explained-- Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:41 PM Subject: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles? I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in this universe is spin. If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields can control the force projections of those particles. This referenced article is supportive of this concept. This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an anti gravity mechanism. I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.
Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles
Axil-- Your next avocation or vocation should be science fiction writing or at least advising...also consider consulting for Hollywood. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles More,,, http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1577 On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in Radiation and Forces On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles? I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in this universe is spin. If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields can control the force projections of those particles. This referenced article is supportive of this concept. This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an anti gravity mechanism. I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
Coinbase isn't an exchange, but rather a market maker for Bitcoin. You buy and sell bitcoins from them at agreed-upon rates; unlike an exchange where you place 'buy' or 'sell' orders against other account holders' orders. Here is Coinbase's method of keeping Bitcoins in cold storage; which is what MtGox claims to have failed at providing. http://blog.coinbase.com/post/33197656699/coinbase-now-storing-87-of-customer-funds-offline Craig
Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles
Mark Twain: Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Your next avocation or vocation should be science fiction writing or at least advising...also consider consulting for Hollywood. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 2:57 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles More,,, http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1577 On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in Radiation and Forces On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles? I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in this universe is spin. If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields can control the force projections of those particles. This referenced article is supportive of this concept. This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an anti gravity mechanism. I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
Last night I had a conversation with a former diplomatic attaché to Poland during the cold war and it is apparent that the nationalist fanatics as you call them (did you know that genocide is defined in terms of the attack on national identity as did the Soviets against the Ukranians during the Holomodor?) the WW II experience of Ukranians is quite relevant. Without that experience, it is quite likely that they would have simply gone with the EU/Nato for the higher prices they can get for wheat as well as their choke-point on Russian natural gas. I find it ironic that the people who crow the loudest about genocide are the people who are committing genocide, according to its accepted legal definition, around the world via globalism. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I am not talking about WWII, I am talking about now. Nazis were defeated (except for some lunatics that call themselves like this, but they are too few). Russia politics is not related to that one before, except for its protective powers. In Ukraine, these guys were never dealt with properly. That's a bad move from Russia, but the speculative market acted too fast and emptied people's pockets too fast. 2014-02-28 19:53 GMT-03:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: Don't forget that just prior to Hitler's rise to power -- Russia killed off millions of Ukranians. People never seem to get that connection to Hitler's rise to power. People were terrified of the communists and rightfully so. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: It's not reemergence of Russian power, it's its the weaning of its remaining protective power in a too small period of time. At Syria, they are losing to religious fanatics. At Ukrania, they are losing to nationalist fanatics, strongly related to Nazi collaborationists from WWII, that helped them kill Jews, Gipsys, Slavs. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, he appears to be affiliated with a water filtration company, Seldon Technologies of Vermont, which seems to be a player in CNT filters - so it is quite possible that he stumbled onto the energy anomaly via other RD. Hmmm, I haven't considered the Hari Seldon plan in ages. :-)
RE: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton However, he appears to be affiliated with a water filtration company, Seldon Technologies of Vermont, which seems to be a player in CNT filters - so it is quite possible that he stumbled onto the energy anomaly via other RD. Hmmm, I haven't considered the Hari Seldon plan in ages. :-) For those who are without Foundations, Terry refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seldon_Crisis
Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles
I have always considered spin to be a transdimensional quality. A particle with 1/2 spin must go through 720 degrees of rotation to return to their original position. These particles are capable of moving energy from our normal 3 space to an alternative 3 space. Electrons can serve as an energy pump in PM Dirac's sea of negative energy.
