RE: [Vo]:Incredible Gen3 paper
There are several possibilities for the UV, Lou - and your hat is now in the
ring along with Randy Mills and a few others.
Cleary EUV and soft x-rays are involved. Clearly the values are not falling
into the expected Rydberg levels. One value that stands out in this study is
the 19.29 nm wavelength. It should be 22.8 nm for Mills - and the excuse
given does not ring true. There could be some kind of cut-off but I'm not
buying it - simply because the graph would not be so spiked.
I'm glad to see any well-considered suggestions to explain it. My suggestion
is far-out as well (92 million miles out) but many heard have heard it
before and it is definitely a minority viewpoint. (so I take every
opportunity to "radiate it").
Curiously 19.3 nm is a value that turns up often in solar astronomy.
http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=26419
There could be one or more mundane explanations for this. In the paper
above, the detector was designed to look for this value, but for a good
reason. The the sun was photographed in ultraviolet light at a wavelength of
19.3 nanometers - 25 times shorter than wavelengths of visible light -
simply because it is characteristic of solar energy. That wavelength is
blocked by Earth's atmosphere, so to observe it astronomers must get above
the atmosphere.
To cut to the chase - this mass-energy value, 19.3 nm, appears to be the
expected energy release from solar RPF.
Solar RPF is a theory of "reversible proton fusion". It is also known as the
diproton reaction. But make no mistake - the so-called "diproton" is helium
and NOT hydrogen, even though its lifetime is extremely short.
For every instance of real fusion on the sun there are about 10^20 instances
of transient diprotons, which are fusing for a few femtoseconds and then
reversing back to protons. This instant reversibility is due basically to
the Pauli exclusion principle. However, due the short instant of binding
there are energetic QCD color changes which take place in the six quarks.
In short, at least in this RPF hypothesis, nickel-hydrogen gain on earth, is
based on the solar model of RPF and the relevant emission is EUV at 19.3 nm
and not Mills' Rydberg value.
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Jones,
A good find.
I have only read it quickly, but maybe a simpler explanation suffices.
Anomalous 'continuum' emissions occur only in proportion to hydrogen
present. This leads me to conjecture that:
Elliptical Rydberg H-atoms form and ionize, creating fairly intense (mixed
e-p) current filaments, along with (in the lab frame) a strong magnetic
vector potential ('A-field') pointing in the plasma flow direction.
Some of the ionizing e-p pairs form transient, non-stationary colliding
waveforms trapped in their own embracing coulomb potentials.
(Several QM texts cover the math of transient coulomb collisions.)
As the e-p collide, they slow dramatically. In their collision frame
the vector potential (A-field) suddenly shrinks, donating it's field
energy to the collision (to obey momentum conservation.)
By conventional physics (see Feynman ref[1] below), this must force e-p
wave function into highly localized, high kinetic energy, compressed
pairs - "compressive" collisions similar to colliding rubber balls, as
opposed to colliding billiards.
When the proton recaptures the electron, returning to a stationary state,
the K.E. borrowed from the A-field is radiated and observed.
The author rules out both bremsstrahlung and recombination.
My conjecture combines counter-intuitive elements of both.
If it's correct, no exothermic LENR occurs, but still a valuable experiment.
-- Lou Pagnucco
[1] Feynman Lectures, v3, ch21, "Schrodinger's equation in a magnetic field"
http://www.peaceone.net/basic/Feynman/V3%20Ch21.pdf
Pertinent extract (p.21-5) -
"But remember what happens electrically when I suddenly turn on a flux.
During the short time that the flux is rising, there's an electric field
generated whose line integral is the rate of change of the flux with time:
E = - dA/dt(21.16)
That electric field is enormous if the flux is changing rapidly, and it
gives a force on the particle. The force is the charge times the electric
field, and so during the build up of the flux the particle obtains a total
impulse (that is, a change in mv) equal to -qA. In other words, if you
suddenly turn on a vector potential at a charge, this charge immediately
picks up an 'mv' momentum equal to -qA."
Jones Beene wrote:
> This paper was mentioned 18 months ago on vortex - but has almost been
> ignored by the LENR community since then ... possibly due to some kind of
> absurd jealousy over anything "Millsean" ... i.e. from Randell Mills
>
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
>
> Forget Randy - Read this paper in the context in Rossi-type LENR - instead
> of Mills.
>
> Pay close attention to detains in the nanometer geometry ! In my opinion
> this paper supports LENR,
[Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_01_2013_p0-632731.xml "Ever since Lockheed’s unsurpassed SR-71 Blackbird was retired from U.S. Air Force service almost two decades ago, the perennial question has been: Will it ever be succeeded by a new-generation, higher-speed aircraft and, if so, when? That is, until now. After years of silence on the subject, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works has revealed exclusively to AW&ST details of long-running plans for what it describes as an affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform that could enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018. Dubbed the SR-72, the twin-engine aircraft is designed for a Mach 6 cruise, around twice the speed of its forebear, and will have the optional capability to strike targets" Did you say Mach 6?
