Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
If the spaceman can detect the microwave photons exiting the cavity with lots of momentum the drive would not be considered reactionless. A true reactionless drive does not exhaust any significant form of matter or energy that can be detected by the guy when it operates. Of course heat can be radiated from the ship provided it does not contain enough momentum to supply the forward directed force. That is the definition as I understand it. A normal type of propulsion system always emits some form of exhaust that carries plenty of momentum. The momentum gained by the ship is exactly balanced by the momentum of the exiting exhaust in a standard rocket engine. Newton's law about every reaction having an equal and opposite reaction is what we have observed for all rocket engines. Leave out the equal and opposite reaction and you have a reactionless design. Thus far I have seen no evidence that a reactionless engine is possible according to the above definition. Could it be that some of you guys do not define a reactionless drive in the same manner as I? From some of the responses I am receiving that appears to be the case. If true, then how would you describe the operation of one and how is that different than what we normally expect? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of physics for a moment and arrange for tracer photons, perhaps he could see microwave photons exiting the cavity of the drive in the opposite direction, accounting for the anomalous thrust. (Perhaps I'm missing your point.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass when compressed. E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass due to the added energy. The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great deal of time. Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try. If your example depends upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it does not function the way you suspect. I am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in an increase in the rest mass of the storage device. For example, heating a frying pan makes it more massive. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a net thrust. However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work. Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being mathematically proven or disproven. Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass. Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship. Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly. So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance to acceleration is unchanged? Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons. So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to a stop. Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Ok, so a charged battery is more massive than a discharged battery... A bowling ball on a shelf is more massive than the same bowling ball on the ground (greater potential energy). A spring compressed or stretched is more massive than one under no tension. I was wondering as I typed the previous email if this would be the reply, it isn't an angle of e=mc2 I have heard of but it sounds plausible that energy has mass. This creates a problem though, the mass of everything in the universe is then logically effected by all other masses, electric and magnetic fields and other potential sources of energy! So a new galaxy is born and suddenly all mass in the universe has too. Not sure that makes sense, but it does make for some interesting scifi! John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass when compressed. E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass due to the added energy. The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great deal of time. Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try. If your example depends upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it does not function the way you suspect. I am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in an increase in the rest mass of the storage device. For example, heating a frying pan makes it more massive. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a net thrust. However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work. Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being mathematically proven or disproven. Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass. Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship. Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly. So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance to acceleration is unchanged? Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons. So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to a stop. Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Just to clarify that further, if the mass of something depended on it's energy, and if that includes potential energy then anything that provides potential energy to other objects increases the potential of every object that could fall into this potential field at any at any point. And since some potential fields can be established and later removed such as a magnetic field then the mass of energything in the universe that could be effected by a magnetic field would be increased the moment it is turned on, and not when turned off. And if you had a gravitational source that could be established and disestablished this should increase the potential energy and hence mass of everything that is effected by gravity, including light (in as much as light has mass of a sorts). Rather than magnetisms limited range of effects. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so a charged battery is more massive than a discharged battery... A bowling ball on a shelf is more massive than the same bowling ball on the ground (greater potential energy). A spring compressed or stretched is more massive than one under no tension. I was wondering as I typed the previous email if this would be the reply, it isn't an angle of e=mc2 I have heard of but it sounds plausible that energy has mass. This creates a problem though, the mass of everything in the universe is then logically effected by all other masses, electric and magnetic fields and other potential sources of energy! So a new galaxy is born and suddenly all mass in the universe has too. Not sure that makes sense, but it does make for some interesting scifi! John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass when compressed. E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass due to the added energy. The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great deal of time. Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try. If your example depends upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it does not function the way you suspect. I am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in an increase in the rest mass of the storage device. For example, heating a frying pan makes it more massive. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a net thrust. However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work. Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being mathematically proven or disproven. Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass. Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship. Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly. So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance to acceleration is unchanged? Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons. So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to a stop. Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Bob, well said, I would only add that this is also not a matter of ejecting mass but energy consumed to directionalize an existing media like an airplane or boat prop re-directionalize air or water - it is giving the spacecraft linkage to the ether against which it can simply push. Although this is easier to see with hydrogen particles I think Shawyer is somehow employing the same principle with just microwaves. IMHO the hydrogen when fractionalized or IRH is aging at a different rate than normal 3D hydrogen, many recent threads seem to indicate that SPP is the linkage to these regions where the isotropy is broken and virtual particle pressure is fractured into a tapestry described by the ( inverse spacing between lattice geometries) ^4 through which hydrogen still migrates according to the random motion of gas law, The SPP linkage is allowing us to push against a special type of relativistic hydrogen - a type that doesn't shoot past our stationary frame at high fractions of C but rather modifies the space between these plates into a gravitational hill/warp where virtual particles are compressed instead of stretched. Mass is not lost because nature will float physical matter back to our plane as the local frame for these hydrogen are still subject to random gas motion that migrates it back up thru the tapestry from the more robust areas against which the linkage finds purchase. Although the Rossi and Mills scheme utilize the random motion of gas to bootstrap their process I actually suspect it will be easier to demonstrate inertia modification by employing SPP as stims, I just don't think anyone has looked for it yet / Difiore et all were seeking an effect from passive arrangement of cavities and don't believe they ever tried to stimulate the effect. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Dave-- If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results. The standard conversion of energy normally happens in a measurable 3-D space the space man knows. The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not observable yet. You must think outside the 3-D box. Engineers do this better than scientists. Note Bob Higgins recent comment attributed to a mentor of his. Bob - Original Message - From: David Robersonmailto:dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David-- If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation--a term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to the negative energy sea. (Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or loss of charge respectively.) The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space based on observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his initial position. This would be the reaction less drive device in his space ship. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being produced in the vacuum by EMF. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David-- You stated: After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
There is ambiguity here based upon a 3D vs 4D perspective but maybe some of these patents regarding remediation of radioactive gas in a catalyst could shed some light. I would posit that this reaction is actually based upon relativistic effects on radioactive gas when local vacuum wavelengths are compressed by Casimir geometry. I think ZPE / HUP keeps physical/ persistent matter floating in our 3d ant farm like a canoe stuck in a water fall and matter pushed away is pushed back by the stream or like atmosphere being forever resupplied in front of an aircraft prop, my gut feeling is the more fractionalized/ condensed hydrogen becomes the harder you can push against the ether. I don't think the hydrogen is lost but will slowly be pushed back into the waterfall where persistent matter is trapped to make room for more hydrogen to gain entry [passive exploitation like Rossi/Mills] - forcing a circulation like Modell Haisch describe in their patent may be a better way to exploit this effect. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation--a term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to the negative energy sea. (Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or loss of charge respectively.) The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space based on observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his initial position. This would be the reaction less drive device in his space ship. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Robersonmailto:dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being produced in the vacuum by EMF. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and the guy within. First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended length of time. Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing the drive. After all of his mechanizations the final result is that he comes to rest at the original location and at the original velocity in space. All of this can be done at low velocities so that relativistic effects have an insignificant contribution to the results. As a matter of fact, the magnitude of force so far generated according to reactionless drive proponents would clearly fall into this category. Under these conditions what would the guy on the ship observe? He has never been able to detect or measure any form of energy or mass actually being exhausted by his ship since it is invisible to him. He has effectively moved nowhere as compared to his original velocity and position. But, for some strange reason the energy required to power the drive has vanished and he can not find it onboard his ship nor in the exhaust which is by definition non existent. I can see no way to justify this result unless the mass of an object can vary over time. If you carry this process to the extreme the ship will simply loose most of its mass with nothing to indicate where it went. Keep in mind that a normal type of spaceship drive does not suffer this consequence. Even in the case where the motion is reversed, all of the mass of the spaceship can be accounted for. The original mass has been redistributed about the local region of space and contains kinetic energy due to its motion relative to the original ship. In one case the numbers add up, in the other case they do not. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:31 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation--a term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to the negative energy sea. (Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or loss of charge respectively.) The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space based on observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his initial position. This would be the reaction less drive device in his space ship. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being produced in the vacuum by EMF. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card. The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the reactionless drive. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- You stated: After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David-- The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac sea. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card. The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the reactionless drive. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- You stated: After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/ Someone has taken customers away from Rossi and IH, who could it be? This alterative to Rossi must be well known on the LENR street. Jed, with your ear so close to the ground, you must know who this Rossi competitor is. Please tell us. If it is DGT, don't let your pride dissuade the proclamation of the truth. We will forgive you. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) – raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF? Piantelli (Italy) – visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science. XRossi (Italy and US) – sold, bought verified? Report reviewed in October. XDefkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) – Rossi spin-off, real product? Brillouin (US) – working with SRI. That leaves only 3. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
