Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun
http://hector.elte.hu/budapest14/slides/endrodi_0203_0204.pdf *QCD transition in magnetic fields* On Slide: *Typical magnetic fields* At 10^15Tesla, the electromagnetic and strong interactions can compete This is why I have said that 10^16Tesla is the magic level for magnetic fields in LENR. But we now know from experimentation, the magnetic field strength produced in LENR systems can be far weaker than that to be functional in catalyzing nuclear reactions. QCD On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Regarding the intensity of magnetic fields on the Sun, I wonder how they compare to those in a high susceptibility metal like Mu metal? It may be that engineered magnetic fields in solid state metals produce much greater fields and more access to the Dirac Sea of virtual particles than the Sun's magnetic fields. There would not be may solid state, high susceptibility materials on the Sun's surface. The flux neutrinos associated with Sun spots may be in fact be spin polarized by the magnetic field and be able to escape the Sun more readily from reactions occurring deep below the surface. The bigger question is how would neutrinos change the half life of a nucleus in any case?The reaction cross section must be very small. Has Frishbach suggested any mechanism for the change in decay rate? Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR on the sun Sunspots, the source of solar flares are produced by plasma vortexes, or more apply plasma hurricanes that actually disrupt the convection of energy carrying photons from the sun's core deeper in the sun. Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the surface of the Photosphere that appear as dark spots compared to the surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection, forming areas of lower surface temperatures. If a Sunspot were isolated from its surrounding Photosphere, it would be brighter than an electric arc. Sunspots expand and contract as they move across the surface of the sun. They can be as large as 50,000 miles in diameter making the larger ones visible from Earth. In more detail, it is now believed that the twisting magnetic action in the plasma Convection Zone just below the sun's surface causes sunspots to form, flares, etc. to form, and the sun's magnetic field to reverse itself every 22 years. (The earth's magnetic field also reverses itself, but only about once every million years. If the sunspot was a significant source of nuclear activity at the surface of the sun, the spots would be brighter than the surrounding surface area. The case for nuclear production inside the vortex during its formation might be carried by the fact that neutrinos begin to increase some 36 hours before the solar flare erupts. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare. The assumption is that the increase in neutrino production and associated nuclear activity decreases the rate of radioactive decay. Flares are formed when intense magnetic fields from below the sun's surface link up with magnetic fields in the outer Corona in a process called Magnetic Reconnection. Flares are powered by the sudden release of magnetic energy stored in the sun's Corona. The same energy release may also produce a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), but not always. And, sometimes CMEs form without Flares. The connection between Flares and CMEs is not well understood. Magnetic Reconnection is a physical process in highly conductive plasmas where magnetic fields clash, re-configure themselves into a lower energy level, and the excess magnetic energy is then converted into kinetic and thermal energy. Big Flares are equivalent to billions of megatons of TNT exploding within a few seconds. A big flare can produce one sixth of the total energy output of the sum localized at a small spot on the sun. Billions of tons of electrons, protons, and other particles that are accelerated by Magnetic Reconnection in a Flare approach the speed of light. It is still not possible to predict when a CME or Flare will erupt because the trigger mechanism isn't known. It might be that the flare and the CME occur at a later stage of the magnetic field formation process. Nuclear reactions caused by the magnetic mechanisms inside the sunspot gradually increase over days before a flare occurs. Strangely, the video from Purdue referenced below shows that there is a precise relationship between the total production of EMF in the sun and the radioactive decay rate seen on earth at about 26 minutes into the video. IMHO, this is an
[Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
I added this document to the library: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
Hmmm . . . Google mail just tried to send this message to the Spam filter. I repeat: I just added a document by Gene Mallove to the library: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
Nothing comes up when I try to read the PDF. Blank PDF file. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Nothing comes up when I try to read the PDF. Blank PDF file. Really?!? I have not had that happen before. It comes up fine on my computer. Try downloading and displaying it. I was planning on upgrading my PDF software tomorrow. Maybe that will fix the problem. Does anyone else have this problem? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
It's OK to me. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
Just finished reading it in Chrome. Idiots.
