Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:40 AM Jones Beene wrote:
> Maybe that is coincidental.
>
Or maybe William Bramley is right in *The Gods of Eden*. ("Blanton, will
you never shut up about that book and *The 12th Planet*?")
We burned up our fossil fuel to create a blanket of CO2 and methane from
permafrost in order to keep our planet warm just in time. And we will
outlaw the very same when we drive electric cars fueled by the fusion of
the sun. Either there are Watchers or we're damned lucky bugs. đ
[Vo]:He doesn't care what his colleagues think.
Harvardâs top astronomer says an alien ship may be among us â and he doesnât care what his colleagues think https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/harvards-top-astronomer-says-an-alien-ship-may-be-among-us-â-and-he-doesnt-care-what-his-colleagues-think/ar-BBTbOMd Quote âThe mainstream approach [is] you can sort of drink your coffee in the morning and expect what you will find later on. Itâs a stable lifestyle, but for me it resembles more the lifestyle of a business person rather than scientists,â he says. âThe worst thing that can happen to me is I would be relieved of my administrative duties, and that would give me even more time to focus on science,â Loeb adds. âAll the titles I have, I can dial them back. In fact, I can dial myself back to the farm.â
[Vo]:Rare cosmological events recorded in muscovite mica.
Rare cosmological events recorded in muscovite mica. F. M. Russell, School of Computing and Engineering University of Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, U.K. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f7ad4fe6232404eca928274d022ca00dbd699f1790550d820b93ccbca7c61a7.png Figure 1. Scan of sheet of muscovite showing the fossil tracks of charged particles. The diagram identifies the relevant parts of the fossil tracks resulting from a nuclear star. The directions of the principal atomic chains are shown.Most of the tracks lying in these directions are due to quodons.Some tracks can be channelling relativistic particles but these usually show fans from nuclear scattering events, which quodons cannot create. The direction of flight of the particle causing the star is unknown. It results in at least eighttracks. When tracks lie in the (001)-plane they are usually continuous. For those moving at an angle to this plane they will intersect the potassium sheets, where the recording occurs, at separated points. The long vertical chains of dots are of this type. The fan shaped patterns are caused by nuclear scattering events that produced atomic cascades in which kink-like lattice excitations are created. These fans are clustered around the principal crystal directions.The sheet of mica is 15cm x 29cm. Abstract. A study of fossil tracks of charged particles recorded in crystals of muscovite has revealed evidence of rare events of cosmological origin. The events are not compatible with known particle interactions with matter. They were recorded during a period when the crystals were in a metastable state during cooling after growth 13km water equivalent underground. In this state a phase transition can be triggered by low energy events in the range 1eV to 10keV, when the crystals effectively behave as solid-state bubble chambers. At higher energies the chemical etching technique can be used to reveal massive damage to the lattice. The rare events show evidence of interaction with the crystal over a great range of energies. They leave a distinctive record that is easily recognised. Introduction. The search for evidence of exotic events of cosmological origin usually starts with assumptions about possible interactions with ordinary matter. Irrespective of these the detector should offer a large sensitive volume and a moderately long recording time.Ideally, it also should enable detailed study of individual recorded events. An interesting approach looked for fossil evidence of scattering of WIMPs in crystals of muscovite [1,2].It was based on the possibility that an atom recoiling from a scattering event might cause sufficient damage to a lattice that it could be revealed by the technique of chemical etching. This technique is limited by the extent of damage needed to allow etching and by background recoils generated over geologic time scales from radioactivity, nuclear fission and cosmic radiation.Ifatomic force microscopy is used to determine the depth of etch pits thenthe lower limit on recoil energies to give an etchable track is a few tens of keV.This contrasts with the lower limit of about 1eV for recording in muscovite when in the metastable state considered here. Crystals of muscovite often show visible defectsconsisting of a hatch-work of black lineslying in the cleavage (001)-plane. Many of these lines lie in principal crystallographic directions at 60ointervals but not all.A study of the properties of these exceptions showed that some were the fossil tracks of charged leptons. In particular, somewere the tracks of positrons emitted from the isotope 40K that occursin the monatomic sheets of potassium forming part of the crystalstructure. It was found that the recoil of the nucleus arising from the dominant beta decay channelcreated a mobile lattice excitation called a quodon. These quodons cantrap a charge and propagate unimpeded along chains of potassium atoms for great distances.They move at ~3km/s and are the cause of the majority of lines lying in the 60o directions.Evidence also was found for fossil tracks due to e-p showers[3]. These showed that the tracks were recorded after the crystal had grown but the temperature was still above 700K, which allowed migration of atoms to formthe black lines.Therecording process operating in the metastable state does not depend on ionisation. It arises from a phase transition triggered by the presence of a positive charge when the crystal is in a metastable state during cooling.In this state the lattice needs nucleation sitesto expel excess iron to form the black ribbons of magnetite. The sensitivity of this process is shown by the lower limit of energy of a quodon of about 1eV for it to be recorded.In effect, the crystals behave as a solid-state bubble chamber.
Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity
Hi John, and thank you so much for taking an interest! The input energy to the motors is being logged in terms of torque vs angle. This integral has also been checked against torque * angular vel * time - not shown in the sims to reduce clutter, but both metric produce an identical flat trace.. ...in other words, the 'torque' component in both metrics is registering as 'zero'. Under all other circumstances, motor torque * angle produces a perfect integral, from which any interaction can be solved to unity. So, why in this case is it calculating no net torque? The only possibility is that there is another, identical torque, of equal sign and magnitude... ..and THERE IS! It's an 'inertial torque', caused by conservation of angular momentum, in response to the halving of the orbital MoI! Activating the motors causes the orbital MoI to converge to the net orbiting mass focused at the radius of the orbiting motor axes. Thus orbital MoI suddenly flips from a value of 16 kg-m², down to just 8 kg-m². Since angular momentum is MoI * RPM, the latter instantly doubles to conserve their product. Net AM never wavers throughout - doesn't so much as blip when the MoI changes. All 16 kg-m²-rad/s remains conserved, as it must be. And that amount of momentum, manifested in 8 kg-m² of MoI, can only exist at precisely 2 rad/s, whereupon it has a rotKE=½Iw² value of precisely 16 J - and can have no more or less. So we end up with precisely the right amount of KE, for the given conserved momentum, and its change in MoI. No more or less KE can exist at that particular momentum distribution. The energy gain was thus caused by CoAM! Thus if the motors had somehow commuted some other form of energy that somehow slipped past the torque & angle plot... where is it? Surely it would have to be surplus to the 16 J of the conserved 16 kg-m²-rad/s momentum at 8 kg-m² * 2 rad/s? Yet there is only just ENOUGH energy - precisely the right amount - for that momentum configuration... Mate, i bat down OU claims in my sleep. If i'm bringing this here, to share with others, it's because i've been unable to crack it.. I'm fallible (very, very fallible), so the de facto conclusion has to remain error until someone else validates.. at that point it's TWO crazy folks, rather than just muggins 'ere. Still only two crazy folks tho... ..cracking OU is only half the battle... communicating the news to anyone else capable of following it is the tricky part.. most people so able wouldn't waste a synapse trying (and quite rightly so), hence 'catch 22'.. On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:32 AM John Shop wrote: > Sorry - it seems I got the polarity of the reaction torque wrong. The > reaction torque from the orbiting motors acts to *increase* the rotation > rate of the central rotor so that the total angular momentum as seen from > the central bearing (which produces no torque as its motor is > free-wheeling) remains constant. Looking at your simulation it seems you > have included this reaction torque as your central rotation rate does in > fact double. > > However I think now that what you have not counted is the energy that has > to be provided to the orbiting motors in order to provide this change in > rotation rate of the central rotor while "stopping" the orbiting rotors > (with respect to absolute space). From the point of view of the orbital > motors, their rotor/stator pairs are stationary before this action and > their rotors have to be accelerated with respect to their stator to a speed > of twice the original rotation rate. I suspect that this action takes > exactly the 8J that gets added to the system giving a total of 16 after > this action. Moving the orbiting masses to their respective orbiting > centres requires no net energy. > > On 5/02/2019 11:03 am, John Shop wrote: > > Hi Vibrator, > > Since you NEED to know, I will point out where the fallacy lies. When the > orbiting motors activate to stop the orbiting rotors from rotating, you > have neglected the reaction torque of these motors. The reaction torque > acts back on the central rotor, also stopping its rotation. > > In fact while the orbiting motors are *slowing and stopping* the rotation > of the orbiting rotors, they are absorbing energy from the system and > acting as *generators* producing electrical energy back into the power > supply. Once they have brought the orbiting rotors to a stop, then their > reaction torque will also have *slowed and stopped* the central rotor so > that the complete system is stationary at that point in time. > > So the 8 joules pumped in by the central motor, is sucked back out by the > orbiting motors slowing the system down leaving no energy in the system and > no motion at the completion of that operation. > > This is just what my well educated intuition suggests will happen. > However I did not do any maths and so I might have got something wrong. > But at least these ideas should give you enough of a clue to unravel t