OK John, I can see the need for salt. Lots of it. Otherwise I think we are saying the same thing. The motivation to act must come from an inside resource. Getting good grades and an easy entrance to a good job is motivation with incentives (from outside resources). However, if a person has a genuine interest in a subject he/she will look for tools and need only to know that the tools exist. Our school system is trying to teach everything inclusive of how to be logical. That creates a mindset, which makes us all more or less programmed. Changes are inevitable in all fields and when we meet them and they do not fit our 'program' it is best to deny them. Therefore it takes more than a simple logical description to make people accept changes. You have to build what I call 'trust capital' and then if you have enough of that you can convince one person at a time with whom you have built that 'trust capital'. This was of course even more pronounced at a time when science had little or no input on daily life. I have an example ; My grand father said in the 50-ies A friend of his was bragging about having traveled in a car at 65 miles per hour and enjoying the ride - Grandpa said: Bloody liar - nobody can enjoy that speed for a long time. (Grandpa was fine going that speed on a train btw.) I do not think anything could convince him that this was a rather limiting position, except a person with a lot more trust capital witnessing the similar experience.. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It is a saying. Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly accepting something doubtful. The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both before and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. There is a huge difference between being force fed information, regurgitating answers And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without the need to accept everything you read as final. The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first method. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is logical. As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. Yes, you can give the theory but that is not what we talk about. I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them bright enough join on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun,
Re: [Vo]:ecat license buyback Prometion statement
A very condemning statement from Promethion (E-Cat licensee) --- they had 1MW orders, but Rossi wouldn't complete them. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy? I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of it. That is a long stretch. A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as possible so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac sea. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card. The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the reactionless drive. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- You stated: After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
That is a good point. If a few of the right people with very high trust capital were to pronounce that cold fusion, or some model of the aether (by any name) was correct, there would be a large number sit up and take notice. But it must be trust and not popularity, Tom Cruise isn't making fans of his movies or him seriously consider Scientology. It might be worth changing 2 or 3 of the right minds than convincing several million regular people. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK John, I can see the need for salt. Lots of it. Otherwise I think we are saying the same thing. The motivation to act must come from an inside resource. Getting good grades and an easy entrance to a good job is motivation with incentives (from outside resources). However, if a person has a genuine interest in a subject he/she will look for tools and need only to know that the tools exist. Our school system is trying to teach everything inclusive of how to be logical. That creates a mindset, which makes us all more or less programmed. Changes are inevitable in all fields and when we meet them and they do not fit our 'program' it is best to deny them. Therefore it takes more than a simple logical description to make people accept changes. You have to build what I call 'trust capital' and then if you have enough of that you can convince one person at a time with whom you have built that 'trust capital'. This was of course even more pronounced at a time when science had little or no input on daily life. I have an example ; My grand father said in the 50-ies A friend of his was bragging about having traveled in a car at 65 miles per hour and enjoying the ride - Grandpa said: Bloody liar - nobody can enjoy that speed for a long time. (Grandpa was fine going that speed on a train btw.) I do not think anything could convince him that this was a rather limiting position, except a person with a lot more trust capital witnessing the similar experience.. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It is a saying. Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly accepting something doubtful. The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both before and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. There is a huge difference between being force fed information, regurgitating answers And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without the need to accept everything you read as final. The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first method. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is logical. As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. Yes, you can give the theory but that is not what we talk about. I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince
Re: [Vo]:ecat license buyback Prometion statement
Promising that to the public in general is one thing. Signing contracts with partners is another. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi not a serious businessman, promising more than what he can deliver? Cherokee not tender with others companies, trying to close competitors? is it so surprising? 2014-11-24 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: A very condemning statement from Promethion (E-Cat licensee) --- they had 1MW orders, but Rossi wouldn't complete them. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