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
What book did you write? I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can. -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find Frank, I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can. On Friday, February 28, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Alan. I really still have a lot to learn. Its fun! Industrial products are the way to go. Today I'm going to turn over my #1 detector over to the dump owner. #5 false signals should not be a problem since there are no #5 bottles. We shall see how it goes in actual operation. If it works OK we will have our first product. I will video the operation. I hope it is not a fiasco. Next going to try my luck at #2 plastic detection. #2 is transparent at terahertz frequencies. I already have the PIR (passive infrared) detector. I am going to try one of those etched plate Edmond Scientific visible spectrum analyzers as a cheep infrared polarizer. heat source etched plate--- #2 plastic-etched plate 90 deg --- PIR detector We shall see what happens. Maybe I will learn more and advance by two steps. So far the costs have been low and Its been a learning experience. Sold 14 books in Feb. That produced revenue of $2 per day. My cat could live on it. Thank God I had a regular job for 32 years. This starting a business is difficult. Frank -Original Message- From: AlanG a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find On 2/28/2014 6:09 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Thank you Alan G. How?I really want to do this. I would start with aprocess-control camera module, maybe 320x240 pixels. Youshouldn't need more resolution, and keeping the pixel count small means you won't need a fancy image processing chip. Such modules typically use the common I2C or similarserial control and data interface, and some modules will have anon-board micro controller. If I were doing this project, I'd writesome firmware that would look at the change in color informationbetween adjacent pixels and the do some simple statistical analysison the result. The goal is to generate a single value for each imagethat represents how many colors are contained in the image. Then allyou need is a threshold value above which the #5 plastic is detected. Other thresholds based on luminance might be capable ofsorting out the other types so that a single detector could do thewhole thing. AlanG
RE: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton However, he appears to be affiliated with a water filtration company, Seldon Technologies of Vermont, which seems to be a player in CNT filters - so it is quite possible that he stumbled onto the energy anomaly via other RD. Hmmm, I haven't considered the Hari Seldon plan in ages. :-) For those who are without Foundations, Terry refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seldon_Crisis I had not thought about this facet of Asimov in the context of LENR, but Wiki defines a Seldon Crisis as a [social - political] situation that, to be successfully surmounted, would eventually leave only one possible, inevitable, course of action. Is not Peak Oil a Seldon Crisis which only leads to LENR?
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to the cosmic level, it sort of follows along. I am working with two professional researchers now and feeding them my data around the towers to see if they get the same results with some other biological data. In 1956 Doppler radars were taken from the military and used for weather forecasting. Although they do a lot of good, I think they are also damaging biology. I have had a lot of fun developing a theory and piecing it all together in whatever direction it takes me. As I have looked closely at doppler radars, I have been recently looking at all of the cruise ship illnesses with norovirus. I am looking at those large cruise ships and they have people partying on elevated decks directly beside and between multiple 20,000-30,000 watt pulsed Doppler microwave radars inside the large radomes. I think those radars may be triggering the illness outbreaks. If you are going on a cruise, I would advise not hanging out too close to them. My partner was a military pilot on an aircraft carrier and they NEVER walked close to operating radars. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/26/does-this-seem-remotely-safe-to-anybody/ I have all sorts of scientific data I found from the 1990's on concerns with Doppler radars causing cancer and related disease. Norovirus is basically strands of RNA, I think the microwave radars, along with the increased vacuum, may be creating it FROM HUMANS. You and Terry are electrical engineers, do you guys think that is a good idea to put your head beside a 30,000 watt pulsed microwave radar while drinking a Pina Colada?? Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: What book did you write? I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can. -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find Frank, I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can. On Friday, February 28, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Alan. I really still have a lot to learn. Its fun! Industrial products are the way to go. Today I'm going to turn over my #1 detector over to the dump owner. #5 false signals should not be a problem since there are no #5 bottles. We shall see how it goes in actual operation. If it works OK we will have our first product. I will video the operation. I hope it is not a fiasco. Next going to try my luck at #2 plastic detection. #2 is transparent at terahertz frequencies. I already have the PIR (passive infrared) detector. I am going to try one of those etched plate Edmond Scientific visible spectrum analyzers as a cheep infrared polarizer. heat source etched plate--- #2 plastic-etched plate 90 deg --- PIR detector We shall see what happens. Maybe I will learn more and advance by two steps. So far the costs have been low and Its been a learning experience. Sold 14 books in Feb. That produced revenue of $2 per day. My cat could live on it. Thank
