Re: [Vo]:new analogy for LENR
Axil, You obviously have the knowledge. You can see the fractional theory and perhaps what you say here about many different theories working together in a hard to explain set of structures is how it will be understood. Now it must be clear that as knowledge is an important ingredient. However, other resources need to be attended also if a result is to be expected. Just to organize the findings and the many theories so we could find out probabilities for different paths. I.E. I understand electrolysis has been declared weak or a cul-de-sac, although that is how it was initiated by FP. There are very few people doing experiments in Vortex and I cold continue the list of things we do not handle. Just mentioned a couple (obvious) things not handled so well. I agree with your findings about certain players. I am not saying they are correct but that they all have done something to move forward. I think the reason is that they had a couple of other required ingredients, entrepreneurship, risk willingness etc. As we agree about those things I am a little puzzled over your critic of BLP. I have no affiliation with BLP. I have no means to qualify there theories. It is just that they are marching forward being the only organization able to get funding of a caliber that counts. I guess there weakness is in way they solve issues built on an academic approach. Many years ago I invested ( as a president of a investment company) in a pharmaceutical company with very impressive biographies. The problem was that they never attended general business problems the most important to them was to be funded to do further research. Good in itself but failing on the business side is just as bad as failing in research. I understand that there are personal winnings of being the one who first can identify LENR. Therefore instead of sharing information, which will be everybody's long before a clear theory is formulated a debate about who's findings are more relevant than others is the standard procedure. You say there are hundreds of processes.Why dis anyone organize them instead than someone can combine a theory down the line. When I am at it the patent discussion is pathetic. Having a patent requires to have very deep pockets in order to take advantage of it. Most often to protect their right many patent owners becomes more versed in patent law and other issues regarding the patent. Being poor and have a good patent only has one solution sell the patent before somebody can run you over - somebody will . I wrote my critic to Axil, but that does not mean I believe I think he is responsible. I just thought that his belief / understanding about the complexity of LENR was a good base for pushing my point that engaging all resources and rather organize the different findings instead of advocate them being wrong would be accepted. Hope against hope:) 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 Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR is a family of systems that exhibit a wide range of effectiveness. Some of these systems are very week and others are strong. All these systems employ a set of technologies which number as large as one hundred. How these technologies are employed will dictate the power and the weaknesses of the system and therefore the usefulness of any given LENR system. The LENR system reflects the designer of that system. The designer makes decisions about what technologies to use in his creation and how to apply those technologies. LENR is not a science, it is a collection of systems. LENR is not like superconductivity, but LENR may employ superconductivity as one of its component technologies or it may not. The enemies of LENR attack the designer of a given LENR system because that system is a projection of the judgment and knowledge of that designer. There are many types of aircraft. Some are supersonic and some are gliders. The designer has made technical decisions to meet the functions that the system was specified to meet. You can’t prove an aircraft. But you can show that an aircraft works or it doesn’t by a capabilities demonstration..Lenr is just like aircraft. Does that machine fly or not. For example, the enemies of the Papp engine always attack Joe Papp as a paranoid and wacko. They never attack the concept of cluster formation in a noble gas. An iron clad third party test that was enough to prove the Papp engine to the Patent office is not enough for the naysayers. The system that Joe Papp built must be flawed and could never work because Joe Papp was flawed. This same logic applies to Rossi and LeClair. The DGT system is flawed because DGT ran out of money. So that system could not have worked because the
[Vo]:Air Core 3 phase Secondaries in series.
The fascination with air core source frequency transformers,(not the typical high frequency tesla coil) is often derived from the fact that the secondary amp turn multiplication can exceed that of its primary source. But all this is explainable in terms of apparent vs real power. I have made a vector drawing showing the solution to the following problem which seems paradoxical. For the line voltage case when two wye sources of emf are combined to become a delta output, the resultant voltage as the hypotenuse formed on a vector drawing is a vector subtraction. Two line connected one volt wye vectors from the source can combine in series to become 1.73, or the square root of 3 volts. In turn those delta outputs can power adjacent three phase primaries who send energy to adjacent 3 phase secondaries then we again connect those secondaries in series to again obtain a higher voltage by making the series connection as was done in the wye to delta transformation that yielded a 1/1.73 ratio. But now the same expected 1/1.73 ratio or 120 degree phase angle to be found on the secondaries is found to be widened, as we have failed to account for the mutual induction between the secondaries themselves. And ordinarily then we could not further combine voltages obtained from the third phase and put them in series to obtain more voltage then the first combination alone yielded. But a consequence of HOW the primaries are combined in space themselves to have a very high mutual induction between them is entailed in the following problem, where I will later show a feasible vector solution of the three secondaries in series. HDNhttps://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141124084216AACW1gnPioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
[Vo]:Quantum gravity
The most exciting discovery in physics could come about thanks to telecoms satellites. Is a single theory of reality in sight? http://aeon.co/magazine/science/the-search-for-quantum-gravity/ (Happy Thanksgiving, Vortex!)
