Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

http://news.yahoo.com/paradox-solved-information-escape-black-hole-104543630.html

The "BOSENOVA" seen in the DGT might be a nanoscopic version of the
information restoration process proposed for the end of life process of
black holes.

Rovelli agrees: "Information is never too concentrated, and it can escape
with the explosion of the star." This release of information, he estimates,
would generate radiation with a wavelength of about 10^-14 cm -- the
wavelength of gamma rays.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> What do you think of my proposal of a 2-stage LENR theory?
>
> First stage, the 1DLEC.  As previously discussed.
> https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg91418.html
>
> 2nd stage, RPF
>
> The first stage generates some fusion events, and then RPF gets
> triggered.  RPF is nature's way of trying to get back to equilibrium, even
> if it means shedding mass down to a partial hydrogen.
>
> This explains why the effect is so hard to initiate, also why it's so hard
> to scale up (the BEC won't form at higher temperatures), and why the whole
> thing is so baffling, even though the most common fusion event in the
> universe has been initiated.  It explains why there's gamma rays during
> startup, when h1 monoatomic gas recombines to h2 gas in an endothermic (BEC
> creating) process,  but not afterwards, when it's RPF, which produces no
> gammas.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
> seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
> explanation of cold fusion:
>
>
> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2093276_Bose-Einstein_Condensation_in_the_Luttinger-Sy_Model
> Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Luttinger-Sy Model
>
> Olivier 
> Lenoble,
> Valentin 
> Zagrebnov
>   05/2006;
> Source: arXiv 
>
> *ABSTRACT* We present a rigorous study of the Bose-Einstein condensation
> in the Luttinger-Sy model. We prove the existence of the condensation in
> this one-dimensional model of the perfect boson gas placed in the Poisson
> random potential of singular point impurities. To tackle the off-diagonal
> long-range order we calculate explicitly the corresponding space-averaged
> one-body reduced density matrix. We show that mathematical mechanism of the
> Bose-Einstein condensation in this random model is similar to condensation
> in a one-dimensional nonrandom hierarchical model of scaled intervals. For
> the Luttinger-Sy model we prove the Kac-Luttinger conjecture, i.e., that
> this model manifests a type I BEC localized in a single "largest" interval
> of logarithmic size.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> From: Kevin O'Malley
>>
>> It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen
>> or
>> H3+, and it
>> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
>> Universe, so it is
>> very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
>> common fusion
>> reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
>> Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.
>>
>> You are an intelligent observer :-)
>>
>> The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course,
>> does
>> not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
>> the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
>> two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
>> trihydrogen anion."
>>
>> In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
>> of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have
>> no
>> identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
>> presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
>> very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
>> continually "try to fuse" but cannot.
>>
>> The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
>> energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies
>> (it
>> is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
>> supply excess energy without gamma radiation).
>>
>> Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
>> Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear
>> spin
>> of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
>> anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 1/2 and it is slightly lower
>> energy.
>>
>> In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
>> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
>> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
>> from
>> low-to-high for net excess. Such 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

I think this paper might address the "coupling term in the Hamiltonian"
you're asking about.

http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/3777/1/dalmonte_marcello_tesi.pdf


1.1.1 Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem
One of the main general results in 1D physics is related to the
so called spontaneous symmetry breaking
(SSB) mechanism[12, 13, 14]. In statistical
mechanics and quantum field theory, when a certain ground state exhibits
less symmetry than the related Hamiltonian, one says that a certain sym-
metry has been broken: that’s the essence of SSB. While various interesting
phenomena, such as the emergence of superconductivity, can be explained
in these terms, the most intuitive view on the subject is usually associ-
ated with the emergence of spontaneous magnetization in solids: given
a certain ordered configuration C which minimizes the energy functional,
an exactly opposite configuration C ′with the same energy always exists.
Nonetheless, the state of the system is not invariant under transformation
C↔C′, and thus this exchange symmetry is broken[13].
The curious point is, in low dimensional systems, SSB suffers from
a no-go theorem known as the Mermin-Wagner(MW) theorem
(or Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg(MWH) theorem). In their seminal paper [1
5], Mermin and Wagner showed that the Heisenberg model
cannot display a finite magnetization m(h) at finite temperature in one and
two dimension, and at zero temperature in one dimension, if the interac-
tion coefficients are short-range...


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Jones said:
>
>  In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
>>>
>> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
> from
> low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
> underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. <<
>
> The distribution of small amounts of spin energy crops up again. And in a
> magnetic field the spin states are separated by a greater energy gap,
> potentially giving a variety of resonant frequencies that work to effect
> transitions.
>
> Jones, what do the coupling term in the Hamiltonian look like?  Any
> references you know of?
>
>
> Bob
> - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day
>
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
> H3+, and it
> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
> Universe, so it is
> very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
> common fusion
> reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
> Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.
>
> You are an intelligent observer :-)
>
> The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course,
> does
> not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
> the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
> two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
> trihydrogen anion."
>
> In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
> of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
> identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
> presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
> very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
> continually "try to fuse" but cannot.
>
> The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
> energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies
> (it
> is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
> supply excess energy without gamma radiation).
>
> Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
> Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear
> spin
> of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
> anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
> energy.
>
> In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
> from
> low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
> underlying RPF reaction, via QCD.
>
> More on that later.
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

Also perhaps here, this smart guy:

*A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger
liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical
Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011).


*Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in
two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation
Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� *


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

>
>  Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein
> Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell,
> not as an explanation of cold fusion:
> ***Also perhaps here.
>
> New Journal of Physics  Volume 10
>  April 2008
> 
>
> R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011
> doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011
>  Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with
> dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
> Matter
>
> R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6
> Show 
> affiliations
>
>  Tag this 
> article
>  PDF
> (862 
> KB)
>  View
> article 
>
>  Abstract  
> References Cited
> By  
> Metrics
>
> Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
> Matter
>
> Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to
> quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing
> fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be
> exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and
> precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where
> evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by
> analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at
> zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and
> bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole
> crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low
> density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also
> shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to
> describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined
> 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL
> hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to
> the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the
> collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic
> conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper
> provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above
> results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations
> of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas
> and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

 Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
explanation of cold fusion:
***Also perhaps here.

New Journal of Physics  Volume 10
 April 2008


R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011
 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with
dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored
Matter

R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6
Show 
affiliations

 Tag this 
article
PDF
(862 
KB)
View
article 

 Abstract 
References Cited
By 
Metrics

Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored
Matter

Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to
quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing
fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be
exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and
precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where
evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by
analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at
zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and
bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole
crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks-Girardeau at low
density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also
shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to
describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined
1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL
hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to
the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the
collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic
conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper
provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above
results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations
of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas
and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

What do you think of my proposal of a 2-stage LENR theory?

First stage, the 1DLEC.  As previously discussed.
https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg91418.html

2nd stage, RPF

The first stage generates some fusion events, and then RPF gets triggered.
RPF is nature's way of trying to get back to equilibrium, even if it means
shedding mass down to a partial hydrogen.

