Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
In regard to the contents of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf the lateral Casimir force between a square plate edge and an adjecent parallel plate is not the same as for a beveled plate edge and opposing plate, and thus a net energy gain is feasible from a Casimir effect motor, provided the edges of the plates are appropriately shaped. I showed, by comparative analysis, that the lateral Casimir force due to forces between a square plate edge and an adjecent parallel plate is not the same as for a beveled plate edge and opposing plate, and thus a net energy gain is feasible from a Casimir effect motor provided the edges of the plates are appropriately shaped. It is thus feasible to build a motor rotor consisting merely of a parallelogram shaped lobes, and stator which is merely a flat surface near which the rotor rotates. The gap between stator and rotor have to be very small. It might of use to make the stator a surface with non-symmetrical cross section grooves or fairly closely spaced parallelogram cross section blades. Call this the activator surface. Such a surface could be relatively large in area. Then the rotor or armature need only provide a closely mated smooth surface at a very small distance from the stator. The activator surface could be planar, or cylindrical, or conical, etc., with the *rotor* (armature) shaped to mate surfaces. It is easier to build oscillating arm (pendulum) MicroEletroMechanical system (MEMS) devices than similar devices with rotors because it eliminates the need for bearings, and the construction can be achieved using existing electronic chip making technology. A linear motion armature pendulum could be activated by changing the distance between the stator and armature in one direction, the y direction, in order to initiate free energy motion in the other. An x axis moving armature (drone plate) sandwiched between two physically connected activator (drive) plates that move together in the y axis, one growing closer to the armature as the other recedes, each activator plate with groove shapes oriented to cause forces on the armature (drone plate) in a direction opposed to the other activator plate, would cause the armature to oscillate in the x direction, with net energy gained from each oscillation. Since the y axis force times distance curves integrate to the same energy value of zero, no net energy is required to drive the activator plate pendulums, other than heating due to friction and torsion. The physical linkage of opposed driver plates reduces the electrical energy required to drive them. Electrical energy can be extracted from the induced x axis linear armature motion by having it change the separation between charged capacitor plates, or by having a connected dielectric material move in and out of the volume between two charged capacitor plates, i.e. by driving an electrostatic AC generator. Similarly, some of the generated energy could be fed back to capacitively drive the motion of the activator plates. There is a potentially practical means to derive macro levels of energy from an array of MEMS devices similar to those described above. This practical means is to use capacitive linkages to drive the y axis oscillations of all the paired driver plate pendulums so as to synchronously drive all the pendulum oscillations in a large array. This synchronous action of all the pendulums then will cause a macro level vibration in the array which can be used to obtain macro levels of free kinetic energy. Such energy might be converted to electrical energy by driving piezoelectric crystals connected to a very large array. Electrical energy so obtained can then be fed back to the oscillator driving the driver plate pendulums. Alternatively, the synchronously oscillating drone places could drive capacitive generators to produce a synchronous current output. Elements of the array could be joined in series and parallel to obtain useful power levels. The power output of such a MEMS array would be radio frequency. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:September 22 might be Rossi's final deadline
On 2011-09-01 17:27, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Roy Virgilio (a close source to the Piantelli group who often posted reliable news on their ongoing work) wrote a post today in the italian Energeticambient forum that might interest Rossi followers as well. I will translate it below: Today, in the same forum thread, Roy Virgilio added that Rossi's tests with NASA should start tomorrow (September 7th) and last three days. Apparently Armando de Para's information of tests starting on September 3rd was close but not totally correct. Note that this enabled Rossi to write on his blog that rumors of tests being performed by NASA *right now* are not true - which is technically correct, if they are yet to start. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=6#comment-68660 Mahler September 5th, 2011 at 4:51 AM [...] - girano rumors su presunti test che lei starebbe svolgendo presso la NASA proprio in questi giorni; se la sente di commentare? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=6#comment-68835 Andrea Rossi September 5th, 2011 at 4:37 PM [...] Rumors are wrong. Warm Regards, A.R. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:September 22 might be Rossi's final deadline
On 2011-09-06 10:35, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today, in the same forum thread, Roy Virgilio added that Rossi's tests with NASA should start tomorrow (September 7th) and last three days. It looks like I forgot to check before sending the email to the group. There's an error on my part. What Roy Virgilio said was: per quanto riguarda Rossi e il suo test NASA dovrebbe iniziare oggi. Durata prevista circa 3 giorni. Translation: Regarding Rossi and his test with NASA, it should begin today. Duration expected: about 3 days. The test is supposed to start *today* (September 6th), not tomorrow as I've written. Sorry again, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:September 22 might be Rossi's final deadline
