Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:05 pm 12-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:24 pm 12-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Your protons and neutrons are not like the protons and neutrons known to physics. Neutrons and protons both have inertia and gravity, but for the sake of argument you have divested the neutron of inertia and the proton of gravity. Harry Oh dear. I'll try just once more! I am only too well aware of the fact that protons and neutrons have inertia and gravity, which is precisely why I prefaced my remarks with the words for the sake of argument. I couldn't use the names of the particle [Thing 1 say] which is seen by gravity, nor could I use the name of the particle which is seen [Thing 2, say] by inertia coz .to adapt those immortal lines from Tom Lehrer's The Elements to to the sub-elements. # And there may be many others but they haven't been disca-vard. Bum, ba-da-ta tum tum, bum bum! ... # Thing 1 and Thing 2 are empty spaces in a minimalist table; analogous to the empty spaces in the Mendeleev table before the elements that occupied those spaces were disca-vard. Cheers Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? Harry
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
At 03:42 am 13-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? By George, (s)he's got it, Pickering. By George, (s)he's got it. ;^) Of course they do. That was implicit in the analogy. It's no good having a sail and a hull if they haven't got a thing-force to hold them together, is it! 8-) Cheers. Grimer
Re: Solar-Cold Fusion Spacecraft Propulsion
Horace Heffnerwrote: Fred, I am so glad you are still around. You are one of the few remaining list members who seems to not be numerically challenged. At 5:29 PM 1/12/5, Frederick Sparber wrote: I propose using very large cylinders of solid CO2 with the ends pointedtoward the sun so that the 1.3 kilowatts/meter^2 solar insolation (at earth's distance) can providethe 200Kj/kg heat of sublimation, thus providing a "sublime" thrust as theCO2 comes off. Heat from a Cold Fusion radiator can be used when the '"Outer Limits" of solar energy is attained.Helps alleviate the green-house gas problem too. I'm not so sure about that numerically challenged part, Horace. I come up with about 90 lbs thrust per square meter for CO2 sublimation, and about 20 lbs per square meter for H2O ice sublimation thrust. With "CO2 Smoke and Mirrors" you can fly a spacecraft toward the sun too. :-) Frederick
Re: Solar-Cold Fusion Spacecraft Propulsion
Canthe solar sailbeat losing a few grams of CO2 (Dry Ice) per square meter at 1.3 KW/meter^2? http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/ http://www.planetary.org/ Frederick
Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE?
sublimation and natural balancing of concentration of states. the only time youd have a vp of 0 would be at absolute zero, above that, your still going to have a certain amount constantly going back and forth between solid and gas states. nothing unusual about it. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:40:47 -0600, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's causing the vapor pressure of Dry or Water Ice at those low temperatures? http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/2003/09/04.html According to the above chart, carbon dioxide of about -122°C will have a vapor pressure of 7.5 mmHg, so the solid carbon dioxide that is vaporizing near the south pole should be at a temperature slightly greater than -122°C, not -159°C as previously stated. Do humming birds carry ice packs, Jones? :-) Frederick -- Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. -G.K. Chesterton
Re: The first sound waves left imprint on the Universe
Greetings The first sound waves left imprint on the Universe http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/aas_universe_structure_050111.html The Primordial Harmonic Template of the Universe ( QuantumSpherical Standing Wave )" Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces overwhich we have no control. It is determined for insects as well as for thestars. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to amysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein When the first thunder bolts and lightnings struck the primordial land and water, the Template for specific resonating vibrations, was forged for all extant vibrant entities by the cosmic fire - The Keynotes of Life's Resonance Every atom, molecule and organ of the body has a natural and optimum frequency referred to as the "resonant" frequency. Any disresonant object will become resonant when exposed to its keynote or resonant frequency. This is Bioresonant Detoxification. The implication of the correct frequency is health . This Primordial Template is the Will of the Superconsciousness or God, with the provision of Intent and Desire for evolving cosmic material.The reflected sunlight into space by orbiting planets [ albedos ] is vibratory gestures of goodwill and Love. The Planet Venus is described as a planet of Love and Beauty for the simple reason that she reflects 80% of sunlight back into space . Light is life-giving water. Light is liquified gas, In the first carbon-containing blob of basic elements is " God " - the concept of animists ascribing the life-force (carbon) in rocks, stones and living organisms. It takes its first " morphic breath " of Chi, Prana or Vital Force which gives it form and pattern through self-organizing resonant vibrations and synchronises its "Internal or Biological Clock " with the environment in rhythm with the Schumann Resonances and the Circadian Rhythm of 24 hour alternation of Night /Day or Ying/Yang Cycle. When the chaotic reverberations of thunder and lightning finally subsided, there descend Symmetry and Grace when Forms and Patterns unfold in the morphogenetic fields , sustained by the bioenergetic radiation from transmutated minerals. Through self-organizing resonant vibrations, basic amino acids were formed and with mineralization, these amino acid aggregates developed catalytic properties. It is with the synthesis of enzymes that the DNA molecules are modelled and formed with a double helix . The fundamental property of the DNA molecule is its immortality which differentiates it from other material. From a molecular perspective, science has taught us that every cell in our physical