This explains why the effect is so hard to initiate, also why it's so hard
to scale up (the BEC won't form at higher temperatures), and why the whole
thing is so baffling, even though the most common fusion event in the
universe has been initiated.  It explains why there's gamma rays during
startup, when h1 monoatomic gas recombines to h2 gas in an endothermic (BEC
creating) process,  but not afterwards, when it's RPF, which produces no
gammas.

Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
explanation of cold fusion:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2093276_Bose-Einstein_Condensation_in_the_Luttinger-Sy_Model
Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Luttinger-Sy Model

Olivier 
Lenoble,
Valentin 
Zagrebnov
  05/2006;
Source: arXiv 

*ABSTRACT* We present a rigorous study of the Bose-Einstein condensation in
the Luttinger-Sy model. We prove the existence of the condensation in this
one-dimensional model of the perfect boson gas placed in the Poisson random
potential of singular point impurities. To tackle the off-diagonal
long-range order we calculate explicitly the corresponding space-averaged
one-body reduced density matrix. We show that mathematical mechanism of the
Bose-Einstein condensation in this random model is similar to condensation
in a one-dimensional nonrandom hierarchical model of scaled intervals. For
the Luttinger-Sy model we prove the Kac-Luttinger conjecture, i.e., that
this model manifests a type I BEC localized in a single "largest" interval
of logarithmic size.



On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
> H3+, and it
> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
> Universe, so it is
> very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
> common fusion
> reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
> Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.
>
> You are an intelligent observer :-)
>
> The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course,
> does
> not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
> the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
> two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
> trihydrogen anion."
>
> In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
> of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
> identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
> presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
> very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
> continually "try to fuse" but cannot.
>
> The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
> energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies
> (it
> is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
> supply excess energy without gamma radiation).
>
> Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
> Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear
> spin
> of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
> anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
> energy.
>
> In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
> from
> low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
> underlying RPF reaction, via QCD.
>
> More on that later.
>
> Jones
>

[Vo]:[OT]More Alive than Dead?

[Terry Blanton]

"The population of the planet reached seven billion in October,
according to the United Nations. But what's the figure for all those
who have lived before us?

It is often said that there are more people alive today than have ever
lived - and this "fact" has raised its head again since the UN
announcement about the planet's population reaching a new high.

The idea helps fuel fears that the population is expanding too fast."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579

The answer might surprise you.  Guess who got it right in one of your
favorite books & movies?

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Bob Cook]

Jones said:


In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF

between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from
low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. <<

The distribution of small amounts of spin energy crops up again. And in a 
magnetic field the spin states are separated by a greater energy gap, 
potentially giving a variety of resonant frequencies that work to effect 
transitions.


Jones, what do the coupling term in the Hamiltonian look like?  Any 
references you know of?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day


From: Kevin O'Malley

It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
Universe, so it is
very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
common fusion
reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.

You are an intelligent observer :-)

The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course, does
not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
trihydrogen anion."

In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
continually "try to fuse" but cannot.

The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it
is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
supply excess energy without gamma radiation).

Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin
of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
energy.

In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from
low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
underlying RPF reaction, via QCD.

More on that later.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin O'Malley 

It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
Universe, so it is
very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
common fusion 
reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.  

You are an intelligent observer :-)

The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course, does
not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
trihydrogen anion."

In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
continually "try to fuse" but cannot.

The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it
is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
supply excess energy without gamma radiation). 

Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin
of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
energy. 

In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from
low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. 

More on that later.

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[fznidarsic]

I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the 
acceleration of an energy flow.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html



-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


Then my idea is bust.


But so is Special Relativity.


There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive.


John




On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:


John--
 
Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously.  I think the 
field lines come out straight from the Sun.  
 
Bob

  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   John   Berry 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic   inertia
  


  
  
  
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:
  


John--

 

I would say that they   do. 

  
 
  
I assume you mean propagate instantaneously?
  
At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR.
  


  


If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the 
earth would consistently have an arc concaved  in the opposite direction 
from the Sun's rotation.  I do not think this is observed.  However, it may 
not have been looked for.  

 

 

 

Bob

  
  
- Original Message - 
  
From: John Berry 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   
  
  
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic   inertia
  


  
  
  
  
  
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:
  


John--

 

Three points for clarification:

How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or 
rotate around the   axis?

  


  
In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you   saw 
it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that   
orientation.
  
You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is   perpendicular 
to the acceleration axis.
  


  
In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field   of 
each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in   
front and one behind.
  
If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around   the 
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.
  


  


  


Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity 
and acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?

  
 
  
Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
  
Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent   magnets.
  
 
  


Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?

  


  
It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the   
disproof of this idea.
  


  
But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal   this 
time, it is still a worthwhile discovery.
  
 
  


  It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with 
inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast 
does the inductive force happen?

  


  
That is a good question.
  
After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate   
instantaneously.
  


  
But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a   fiction.
  


  


  
BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:
  
 
  


Increase of inertia: 
Make a square solenoid air core   coil, we will label the sides left, right 
and up and down.

At rest   all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally 
leading to no   net force.
If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we   suddenly 
accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it   has now 
moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial   position 
(both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a   denser 
portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed   delay, 
and feels a stronger repulsion.

And the right side sees it   has moved further away from the left side as 
it still sees the old   position initially again so the right side feels a 
reduced repulsion as it   is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from 
the left.

This   means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which 
opposes the   initial acceleration.
It is as if the rest mass has increased by   electromagnetic means.

Note: It might help to make these coils 1   light second or larger in size 
for visualization purposes.
Decrease of   inertia/Negative inertia

Re: [Vo]:Nissan Leaf popular in Atlanta / old dynamometer problem

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

Hey, that's where I work!  Well, not in the strip joints ("Adult
> entertainment.  Entrance in rear." touts one sign.)


That's great!



>  But, my office is
> a mile away on Piedmont Rd.
>

Ah. Then you need to try the International Bakery, 2165 Cheshire Bridge Rd.
And the original, Original International House of Pancakes by the Tara
Cinema where the food is free but they charge for the entertainment. It is
run by an Original Cast of Characters. I was there one day when a snooty
businessman at the counter complained "are you ignoring me or what?!?" One
of the waiters, a flamboyantly gay 60-something guy said, "Don't take it
personally, honey; we ignore everyone."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nissan Leaf popular in Atlanta / old dynamometer problem

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> This article says the Leaf electric car is selling well in Atlanta:

There are 4 in my office parking lot.

> I talked to a fellow who has one. He says it takes forever to recharge with
> a 120 VAC plug but he doesn't care. He lets it sit overnight recharging. The
> 240 V charger is not expensive.

Not using 240 V affects the lifetime of the batteries.  The higher
voltage allows for cell equalization cycles.  Without periodic
equalization the internal resistance of the battery increases due to
varying cell voltages in the array.

> The fourth or fifth place I
> called finally had one so I had to go to Cheshire Bridge Road, which is a
> seedy nearby neighborhood filled with strip joints with comical names. The
> web site says the place is "next door to the Terrific Package Store."

Hey, that's where I work!  Well, not in the strip joints ("Adult
entertainment.  Entrance in rear." touts one sign.)  But, my office is
a mile away on Piedmont Rd.