Not sure it is a group with a working or promising reactor... 2014-11-24 18:29 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/ Someone has taken customers away from Rossi and IH, who could it be? This alterative to Rossi must be well known on the LENR street. Jed, with your ear so close to the ground, you must know who this Rossi competitor is. Please tell us. If it is DGT, don't let your pride dissuade the proclamation of the truth. We will forgive you. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) – raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF? Piantelli (Italy) – visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science. XRossi (Italy and US) – sold, bought verified? Report reviewed in October. XDefkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) – Rossi spin-off, real product? Brillouin (US) – working with SRI. That leaves only 3. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ecat license buyback Prometion statement
Rossi not a serious businessman, promising more than what he can deliver? Cherokee not tender with others companies, trying to close competitors? is it so surprising? 2014-11-24 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: A very condemning statement from Promethion (E-Cat licensee) --- they had 1MW orders, but Rossi wouldn't complete them. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Probability now at 35% based on allegations of what I consider to be fraud from a partner. http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/probability-now-35-based-on-allegations-of-fraud/ On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze exhibits his wishy-washiness yet again. He also doesn't follow his own posted criteria, which was that if the report came out after September he would lower the probability to 25%, which he never did. He went straight to 20% yesterday and today he's at 45%. Because of ONE reaction to the report. One might as well use a windvane, it would give at least traceable information. Oh well, at least he's posting on his own thread. So I'm constrained, again, to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters from 7.09% down to 6.59%. Blaze might as well start building a shelter, because his head will be staying there for a long time. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/probability-is-now-45/ Based on http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece Exciting times! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/probability-now-20/ Disappointed to see the same names at the top of the paper.Shocked to see not even Arxiv will accept it. I will increase the probability if does make it onto Arxiv or if we see IH and Cherokee step up. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/probability-is-now-27/ On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our ignorance in the talk of probability. There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of chance exist, such as with Rossi. 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning of a wheel of wheel of fortune 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level small physical changes can reduce the randomness. 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice. But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such interactions. It could be that these things are not random at all. But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not apply to Rossi. And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to 100%. Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine. Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men, but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or damn near 0%. Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is harder/impossible to prove a negative. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? Answer 1: 40% Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real possibility of it going either way. If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real risk that you must take seriously. If you
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
luca gamberale? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure it is a group with a working or promising reactor... 2014-11-24 18:29 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/ Someone has taken customers away from Rossi and IH, who could it be? This alterative to Rossi must be well known on the LENR street. Jed, with your ear so close to the ground, you must know who this Rossi competitor is. Please tell us. If it is DGT, don't let your pride dissuade the proclamation of the truth. We will forgive you. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) – raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF? Piantelli (Italy) – visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science. XRossi (Italy and US) – sold, bought verified? Report reviewed in October. XDefkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) – Rossi spin-off, real product? Brillouin (US) – working with SRI. That leaves only 3. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David, I take it you now accept that energy can be stored without increasing mass? I can see you have avoided tackling the subject so I assume this is an admission that you can't. This then means we can produce a reactionless drive by changing between forms of energy that do and do not contribute mass. As for the microwave cavity, if you put microwaves in a cavity, how long after you stop pumping in microwaves do they stop bouncing around inside? Real world, which means an imperfect cavity. So the production of thrust seems to occur as a bonus. We can't really observe that the energy loss is greater because thrust is produced. Additionally the argument energy could come to nothing it maybe in a sense correct, but only because a true reactionless drive by default will destroy the conservation of energy by allowing both the creation and destruction of energy. Creation because reaching double the speed with the same energy cost is a violation as it implies eventually gaining more from acceleration that the energy cost. And indeed because opposing kinetic energy results in a net loss of energy. But an assumption about the perfection of the CoE should not be assumed since that is just a theory and one that is based on the assumption that the fabric of space does not change. But if this device is pushing on the virtual particles of space or maybe the Higgs Boson or space time it's self then energy would not necessarily be conserved. Here is an article on the non-conservation of energy: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ Please remember that the conservation of energy is just an idea based on symmetry. And I would personally argue that treating energy like a supernatural force makes no sense and that any example of energy being converted and conserved looks much more like creation and destruction of energy happening in perfect balance. And that giving energy some life, some existence besides the mechanics of the situation is mysticism. John On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy? I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of it. That is a long stretch. A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as possible so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac sea. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity
[Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised
I made some revisions to my Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf On page 15 I added a photograph of the equipment with the aluminum foil tent over it. On page 24 I added a discussion of heat from the circulation pump. The key point is: . . . [W]ith this method of adiabatic calorimetry the 0.6°C temperature increase over ambient is not included in the calculation of excess heat, because the pump is left on all the time, and it always does the same amount of work, so the temperature is always 0.6°C above ambient. To be specific, with this method, the starting water temperature is subtracted from the ending water temperature, and the starting temperature is already 0.6°C warmer than ambient. With other methods of calorimetry, heat is measured by comparing the reactor temperature to ambient. With these methods, heat from the pump has to be subtracted from the total, or it will be mistaken for excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
no, if you search you see many LENr startup without much concrete but sometime with good network, good team, and thus potential to build a technology. 2014-11-24 20:20 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: luca gamberale? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure it is a group with a working or promising reactor... 2014-11-24 18:29 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/ Someone has taken customers away from Rossi and IH, who could it be? This alterative to Rossi must be well known on the LENR street. Jed, with your ear so close to the ground, you must know who this Rossi competitor is. Please tell us. If it is DGT, don't let your pride dissuade the proclamation of the truth. We will forgive you. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) – raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF? Piantelli (Italy) – visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science. XRossi (Italy and US) – sold, bought verified? Report reviewed in October. XDefkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) – Rossi spin-off, real product? Brillouin (US) – working with SRI. That leaves only 3. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
John, I suspect that you are reading my lack of answer the wrong way. I have been quite busy writing a post about how to test an ECAT like device during a lot of that time. Pushing a mass against gravity is a way to store potential energy. Without going into details I suspect that energy must indeed be stored as mass in this case. Perhaps later it will become clear as to how that takes place and how it can be measured. Perhaps it would be better for you to come up with a practical method of storing energy that can be applied to a reactionless drive and then someone can show you how you are making a mistake. Actually I believe it would be better for you to research the concept and answer that question for yourself. Take the spring for example. Choose a closed system that includes the spring and a battery and motor. Energy stored within the battery can be used to drive the motor that can then have gears that compress the spring. If the spring did not store energy in the form of mass then that system would loose mass as the battery is discharged. A nuclear battery or reactor could perform the same function. So, that is an example of a stand alone system similar to those that you are considering which would loose mass as a result of internal operations. A reactionless drive is not required in this case to lead into a unrealistic situation. I imagine any of the ideas that you are proposing can be subjected to a similar thought process and proven wrong. You can determine that without my involvement. The Q of a microwave cavity determines how long it takes for the internal reflections to die down. This is a well understood process. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David, I take it you now accept that energy can be stored without increasing mass? I can see you have avoided tackling the subject so I assume this is an admission that you can't. This then means we can produce a reactionless drive by changing between forms of energy that do and do not contribute mass. As for the microwave cavity, if you put microwaves in a cavity, how long after you stop pumping in microwaves do they stop bouncing around inside? Real world, which means an imperfect cavity. So the production of thrust seems to occur as a bonus. We can't really observe that the energy loss is greater because thrust is produced. Additionally the argument energy could come to nothing it maybe in a sense correct, but only because a true reactionless drive by default will destroy the conservation of energy by allowing both the creation and destruction of energy. Creation because reaching double the speed with the same energy cost is a violation as it implies eventually gaining more from acceleration that the energy cost. And indeed because opposing kinetic energy results in a net loss of energy. But an assumption about the perfection of the CoE should not be assumed since that is just a theory and one that is based on the assumption that the fabric of space does not change. But if this device is pushing on the virtual particles of space or maybe the Higgs Boson or space time it's self then energy would not necessarily be conserved. Here is an article on the non-conservation of energy: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ Please remember that the conservation of energy is just an idea based on symmetry. And I would personally argue that treating energy like a supernatural force makes no sense and that any example of energy being converted and conserved looks much more like creation and destruction of energy happening in perfect balance. And that giving energy some life, some existence besides the mechanics of the situation is mysticism. John On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy? I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of it. That is a long stretch. A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. But then, it returns to his side with no
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
Putting two and two together, the competition has uncovered the Rossi secret and is a dangerous competitor for the E-Cat. you said that “We cannot feed more information to our competition, which now is very powerful”. My question is: how can any competitor be powerful without knowing the core effect that drive the ECat ? Do you know of any lab that succeded in replication of the Rossi Effect even in a minimal part ? Rossi: Yes Rossi must have got this info from the new customers of this new competitor. Rossi wants to keep secret E-Cat info from this competitor. This competitor must have a product that is just as good as the E-Cat and is in the final stages of RD. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: no, if you search you see many LENr startup without much concrete but sometime with good network, good team, and thus potential to build a technology. 2014-11-24 20:20 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: luca gamberale? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure it is a group with a working or promising reactor... 2014-11-24 18:29 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/ Someone has taken customers away from Rossi and IH, who could it be? This alterative to Rossi must be well known on the LENR street. Jed, with your ear so close to the ground, you must know who this Rossi competitor is. Please tell us. If it is DGT, don't let your pride dissuade the proclamation of the truth. We will forgive you. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) – raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF? Piantelli (Italy) – visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science. XRossi (Italy and US) – sold, bought verified? Report reviewed in October. XDefkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) – Rossi spin-off, real product? Brillouin (US) – working with SRI. That leaves only 3. - Jed