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
Terry Blanton wrote: > Did you say Mach 6? > You heard the man. Mach 6. That's 4,567.2423 mph says Mr. Google. Not escape velocity, which is Mach 34. That's what I would aim for. It seems like it would more trouble than it is worth staying in the atmosphere, with all that heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Sorb On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >> Did you say Mach 6? >> > > You heard the man. Mach 6. That's 4,567.2423 mph says Mr. Google. > > Not escape velocity, which is Mach 34. That's what I would aim for. It > seems like it would more trouble than it is worth staying in the > atmosphere, with all that heat. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion propulsion can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that. 2013/11/5 Jed Rothwell > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >> Did you say Mach 6? >> > > You heard the man. Mach 6. That's 4,567.2423 mph says Mr. Google. > > Not escape velocity, which is Mach 34. That's what I would aim for. It > seems like it would more trouble than it is worth staying in the > atmosphere, with all that heat. > > - Jed > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
Daniel Rocha wrote: Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion propulsion > can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that. > You are right. I got the two mixed up. What would be the suborbital velocity for a trip halfway across the world, which I assume is about as far as anyone wants to go? Unless you want to bomb Australia. (For winning the America's Cup in 1983?) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
You have to love "speed is the new stealth." http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/high-speed-strike-weapon--hssw--.html https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=af217f963d28a50ef03f68c11f4e60a6&tab=core&_cview=1
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
Back of the envelope, 18,000 mph. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion >> propulsion can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that. > > > You are right. I got the two mixed up. > > What would be the suborbital velocity for a trip halfway across the world, > which I assume is about as far as anyone wants to go? Unless you want to > bomb Australia. (For winning the America's Cup in 1983?) > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Back of the envelope, 18,000 mph. Modern, self-propelled artillery can land three shells on the same target 40 miles away by firing three at different ballistic solutions in rapid succession. Aren't war toys wonderful? We need some new enemies. Aliens! Zombies! Not Zombies. See World War Z.
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Back of the envelope, 18,000 mph. Hmm. That can also get you into low earth orbit depending on trajectory.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
I am assuming this is a hybrid scramjet technology which only switches over above a certain altitude and velocity - It might be able to accelerate right out of the atmosphere but would be without propulsion or control with the added risk of engine failure to restart. I can see it evolving to short exo atmosphere capability for evasion purposes but they did tout the reduced cost of this aircraft which may not hold up in extended vacuum. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72 Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion propulsion can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that. You are right. I got the two mixed up. What would be the suborbital velocity for a trip halfway across the world, which I assume is about as far as anyone wants to go? Unless you want to bomb Australia. (For winning the America's Cup in 1983?) - Jed
[Vo]:nuclear power
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/04/climate_experts_to_enviros_the_time_has_come_to_embrace_nuclear_power/
Re: [Vo]:nuclear power
I say we send all the pro nuclear weenies over to Fukushima to help clean up the mess and only after will we listen to their argument about installing more nukes On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:17 PM, wrote: > > http://www.salon.com/2013/11/04/climate_experts_to_enviros_the_time_has_come_to_embrace_nuclear_power/
Re: [Vo]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
I am familiar with characterizing the FOBS type vehicle. FOBS (*Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) *was a Soviet ICBM program in the 1960s that after launch would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an attack. It had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal the target location. This would allow a path to North America over the South Pole, hitting targets from the south, which is the opposite direction from which NORAD early warning systems are oriented. NORAD was very senitive to the FOBS system and much effort was expended to remove this capability from the Russian arsenal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System The SALT II agreement (1979) prohibited the deployment of FOBS systems: *Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy:* *(...)* *(c) systems for placing into Earth orbit **nuclear weapons** or any other kind of **weapons of mass destruction**, including fractional orbital missiles;* The missile was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with this treaty. Putting any vehicle into a suborbital trajectory is asking for problems with the SALT II agreement. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Daniel Rocha wrote: > > Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion >> propulsion can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that. >> > > You are right. I got the two mixed up. > > What would be the suborbital velocity for a trip halfway across the world, > which I assume is about as far as anyone wants to go? Unless you want to > bomb Australia. (For winning the America's Cup in 1983?) > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:Incredible Gen3 paper
Jones,
I also wish that other spectral anomalies were observed - besides the
broadband soft X-ray/EUV apparently due to hydrogen, but I believe that
the 19.29 nm line is due to the oxidized cathode/anode surfaces -
oxygen contamination.
However, I think this is a good experiment to repeat with higher voltages,
higher currents and densities, stronger confining magnetic fields, etc.
The Sternglass experiment could be repeated with minor modification.
Still, if my speculation that high-energy, non-stationary e-p collisions
generate the X-rays/EUV is correct, then perhaps a higher current/voltage,
continuous plasma channel version would also generate neutrons, as seen
by Sternglass.