bodies originates with the original DNA molecule. The first DNA molecule represents the fundamental note or first harmonic frequency. Every molecule in our physical body owes its' origin to the formula contained in this first DNA molecule. The first DNA molecule has a formula of frequencies and assumes that molecules made directly by the vibrational formula contained in originating molecule of DNA will have a vibrational relationship to the original or creator DNA molecule [ Metatones Theory ].DNA and RNA molecules, the chemical carriers of the genetic information, are not rigid biochemical structures that can be manipulated easily, but rather laser-active media (Hartmut Muller, Raum Zeit, 109, 2001, page 55). They generate optical holograms which are in resonance with electromagnetic fields of the earth, moon and galaxy and control both protein synthesis and embryo genesis. It, was experimentallyproven ! Living DNA substance willalways react to language-modulated laser rays and even to radio waves. Light and Sound equate holographic unity - Sonoluminescence The Sound of Light audible in vibrant Cosmic Silence can only be visualized in the Universal Mind. Let there be Light The Word is God. With regards Lew
Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE?
Leaking Penisaying that it doesn't involve ZPee? :-) Frederick [Original Message] From: leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 1/13/05 9:48:46 AM Subject: Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE? sublimation and natural balancing of concentration of states. the only time youd have a vp of 0 would be at absolute zero, above that, your still going to have a certain amount constantly going back and forth between solid and gas states. nothing unusual about it. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:40:47 -0600, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's causing the vapor pressure of Dry or Water Ice at those low temperatures? http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/2003/09/04.html According to the above chart, carbon dioxide of about -122°C will have a vapor pressure of 7.5 mmHg, so the solid carbon dioxide that is vaporizing near the south pole should be at a temperature slightly greater than -122°C, not -159°C as previously stated. Do humming birds carry ice packs, Jones? :-) Frederick -- Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. -G.K. Chesterton
Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE?
Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred, What's causing the vapor pressure of Dry or Water Ice at those low temperatures? Beta-aether Either that or 3 K radiation. http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/2003/09/04.html According to the above chart, carbon dioxide of about -122°C will have a vapor pressure of 7.5 mmHg, so the solid carbon dioxide that is vaporizing near the south pole should be at a temperature slightly greater than -122°C, not -159°C as previously stated. Do humming birds carry ice packs, Jones? :-) No, but they could possibly be exploiting beta-aether (Casimir) effects ;-} Through CO2 or H2O in their systems? If one could get any huge amount of inert material into earth orbit easily, or collect it over time in low earth orbit (IOW harvest it with drone satellites over months or years) , then perhaps you would not use simple vapor pressure and solar as your ultimate means of propulsion. Besides you would be harvesting lots of H2 and ozone anyway, which is not inert. So I cannot see the usefulness of what you are proposing At 200 Joule/gram sublimation energy a square meter surface of Dry Ice in space kicks off 6.5 grams of CO2 molecules per second at a velocity of about 325 meters per second at 1.3 KW/meter^2 solar or CF photon insolation.That translates to a significant Specific Impulse (isp). Water Ice sublimation gives much less isp due to the higher sublimation energy requirement and lower molecular weight.. Frederick Yet, to stick with the premise, if one had only dry ice to exploit, then one might get much more energy per unit weight exploiting the Bridgman effect, another beta-aether effect, which is seen in many solid insulators under uniaxial compression at high pressures. The Bridgman effect is powerful enough to produce x-rays, for instance, in inert materials such as water ice, using only applied pressure. However to get that applied pressure, one might initially use solar-induced vapor pressure plus mechanical leverage in order to achieve the precursor pressure for the Bridgman effect in a nozzle type rocket exhaust. This effect is accompanied by shock waves and high-speed (2 km/s) ejection of a destructed microdispersed substance beyond the compression system. Without using the terminology of aether, (if you find that to be a problem) it can be said that this phenomenon evolves when the elastic energy of a strongly compressed body converts into the mechanical work, resulting in an ultrahigh-speed volume relief after the system has reached certain critical parameters. The ejecta can be focused easily, and the whole setup could possibly be OU to the extent that the Casimir effect is OU. In my somewhat non-standard (or anti-semantic, as Nick says) vocabulary, the Casimir effect is a beta-aether effect. At one time, I was convinced that this effect was the answer to solving earthly energy needs, and could be applied to an internal combustion engine. A few years back I posted on positive results obtained with simple experiments, but the scheme went nowhere, and none of the Generals was knocking at my door (GM GE etc). Because of the necessity of refrigeration (lots of it), the scheme may not appear all that interesting for power on earth, especailly in hotter climates, but in space, it could work. And if gasoline reaches double what it is now, but the price of electricity remains comparatively lower, then I think that an ice-powered engine (double ICE) is economically feasible. It would involve using home power to produce a lot of super chilled water as your fuel but the rate of consumption might end up being gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon. But when gasoline skyrockets in the next few years... IF robust OU from other sources or robust LENR does not appear first, which I expect it will, then we will see if Percy and Frank can come to the rescue. Jones
Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE?