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Note that this enabled Rossi to write on his blog that rumors of tests being performed by NASA *right now* are not true - which is technically correct, if they are yet to start. But, Akira, for a man who has been as loquacious about his pets as Red, why would he mislead anyone about this test with NASA? He is such a difficult one to fathom. T
Re: [Vo]:September 22 might be Rossi's final deadline
On 2011-09-06 13:45, Terry Blanton wrote: But, Akira, for a man who has been as loquacious about his pets as Red, why would he mislead anyone about this test with NASA? He is such a difficult one to fathom. My impression is that as of late he's become quite secretive about organizations or institutions that at some point in the near to mid term future will test his devices. For example, when asked about details on tests to be performed at the University of Bologna, he's often written that it is a private matter and that he won't write anything more about it, despite having often mentioned their future collaboration earlier this year. In the case of NASA, however, I have reasons to believe that not only Rossi, but also the institution itself might want to keep a low profile at the moment. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:RE: EXTERNAL: Time-Frame-Based Casimir Effect
Hi Scott, I still don't think you can derive directional thrust in our inertial frame but your point regarding motion is appropriate relative to how we define time and motion when describing relative effects between different inertial frames. What we describe as time dilation from our perspective outside a cavity is perceived as spatial motion from the local perspective of the remote object inside the cavity such that the as plates move closer together from our external perspective they have an opposing motion from an internal perspective that starts to add distance at the inverse of distance^4 - It is a very real motion to the vac wavelengths [virtual particles] allowing them to fit in a space that appears too small from our perspective outside the cavity. You may be able to create imbalances inside the cavity but I remain convinced the overall pressure remains balanced externally and internally and you need to involve a 3rd body such as gas atoms that have a natural affinity for one region over the other in order to create an exploitable asymmetry. My premise is that as long as the cavities taper smoothly into fissures and capillaries of sub atomic geometry the fractional gas can become further fractionalized and migrate into these relativistic confines as long as it remains in the center of the field and does not approach the cavity walls - If it slips out of the field it should rapidly translate through the fractionalized states and be rapidly squeezed out of the cavity by the confining walls. The confusion is that the Casimir plates modify both inertial frames- segregating energy density differently inside vs outside the cavity between as mentioned by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula in her paper Cavity QED http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf. This abrupt breach in isotropy is unlike any other macro phenomenon in nature. She also makes a point similar to yours regarding radioactive decays but based instead on spontaneous emission of Yb atoms in a mirror resonator being either enhanced or inhibited dependent on conditions. Regards Fran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Roarty, Francis X; Fran Roarty Subject: EXTERNAL: Time-Frame-Based Casimir Effect Fran, I think this is part of the difference between cavities that exhibit negative internal pressure or positive internal pressure. If we start by assuming that Lorentz Invariance applies to nanocavities then, at first, we expect the same pressure inside the cavity as outside the cavity, except for one little detail: Casimir Plates actually move! How can this be? Clearly, if we are correct, the pressure actually is the same in each time frame, but faster time means more instances of impulse as counted from a slower time frame; this gives us a positive pressure cavity. If time passes slower inside the cavity, then we have a negative pressure cavity. In other words, the time change is what is actually causing the Casimir Effect. Therefore, a cavity with a U-shaped cross section of the right materials, size and proportions can probably be designed so as to experience equal forces on its ceiling as on its roof, but at different rates of time. Therefore, a properly designed cavity will experience a net force. What do you think? Scott,
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Radiowave Reactor
Hi, On 3-9-2011 18:40, Terry Blanton wrote: A quick perusal of Jed's site shows no one seems to have tested Ni/H stimulation in the sub-megaHertz range. Indeed, I didn't see anything showing attempts at RF stimulation. Goodness knows that the wavelength of phonons can certainly exist in this range. Makes you wonder if the device and rough principle described over here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves could have anything to do with the principles used in Rossi's device. Based upon the pictures currently available of the control box, it's impossible to tell if he isn't using some kind of electronics which generates a specific frequency. I wonder if the dials and displays at the front of the control box are used for setting a specific frequency i.s.o. a power level for heating the resistors. Looking at the way how Rossi has built his device so far I wouldn't be surprised at all if he uses a simple clamp heater with resistance wire as an antenna. If my memory serves me well a lot was already written about Hydrogen and the influence of a 1 MHz frequency, but has any of the visitor's of Rossi when looking and measuring the device (not the dummy one in the Krivit demonstration) bothered to check for unusual high power levels of frequencies in the MHz range? Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:New translations of papers into Portuguese
See: Chubb, S.R., *O Reator Rossi de 10kW.* Infinite Energy, 2011(96): p. 31. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRoreatorros.pdf Bacchi, S., *Coletânea de artigos sobre o aparelho de fusão a frio Rossi*. 2011, LENR-CANR.org. [That title doesn't survive conversion.] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BacchiScoletneade.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Radiowave Reactor