[Vo]:[OT] But not entirely: Book: CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty
Vorts, A book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/0674430 00X/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1398126885sr=1-1keywords=capital+in+the +twenty-first+century http://tinyurl.com/l77z5og I suspect we are likely to hear a lot more about a popular book on economics called CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty. The author has become somewhat of rock-star celebrity in many economic circles, as well as a pariah in others. The fact that his book has effected so many readers so quickly, both pro and con, suggest to me that Pketty is probably on to something serious, and we should take note. We in the USA have only begun to hear about Piketty's 700+ page book because it has only recently been translated from French (his native language) into English. In a nutshell, Piketty claims the growing inequality of wealth distribution is due primarily to a single economic action: When the rate of return on capital-the annual income it generates divided by its market value-is higher than the economy's growth rate, capital income will tend to rise faster than wages and salaries, which rarely grow faster than G.D.P. ...and where does all of this accumulated capital end up? Well, that is the question! To quote the New Yorker review: If ownership of capital were distributed equally, this wouldn't matter much. We'd all share in the rise in profits and dividends and rents. But in the United States in 2010, for example, the richest ten per cent of households owned seventy per cent of all the country's wealth (a good surrogate for capital), and the top one per cent of households owned thirty-five per cent of the wealth. By contrast, the bottom half of households owned just five per cent. When income generated by capital grows rapidly, the richest families benefit disproportionately. Since 2009, corporate profits, dividend payouts, and the stock market have all risen sharply, but wages have barely budged. As a result, according to calculations by Piketty and Saez, almost all of the income growth in the economy between 2010 and 2012-ninety-five per cent of it-accrued to the one per cent. ... ... The New Yorker Review: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/31/140331crbo_books_cass idy?currentPage=all According to my understanding a major reason inequality of wealth in places like the United States is getting worse and will continue to get worse unless something is done about it soon, according to Piketty, is the fact that massive amounts accumulated wealth are now being passed down from generation to generation. The trend for inherited wealth is increasing. Those who have accumulated massive amounts of capital (and the power that goes along with it) have been able to successfully rewrite the tax code. Inheritance taxes and other taxation equalizer mechanisms that in the past helped redistribute the tendency for wealth to accumulate like cancerous tumors that could eventually kill the host have been rendered useless. How did this happen? Politics of course! Piketty states that economics and politics can't be separated from each other. More from the New Yorker: Piketty believes that the rise in inequality can't be understood independently of politics. For his new book, he chose a title evoking Marx, but he doesn't think that capitalism is doomed, or that ever-rising inequality is inevitable. There are circumstances, he concedes, in which incomes can converge and the living standards of the masses can increase steadily-as happened in the so-called Golden Age, from 1945 to 1973. But Piketty argues that this state of affairs, which many of us regard as normal, may well have been a historical exception. The forces of divergence can at any point regain the upper hand, as seems to be happening now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, he writes. And, if current trends continue, the consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying. A real irony here is the fact that a couple of centuries ago our forefathers escaped Europe to get away from the unfairness inherited accumulated wealth wreaked on those who by birthright had not been bequeathed a pile of cash. And now, we are on the brink of recreating the very same specter we attempted to escape from. Needless to say, wealth inequality is one of the major causes of messy revolutions. A lot of people end up getting killed before the dust settles. Regardless of what side of the fence one might be on, I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about the ramifications of Piketty's observations very soon. I'm sure the debate will cause some interesting polarization. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
RE: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
Works for me in IE. FireFox... not so well. Go figger. Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion
Firefox might require an app to read .pdf Or an update to the extension. - Reply message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Mallove: Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 PM Works for me in IE. FireFox... not so well. Go figger. Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
RE: [Vo]:[OT] A Commentary re: CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty
Vorts, http://www.foreconomicjustice.org/12000/trickle-up-economics This commentary by Gary Reber on Thomas Piketty's book CAPITAL opens a path to a program offering a dramatic reduction of inequality independent of jobs and savings. Best, Mark Mark Goldes CEO AESOP Institute Co-Founder CHAVA Energy www.aesopinstitute.org www.chavaenergy.com 707 861-9070 707 280-8210 cell From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 7:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:[OT] But not entirely: Book: CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty Vorts, A book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1398126885sr=1-1keywords=capital+in+the+twenty-first+century http://tinyurl.com/l77z5og I suspect we are likely to hear a lot more about a popular book on economics called CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty. The author has become somewhat of rock-star celebrity in many economic circles, as well as a pariah in others. The fact that his book has effected so many readers so quickly, both pro and con, suggest to me that Pketty is probably on to something serious, and we should take note. We in the USA have only begun to hear about Piketty's 700+ page book because it has only recently been translated from French (his native language) into English. In a nutshell, Piketty claims the growing inequality of wealth distribution is due primarily to a single economic action: When the rate of return on capital—the annual income it generates divided by its market value—is higher than the economy’s growth rate, capital income will tend to rise faster than wages and salaries, which rarely grow faster than G.D.P. ...and where does all of this accumulated capital end up? Well, that is the question! To quote the New Yorker review: If ownership of capital were distributed equally, this wouldn’t matter much. We’d all share in the rise in profits and dividends and rents. But in the United States in 2010, for example, the richest ten per cent of households owned seventy per cent of all the country’s wealth (a good surrogate for “capital”), and the top one per cent of households owned thirty-five per cent of the wealth. By contrast, the bottom half of households owned just five per cent. When income generated by capital grows rapidly, the richest families benefit disproportionately. Since 2009, corporate profits, dividend payouts, and the stock market have all risen sharply, but wages have barely budged. As a result, according to calculations by Piketty and Saez, almost all of the income growth in the economy between 2010 and 2012—ninety-five per cent of it—accrued to the one per cent. ... ... The New Yorker Review: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/31/140331crbo_books_cassidy?currentPage=all According to my understanding a major reason inequality of wealth in places like the United States is getting worse and will continue to get worse unless something is done about it soon, according to Piketty, is the fact that massive amounts accumulated wealth are now being passed down from generation to generation. The trend for inherited wealth is increasing. Those who have accumulated massive amounts of capital (and the power that goes along with it) have been able to successfully rewrite the tax code. Inheritance taxes and other taxation equalizer mechanisms that in the past helped redistribute the tendency for wealth to accumulate like cancerous tumors that could eventually kill the host have been rendered useless. How did this happen? Politics of course! Piketty states that economics and politics can't be separated from each other. More from the New Yorker: Piketty believes that the rise in inequality can’t be understood independently of politics. For his new book, he chose a title evoking Marx, but he doesn’t think that capitalism is doomed, or that ever-rising inequality is inevitable. There are circumstances, he concedes, in which incomes can converge and the living standards of the masses can increase steadily—as happened in the so-called Golden Age, from 1945 to 1973. But Piketty argues that this state of affairs, which many of us regard as normal, may well have been a historical exception. The “forces of divergence can at any point regain the upper hand, as seems to be happening now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century,” he writes. And, if current trends continue, “the consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying.” A real irony here is the fact that a couple of centuries ago our forefathers escaped Europe to get away from the unfairness inherited accumulated wealth wreaked on those who by birthright had not been bequeathed a pile of cash. And now, we are on the brink of recreating the very same specter we