Fred, Beta-aether Either that or 3 K radiation. The two (CMB and B-A) ARE connected in a surprising way. a velocity of about 325 meters per second at 1.3 KW/meter^2 solar or CF photon insolation. That translates to a significant Specific Impulse (isp). Yes. Although it is far less (6x less) than the Bridgman effect with water ice, which does NOT require thermal input. It would be interesting to compare apples-to-apples however. I do not have a clue about CO2 under Bridgman type pressures. Water ice does have one big advantage in regard to exploiting Casimir. When a water molecule freezes rapidly, it becomes a fully hydrogen-bonded structure with strong and straight hydrogen bonds (such as hexagonal ice) then it can only have four nearest neighbors, due to the angles of its near tetrahedral molecular hydrogen sites. This give an incredible amount of built-in strain, all free due to the Casimir effect on hydrogen bonds. IOW that is where the OU part could come in. In the liquid phase, molecules approach more closely due to the partial collapse of the tightly hydrogen bonded network. Closer neighbors mean higher density. As the temperature of liquid water increases, the continuing collapse of the hydrogen bonded network allows unbonded molecules to approach more closely so increasing the number of nearest neighbors. The maximum density of water is a most curious feature, as it occurs at 4 degrees C. Regular ice is lower density but there are many varieties of ice (yes the IS an Ice-9) where the density is higher than liquid water and these ices would not float. BTW, Ice-9 is 16 percent denser than water. Vonnegut was a little more thorough in his fantasy world than most of us thoughtright? He at least had some of the physics down. If you cannot imagine the repercussions of what happens when ice sinks, then go to the library's Sci-Fi section and look under V. This behavior is in contrast to normal liquids where the increasing kinetic energy of molecules and space available due to expansion, as the temperature is raised, means that it becomes less likely that molecules will be found closer to each other and the density always decreases with increasing temperature. Most of this is info is authoritative and derived from Martin Chaplin's website (the best place on the web to learn about water and its many quirks): http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/index.html Anyway, the advantage of superchilled water is that you can get that high acceleration gradient, about 6 times higher than CO2 sublimation, courtesy of Casimir... and just by squirting it into a vacuum without any external heat being applied. You are not dependent on solar, so you could go wherever in the universe desired... if you could somehow avoid the problems of aging... Oh don't we wish for that. Jones
Re: Would appreciate PR for book
I think people here must be spreading the word about the book, because downloads increased from around 15 per day to 35 yesterday, and 35 more today (so far). Thank you everyone. Obviously, I have no advertising budget, and word-of-mouth is the only way to promote the book -- or the web site, for that matter. I have not tried to promote LENR-CANR much, mainly because I cannot think of how to promote it, but also because most of the papers are only of interest to a narrow range of people, and I figure most of the audience will hear about it through normal channels. And via Google, of course. The book, on the other hand, is supposed to appeal to the general public, so I think it needs more of a concerted outreach. Also, the book is not something you would go looking for with Google. A person interested in cold fusion and neutrons will soon do a web search and find LENR-CANR.org, but not many people have thought to look for the subjects grouped together in the book. Nine people have ordered printed copies. I ordered them on January 5, so they should arrive any day now. I am a little surprised anyone wants a copy. I assumed nobody would want to order a book for $25 that they can have for free over the Internet. By the way, if you would like to print it, I recommend you can put it on a CD-ROM and bring it to Kinko's or Office Depot. They can print and bind a black-and-white copy in about 10 minutes, for $14. - Jed
Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE?