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[John Berry]

Then my idea is bust.

But so is Special Relativity.

There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive.

John


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  John--
>
> Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously.  I think the
> field lines come out straight from the Sun.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* John Berry 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
>
>  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>>  John--
>>
>> I would say that they do.
>>
>
> I assume you mean propagate instantaneously?
> At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR.
>
>  If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the
>> earth would consistently have an arc concaved  in the opposite direction
>> from the Sun's rotation.  I do not think this is observed.  However, it may
>> not have been looked for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* John Berry 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
>>
>>   On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>>
>>>  John--
>>>
>>> Three points for clarification:
>>> How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or
>>> rotate around the axis?
>>>
>>
>> In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw
>> it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that
>> orientation.
>> You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular
>> to the acceleration axis.
>>
>> In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of
>> each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front
>> and one behind.
>> If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the
>> front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.
>>
>>
>>  Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity
>>> and acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?
>>>
>>
>> Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
>> Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.
>>
>>
>>>  Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?
>>>
>>
>> It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the
>> disproof of this idea.
>>
>> But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this
>> time, it is still a worthwhile discovery.
>>
>>
>>>It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with
>>> inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does
>>> the inductive force happen?
>>>
>>
>> That is a good question.
>> After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate
>> instantaneously.
>>
>> But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.
>>
>>
>> BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:
>>
>>
>> Increase of inertia:
>> Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right
>> and up and down.
>>
>> At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally
>> leading to no net force.
>> If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly
>> accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now
>> moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both
>> visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of
>> the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a
>> stronger repulsion.
>>
>> And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as
>> it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a
>> reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from
>> the left.
>>
>> This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which
>> opposes the initial acceleration.
>> It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.
>>
>> Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size
>> for visualization purposes.
>> Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:
>>
>> If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of
>> out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil
>> will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front
>> coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because
>> both coils initially see the old position for the other coil.
>> And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front
>> coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting
>> acceleration.
>>
>> Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is
>> applied.
>>
>> Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an
>> equal and opposite reaction?
>> And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!
>>
>> If you

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[Bob Cook]

John--

Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously.  I think the 
field lines come out straight from the Sun.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

I would say that they do. 

  I assume you mean propagate instantaneously?
  At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR.


If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the 
earth would consistently have an arc concaved  in the opposite direction from 
the Sun's rotation.  I do not think this is observed.  However, it may not have 
been looked for.  



Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

Three points for clarification:
How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or 
rotate around the axis?


  In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw 
it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that 
orientation.
  You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular 
to the acceleration axis.


  In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of 
each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and 
one behind.
  If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the 
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.




Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity 
and acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?

  Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
  Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.

Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?


  It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the 
disproof of this idea.


  But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this 
time, it is still a worthwhile discovery.

  It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with 
inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does the 
inductive force happen?


  That is a good question.
  After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate 
instantaneously.


  But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.




  BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:



  Increase of inertia: 
  Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right 
and up and down.

  At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally 
leading to no net force.
  If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly 
accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved 
closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually 
and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right 
sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger 
repulsion.

  And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as 
it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a 
reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the 
left.

  This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which 
opposes the initial acceleration.
  It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.

  Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size 
for visualization purposes.
  Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:

  If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of 
out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will 
see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will 
see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils 
initially see the old position for the other coil.
  And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front 
coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting 
acceleration.

  Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is 
applied.

  Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an 
equal and opposite reaction?
  And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!

  If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if 
you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is 
created.

  This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light 
propulsi

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[John Berry]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  John--
>
> I would say that they do.
>

I assume you mean propagate instantaneously?
At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR.

If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the
> earth would consistently have an arc concaved  in the opposite direction
> from the Sun's rotation.  I do not think this is observed.  However, it may
> not have been looked for.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* John Berry 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
>
>  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>>  John--
>>
>> Three points for clarification:
>> How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or
>> rotate around the axis?
>>
>
> In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it
> as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that
> orientation.
> You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular
> to the acceleration axis.
>
> In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of
> each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front
> and one behind.
> If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the
> front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.
>
>
>  Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and
>> acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?
>>
>
> Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
> Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.
>
>
>>  Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?
>>
>
> It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the
> disproof of this idea.
>
> But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this
> time, it is still a worthwhile discovery.
>
>
>>It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with
>> inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does
>> the inductive force happen?
>>
>
> That is a good question.
> After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate
> instantaneously.
>
> But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.
>
>
> BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:
>
>
> Increase of inertia:
> Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right
> and up and down.
>
> At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading
> to no net force.
> If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly
> accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now
> moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both
> visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of
> the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a
> stronger repulsion.
>
> And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it
> still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a
> reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from
> the left.
>
> This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes
> the initial acceleration.
> It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.
>
> Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size
> for visualization purposes.
> Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:
>
> If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of
> out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil
> will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front
> coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because
> both coils initially see the old position for the other coil.
> And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front
> coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting
> acceleration.
>
> Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is
> applied.
>
> Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal
> and opposite reaction?
> And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!
>
> If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if
> you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM
> radiation is created.
>
> This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light
> propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail).
> And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they
> aren't).
>
> However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent
> magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I
> don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it,
> or maybe the mater would somehow disin

[Vo]:Nissan Leaf popular in Atlanta / old dynamometer problem

[Jed Rothwell]

This article says the Leaf electric car is selling well in Atlanta:

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/03/03/february-2014-nissan-leaf-chevy-volt-sales/

Nationwide they sold 20,000 of them last year:

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/01/03/nissan-leaf-ends-2013-best-sales-month-ever-chevy-volt/

I see them all over the place around my house. There is dealer down the
street who gets a truckload a month. The Leaf is ideal for urban driving.
It would be useless in rural areas.

I talked to a fellow who has one. He says it takes forever to recharge with
a 120 VAC plug but he doesn't care. He lets it sit overnight recharging.
The 240 V charger is not expensive.

I would think about buying one but my 2004 Geo Metro is still chugging
along, with 58,000 miles on it. It has some minor problems. One backdoor
does not open, and the rearview mirror is glued in place. DeKalb County
says it is worth $300 which I find it insulting. The guy who services it
says he has seen riding mowers with bigger engines.

One interesting problem has cropped up with it which illustrates why old
machines become unusable. Cars in Atlanta have to be tested every year for
emissions. Starting in 1995, all cars were equipped with a computer system.
You tap into the computer data with a plug, which simplifies the emissions
test. Prior to 1995, you had to put the car up on a dynamometer. When I
went to the garage this year they said: "Sorry, we can't test it. Our
dynamometer is broken and we cannot get parts." They said try the guy up
the street. I drove up the street. The guy there said: "my dynamometer is
broken and they want $2,000 to fix it. We don't get many customers for this
anymore so it is not worth fixing. There's a place in Sandy Springs . . ."
The place in Sandy Springs said their dynamometer died last year. The
fourth or fifth place I called finally had one so I had to go to Cheshire
Bridge Road, which is a seedy nearby neighborhood filled with strip joints
with comical names. The web site says the place is "next door to the
Terrific Package Store." ("Package store" is Southern for "liquor store.")

