Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
That's why I coupled the two probabilities upthread. Did you read the thread? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93531.html Let's say you think there's a 66% chance that Rossi's real and a 50% chance that CYPW will be in the right commercial place to take advantage. That means that you think it's 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 chance that such a stock will basically skyrocket. And in the past this stock has skyrocketed by more than 100X, so we're talking 33% emotional odds versus 1% pot odds on this stock. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
From ECAT World Rossi on His Anxiety Over E-Cat Test Results Posted on June 9, 2014 by admin http://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/ • 62 Comments http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/09/rossi-on-his-anxiety-over-e-cat-test-results/#comments http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/ca8429c822ed65ab1c3b13e3c8c317dc/ Here’s a comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi that I found interesting — in response to a question by Giuliano Bettini who asked Rossi about the source of his anxiety regarding the upcoming tests. Giuliano asked Rossi whether he was nervous because a) he was afraid that negative test results would undermine all his work, or that b) these new tests might reveal that there had been a fundamental misunderstanding, and all his work was based on an illusion. To both those questions, Rossi responded ‘no, it is not’; then went on to say: The anxiety is generated by the immense importance of a test made by a third independent party of experts of the field, in a neutral laboratory, for a long time, collecting millions of data examined for months, analyzed in independent laboratories of different Universities, for the first time in the history of LENR. Let me make a simple example: you have to sustain an exam , a difficult one, in a University’s Faculty; you have studied well, you made tests by yourself, you are sure to have understood the matter, but the exam is long and the result of the exam will be important for your future career: shouldn’t you be anxious? That’s my feeling, aggravated from the fact that I have not a clue of when there will be the results and I have not a clue either about the work that the Professors are doing. Rossi seems to see this report as being a monumental and watershed moment for his work — in fact he characterizes the test as being the most exhaustive one ever carried out in the history of LENR in terms of the amount of time, work and analysis being done by an independent party. His example about an exam is a good one, I think. Even if you may have done meticulous preparation for an important test, until you get the results back there’s always going to be an element of suspense about the outcome. You might wonder about the mindset of the examiners — how critical they might be, and how competent they might be. I suppose Rossi might be concerned about exactly what testing has been done, possible mistakes being made by the testers, about the quality of instrumentation being used, and other factors that might affect the outcome. Rossi also probably realizes the importance of this testing from the point of view of Industrial Heat’s business plan, and if there are problems, how that might affect commercialization and industrialization of the E-Cat. So while Rossi may be confident regarding his discovery, there are plenty of things to be worried about — and I guess that observers like ourselves might be feeling similar (albeit lesser) levels of concern for some of the same reasons. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Yes, but just because there are some things that are real but not very commercially viable, and just because in our ignorance we may be unable to say if it is commercially viable or not does not change the fact of what it is. It either is real and useful, real and useless to some degree and false. Chance and probability has no place. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Axil, Good point regarding proof of the effect and actual construction of a useful product. The lack of evidence to date suggest the effect, if real, is extremely self destructive making replication at low power density difficult enough but extracting high power density is exponentially more difficult. Rossi has to keep his control loop balanced on the head of a pin with heat transfer fluid performing a huge fraction of the control at low frequency and his high frequency loop by whatever means [heaters/plasmons] has to steer the NAE “window” created by the coolant flow to stay precisely on the top of that pin as he increases power out and flow rate in lock step. Engineering an end product with these constrains will make the manufacture of a Lamborghini look like child’s play. To increase robustness and flexibility of this effect it may be the resilience of the product to self destruction that needs the most attention, better heat sinking, higher melting temps, thermal uniformity and a faster control loop to excite and retard the reaction. If we have to balance it on the head of a needle than we should concentrate on doing that better and faster. IMHO we only see a small fractions of the hot spots – those that survive self destruction by being at a precise thermal distance from the coolant while the closer geometry self destructs/ melts closed and he more distant don’t achieve the initial runaway state we need to bridle. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:30 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.commailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties MM encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether. IMHO Naudt’s paper describing hydrinos as relativistic hydrogen holds a key to much of this – and puts the fractional/shrinking hydrogen on a plane 90 degrees to our spatial axis.. this is where MM should have been seeking the ether in parallel to the time axis not on a spatial axis. Likewise I posit larger virtual particles are not denied access between Casimir boundries as current theory holds but rather the space time between the surfaces is twisted via negative equivalent acceleration such that they are able to fit nicely at the cost of time dilation and Lorentzian contraction where the universe appears from their perspective to slow down to a crawl in the same manner we would perceive a spaceship achieving high fractions of C. I think this is how COE is seemingly violated since it is stipulated that random motion can not be exploited –instead of throwing reaction mass away from a spaceship to decrease the interface rate between spaceship and ether [windshield and rain /Haisch and Rueda] we are using the opposite case of Casimir geometry that makes the space in the cavity appear larger so that many more VP can pass thru the region of this etheric axis [reversing the interaction rate between the physical and etheric axis from what Haisch and Rueda posit with their analogy of rainstorm and windshield]. This sudden change/breach in isotropy is in opposition and trumps gravity – although addition of forces[gravity and Casimir] would not violate COE I posit that the normally unexploitable property of random motion can now occur because one spatial axis is by definition required for Casimir geometry and there are several routes to rectifying the motion such as ionic or molecular state asymmetries. Fran BTW – reversed my previous theory above in that I now think the Haisch Rueda analogy may be reducing the number of virtual particles passing thru the spaceship/windshield which slows time from our perspective while Casimir effect makes the stationary region in our frame look larger and therby more vp pass thru accelerating/catalyzing what we pewrceive as shrunken hydrogen. From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
[Vo]:Higgs, spin, and an energy-sink
Here is a new/old spin on LENR. Executive summary: the energy gain in LENR can be described as retained spin energy - involving the Higgs particle as an energy sink. We speculated about the Higgs - LENR connection some time ago - and the elements xenon, cesium barium, lanthanum and cerium - all of which have isotopes in the proper range of mass-energy. But that connection, as interesting as it is, apparently leads us nowhere towards explaining Ni-H. Look at it in another way. In order to see the Higgs particle at the LHC, terawatts of beam energy are collided at a point in space, resulting in a basic particle of mass-energy near 125 GeV having a fractional second of existence. One perspective of this discovery is that the particle was always present in another dimension, but was hidden, being very cold and dark relative to its surroundings. Therefore, the Higgs is best described as an energy sink for a quantum of mass-energy and NOT as a particle per se. As a practical matter, we then ask ourselves: can we access this Higgs energy-sink from our 3-space via a gateway and end up with gain instead of loss? The answer is yes, but it is a complicated argument. From a prior post: our gateway to the Higgs in 3-space would be an interface at something close to Planck dimensions. It would be cold from our perspective, since it is an interface with negative energy. The coldest nucleus can be defined as the most energy-depleted... which is the same way of saying - having the highest binding energy per nucleon. Nickel-62 is the coldest nucleus in nature with the highest binding energy per nucleon (8.8 MeV). Is there anything else which can make the case for nickel as a gateway to Higgs? On the surface, one AMU is very close to one GeV making Ni-62 at first glance seem to be about half the mass-energy of the Higgs, but that approximation is rough, even if we are talking about a resonant gateway to a heat sink, instead of a heat source. In order to find the putative manner in which the Higgs may be relevant to LENR, the relationship between positive energy and negative energy will be important. So the further question is - if nickel can serve as gateway to the Higgs energy-sink in another dimension - how do we convert any resource in our 3-space into positive energy by way of an energy sink? IOW, if this line of reasoning were to be productive for understanding LENR, we would need to find a medium of energy transfer, which will be a common and divisible particle which we can sacrifice at low cost - in the sense of keeping a fraction of its energy for local use, and sending the rest of it into the energy sink. This has led to the conclusion that the medium is ground, in the sense of a source of free electrons. Strange as it sounds, high amperage current going into a device in such a way that a fraction of the electrons are actually lost to 3-space can permit positive energy to be retained in some form. This goes back at least two years to the thread on this article about splitting the electron which recently cropped up again: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg65194.html More on splitting the electron later. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...