At 10:06 13/01/2005 -0800, you wrote: Fred, Beta-aether Either that or 3 K radiation. The two (CMB and B-A) ARE connected in a surprising way. a velocity of about 325 meters per second at 1.3 KW/meter^2 solar or CF photon insolation. That translates to a significant Specific Impulse (isp). Yes. Although it is far less (6x less) than the Bridgman effect with water ice, which does NOT require thermal input. It would be interesting to compare apples-to-apples however. I do not have a clue about CO2 under Bridgman type pressures. Water ice does have one big advantage in regard to exploiting Casimir. When a water molecule freezes rapidly, it becomes a fully hydrogen-bonded structure with strong and straight hydrogen bonds (such as hexagonal ice) then it can only have four nearest neighbors, due to the angles of its near tetrahedral molecular hydrogen sites. This give an incredible amount of built-in strain, all free due to the Casimir effect on hydrogen bonds. IOW that is where the OU part could come in. In the liquid phase, molecules approach more closely due to the partial collapse of the tightly hydrogen bonded network. Closer neighbors mean higher density. As the temperature of liquid water increases, the continuing collapse of the hydrogen bonded network allows unbonded molecules to approach more closely so increasing the number of nearest neighbors. The maximum density of water is a most curious feature, as it occurs at 4 degrees C. Regular ice is lower density but there are many varieties of ice (yes the IS an Ice-9) where the density is higher than liquid water and these ices would not float. BTW, Ice-9 is 16 percent denser than water. Vonnegut was a little more thorough in his fantasy world than most of us thoughtright? He at least had some of the physics down. If you cannot imagine the repercussions of what happens when ice sinks, then go to the library's Sci-Fi section and look under V. This behavior is in contrast to normal liquids where the increasing kinetic energy of molecules and space available due to expansion, as the temperature is raised, means that it becomes less likely that molecules will be found closer to each other and the density always decreases with increasing temperature. Most of this is info is authoritative and derived from Martin Chaplin's website (the best place on the web to learn about water and its many quirks): http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/index.html Anyway, the advantage of superchilled water is that you can get that high acceleration gradient, about 6 times higher than CO2 sublimation, courtesy of Casimir... and just by squirting it into a vacuum without any external heat being applied. You are not dependent on solar, so you could go wherever in the universe desired... if you could somehow avoid the problems of aging... Oh don't we wish for that. Jones Mmm...very interesting. I wish I could have written all that. ;^) Cheers, Grimer
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:42 am 13-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? By George, (s)he's got it, Pickering. By George, (s)he's got it. ;^) Of course they do. That was implicit in the analogy. It's no good having a sail and a hull if they haven't got a thing-force to hold them together, is it! 8-) Cheers. Grimer All this flows from _your_ force analysis of orbital motion. I think it is a mistaken analysis because it is based on an analogy between orbital motion and a body in a centrifuge. A body orbits the earth because it is in free fall. There is simply no outward force associated with that sort of motion. The bottom line is mechanical systems do not accurately model gravitational systems. However, for sake of argument, I will accept your force analysis of orbital motion, but you still have a problem explaining why weight should not arise because most bodies consist of protons and neutrons. Your explanation only covers bodies composed of thing 1 and thing 2 particles. Harry
Re: Solar-Cold Fusion Spacecraft Propulsion
Frederick Sparber at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not so sure about that numerically challenged part, Horace. I come up with about 90 lbs thrust per square meter for CO2 sublimation, and about 20 lbs per square meter for H2O ice sublimation thrust. With CO2 Smoke and Mirrors you can fly a spacecraft toward the sun too. :-) Frederick How would one measure thrust from sublimation to check the theoretical predictions? Harry
Re: Does Dry H2O Ice Tap ZPE?