The point is, all of these dynamometers are breaking at the same time
because they're all 20 years or older. They are not worth fixing because
few people have 20-year-old cars. The guy on Cheshire Bridge Road says he
meets many odd people between those of us who drive 20-year-old cars, the
Terrific Package Store and the strip joint clientele. He says oddballs come
from miles around to use . . . the dynamometer.

Old machines and sometimes last a long time. Here is an article about a
punchcard system that has been in use since 1948:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249951/if_it_aint_broke_dont_fix_it_ancient_computers_in_use_today.html

Machines become unusable not necessarily when they wear out, but when the
technical environment changes. When the people who know how to repair them
retire. When spare parts are no longer available. In the case of this punch
card system, when they run out of punch cards, I suppose. Or in the case of
my car, when something you never thought of happens, such as all the
dynamometers in Atlanta wearing out.

This is analogous to a species going extinct when the environment or the
ecosystem around it changes.

After 25 years you do not have to do emission tests anymore, so if the
dynamometer on Cheshire Bridge Road holds out another five years I will be
okay.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Of Cold Fusion and Catalytic Converters...

[Axil Axil]

It is straightforward to now understand Rossi's mouse is just a remotely
operating nanoparticle generator for the "catalytic" based Cat.

Rossi just decoupled nanoparticle generation from their participation in
the LENR process catalyzed by the Cat stage of the Rossi Hot Cat.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> This auto cat converter system is consistent with the basic principles of
> nano particle based cold fusion. Think of this system as a dry P&F cell.
>
> In a P&F cell, HHO production and nanoparticle based LENR reactions would
> happen as a unified reaction.
>
> In this Hot Cat system nanoparticle production is moved to a separate and
> remote electrolysis process.
>
> This is what Mills is trying to do when he speaks of formulating "nascent
> water" which is a requirement of his new arc based reaction.
>
> HHO contains water clusters (aka solid state water molecules) formed by
> arc discharge. The micro particles on the catalytic converter are in the
> some goldilocks size range as the NiH reactor of .1 to 5 microns. The
> surface of the auto cat converted is rough and its reaction surface area is
> large.
>
> I would predict that any remotely connected cooling plasma process whose
> end product is nanodust could feed this type of system.
>
> For the experimenters among us, I would try a cavatation system to prepare
> the solid state dust in a water solution. The water in the cavatation
> system should contain dissolved potassium carbonate salt. This potassium
> salt should produce potassium nanodust in a wide range of diameters. Such
> randomized dust particles sizes amplify nanoplasmonic power levels. After
> this nanoparticle feedstock production process, use a transducer powered
> nebulizer to vaporize the water and mobilize the solid nanoparticles in the
> air stream from the water suspension.
>
> A one process step high pressure injector system (over 100 bar) might
> produce cavatation and particle suspension in a one-step parallel process.
>
> Such a LENR system has all the earmarks of a great cold fusion system.
> These earmarks include dynamic NAE production, good reaction control, and a
> low power consuming nanodust production process.
>
> By closing this Hot Cat system, a further enhancement is to remove the air
> from the system and use hydrogen as the nanoduct carrier as in the NiH
> reactor.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:57 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>> FYI fellow Vorts:
>>
>>
>>
>> Grain of salt required?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Justin_Church's_H-Cat
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an open source design that involves venting hydroxy or HHO gas -
>> UN-ignited -- through a catalytic converter (the kind used in automobiles)
>> -- in ambient conditions -- and generating significant heat in the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, Justin recently sustained around 900 ºF (482 ºC) for nearly
>> 8 hours using around 200 Watts to run his HHO device generating about 1 L
>> per minute.  He says it isn't hard to exceed the 1200 ºF limit of his
>> meter, measuring the inside temperature.
>>
>>
>>
>> Youtube channel is here:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/jdcproducts/videos?flow=grid&view=0
>>
>>
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Entrants should alert FQXi with information if they witness such activities.
>  ***Then you should probably alert them, to keep your effort above the
> noise of suspicion.
>

I don't take this contest seriously. My entry will be instantly tossed out
by the judges from *Scientific American*, probably before they finish the
first paragraph.

It would be fun to see them read page 6, where I make them look like fools.
I couldn't resist! I figured, "let's let the bastards know we are still
here."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Of Cold Fusion and Catalytic Converters...

[Axil Axil]

This auto cat converter system is consistent with the basic principles of
nano particle based cold fusion. Think of this system as a dry P&F cell.

In a P&F cell, HHO production and nanoparticle based LENR reactions would
happen as a unified reaction.

In this Hot Cat system nanoparticle production is moved to a separate and
remote electrolysis process.

This is what Mills is trying to do when he speaks of formulating "nascent
water" which is a requirement of his new arc based reaction.

HHO contains water clusters (aka solid state water molecules) formed by arc
discharge. The micro particles on the catalytic converter are in the some
goldilocks size range as the NiH reactor of .1 to 5 microns. The surface of
the auto cat converted is rough and its reaction surface area is large.

I would predict that any remotely connected cooling plasma process whose
end product is nanodust could feed this type of system.

For the experimenters among us, I would try a cavatation system to prepare
the solid state dust in a water solution. The water in the cavatation
system should contain dissolved potassium carbonate salt. This potassium
salt should produce potassium nanodust in a wide range of diameters. Such
randomized dust particles sizes amplify nanoplasmonic power levels. After
this nanoparticle feedstock production process, use a transducer powered
nebulizer to vaporize the water and mobilize the solid nanoparticles in the
air stream from the water suspension.

A one process step high pressure injector system (over 100 bar) might
produce cavatation and particle suspension in a one-step parallel process.

Such a LENR system has all the earmarks of a great cold fusion system.
These earmarks include dynamic NAE production, good reaction control, and a
low power consuming nanodust production process.

By closing this Hot Cat system, a further enhancement is to remove the air
from the system and use hydrogen as the nanoduct carrier as in the NiH
reactor.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:57 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> FYI fellow Vorts:
>
>
>
> Grain of salt required?
>
>
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Justin_Church's_H-Cat
>
>
>
> This is an open source design that involves venting hydroxy or HHO gas -
> UN-ignited -- through a catalytic converter (the kind used in automobiles)
> -- in ambient conditions -- and generating significant heat in the process.
>
>
>
> For example, Justin recently sustained around 900 ºF (482 ºC) for nearly 8
> hours using around 200 Watts to run his HHO device generating about 1 L per
> minute.  He says it isn't hard to exceed the 1200 ºF limit of his meter,
> measuring the inside temperature.
>
>
>
> Youtube channel is here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/jdcproducts/videos?flow=grid&view=0
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[Bob Cook]

John--

I would say that they do.  If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming 
from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved  in the 
opposite direction from the Sun's rotation.  I do not think this is observed.  
However, it may not have been looked for.  



Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

Three points for clarification:
How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or 
rotate around the axis?


  In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as 
an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation.
  You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to 
the acceleration axis.


  In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each 
coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one 
behind.
  If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the 
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.




Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and 
acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?

  Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
  Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.

Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?


  It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof 
of this idea.


  But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, 
it is still a worthwhile discovery.