On 24.05.2014 02:58, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 17:27:53 -0700: Hi, [snip] Just a FYI for those interested in superconductors and gravity. http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html The propagation time of the pulse over a distance of 1211 m was measured recording the response of two identical piezoelectric sensors connected to two synchronized rubidium atomic clocks. The delay was 631 ns, corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. Unless I'm mistaken, 1211 m in 631 ns is only 6.4 times the speed of light, not 64 times. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Hi Robin, this is most likely a copy-and-paste error. It should read: The delay was 63±1 ns, corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. See chapter 8 of the following PDF sample document on page 32-34: http://www.benthamsciencepublishers.org/ebooks/Sample/9781608053995-sample.pdf Regards, Wolfgang
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
“*John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties MM encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether.”* *An in depth understanding of the LENR mechanism will show that LENR is an etheric effect. LENR implies non-locality.* *Nonlocality* *Definition: a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, contrary to our expectation that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. * *The accepted version of quantum mechanics assumes that all interaction is local. Science now believes that a particle cannot effect another at a distance since there is no either between the two distance particles to support their interaction.* *But the LENR effect is carried on the either were the coordinated collective action of many particles effects other particles at a distance.* *With the acceptance of LERN as real, the current understanding of quantum mechanics will need to be revised, the either will need to be accepted, and most of science will not like that at all. * On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties MM encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether. IMHO Naudt’s paper describing hydrinos as relativistic hydrogen holds a key to much of this – and puts the fractional/shrinking hydrogen on a plane 90 degrees to our spatial axis.. this is where MM should have been seeking the ether in parallel to the time axis not on a spatial axis. Likewise I posit larger virtual particles are not denied access between Casimir boundries as current theory holds but rather the space time between the surfaces is twisted via negative equivalent acceleration such that they are able to fit nicely at the cost of time dilation and Lorentzian contraction where the universe appears from their perspective to slow down to a crawl in the same manner we would perceive a spaceship achieving high fractions of C. I think this is how COE is seemingly violated since it is stipulated that random motion can not be exploited –instead of throwing reaction mass away from a spaceship to decrease the interface rate between spaceship and ether [windshield and rain /Haisch and Rueda] we are using the opposite case of Casimir geometry that makes the space in the cavity appear larger so that many more VP can pass thru the region of this etheric axis [reversing the interaction rate between the physical and etheric axis from what Haisch and Rueda posit with their analogy of rainstorm and windshield]. This sudden change/breach in isotropy is in opposition and trumps gravity – although addition of forces[gravity and Casimir] would not violate COE I posit that the normally unexploitable property of random motion can now occur because one spatial axis is by definition required for Casimir geometry and there are several routes to rectifying the motion such as ionic or molecular state asymmetries. Fran BTW – reversed my previous theory above in that I now think the Haisch Rueda analogy may be reducing the number of virtual particles passing thru the spaceship/windshield which slows time from our perspective while Casimir effect makes the stationary region in our frame look larger and therby more vp pass thru accelerating/catalyzing what we pewrceive as shrunken hydrogen. *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:54 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability
RE: [Vo]:Higgs, spin, and an energy-sink
How do you split the electron? At one time this was considered impossible, then it became a mathematical abstraction, then a controversial experiment and later: let me count the ways... :-) Aside from the FQHE, we should consider that two years ago an accredited research team observed an electron being split into two quasi-particles, one carrying the particle's spin and the other its orbital movement. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ Since the property of spin figures into both magnetism and angular momentum - which are two out of three of the electron's quantum properties (the other being electrical charge), we must account for charge to complete the picture - which itself can be fractionated as in the FQHE. Thus we see many fractionated parameters, usually prime number fractions, but to take that finding forward into new territory with LENR, we must propose that some of the electron properties can be captured in different quasi-particles, especially the magnon - at the same time as the others are lost to 3-space. The electron can be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three properties with the spinon carrying the spin, the orbiton carrying the orbital location and the holon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions any of the three can behave as independent particles, just as the electron disappears. However, this has seldom been seen in physics, outside of LENR as a possible example, except when electrons are tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero. This is where the gateway to negative energy comes into play. Any electron getting close to the gateway will be tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero and the result could be that only the spinon is retained in 3-space, while the holon and orbiton become properties of another dimension. _ Here is a new/old spin on LENR. Executive summary: the energy gain in LENR can be described as retained spin energy - involving the Higgs particle as an energy sink. We speculated about the Higgs - LENR connection some time ago - and the elements xenon, cesium barium, lanthanum and cerium - all of which have isotopes in the proper range of mass-energy. But that connection, as interesting as it is, apparently leads us nowhere towards explaining Ni-H. Look at it in another way. In order to see the Higgs particle at the LHC, terawatts of beam energy are collided at a point in space, resulting in a basic particle of mass-energy near 125 GeV having a fractional second of existence. One perspective of this discovery is that the particle was always present in another dimension, but was hidden, being very cold and dark relative to its surroundings. Therefore, the Higgs is best described as an energy sink for a quantum of mass-energy and NOT as a particle per se. As a practical matter, we then ask ourselves: can we access this Higgs energy-sink from our 3-space via a gateway and end up with gain instead of loss? The answer is yes, but it is a complicated argument. From a prior post: our gateway to the Higgs in 3-space would