At 11:20 AM 1/13/5, Grimer wrote: Mmm...very interesting. I wish I could have written all that. ;^) It's amazing how stuff one posts here comes back in various forms at later times. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Superluminal and relativity
On Saturday 11 December 2004 21:12, Kyle Mcallister wrote: Hello all, The recent discussions of FTL signalling and its repercussions is interesting to me, and is something which has troubled my mind for many years. After studying special relativity, particularly the implications of relativity of simultaneity and the rejection of absolute separation of past and future for spatially displaced observers, and how all this relates to objects moving with speeds greater than c, I feel some new thought on this is needed. By now we all know about the 'twin paradox' and Dingle's questioning of the validity of special relativity on grounds that equivalence of all frames of reference should make both twins be younger and older at the same time when they meet up later on, and the subsequent explanation provided by conventional physics as to why one is truly younger and one is truly older. The issue gets a little more complex if we change the setting a bit. Consider a particle which is created without experiencing acceleration. Say, a precursor particle exists, and undergoes decay into daughter particles, one of which is moving at nearly c upon creation, it did not accelerate there. As far as this particle is concerned, it did not feel any acceleration whatsoever, it is merely there. It also does not know that it is moving at a highly relativistic speed. Let us call this particle A. Now A is moving along at 0.99c with respect to an observer, call it O. O was moving at the same speed as the precursor particle which created A. We can't say that O's frame is at rest, due to relativity. But we can illuminate things a bit with careful use of 'with repect to', abbreviated WRT. Let us say that A emits a particle B which moves at -0.99c WRT A, as seen by O. Let us restrict ourselves to a 1+1 universe with only X and T coordinates. In these conditions, B is now moving at the same speed as O...it has come to a 'stop'. B turns around, and moves back to A at speed slighly greater than 0.99c WRT O, to overtake and meet back up with A. A will see, due to the relativistic solution to the twin paradox, that B is younger than himself...or will he? If everyone meets up in the end to compare notes, things might not look right. According to O, left behind at the precursor point, A suddenly appeared and was moving at 0.99c, and thusly aging much slower than O due to clock retardation. A then emitted B, which slowed to rest WRT O, and thus began aging faster than A. B then accelerated back up to overtake and merge with A again. B should be older than A, according to O, unless the time spend at a speed greater than A's to overtake cancels the effect out. Does it? I don't know, it would probably take a good bit of spacetime-diagramming to know precisely. It would have to have B aging so slowly during the overtake that A would age enough to be truly older than B upon rearrival. A on the other hand, sees B move away from himself, and thus age much slower. B then turns around, and accelerates to overtake and merge with A. A should always see B to age less than himself, and on the overtake, B should be seen to age MUCH less. So what happens? Do things during the critical overtake arrange themselves such that according to both O and A, B is younger than A? Or do O and A disagree? You begin to get a picture of how complex the issues are. What happens if we have a 1+1 spacetime with a topology such that the X direction loops back upon itself? Meaning, go in the X (or -X) direction long enough, and you end up back where you started. If you do this, you never have to have any overtake to let A and B meet back up, it just happens because of the way spacetime is topologically conditioned. I am not talking of a gravitational 'warp' of some kind, just a closed universe. Some will likely argue that GR is required to understand this...I don't know. It would seem that A could continue on its merry way, only to eventually meet back up with B. Since B was seen from A to move away at relativistic speed, A should see B is younger than himself. However, according to O, B slowed down, and thus A should be the younger one, for he was moving much faster than B was. Who is right? Well, I suppose you could argue that since the topology loops back on itself that according to A, B changed direction, and so did O. But they would always be moving relativistically WRT A, and thus should appear younger. B (or O) will see that A changed direction. Thus, A should be youngest according to both, since A was always moving at relativistic speed. In the conventional twin paradox, we have one twin who can be argued to have taken the TRULY longer path through spacetime, and thus be TRULY younger. But in this case of looped topology, you can't really say that. The whole thing is symmetric from either point of view. Anyone have any thoughts on this? How is this solved? CAN it be
Physics Today Article on DoE re-review of CF effect.
January 13, 2005 Vortex, Snail mail being what it is, I received the January issue (Volume 58 issue One) of Physics Today yesterday. There is a short column in the 'Issues and Events' listed in the Table of Contents titled Cold Fusion gets a chilly Encore, by Toni Feder. The article goes over the brief history of the Pons Fleischmann's CF claims and DOE's original study of them (Huizenga's committee). What the DoE seems to find, after review of 14 selected revirewer's varied, uneven comments on the status of CF since 1989 was that, in sum, CF was not a repeatable science, not well documented, and the magnitude of the effect if it exists, is not of any greater magnitude since 1989, The DoE is taking the side of the negative. The positive conclusions in the minority review, the DoE found not sufficient to fund as a general area of research. However DoE left the door open for future specific research proposal fundng as passed upon by the 'peer review and relevance'. What this means for actual funding approvals to come across, I don'y know. It looks more like an escape hatch for the DoE position rather than a door of opportunity for CF reasearcher. Yet the proponents fo the re-review process seems to be happy with the scraps. They have found a measure of scientific respectability and a huge increase in (I presume private) funding inquiries, as per McKubre and Hagelstein. There are web links available to access DoE's CF review release and also the individual reviewer's comments. These have been availbla in Steven Krivt's New Energy Times website and Jed Rothwell's LENR/CANR website much earlier than now. -ak-