  It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with 
inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does the 
inductive force happen?


  That is a good question.
  After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate 
instantaneously.


  But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.




  BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:



  Increase of inertia: 
  Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and 
up and down.

  At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to 
no net force.
  If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly 
accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved 
closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually 
and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right 
sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger 
repulsion.

  And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it 
still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced 
repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left.

  This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes 
the initial acceleration.
  It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.

  Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for 
visualization purposes.
  Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:

  If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out 
spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see 
it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see 
it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially 
see the old position for the other coil.
  And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil 
is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration.

  Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is 
applied.

  Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal 
and opposite reaction?
  And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!

  If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you 
accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is 
created.

  This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion 
(a photon rocket, or a solar sail).
  And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they 
aren't).

  However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, 
the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, 
maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the 
mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize.

  If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be 
envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about.

  The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the DOE 
for NASA, but their

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[Bob Cook]

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

Three points for clarification:
How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or 
rotate around the axis?


  In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as 
an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation.
  You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to 
the acceleration axis.


  In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each 
coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one 
behind.
  If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the 
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.




Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and 
acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?

  Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
  Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.

Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?


  It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof 
of this idea.


  But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, 
it is still a worthwhile discovery.

  It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with 
inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does the 
inductive force happen?


  That is a good question.
  After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate 
instantaneously.


  But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.




  BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:



  Increase of inertia: 
  Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and 
up and down.

  At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to 
no net force.
  If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly 
accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved 
closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually 
and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right 
sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger 
repulsion.

  And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it 
still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced 
repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left.

  This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes 
the initial acceleration.
  It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.

  Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for 
visualization purposes.
  Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:

  If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out 
spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see 
it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see 
it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially 
see the old position for the other coil.
  And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil 
is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration.

  Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is 
applied.

  Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal 
and opposite reaction?
  And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!

  If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you 
accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is 
created.

  This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion 
(a photon rocket, or a solar sail).
  And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they 
aren't).

  However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, 
the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, 
maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the 
mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize.

  If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be 
envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about.

  The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the DOE 
for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as certain a 
picture:
  http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm

  This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in 
practice.

  BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity will fail, so please 
think

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[Bob Cook]

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

Three points for clarification:
How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or 
rotate around the axis?


  In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as 
an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation.
  You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to 
the acceleration axis.


  In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each 
coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one 
behind.
  If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the 
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.




Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and 
acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?

  Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
  Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.

Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?


  It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof 
of this idea.


  But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, 
it is still a worthwhile discovery.

  It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with 
inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does the 
inductive force happen?


  That is a good question.
  After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate 
instantaneously.


  But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.




  BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:



  Increase of inertia: 
  Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and 
up and down.

  At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to 
no net force.
  If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly 
accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved 
closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually 
and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right 
sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger 
repulsion.

  And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it 
still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced 
repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left.

  This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes 
the initial acceleration.
  It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.

  Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for 
visualization purposes.
  Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:

  If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out 
spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see 
it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see 
it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially 
see the old position for the other coil.
  And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil 
is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration.

  Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is 
applied.

  Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal 
and opposite reaction?
  And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!

  If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you 
accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is 
created.

  This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion 
(a photon rocket, or a solar sail).
  And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they 
aren't).

  However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, 
the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, 
maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the 
mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize.

  If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be 
envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about.

  The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the DOE 
for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as certain a 
picture:
  http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm

  This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in 
practice.

  BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity will fail, so please 
think

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Kevin O'Malley]

Entrants should alert FQXi with information if they witness such activities.
***Then you should probably alert them, to keep your effort above the noise
of suspicion.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> You're featured at Cold Fusion Now
>>
>>
>> http://coldfusionnow.org/read-and-rate-cold-fusion-may-have-revolutionary-potential-by-jed-rothwell/
>>
>
> Another clique! This appears to be against the rules:
>
> FQXi expects those providing community evaluations to do so based solely
> on the quality of the essay assessed. Voting collusion or bartering, mass
> down-voting, and other such forms of 'voter fraud' will not be tolerated,
> and participants in such will have (all) their votes discarded or in
> extreme cases their essays disqualified. Entrants should alert FQXi with
> information if they witness such activities.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[John Berry]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  John--
>
> Three points for clarification:
> How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or
> rotate around the axis?
>

In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it
as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that
orientation.
You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to
the acceleration axis.

In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of
each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front
and one behind.
If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.


Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and
> acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?
>

Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.
Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.


> Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?
>

It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof
of this idea.

But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this
time, it is still a worthwhile discovery.


>   It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with
> inductive feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does
> the inductive force happen?
>

That is a good question.
After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate
instantaneously.

But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.


BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:


Increase of inertia:
Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right
and up and down.

At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading
to no net force.
If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly
accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now
moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both
visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of
the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a
stronger repulsion.

And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it
still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a
reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from
the left.

This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes
the initial acceleration.
It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means.

Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size
for visualization purposes.
Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia:

If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of
out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil
will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front
coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because
both coils initially see the old position for the other coil.
And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil
is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting
acceleration.

Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is
applied.

Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction?
And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy!

If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if
you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM
radiation is created.

This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light
propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail).
And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they
aren't).

However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets,
the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't
know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or
maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize.

If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be
envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about.

The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the
DOE for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as
certain a picture:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm

This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in
practice.

BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity will fail, so please
think twice before making that objection.

Practical versions of this effect as a star drive could involve magnets
that undergo changes in magnetic orientation as they are being rapidly
accelerated/decelerated to switch between inertia being increased or
decreased, and as such creating a ne

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You're featured at Cold Fusion Now
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/read-and-rate-cold-fusion-may-have-revolutionary-potential-by-jed-rothwell/
>

Another clique! This appears to be against the rules:

FQXi expects those providing community evaluations to do so based solely on
the quality of the essay assessed. Voting collusion or bartering, mass
down-voting, and other such forms of 'voter fraud' will not be tolerated,
and participants in such will have (all) their votes discarded or in
extreme cases their essays disqualified. Entrants should alert FQXi with
information if they witness such activities.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jones:

It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is
very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion
reaction in the universe.

I consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.