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:47:17 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] The v in the formula Ek = 1/2 mv^2 actually applies to the change in velocity, not velocity in any absolute sense. For the sake of convenience, we normally choose a frame of reference in which the initial velocity is zero which makes the calculation simpler. For observer 1, the change is 1/2 * m * (2-0)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. For observer 2, the change is 1/2 * m * (1 - -1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. I.e. they both see the same change in kinetic energy. Note 1: I have not included the dimensions here to keep the formula as simple as possible in ASCII text. Note 2: Depending on the initial direction of motion, you may choose to write the equation for observer 2 as 1/2 * m * (-1 - 1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (-2)^2, however this still gives the same result for the kinetic energy change. Robin, I just came up with a thought experiment that lends support to the idea that a reactionless drive is not likely to exist. Take 2 different observers, one that is moving beside the ship at the same velocity as it has prior to activating the drive. The second one is moving at a velocity that allows him to observe the ship decelerate first until it reaches a velocity of zero relative to him and then to accelerate in the reverse direction until it reaches the exact same original velocity in the opposite direction. The first observer sees the velocity of the ship go from for this example 0 meters per second to 2 meters per second. He determines that the ship now has 2*2*Mass/2 units of kinetic energy. The amount of internal mass that the ship burns up to achieve this acceleration is extremely small and can almost be neglected. The second observer sees the ship moving at the same speed before and then after the application of the drive. The only difference he measures is that the direction of the motion of the ship is reversed by the drive. So he sees the ship begin the motion moving 1 meter per second relative to him initially and then after the drive shuts down the ship is moving 1 meter per second in the opposite direction. This observer determines that the kinetic energy of the ship has not changed measurably due to the application of the drive. At this low velocity the second observer determines that the mass converted into drive power is essentially the same as that determined by the first observer. Both guys have a very hard time figuring out exactly how much mass is converted, and they agree that any difference is hidden in the noise. In this experiment we have two independent observers seeing the same ship being subject to the same drive. The amount of kinetic energy being deposited to the ship by essentially the same loss of internal mass varies remarkably according to each. This does not add up. As I have mentioned before, with a normal drive this case can be handled without a problem. The exhaust material supplies the kinetic energy and momentum needed to balance the equation. Apparently every observer moving at a different initial velocity relative to the driven ship arrives at a significantly different calculation regarding the ships energy balance after the application of the drive. How could something this radical be possible? Let me say it again, there is no problem of this sort to deal with when a standard drive is applied. Dave Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:48:46 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] Robin, you were fortunate enough to see something strange that day. My wife and I witnessed some type of UFO a few years ago as well. I was driving and she was in the passengers seat. All I saw was a red ball moving through the trees that appeared much like the way a laser does when shined onto a black screen. She saw something far more impressive but refused to tell me about it until we traveled far enough away to be unable to return for a better look. She was afraid that I would want to go back, and she was right. What she described is nothing short of amazing. She said it moved extremely quickly form above us to within perhaps 30 yards. She also told me it emitted a bright beam of white light. I saw none of that. Of course we did not mention the sighting at that time. Dave The fact that you saw no white beam of light makes this sound like you might actually have had an abduction experience with lost memory. BTW in my posting of my UFO experience, I said that the angle between the wall and the top was about 20º. I meant the angle from the horizontal. The angle between the wall and the top was probably about 100º (or 80º, depending on how you measure the angle). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
That is not correct Robin. Kinetic energy is calculated directly by the magnitude of relative velocity of the ship to the observer and therefore the second guy sees essentially no net change in kinetic energy once the drive cycle is completed. Also notice that the energy is nonlinear with velocity. The fact that it is proportional to the second power of the velocity allows the direction to become unimportant. I am beginning to suspect that you are playing games at this point. All you need to do is to look up the definition of kinetic energy to see that what I am stating is correct. I have no idea why you think kinetic energy has anything to do with the change in velocity instead of the net relative velocity. Perhaps you can quote a source. ;) Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:47:17 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] The v in the formula Ek = 1/2 mv^2 actually applies to the change in velocity, not velocity in any absolute sense. For the sake of convenience, we normally choose a frame of reference in which the initial velocity is zero which makes the calculation simpler. For observer 1, the change is 1/2 * m * (2-0)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. For observer 2, the change is 1/2 * m * (1 - -1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. I.e. they both see the same change in kinetic energy. Note 