[Vo]:Q-Drives -EMF
Greetings Vortex-L, Not sure how valid the Volfson patent is but the Taylor Patent is cited within the Volfson. http://www.google.com/patents/US6960975 I called the patent attorney for Taylor...his comment...which I think is correct: Taylor was found dead in the desert! Taylor patent was issued Huntsville. US 5197279 Also, Henry Wallace a GE Engineer Patents are cited 3626605 and 606. He was fired from GE for his Gravity Mod work. I knew Hank. His patents were not assigned to GE. Ad Astra, Ron Kita
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
An answer from Mats Lewin @Axil I really don’t know if there’s any particular competitor. My experience is that those kind of statements from Rossi are often not based on any exact details. Could as well be to mislead. However, if Rossi’s E-Cat works, there should be several groups trying to replicate now. In any case, it would be interesting to know how many LENR companies there are in stealth mode now. And since there’s overwhelming evidence for some kind of anomalous effect in the LENR field, real progress shouldn’t be far away, if it gets less stigmatized and more people finally get involved. It’s about time! On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Putting two and two together, the competition has uncovered the Rossi secret and is a dangerous competitor for the E-Cat. you said that “We cannot feed more information to our competition, which now is very powerful”. My question is: how can any competitor be powerful without knowing the core effect that drive the ECat ? Do you know of any lab that succeded in replication of the Rossi Effect even in a minimal part ? Rossi: Yes Rossi must have got this info from the new customers of this new competitor. Rossi wants to keep secret E-Cat info from this competitor. This competitor must have a product that is just as good as the E-Cat and is in the final stages of RD. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: no, if you search you see many LENr startup without much concrete but sometime with good network, good team, and thus potential to build a technology. 2014-11-24 20:20 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: luca gamberale? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure it is a group with a working or promising reactor... 2014-11-24 18:29 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/24/prometeon-srl-addresses-e-cat-licensee-status/ Someone has taken customers away from Rossi and IH, who could it be? This alterative to Rossi must be well known on the LENR street. Jed, with your ear so close to the ground, you must know who this Rossi competitor is. Please tell us. If it is DGT, don't let your pride dissuade the proclamation of the truth. We will forgive you. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) – raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF? Piantelli (Italy) – visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science. XRossi (Italy and US) – sold, bought verified? Report reviewed in October. XDefkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) – Rossi spin-off, real product? Brillouin (US) – working with SRI. That leaves only 3. - Jed
[Vo]:Characterization of LENR Devices
I have been conducting numerous simulations of the expected behavior of a thermally controlled energy source such as the HotCat designed by Rossi. Now I have constructed a technique that can be utilized to characterize a design and determine many of its important parameters. It would be advantageous to have an opportunity to retest the original device that was experimented upon by the recent third party team of scientists. They had the perfect test vehicle to use according to my plans. Perhaps MFMP will take time to perform the tests that I am suggesting. The characterization should begin by taking measurements upon the dummy reactor that contains no core fuel. I call this curve the device thermal design function and will refer to it as curve 1 in the remainder of this post. The procedure is to make an x-y plot of thermal input power versus device temperature. I prefer to place the temperature along the X axis and the input power along the Y axis. Careful measurement of the temperature of the device by means of a thermocouple and IR camera is required if accurate prediction of the final operation is desired. Points upon the curve are located by applying a calibrated input power to the heating elements of the unit and recording the final temperature of the device after it has stabilized. This process is repeated many times throughout the temperature range over which the device will operate. A smooth X-Y plot is the desired outcome of this procedure. The temperature axis needs to be in absolute dimensions such as degrees Kelvin. The final completed curve will be monotonic with rising temperature where the conduction and convection processes dominate the lower range while the radiation kicks in to dominate the high temperatures. Next a small quantity of fuel is added to the device. A limited amount is required to ensure that the test subject remains stable for the duration of the measurement procedure. Too much fuel inserted might well lead into thermal runaway or otherwise make the test difficult to complete. I refer to this curve as a system response function and shall refer to it as curve 2. Again, the same type of curve is generated with input power on the Y axis and absolute temperature along the X axis. Many pairs of X,Y data need to be measured so that a smooth curve can be generated as before over the expected operational temperature. Once these two curves are available you generate a third one which is the core power generation function that is referred to as curve 3. For each temperature point you read or calculate the power input from curve 1 and curve 2 along the Y axis of that particular curve. You will find that curve 2 will show a smaller value of input power than shown by curve 1 at each temperature point. This is because the power generated by the core is added to the input power in this procedure and it therefore takes less input power to achieve a desired temperature. So complete curve 3 by taking the difference in power readings between curve 1 and curve 2. This curve numbered 3 is a measure of the internally generated core power that is calculated for each temperature. At this point enough data has been collected in order to characterize the device at a given ambient temperature. A final device characterization curve can be generated by taking the curve number 3 and multiplying it by a factor proportional to the amount of mass inserted into the system. Twice as much core mass should generate approximately twice as much heat power at a given temperature. There may be interaction of some type that depends upon the amount of mass placed into the device, but a first order approximation is about as good as can be achieved without extensive measurements. An error in this determination can be corrected for by changing the amount of mass to obtain the desired results. We are not through quite this easily. After the multiplication is completed, you take curve 1 which was a measurement associated with the dummy device and subtract this latest curve 3 multiplied by a factor from it point by point at each temperature. After this new curve 4, which I call the device characterization curve, is generated the real magic begins to show up. If totally stable operation is desired you will note that the resulting curve 4 will be monotonic with temperature and never demonstrates a negative slope over any range of operational temperatures. This is of course true in the case of the dummy device and will remain that way until a sufficient amount of core mass is applied. Operation within this region can be done, but the COP will never be very reasonable since it appears to be limited to around 4 according to my simulations. Sufficient positive feedback must be provided in order to achieve a reasonable COP. For more appropriate COP the core mass factor is increased until the slope of the final curve 4 becomes negative