-- Lou Pagnucco
Jones Beene wrote:
> There are several possibilities for the UV, Lou - and your hat is now in
> the
> ring along with Randy Mills and a few others.
>
> Cleary EUV and soft x-rays are involved. Clearly the values are not
> falling
> into the expected Rydberg levels. One value that stands out in this study
> is
> the 19.29 nm wavelength. It should be 22.8 nm for Mills - and the excuse
> given does not ring true. There could be some kind of cut-off but I'm not
> buying it - simply because the graph would not be so spiked.
>
> I'm glad to see any well-considered suggestions to explain it. My
> suggestion
> is far-out as well (92 million miles out) but many heard have heard it
> before and it is definitely a minority viewpoint. (so I take every
> opportunity to "radiate it").
>
> Curiously 19.3 nm is a value that turns up often in solar astronomy.
>
> http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=26419
>
> There could be one or more mundane explanations for this. In the paper
> above, the detector was designed to look for this value, but for a good
> reason. The the sun was photographed in ultraviolet light at a wavelength
> of
> 19.3 nanometers - 25 times shorter than wavelengths of visible light -
> simply because it is characteristic of solar energy. That wavelength is
> blocked by Earth's atmosphere, so to observe it astronomers must get above
> the atmosphere.
>
> To cut to the chase - this mass-energy value, 19.3 nm, appears to be the
> expected energy release from solar RPF.
>
> Solar RPF is a theory of "reversible proton fusion". It is also known as
> the
> diproton reaction. But make no mistake - the so-called "diproton" is
> helium
> and NOT hydrogen, even though its lifetime is extremely short.
>
> For every instance of real fusion on the sun there are about 10^20
> instances
> of transient diprotons, which are fusing for a few femtoseconds and then
> reversing back to protons. This instant reversibility is due basically to
> the Pauli exclusion principle. However, due the short instant of binding
> there are energetic QCD color changes which take place in the six quarks.
>
> In short, at least in this RPF hypothesis, nickel-hydrogen gain on earth,
> is
> based on the solar model of RPF and the relevant emission is EUV at 19.3
> nm
> and not Mills' Rydberg value.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
>
> Jones,
>
> A good find.
>
> I have only read it quickly, but maybe a simpler explanation suffices.
>
> Anomalous 'continuum' emissions occur only in proportion to hydrogen
> present. This leads me to conjecture that:
>
> Elliptical Rydberg H-atoms form and ionize, creating fairly intense (mixed
> e-p) current filaments, along with (in the lab frame) a strong magnetic
> vector potential ('A-field') pointing in the plasma flow direction.
>
> Some of the ionizing e-p pairs form transient, non-stationary colliding
> waveforms trapped in their own embracing coulomb potentials.
> (Several QM texts cover the math of transient coulomb collisions.)
>
> As the e-p collide, they slow dramatically. In their collision frame
> the vector potential (A-field) suddenly shrinks, donating it's field
> energy to the collision (to obey momentum conservation.)
>
> By conventional physics (see Feynman ref[1] below), this must force e-p
> wave function into highly localized, high kinetic energy, compressed
> pairs - "compressive" collisions similar to colliding rubber balls, as
> opposed to colliding billiards.
>
> When the proton recaptures the electron, returning to a stationary state,
> the K.E. borrowed from the A-field is radiated and observed.
>
> The author rules out both bremsstrahlung and recombination.
> My conjecture combines counter-intuitive elements of both.
> If it's correct, no exothermic LENR occurs, but still a valuable
> experiment.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> [1] Feynman Lectures, v3, ch21, "Schrodinger's equation in a magnetic
> field"
> http://www.peaceone.net/basic/Feynman/V3%20Ch21.pdf
>
> Pertinent extract (p.21-5) -
> "But remember what happens electrically when I suddenly turn on a flux.
> During the short time that the flux is rising, there's an electric field
> generated whose line integral is the rate of change of the flux with time:
>
>E = - dA/dt(21.16)
>
> That elect
[Vo]:Magnetic light
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120704/srep00492/full/srep00492.html Magnetic light One of the mysteries of the DGT reactor is how that device can produce such a huge magnetic field just by heating a pile of dust. Light can produce magnetism when the nanoparticles are configure correctly. These nanoparticles can produce a magnetic dipole where the magnetic field is emitted from the center point by running light in a circle. *“Seeing is believing” is an idiom supported by people since ancient times. To see a medium response to the magnetic field component of light, “magnetic light”, by naked eyes would be an additional proof of the concept of metamaterials, which people can design to control light at the new level beyond nature.* *In this paper, we experimentally demonstrate for the first time that spherical silicon nanoparticles with sizes in the range from 100 nm to 200 nm have strong magnetic dipole response in the visible spectral range. The scattered “magnetic” light by these nanoparticles is so strong that it can be easily seen under a dark-field optical microscope. The wavelength of this magnetic resonance can be tuned throughout the whole visible spectral range from violet to red by just changing the nanoparticle size."*