1: I have not included the dimensions here to keep the formula as simple as possible in ASCII text. Note 2: Depending on the initial direction of motion, you may choose to write the equation for observer 2 as 1/2 * m * (-1 - 1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (-2)^2, however this still gives the same result for the kinetic energy change. Robin, I just came up with a thought experiment that lends support to the idea that a reactionless drive is not likely to exist. Take 2 different observers, one that is moving beside the ship at the same velocity as it has prior to activating the drive. The second one is moving at a velocity that allows him to observe the ship decelerate first until it reaches a velocity of zero relative to him and then to accelerate in the reverse direction until it reaches the exact same original velocity in the opposite direction. The first observer sees the velocity of the ship go from for this example 0 meters per second to 2 meters per second. He determines that the ship now has 2*2*Mass/2 units of kinetic energy. The amount of internal mass that the ship burns up to achieve this acceleration is extremely small and can almost be neglected. The second observer sees the ship moving at the same speed before and then after the application of the drive. The only difference he measures is that the direction of the motion of the ship is reversed by the drive. So he sees the ship begin the motion moving 1 meter per second relative to him initially and then after the drive shuts down the ship is moving 1 meter per second in the opposite direction. This observer determines that the kinetic energy of the ship has not changed measurably due to the application of the drive. At this low velocity the second observer determines that the mass converted into drive power is essentially the same as that determined by the first observer. Both guys have a very hard time figuring out exactly how much mass is converted, and they agree that any difference is hidden in the noise. In this experiment we have two independent observers seeing the same ship being subject to the same drive. The amount of kinetic energy being deposited to the ship by essentially the same loss of internal mass varies remarkably according to each. This does not add up. As I have mentioned before, with a normal drive this case can be handled without a problem. The exhaust material supplies the kinetic energy and momentum needed to balance the equation. Apparently every observer moving at a different initial velocity relative to the driven ship arrives at a significantly different calculation regarding the ships energy balance after the application of the drive. How could something this radical be possible? Let me say it again, there is no problem of this sort to deal with when a standard drive is applied. Dave Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:23:23 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] Kinetic energy is calculated directly by the magnitude of relative velocity of the ship to the observer and therefore the second guy sees essentially no net change in kinetic energy once the drive cycle is completed. Also notice that the energy is nonlinear with velocity. The fact that it is proportional to the second power of the velocity allows the direction to become unimportant. I am beginning to suspect that you are playing games at this point. All you need to do is to look up the definition of kinetic energy to see that what I am stating is correct. I have no idea why you think kinetic energy has anything to do with the change in velocity instead of the net relative velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity, which means that it has both direction and magnitude. Before you square the quantity, you need to do vector addition (or subtraction in this case). The fact that the direction has changed, makes a difference in the change in kinetic energy. If you prefer, consider the fact that in order to change direction, the craft has to first decelerate until its speed is zero, then accelerate again in the opposite direction. Both observers see the same acceleration of the craft, but for one of them this results in a velocity of 2 m/s in one direction, while for other it appears as a change in velocity from +1 m/s to -1 m/s (or if you prefer from -1 m/s to +1 m/s). Perhaps you can quote a source. ;) Any physics book. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:47:17 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] The v in the formula Ek = 1/2 mv^2 actually applies to the change in velocity, not velocity in any absolute sense. For the sake of convenience, we normally choose a frame of reference in which the initial velocity is zero which makes the calculation simpler. For observer 1, the change is 1/2 * m * (2-0)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. For observer 2, the change is 1/2 * m * (1 - -1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. I.e. they both see the same change in kinetic energy. Note 1: I have not included the dimensions here to keep the formula as simple as possible in ASCII text. Note 2: Depending on the initial direction of motion, you may choose to write the equation for observer 2 as 1/2 * m * (-1 - 1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (-2)^2, however this still gives the same result for the kinetic energy change. Robin, I just came up with a thought experiment that lends support to the idea that a reactionless drive is not likely to exist. Take 2 different observers, one that is moving beside the ship at the same velocity as it has prior to activating the drive. The second one is moving at a velocity that allows him to observe the ship decelerate first until it reaches a velocity of zero relative to him and then to accelerate in the reverse direction until it reaches the exact same original velocity in the opposite direction. The first observer sees the velocity of the ship go from for this example 0 meters per second to 2 meters per second. He determines that the ship now has 2*2*Mass/2 units of kinetic energy. The amount of internal mass that the ship burns up to achieve this acceleration is extremely