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum was conserved in the transfer. Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound like Rossi-- Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy? I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of it. That is a long stretch. A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as possible so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac sea. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card. The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the reactionless drive. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- You stated: After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
http://www.nichenergy.com/
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
I'd put my money on Piantelli. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nichenergy.com/
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
Re nichenergy.com Registered to Alessandro Meiarini Of http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alessandro-meiarini Regards, patrick
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum was conserved in the transfer. Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound like Rossi-- Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy? I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of it. That is a long stretch. A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as possible so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I am decreasign my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters from 6.59% down to 6.4%. SSDD from Blaze. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Probability now at 35% based on allegations of what I consider to be fraud from a partner. http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/probability-now-35-based-on-allegations-of-fraud/ On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze exhibits his wishy-washiness yet again. He also doesn't follow his own posted criteria, which was that if the report came out after September he would lower the probability to 25%, which he never did. He went straight to 20% yesterday and today he's at 45%. Because of ONE reaction to the report. One might as well use a windvane, it would give at least traceable information. Oh well, at least he's posting on his own thread. So I'm constrained, again, to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters from 7.09% down to 6.59%. Blaze might as well start building a shelter, because his head will be staying there for a long time. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/probability-is-now-45/ Based on http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece Exciting times! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/probability-now-20/ Disappointed to see the same names at the top of the paper.Shocked to see not even Arxiv will accept it. I will increase the probability if does make it onto Arxiv or if we see IH and Cherokee step up. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/probability-is-now-27/ On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our ignorance in the talk of probability. There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of chance exist, such as with Rossi. 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning of a wheel of wheel of fortune 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level small physical changes can reduce the randomness. 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice. But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such interactions. It could be that these things are not random at all. But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not apply to Rossi. And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to 100%. Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine. Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men, but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or damn near 0%. Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is harder/impossible to prove a negative. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and
RE: [Vo]:Thus spoke Dr. Mills, and thus have I
From Jones, Nice effort. Hope springs eternal. Thanx, I've had a couple of Vort editors privately point out some grammatical mistakes in my document. (I expected there would be a few.) The most blatant error and by far the most embarrassing that has been pointed out so far is the fact that I misspelled my first name on the front cover page. WTF! How the hell did that happen. I checked a previous version of my manuscript and noticed my name was spelled correctly. I had no need to edit the front page by then. It must have been gremlins. I am making revisions and corrections as they come in. I wish to thank all of you private editors for pointing out where all those irritating little grammatical flaws are located which are too close to my nose to see. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
*Inventors: *Alessandro MEIARINI, Silvia PIANTELLI, Leonardo CIAMPOLI, Fabio CHELLINI On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Re nichenergy.com Registered to Alessandro Meiarini Of http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alessandro-meiarini Regards, patrick
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
http://www.rexresearch.com/piantelli/piantelli.htm On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: *Inventors: *Alessandro MEIARINI, Silvia PIANTELLI, Leonardo CIAMPOLI, Fabio CHELLINI On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Re nichenergy.com Registered to Alessandro Meiarini Of http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alessandro-meiarini Regards, patrick
RE: [Vo]:Thus spoke Dr. Mills, and thus have I
Corrections made to document. Now dated: Nov 24, 2014. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum was conserved in the transfer. Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound like Rossi-- Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Pair production is fairly well established from what I have read. In that case energy is converted into mass but I do not recall any mention of the real pair appearing without some type of input. In particle accelerators mass is created in the form of new particles from the energy contained within the original interacting particles. Both of these cases convert one form of energy into another but do not create anything out of the vacuum without that initial energy. Here I equate energy with mass when I use the term energy. You need to ask someone else about the angular momentum questions you have since I have never looked into that issue. By the way, if I do not respond to your posting or some part of the same it does not carry any implications of my acceptance to what you are stating. I just may not be inclined to comment. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