On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
>
> ... he [Admiral Steidle] could be referring to something else instead of
> LENR and ... it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind
> of
> nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously -
> what would that be?
>
> OK. Let me clarify that rhetorical question, since the Admiral did mention
> "nuclear" but not LENR per se, and there is a third or hybrid possibility.
> Actually there is a fourth possibility too.
>
> For two decades there has been the question of a hybrid of LENR and hot
> fusion, which could mean something like LENR with uranium or thorium. There
> are papers on the LENR-CANR site relative to this with actual experiments.
> Curiously, the thorium version seems to be endothermic.
>
> Presumably much of the interior heat of Earth could be provided this way a
> hybrid LENR reaction with a heavy metal - assuming that there is
> "neutron-less" fission which could happen with a non-fissile isotope
> (U-238)
> via LENR and a proton which looks like a neutron (virtual neutron). This is
> old hat.
>
> As fate would have it, this concept turned up on Rossi's blog yesterday...
> under the guise of the a putative new physics called "tresino" physics.
> LOL.
> But to cut through the crap, this is little more a blatant theft of Randell
> Mills theory and is twenty years old.
>
> Exactly like Mills' "hydrino hydride" (tm) - the so-called tresino has a
> net
> negative charge and is quite small (thousands of time smaller than the
> hydrogen atom by volume). On vortex, we have been calling this species f/H
> or fractional hydrogen, since Mills has trademarked the name "hydrino".
>
> Other names are dense hydrogen, DDL hydrogen, IRH (inverted Rydberg
> hydrogen) hydrogen clusters etc. The ion may be stable or not, depending on
> which theory is employed since it is not proved.
>
> The ion would stable as a negatively charged ion under Mills theory. It
> could possibly interact with a heavy metal but the more interesting thing,
> by far, is the 3 proton reaction.
>
> P+(f/H-)+P = ?
>
> ANSWER: A version of the trihydrogen cation is the result and it is far
> from
> rare.
>
> This species is also known as protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it
> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is
> very common. On Earth it seems to be rare, but possibly not in condensed
> matter.
>
> H3+ is stable in the interstellar medium, which is a place that anions are
> not as stable as cations - due to the low temperature and low density of
> interstellar space. In condensed matter it would be stable due to lots of
> valence electrons spreading and hiding the net positive charge.
>
> "The role that H3+ plays in the gas-phase chemistry of the Interstellar
> Medium is unparalleled by any other molecular ion." Wiki quote.
>
> In short, for LENR - using the H2- anion as Mills claims is possible, but
> this cation could be the real basis of the reversible fusion reaction,
> which
> has been promoted here by me in the past as RPF - the diproton reaction.
>
> But instead of that particular diproton route, the molecular isomer H3+
> would proceed with higher probability in condensed matter (most likely). It
> would still be RPF with the consecutive Lamb Shift energy anomaly,
> happening
> at THz frequencies, but the cation never splits apart - it just hums along,
> dumping excess proton mass. This continues until that mass is converted to
> energy (7 parts per million of extra mass or ~7keV per proton).
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Kevin O'Malley]

You're featured at Cold Fusion Now

http://coldfusionnow.org/read-and-rate-cold-fusion-may-have-revolutionary-potential-by-jed-rothwell/




On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> It is back to normal. It was a temporary glitch. They sent me a note
> saying "oops, sorry."
>
>
> Michele Comitini  wrote:
>
>
>> It's there and leaving the competition behind!
>>
>
> That's thanks to my clique.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Kevin O'Malley]

You probably caused too much excitement for their servers to handle.  Your
article is far better than the others.  There are some goofy thinkers.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> It is back to normal. It was a temporary glitch. They sent me a note
> saying "oops, sorry."
>
>
> Michele Comitini  wrote:
>
>
>> It's there and leaving the competition behind!
>>
>
> That's thanks to my clique.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Peter Graneau obituary

[Jed Rothwell]

Memo from Christy:

The full memoriam obituary of Dr. Peter Graneau is on the Infinite Energy
website at:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/GraneauMemoriam.pdf

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Jed Rothwell]

It is back to normal. It was a temporary glitch. They sent me a note saying
"oops, sorry."


Michele Comitini  wrote:


> It's there and leaving the competition behind!
>

That's thanks to my clique.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[fznidarsic]

It's there and leaving the competition behind!


Go Jed!





-Original Message-
From: Michele Comitini 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest


http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

It's there and leaving the competition behind!

Commenter Joe Fisher show how much confusion raises when "nuclear"
appears inside a text...

2014-03-14 16:17 GMT+01:00  :
> Jed,  I hope that they did not deep 6 you after all of the excellent work
> you did.  You said this may happen.  If they did, you can send it somewhere
> else.  They are looking for papers like that in Scotland but its a bit to
> far to travel to.  I sent you a note on this also.
>
> Frank
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 10:50 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
>
> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>>  Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the
>> vote of the fqxi community . . .
>
>
> If it is rigged, you would think they would pull the entire essay page and
> delete it from the index. This seems more like a glitch.
>
> The whole page disappeared momentarily, then returned in this state, with
> the abstract, bio and link missing.
>
> Yesterday someone uploaded a comment which later disappeared.
>
> - Jed
>


 

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-

... he [Admiral Steidle] could be referring to something else instead of
LENR and ... it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind of
nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously -
what would that be?

OK. Let me clarify that rhetorical question, since the Admiral did mention
"nuclear" but not LENR per se, and there is a third or hybrid possibility.
Actually there is a fourth possibility too.

For two decades there has been the question of a hybrid of LENR and hot
fusion, which could mean something like LENR with uranium or thorium. There
are papers on the LENR-CANR site relative to this with actual experiments.
Curiously, the thorium version seems to be endothermic.

Presumably much of the interior heat of Earth could be provided this way a
hybrid LENR reaction with a heavy metal - assuming that there is
"neutron-less" fission which could happen with a non-fissile isotope (U-238)
via LENR and a proton which looks like a neutron (virtual neutron). This is
old hat.

As fate would have it, this concept turned up on Rossi's blog yesterday...
under the guise of the a putative new physics called "tresino" physics. LOL.
But to cut through the crap, this is little more a blatant theft of Randell
Mills theory and is twenty years old.

Exactly like Mills' "hydrino hydride" (tm) - the so-called tresino has a net
negative charge and is quite small (thousands of time smaller than the
hydrogen atom by volume). On vortex, we have been calling this species f/H
or fractional hydrogen, since Mills has trademarked the name "hydrino". 

Other names are dense hydrogen, DDL hydrogen, IRH (inverted Rydberg
hydrogen) hydrogen clusters etc. The ion may be stable or not, depending on
which theory is employed since it is not proved.

The ion would stable as a negatively charged ion under Mills theory. It
could possibly interact with a heavy metal but the more interesting thing,
by far, is the 3 proton reaction.

P+(f/H-)+P = ?  

ANSWER: A version of the trihydrogen cation is the result and it is far from
rare.

This species is also known as protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is
very common. On Earth it seems to be rare, but possibly not in condensed
matter.

H3+ is stable in the interstellar medium, which is a place that anions are
not as stable as cations - due to the low temperature and low density of
interstellar space. In condensed matter it would be stable due to lots of
valence electrons spreading and hiding the net positive charge.

"The role that H3+ plays in the gas-phase chemistry of the Interstellar
Medium is unparalleled by any other molecular ion." Wiki quote. 

In short, for LENR - using the H2- anion as Mills claims is possible, but
this cation could be the real basis of the reversible fusion reaction, which
has been promoted here by me in the past as RPF - the diproton reaction. 

But instead of that particular diproton route, the molecular isomer H3+
would proceed with higher probability in condensed matter (most likely). It
would still be RPF with the consecutive Lamb Shift energy anomaly, happening
at THz frequencies, but the cation never splits apart - it just hums along,
dumping excess proton mass. This continues until that mass is converted to
energy (7 parts per million of extra mass or ~7keV per proton).

Jones



<>

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Michele Comitini]

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

It's there and leaving the competition behind!