small and can almost be neglected. The second observer sees the ship moving at the same speed before and then after the application of the drive. The only difference he measures is that the direction of the motion of the ship is reversed by the drive. So he sees the ship begin the motion moving 1 meter per second relative to him initially and then after the drive shuts down the ship is moving 1 meter per second in the opposite direction. This observer determines that the kinetic energy of the ship has not changed measurably due to the application of the drive. At this low velocity the second observer determines that the mass converted into drive power is essentially the same as that determined by the first observer. Both guys have a very hard time figuring out exactly how much mass is converted, and they agree that any difference is hidden in the noise. In this experiment we have two independent observers seeing the same ship being subject to the same drive. The amount of kinetic energy being deposited to the ship by essentially the same loss of internal mass varies remarkably according to each. This does not add up. As I have mentioned before, with a normal drive this case can be handled without a problem. The exhaust material supplies the kinetic energy and momentum needed to balance the equation. Apparently every observer moving at a different initial velocity relative to the driven ship arrives at a significantly different calculation regarding the ships energy balance after the application
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
OK, I have read several of those physics books and my position is sound. The formula for kinetic energy as seen by an observer is E=1/2*M*V*V. That V is not a difference, but the final relative velocity. If you want to find out how much the kinetic energy changes you must calculate the value of kinetic energy both before and then after the drive is applied. At that point you can find the delta in energy and you obtain the correct value according to physics. How about looking at the problem from a different perspective. Let the velocity change in two steps of 1 meter per second each. According to your procedure the kinetic energy is 2 times the amount gained in a single step since the same delta in velocity is determined for each one. But the real change would be 2 times greater than the expected value according to your method. This is because the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. So you would calculate 1/2*1*1*M for each delta of 1 meter per second for a total of M units of energy. The true value for the kinetic energy is 1/2*2*2*M units which is a net of 2*M total. In the other case the kinetic energy is the same both before and after the drive is enabled. The value is 1/2*1*1*M before the drive is enabled and 1/2*-1*-1*M after it completes its task. This is because the magnitude of the relative velocity is the same both before and then after the drive finishes. The sign changes, but that does not enter into the equation for kinetic energy since energy is a scalar. I know that there are many vorts out there that can help to explain this concept in a manner that is more convincing than I have. Now would be an excellent time for one or more of them to step in. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:23:23 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] Kinetic energy is calculated directly by the magnitude of relative velocity of the ship to the observer and therefore the second guy sees essentially no net change in kinetic energy once the drive cycle is completed. Also notice that the energy is nonlinear with velocity. The fact that it is proportional to the second power of the velocity allows the direction to become unimportant. I am beginning to suspect that you are playing games at this point. All you need to do is to look up the definition of kinetic energy to see that what I am stating is correct. I have no idea why you think kinetic energy has anything to do with the change in velocity instead of the net relative velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity, which means that it has both direction and magnitude. Before you square the quantity, you need to do vector addition (or subtraction in this case). The fact that the direction has changed, makes a difference in the change in kinetic energy. If you prefer, consider the fact that in order to change direction, the craft has to first decelerate until its speed is zero, then accelerate again in the opposite direction. Both observers see the same acceleration of the craft, but for one of them this results in a velocity of 2 m/s in one direction, while for other it appears as a change in velocity from +1 m/s to -1 m/s (or if you prefer from -1 m/s to +1 m/s). Perhaps you can quote a source. ;) Any physics book. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:47:17 -0500: Hi Dave, [snip] The v in the formula Ek = 1/2 mv^2 actually applies to the change in velocity, not velocity in any absolute sense. For the sake of convenience, we normally choose a frame of reference in which the initial velocity is zero which makes the calculation simpler. For observer 1, the change is 1/2 * m * (2-0)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. For observer 2, the change is 1/2 * m * (1 - -1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (2)^2. I.e. they both see the same change in kinetic energy. Note 1: I have not included the dimensions here to keep the formula as simple as possible in ASCII text. Note 2: Depending on the initial direction of motion, you may choose to write the equation for observer 2 as 1/2 * m * (-1 - 1)^2 = 1/2 * m * (-2)^2, however this still gives the same result for the kinetic energy change. Robin, I just came up with a thought experiment that lends support to the idea that a reactionless drive is not likely to exist. Take 2 different observers, one that is moving beside the ship at the same velocity as it has prior to activating the drive. The second one is moving at a velocity that allows him to observe the ship decelerate first until it reaches a velocity of zero relative to him and then to accelerate in the reverse