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
Don't count me as one of those people. Nationalism may be a problem, when it is at extremes, because it becomes a way of blaming the others, and forgetting the actual cause of the problems. 2014-02-28 20:30 GMT-03:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: I find it ironic that the people who crow the loudest about genocide are the people who are committing genocide, according to its accepted legal definition, around the world via globalism. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Putin's plan
Extremism is a problematic label when people aren't being left alone. Its sort of like when you have a gun to someone's head who has sworn to kill you -- perhaps he has sworn to kill you because you were carelessly waving a gun around and occasionally it flagged at him, as they say in gun safety classes. Things are not as simple as our propaganda portrays. The Ukranians clearly aren't being left alone and haven't been for a very long time. Ask the CIA about blowback. Having said that -- clearly there are always going to be megalomaniacs around to capitalize on any group identity and those guys are the ones that are dangerous, including most of our own leaders in the US. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Don't count me as one of those people. Nationalism may be a problem, when it is at extremes, because it becomes a way of blaming the others, and forgetting the actual cause of the problems. 2014-02-28 20:30 GMT-03:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: I find it ironic that the people who crow the loudest about genocide are the people who are committing genocide, according to its accepted legal definition, around the world via globalism. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
I do not know anything about bankruptcy laws in Japan. As I expected, this was the lead story on NHK news, with Mark Karpeles bowing. He seemed to smirking too, oddly enough. His Japanese is not as good as I thought, but I guess he is stressed. Here is Reuters' take on the story: Feb 28 (Reuters) - Close to half a billion dollars worth of the bitcoin virtual currency has gone missing from an exchange in Tokyo - in what is either the bank heist of the century or a sloppy glitch, or a combination of the two. Mark Karpeles, the 28-year-old French CEO of Mt. Gox, which once handled around 80 percent of the world's bitcoin trades, filed for bankruptcy at a Tokyo District Court late on Friday. His lawyer said that nearly all the bitcoins in the exchange's possession - 850,000 of them - were missing. Karpeles blamed hackers. . . .
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
What is the Bitcoin missing were actually seized by the US government in the ongoing investigation of Silk Road and Karpales cannot say because of a gag order? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not know anything about bankruptcy laws in Japan. As I expected, this was the lead story on NHK news, with Mark Karpeles bowing. He seemed to smirking too, oddly enough. His Japanese is not as good as I thought, but I guess he is stressed. Here is Reuters' take on the story: Feb 28 (Reuters) - Close to half a billion dollars worth of the bitcoin virtual currency has gone missing from an exchange in Tokyo - in what is either the bank heist of the century or a sloppy glitch, or a combination of the two. Mark Karpeles, the 28-year-old French CEO of Mt. Gox, which once handled around 80 percent of the world's bitcoin trades, filed for bankruptcy at a Tokyo District Court late on Friday. His lawyer said that nearly all the bitcoins in the exchange's possession - 850,000 of them - were missing. Karpeles blamed hackers. . . .
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: What is the Bitcoin missing were actually seized by the US government in the ongoing investigation of Silk Road and Karpales cannot say because of a gag order? Good call. As it was once the largest bitcoin exchange, it will no doubt have hosted a significant amount of the Silk Road bitcoin at one point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Is not Peak Oil a Seldon Crisis which only leads to LENR? Exactly the context I considered. I just wondered when Hari would appear to us.
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:13 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You and Terry are electrical engineers, do you guys think that is a good idea to put your head beside a 30,000 watt pulsed microwave radar while drinking a Pina Colada?? No. It's either a Mai Tai or pure rum, 151 pf. You'll get cataracts regardless.