Commenter Joe Fisher show how much confusion raises when "nuclear"
appears inside a text...

2014-03-14 16:17 GMT+01:00  :
> Jed,  I hope that they did not deep 6 you after all of the excellent work
> you did.  You said this may happen.  If they did, you can send it somewhere
> else.  They are looking for papers like that in Scotland but its a bit to
> far to travel to.  I sent you a note on this also.
>
> Frank
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 10:50 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
>
> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>>  Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the
>> vote of the fqxi community . . .
>
>
> If it is rigged, you would think they would pull the entire essay page and
> delete it from the index. This seems more like a glitch.
>
> The whole page disappeared momentarily, then returned in this state, with
> the abstract, bio and link missing.
>
> Yesterday someone uploaded a comment which later disappeared.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Kevin O'Malley]

It's back up.  Probably just a glitch.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> I don't see it eiither
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link:
>>
>> http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000
>>
>> Is it just me, or have other people lost it?
>>
>>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

[Roarty, Francis X]

Or possibly the meniscus of bubble systems where gas bubbles becomes a plasma 
and boundary regions are compressed by a steady sonar tone that can be 
modulated on and off rapidly. A boundary doesn't have to be a perfect conductor 
and the dynamic range of a resistive liquid meniscus boundary may well trump 
the slower transitions of a conductive metal relative to moving gas atoms -both 
relate to DCE but this begs another question, which is more important to the 
robust effect, the nano geometry or the CHANGE in nano geometry?

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:54 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

Most LENR researchers use static NAE in their systems. Examples of static NAE 
are those cracks produced hydrogen loading.

When NAE hot spots are produced through a dynamic mechanism as they are 
required to keep the reaction going. NAE destruction does not kill the reaction 
over time. In a dynamic NAE system, NAE creation exactly matches NAE 
destruction.

In more advanced systems capable of producing NAEs as an ongoing process, 
computer automation control can signal when NAEs are reduced in numbers below 
reaction specification and a activation of a plasma based dust production 
process rebuilds the NAE population.

Think of NAE's as lumps of coal fed into a coal fire by a temperature 
controlled stoker. Lowering temperatures cause a thermostatic process to fed 
more coal lumps into the coal fire.

Such a dynamic NAE system can run for years without degradation in performance.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It strikes me that as so many LENR researchers tried to scale up their results, 
they have failed.  That would seem to suggest that higher temperatures kill the 
LENR effect, which favors BEC formation theories.  \\\





On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jones:
Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK.
1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
From: Kevin O'Malley

What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein 
Condensate , the V1DLLBEC.

We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

Yes - Bob - a related blog is where the quote came from. But it is undated,
Fran. 

And yes, he could be referring to ZPE instead of LENR, but to my thinking,
it is too soon to try to differentiate the two, since both could be part of
the same anomaly.

Seldon's page

http://seldontech.com/company/

indicates that Steidle joined them before it the LENR connection came to
light, so it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind of
nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously -
what would that be?

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

The "Cold Fusion Now" web page has an item yesterday which parallels what
you have attributed to Steidle and makes the connection to cold fusion
clearly. Steidle and Christopher Cooper must be close. Steidle certainly has
had extensive and complete access to Govt. R&D, including, it seems, 
cold fusion.  The Christopher H Cooper thread on Vortex-l is to the point.

Bob
 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Nice alert--

The "Cold Fusion Now" web page has an item yesterday which parallels what 
you have attributed to Steidle and makes the connection to cold fusion 
clearly.   Steidle and Christopher Cooper must be close.  Steidle certainly 
has had extensive and complete access to Govt. R&D, including, it seems, 
cold fusion.  The Christopher H Cooper thread on Vortex-l is to the point.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:16 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Quote of the day


"Devices powered with nanotube based nuclear power systems may 
substantially

change the current state of power distribution."

-Retired U.S. Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle

Admiral Craig E. Steidle - USN, USNA, NASA. Steidle served as the Director
of the DoD Joint Advanced Strike Technology Office - DoD's largest 
program.

He joined Seldon Technologies recently.

This bears repeating - that a top-level planner with extraordinary
experience believes that nanotube based nuclear power systems is the 
future

of energy - and presumably not merely for distributed power of for the
military but for the Nation.

OK - he did not say LENR by name but that is what Seldon Technologies is
moving into. Does any seriously doubt that this quote relates to what the
Admiral knows about nanotube-based LENR?

Jones

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Roarty, Francis X]

When did he say this?

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Quote of the day


"Devices powered with nanotube based nuclear power systems may substantially 
change the current state of power distribution."

-Retired U.S. Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle

Admiral Craig E. Steidle - USN, USNA, NASA. Steidle served as the Director of 
the DoD Joint Advanced Strike Technology Office - DoD's largest program. He 
joined Seldon Technologies recently.

This bears repeating - that a top-level planner with extraordinary experience 
believes that nanotube based nuclear power systems is the future of energy - 
and presumably not merely for distributed power of for the military but for the 
Nation.

OK - he did not say LENR by name but that is what Seldon Technologies is moving 
into. Does any seriously doubt that this quote relates to what the Admiral 
knows about nanotube-based LENR?

Jones

[Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

"Devices powered with nanotube based nuclear power systems may substantially
change the current state of power distribution." 

-Retired U.S. Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle 

Admiral Craig E. Steidle - USN, USNA, NASA. Steidle served as the Director
of the DoD Joint Advanced Strike Technology Office - DoD's largest program.
He joined Seldon Technologies recently.

This bears repeating - that a top-level planner with extraordinary
experience believes that nanotube based nuclear power systems is the future
of energy - and presumably not merely for distributed power of for the
military but for the Nation. 

OK - he did not say LENR by name but that is what Seldon Technologies is
moving into. Does any seriously doubt that this quote relates to what the
Admiral knows about nanotube-based LENR?

Jones



<>

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[fznidarsic]

Jed,  I hope that they did not deep 6 you after all of the excellent work you 
did.  You said this may happen.  If they did, you can send it somewhere else.  
They are looking for papers like that in Scotland but its a bit to far to 
travel to.  I sent you a note on this also.


Frank



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 10:50 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest



Bob Cook  wrote:




 Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the vote of 
the fqxi community . . .



If it is rigged, you would think they would pull the entire essay page and 
delete it from the index. This seems more like a glitch.


The whole page disappeared momentarily, then returned in this state, with the 
abstract, bio and link missing.


Yesterday someone uploaded a comment which later disappeared.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Bob Cook]

Jed 

I thought the same thing, You can see what I wrote to fqxi.  If it were a 
glitch they should send me a copy.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest


  Bob Cook  wrote:


 Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the 
vote of the fqxi community . . .


  If it is rigged, you would think they would pull the entire essay page and 
delete it from the index. This seems more like a glitch.


  The whole page disappeared momentarily, then returned in this state, with the 
abstract, bio and link missing.


  Yesterday someone uploaded a comment which later disappeared.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:

 Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the
> vote of the fqxi community . . .
>

If it is rigged, you would think they would pull the entire essay page and
delete it from the index. This seems more like a glitch.

The whole page disappeared momentarily, then returned in this state, with
the abstract, bio and link missing.