I agree. All the inventors have been working for a long time on LENR and knew Focardi as a fellow scientist--at least Piantelli and Chellini did. Milan and Bologna have been the hotbed for this science. Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Who could it be??? http://www.rexresearch.com/piantelli/piantelli.htm On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Inventors: Alessandro MEIARINI, Silvia PIANTELLI, Leonardo CIAMPOLI, Fabio CHELLINI On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Re nichenergy.com Registered to Alessandro Meiarini Of http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alessandro-meiarini Regards, patrick
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
please see http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html *The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production* On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum was conserved in the transfer. Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound like Rossi-- Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
more... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965.pdf On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: please see http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html *The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production* On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum was conserved in the transfer. Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound like Rossi-- Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. When the ship was moving
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
That is a great link. Axil thanks. The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty great up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite spins. Many electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric fields. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. please see http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV) will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a nutshell. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: That is a great link. Axil thanks. The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty great up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite spins. Many electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric fields. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. please see http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html *The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production* On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the space craft in going and coming back. The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a decrease in mass
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Axil-- You mean we just stumbled on it? Inside the nutshell that is? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV) will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a nutshell. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: That is a great link. Axil thanks. The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty great up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite spins. Many electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric fields. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. please see http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
I've thought enough--I'm headed for bed--:) - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV) will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a nutshell. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: That is a great link. Axil thanks. The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty great up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite spins. Many electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric fields. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. please see http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- In your going and coming trip: The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each
[Vo]:Stupid thought...
Ok, so I am not super optimistic that current physics is right about quite a lot... But there is a strong line of reasoning that light should create some degree of gravity. And as such, then enough light in a small enough space should create a black hole. And if that is so, then higher frequency light that has a smaller wavelength and a higher energy would create a stronger gravity field. Indeed so should a massive particle moving insanely fast. Therefore if you moved fast enough to blue shift high enough energy photons (gamma rays) to the point that they have enough energy to be seen as a relativistic black hole Therefore super high frequency photons, photons so insanely beyond gamma rays as to be laughable would be black hole rays. Another thought, if this gravity increased by relativistic velocity idea is right on, then moving at super high speed towards an almost black hole (or past one) would cause it to occur for you as a black hole! In much the same way that a charged object would only be seen to have a magnetic field to a moving observer, or apparently. BTW it only takes about twenty something micrograms to make a black hole if compressed into a small enough space. John
Re: [Vo]:Stupid thought...
http://inspirehep.net/record/1118984/files/arXiv%3A1206.4276.pdf *Analog Hawking radiation from an acoustic black hole in a flowing polariton superuid* We theoretically study Hawking radiation processes from an analog acoustic black hole in a flowing superuid of exciton-polaritons in a one-dimensional semiconductor microcavity. Polaritons are coherently injected into the microcavity by a laser pump with a suitably tailored spot profile. An event horizon with a large analog surface gravity is created by inserting a defect in the polariton flow along the cavity plane. Experimentally observable signatures of the analog Hawking radiation are identified in the scattering of phonon wavepackets of the horizon, as well as in the spatial crelation pattern of quantum uctuations of the polariton density. The potential of these table-top optical systems as analog models of gravitational physics is quantitatively con rmed by numerical calculations using realistic parameters for state-of-the-art devices. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:51 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so I am not super optimistic that current physics is right about quite a lot... But there is a strong line of reasoning that light should create some degree of gravity. And as such, then enough light in a small enough space should create a black hole. And if that is so, then higher frequency light that has a smaller wavelength and a higher energy would create a stronger gravity field. Indeed so should a massive particle moving insanely fast. Therefore if you moved fast enough to blue shift high enough energy photons (gamma rays) to the point that they have enough energy to be seen as a relativistic black hole Therefore super high frequency photons, photons so insanely beyond gamma rays as to be laughable would be black hole rays. Another thought, if this gravity increased by relativistic velocity idea is right on, then moving at super high speed towards an almost black hole (or past one) would cause it to occur for you as a black hole! In much the same way that a charged object would only be seen to have a magnetic field to a moving observer, or apparently. BTW it only takes about twenty something micrograms to make a black hole if compressed into a small enough space. John