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
John, Unfortunately, upon further reflection these two thought experiments aren't paradoxical, because they involve sending a signal over a non-zero distance. Whenever such signaling is present a putative paradox vanishes when analysed according to the principles of relativity theory . Therefore, any thought experiment which produces a stable paradox cannot involve such communication. One such though experiment is the trip paradox which we already discussed. A variant of this thought experiment is discussed extensively on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox One strategy to make the paradox vanish involves altering the terms of the thought experiment by introducing a layer of signaling that was not present on any level in the original thought experiment. (This is analogous to changing the terms of a cold fusion experiment to make the excess heat vanish). Another strategy is to include acceleration which makes the total aging asymmetrical, but it does not address the paradox of who is aging more during the period uniform of velocity. (This is analogous to uncovering some chemical effect which does not account for all the excess heat and then to discount the remaining excess heat). In my next post I will present what I think is a stable paradox involving length contraction. It resembles the ladder-in-barn or the train-in-tunnel paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Of course these aren't stable paradoxes because under closer scrutiny they involve signaling over a distance. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, here is the way to really hit this one home, but it it a little more complex. So hopefully you can follow that in a large way there is a similarity between the Wikipedia argument and mine. Let's setup a hybrid for fun, we will place mirrors either side of the of the sensors in my experiment and move them closer together. Let's have a periodic light source release red photons (it must repeat since the red photons will be lost out the side every so many bounces) from the moving frame and the stationary frame will launch blue photons. Now we have a rotating and non-rotating censor that can each count each colour of photon that passes though it. So from the rotating frame the red light has a more direct path and the rotating sensor must detect more red photon passes. From the lab frame the blue photons have bounced more times since they have the more direct route and must register higher on the stationary sensor. If you watched the data coming in from the 2 sensors which might be a fraction of a mm apart, they obviously could not agree on when a photon is present or which colour! But even this doesn't work since how can the mirrors reflect light from a frame they aren't in Since the mirrors are biased to their frame (whatever that is) then um well, er.. Well how can you describe reality with a theory of unreality. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the other frame dilated. My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in time. So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you can't make a clock go faster like this. And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results again. The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and would still experience the SR style of time dilation... Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed up in these rotating frames or
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
I doubt any exchanges were involved in Silk Road assets. The advantage of VCs is that you can make transactions between individuals without any bank or exchange involved. Silk Road held their assets in their own wallet. When busted by the FBI, it took that agency several days to access the wallet information. Besides, it was the bust of Silk Road which proceeded the huge rise in BC values, IIRC. The loss at MtGox was likely the result of something called forking, the duplication of internal wallets of clients. Once the wallets existed in duality, the controlling entity of the cloned wallet was able to move the funds to other locations. It's like keeping two sets of books, one for the IRS and one for your records.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
proceeded=preceded Interesting error, eh? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I doubt any exchanges were involved in Silk Road assets. The advantage of VCs is that you can make transactions between individuals without any bank or exchange involved. Silk Road held their assets in their own wallet. When busted by the FBI, it took that agency several days to access the wallet information. Besides, it was the bust of Silk Road which proceeded the huge rise in BC values, IIRC. The loss at MtGox was likely the result of something called forking, the duplication of internal wallets of clients. Once the wallets existed in duality, the controlling entity of the cloned wallet was able to move the funds to other locations. It's like keeping two sets of books, one for the IRS and one for your records.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
I don't think litecoin will suffer the errors of bitcoin. With litecoin, the entire blockchain exists in every wallet. Mind you, this is a huge database and can take days to create a wallet unless you order the blockchain on DVD. Bitcoin only links resident coins to the blockchain along with the local code of the wallet. Forking will work with bitcoin; but, I don't see how it can work with litecoin. The other advantage of litecoin is transaction time. With the resident blockchain, transactions are almost instantaneous; whereas, bitcoin transactions can take up to an hour depending on market activity. Problem is, you can't buy much with litecoin, except bitcoin. :-) On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: proceeded=preceded Interesting error, eh? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I doubt any exchanges were involved in Silk Road assets. The advantage of VCs is that you can make transactions between individuals without any bank or exchange involved. Silk Road held their assets in their own wallet. When busted by the FBI, it took that agency several days to access the wallet information. Besides, it was the bust of Silk Road which proceeded the huge rise in BC values, IIRC. The loss at MtGox was likely the result of something called forking, the duplication of internal wallets of clients. Once the wallets existed in duality, the controlling entity of the cloned wallet was able to move the funds to other locations. It's like keeping two sets of books, one for the IRS and one for your records.