Yesterday someone uploaded a comment which later disappeared.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[David Roberson]

Jed, I can't find it at that location either.  It would be in bad form for them 
to remove it from the contest just because it was winning.  Perhaps it has been 
moved and will reappear.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 10:35 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest



Jed--
 
It had a lot of support compared to other essays.  Thus, its missing from the 
web page. 
 
 Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the vote of 
the fqxi community whose choice was way down in the public vote. 
 
 I still got to vote based on what I read yesterday, when it was still being 
posted on fqxi.org. 
 
Bob
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jed   Rothwell 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 6:52 AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
  


  
My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this   link:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

Is   it just me, or have other people lost it?  

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

It had a lot of support compared to other essays.  Thus, its missing from the 
web page. 

 Seems like the contest is rigged, since it contrasted so much with the vote of 
the fqxi community whose choice was way down in the public vote. 

 I still got to vote based on what I read yesterday, when it was still being 
posted on fqxi.org. 

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 6:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest


  My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link:

  http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

  Is it just me, or have other people lost it?

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Bob Cook]

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 6:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest


  My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link:

  http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

  Is it just me, or have other people lost it?

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

I don't see it eiither
>

Please tell this person:

*Kavita Rajanna*
Managing Director

m...@fqxi.org

There is no phone number.

I have a feeling they pulled it intentionally.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Kevin O'Malley]

I don't see it eiither


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link:
>
> http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000
>
> Is it just me, or have other people lost it?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[Bob Cook]

John--

Three points for clarification:
How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate 
around the axis?
Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and 
acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?
Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?  It would 
seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback 
force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does the inductive force 
happen?

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:47 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  I have shared this concept before, here is try 2, I'd really like some 
feedback I hope it is easy to understand and I think it is potentially 
important.


  The concept is that if a coil powdered with flat DC is suddenly moved, each 
side of the solenoid sees it is in a new position and yet because changes in 
the magnetic field are assumed to occur at C, they initially find that they 
have moved relative to the other side, one side sees it has moved closer and 
the other further away from the other.


  Hence the repulsion of the 2 sides becomes uneven, this results in an 
inertial like force, as if the magnetic field has it's own mass.


  Ascii art of the coil orientation in the first example: -> O ->   
  Legend: O = coil, -> arrow showing direction of acceleration.


  Interestingly this can be reversed, if we now have 2 coils in attraction and 
move then suddenly at once it is attraction that becomes imbalanced, each coil 
sees the old position initially, the rear coil sees a stronger attraction to 
the front coil as it has moved closer to where it sees it was while the front 
coils attraction to the rear one is decreased.


  This leads to a force that actually helps the applied acceleration!


  Ascii art of the coil orientation in the second example: -> | | ->
  Legend: | =One coil side on, ->  arrow showing direction of acceleration.


  Does it disagree with the laws of equal and opposite action (which also 
implies breaking the conservation of energy)?
  Not necessarily, the magnetic fields are accelerating and could emit a 
magnetic variation of cyclotron radiation, as such this would not breach these 
laws and more than a light propulsion system would.


  However the magnetic fields could be sourced from permanent magnets, and 
while this would not give the desired lightness, it would mean that any energy 
would be pulled from atomic energy.


  I would assert that this could only fail if the speed of light is breached by 
the near-field of a magnet.


  There is work from the DOE in this direction also, so it is certainly not 
absurd.
  http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion1.htm



  Can anyone see any problems, improvements, suggestions where to go from here?


  John

Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[Bob Cook]

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Berry 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:47 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia


  I have shared this concept before, here is try 2, I'd really like some 
feedback I hope it is easy to understand and I think it is potentially 
important.


  The concept is that if a coil powdered with flat DC is suddenly moved, each 
side of the solenoid sees it is in a new position and yet because changes in 
the magnetic field are assumed to occur at C, they initially find that they 
have moved relative to the other side, one side sees it has moved closer and 
the other further away from the other.


  Hence the repulsion of the 2 sides becomes uneven, this results in an 
inertial like force, as if the magnetic field has it's own mass.


  Ascii art of the coil orientation in the first example: -> O ->   
  Legend: O = coil, -> arrow showing direction of acceleration.


  Interestingly this can be reversed, if we now have 2 coils in attraction and 
move then suddenly at once it is attraction that becomes imbalanced, each coil 
sees the old position initially, the rear coil sees a stronger attraction to 
the front coil as it has moved closer to where it sees it was while the front 
coils attraction to the rear one is decreased.


  This leads to a force that actually helps the applied acceleration!


  Ascii art of the coil orientation in the second example: -> | | ->
  Legend: | =One coil side on, ->  arrow showing direction of acceleration.


  Does it disagree with the laws of equal and opposite action (which also 
implies breaking the conservation of energy)?
  Not necessarily, the magnetic fields are accelerating and could emit a 
magnetic variation of cyclotron radiation, as such this would not breach these 
laws and more than a light propulsion system would.


  However the magnetic fields could be sourced from permanent magnets, and 
while this would not give the desired lightness, it would mean that any energy 
would be pulled from atomic energy.


  I would assert that this could only fail if the speed of light is breached by 
the near-field of a magnet.


  There is work from the DOE in this direction also, so it is certainly not 
absurd.
  http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion1.htm



  Can anyone see any problems, improvements, suggestions where to go from here?


  John

Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest

[Jed Rothwell]

My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

Is it just me, or have other people lost it?

[Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[John Berry]

I have shared this concept before, here is try 2, I'd really like some
feedback I hope it is easy to understand and I think it is potentially
important.

The concept is that if a coil powdered with flat DC is suddenly moved, each
side of the solenoid sees it is in a new position and yet because changes
in the magnetic field are assumed to occur at C, they initially find that
they have moved relative to the other side, one side sees it has moved
closer and the other further away from the other.

Hence the repulsion of the 2 sides becomes uneven, this results in an
inertial like force, as if the magnetic field has it's own mass.

Ascii art of the coil orientation in the first example: -> O ->
Legend: O = coil, -> arrow showing direction of acceleration.

Interestingly this can be reversed, if we now have 2 coils in attraction
and move then suddenly at once it is attraction that becomes imbalanced,
each coil sees the old position initially, the rear coil sees a stronger
attraction to the front coil as it has moved closer to where it sees it was
while the front coils attraction to the rear one is decreased.

This leads to a force that actually helps the applied acceleration!

Ascii art of the coil orientation in the second example: -> | | ->
Legend: | =One coil side on, ->  arrow showing direction of acceleration.

Does it disagree with the laws of equal and opposite action (which also
implies breaking the conservation of energy)?
Not necessarily, the magnetic fields are accelerating and could emit a
magnetic variation of cyclotron radiation, as such this would not breach
these laws and more than a light propulsion system would.

However the magnetic fields could be sourced from permanent magnets, and
while this would not give the desired lightness, it would mean that any
energy would be pulled from atomic energy.

I would assert that this could only fail if the speed of light is breached
by the near-field of a magnet.

There is work from the DOE in this direction also, so it is certainly not
absurd.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion1.htm

Can anyone see any problems, improvements, suggestions where to go from
here?

John