be an interface at something close to Planck dimensions. It would be cold from our perspective, since it is an interface with negative energy. The coldest nucleus can be defined as the most energy-depleted... which is the same way of saying - having the highest binding energy per nucleon. Nickel-62 is the coldest nucleus in nature with the highest binding energy per nucleon (8.8 MeV). Is there anything else which can make the case for nickel as a gateway to Higgs? On the surface, one AMU is very close to one GeV making Ni-62 at first glance seem to be about half the mass-energy of the Higgs, but that approximation is rough, even if we are talking about a resonant gateway to a heat sink, instead of a heat source. In order to find the putative manner in which the Higgs may be relevant to LENR, the relationship between positive energy and negative energy will be important. So the further question is - if nickel can serve as gateway to the Higgs energy-sink in another dimension - how do we convert any resource in our 3-space into positive energy by way of an energy sink? IOW, if this line of reasoning were to be productive for understanding LENR, we would need to find a medium of energy transfer, which will be a common and divisible particle which we can sacrifice at low cost - in the sense of keeping a fraction of its energy for local use, and sending the rest of it into the energy sink. This has led to the conclusion that the medium is ground, in the sense of a source of free electrons. Strange as it sounds, high amperage current going into a device in such a way that a fraction of the electrons are actually lost to 3-space can permit positive
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Axil, I think you need to add ether or aether to your spell check dictionary. Either or both, but not neither or you end up with 'either' ;) On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: “*John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties MM encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether.”* *An in depth understanding of the LENR mechanism will show that LENR is an etheric effect. LENR implies non-locality.* *Nonlocality* *Definition: a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, contrary to our expectation that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. * *The accepted version of quantum mechanics assumes that all interaction is local. Science now believes that a particle cannot effect another at a distance since there is no either between the two distance particles to support their interaction.* *But the LENR effect is carried on the either were the coordinated collective action of many particles effects other particles at a distance.* *With the acceptance of LERN as real, the current understanding of quantum mechanics will need to be revised, the either will need to be accepted, and most of science will not like that at all. * On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties MM encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether. IMHO Naudt’s paper describing hydrinos as relativistic hydrogen holds a key to much of this – and puts the fractional/shrinking hydrogen on a plane 90 degrees to our spatial axis.. this is where MM should have been seeking the ether in parallel to the time axis not on a spatial axis. Likewise I posit larger virtual particles are not denied access between Casimir boundries as current theory holds but rather the space time between the surfaces is twisted via negative equivalent acceleration such that they are able to fit nicely at the cost of time dilation and Lorentzian contraction where the universe appears from their perspective to slow down to a crawl in the same manner we would perceive a spaceship achieving high fractions of C. I think this is how COE is seemingly violated since it is stipulated that random motion can not be exploited –instead of throwing reaction mass away from a spaceship to decrease the interface rate between spaceship and ether [windshield and rain /Haisch and Rueda] we are using the opposite case of Casimir geometry that makes the space in the cavity appear larger so that many more VP can pass thru the region of this etheric axis [reversing the interaction rate between the physical and etheric axis from what Haisch and Rueda posit with their analogy of rainstorm and windshield]. This sudden change/breach in isotropy is in opposition and trumps gravity – although addition of forces[gravity and Casimir] would not violate COE I posit that the normally unexploitable property of random motion can now occur because one spatial axis is by definition required for Casimir geometry and there are several routes to rectifying the motion such as ionic or molecular state asymmetries. Fran BTW – reversed my previous theory above in that I now think the Haisch Rueda analogy may be reducing the number of virtual particles passing thru the spaceship/windshield which slows time from our perspective while Casimir effect makes the stationary region in our frame look larger and therby more vp pass thru accelerating/catalyzing what we pewrceive as shrunken hydrogen. *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:54 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing
Re: [Vo]:Higgs, spin, and an energy-sink
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Any electron getting close to the gateway will be tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero and the result could be that only the spinon is retained in 3-space, while the holon and orbiton become properties of another dimension. You can quantify the holon as the mass of the electron but can you quantify the orbiton?
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, I think you need to add ether or aether to your spell check dictionary. Either or both, but not neither or you end up with 'either' ;) Or 'aeither'. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...
In reply to linuxball's message of Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:56:41 +0200: Hi, [snip] Hi Robin, this is most likely a copy-and-paste error. It should read: The delay was 63±1 ns, corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. See chapter 8 of the following PDF sample document on page 32-34: http://www.benthamsciencepublishers.org/ebooks/Sample/9781608053995-sample.pdf Regards, Wolfgang Thank you. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, I think you need to add ether or aether to your spell check dictionary. Either or both, but not neither or you end up with 'either' ;) Or 'aeither'. :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls Harry
Re: [Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...
reading the article... shoot. That soundsalmost identical to a gravity shielding experiment I created fictionally for my webcomic... Zounds! On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 17:27:53 -0700: Hi, [snip] Just a FYI for those interested in superconductors and gravity. http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html The propagation time of the pulse over a distance of 1211 m was measured recording the response of two identical piezoelectric sensors connected to two synchronized rubidium atomic clocks. The delay was 631 ns, corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. Unless I'm mistaken, 1211 m in 631 ns is only 6.4 times the speed of light, not 64 times. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