Hi, On 6-9-2011 16:31, Man on Bridges wrote: If my memory serves me well a lot was already written about Hydrogen and the influence of a 1 MHz frequency, Hmmm, the following picture makes one wondering if this is a frequency of 903,000 Hz? Source: http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=File:28042011_1.jpg Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:New translations of papers into Portuguese
On 06-Sep-11 11:37, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: Chubb, S.R., /O Reator Rossi de 10kW./ Infinite Energy, 2011(96): p. 31. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRoreatorros.pdf Bacchi, S., /Coletânea de artigos sobre o aparelho de fusão a frio Rossi/. 2011, LENR-CANR.org. [That title doesn't survive conversion.] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BacchiScoletneade.pdf - Jed Coletânea de artigos sobre o aparelho de fusão a frio de Andrea Rossi Mark
Re: [Vo]:New translations of papers into Portuguese
Muito obrigado pela tradução. Foi interessante terem escolhido Scott Chubb. Além de ser uma espécie de homenagem pela sua memória, pois recentemente faleceu, eu acho que a teoria dele é a que mais se aproxima de uma explicação realista para of fenômeno LENR.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 05.09.2011 23:56, schrieb Horace Heffner: Good question Peter, A possible answer begins on page 7 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf The lateral forces on capacitor plates is due to fringe fields. The Casimir force is highly non-linear, so fringe forces differ from electrostatic forces, and this difference leads to a means to extract zero point energy. Yes but highly non-linear means very difficult to calculate, bvut doesnt necessarily mean the it is a nonconservative force. Casimir force is heavily researched nowadays, because it is the strongest force at nanometer distances and therefore a big problem for nanomachines. This doesnt look like a nonconservative force. The other point is, that there are experiments to measure the force, but these dont give 100% proof, so it is unproven. There are theories that deny vacuum energy and derive the casimir force from other atomic forces. It was never measured between parallel plates, because this is technically too difficult. For the experimental proof they used a gold plate and a gold sphere and they needed 1/2 year until they had removed all dust and could measure it. So it is only indirectly proven, because the results from this measurement had to be extrapolated. Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero. I am unable to go deep into all this (Or I might be able, but dont see why it would be rewarding for me), so which of all this theories should I believe? I dont know ;-) Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis: Which is to say we outside the cavity appear to be the Paradox twin approaching C and slowing down due to time dilation relative to the modified ratio of V^2/C^2 inside the cavity. Interesting thought. Could this be tested when we diffuse a radioactive gas into Raney Nickel and measure the radioactive decay rate?. Another possibility to measure the time dilation could be by measuring the frequency of magnetic nuclear spin resonance. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert: Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Peter, You are in good company - Professor Moddel also though the idea was intriguing but that it would take a mathematician years to prove or disprove it based on QED. As for your suggestion of diffusing a radioactive gas into Rayney nickel there are already many documented cases of both accelerated and delayed half lives of radioactive gases. The accelerated half lives are more pronounced and much more common while the delayed half lives are much less pronounced and are described by the Reifenschweiler effect. The more pronounced effect is on acceleration of radioactive decay while the Reifenschweiler effect is instead a DELAY of radioactive and is a much smaller effect. Regards Fran From the website of Ludwik Kowalskihttp://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/311alberts.html%20; Reifenschweiler effect. Ludwik Kowalski; 11/xx/2006 Department of Mathematical Sciences Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043 About two months ago Albert Alberts, from Netherlands, mentioned some observations made by Otto Reifenschweiler. This was on the restricted Internet list for CMNS researchers. Asked for a clarification, Alberts wrote: The 'Reifenschweiler effect' is the observation that the beta-decay of tritium half-life 12.5 years is delayed reversibly by about 25-30% when the isotope is absorbed in 15 nm titanium-clusters in a temperature window in between 160-275 C. Remarkably at 360 C the original radioactivity reappears. The effect is absent in bulk metal. Discovered around 1960/1962 at Philips Research Eindhoven, The Netherlands Reifenschweiler extensively discussed his observation with o.a Casimir (the director of research at the time), Kistemaker (ultracentrifuge expert), and although no satisfactory explanation was found, R. was allowed to publish it. At the time a unique example as to how an electronic environment might affect nuclear phenomena. From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis: Which is to say we outside the cavity appear to be the Paradox twin approaching C and slowing down due to time dilation relative to the modified ratio of V^2/C^2 inside the cavity. Interesting thought. Could this be tested when we diffuse a radioactive gas into Raney Nickel and measure the radioactive decay rate?. Another possibility to measure the time dilation could be by measuring the frequency of magnetic nuclear spin resonance. Best, Peter
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Peter, I have exchanged numerous emails with Thomas over the years and he has commented on my relativistic blogs in support of his interpretation. We amicably agree to disagree on certain issues but he has found me far less polarized than supporters of the classic interpretation where longer wavelength/larger virtual particles are posited to be displaced by the confined space between the plates. In fact I happen to agree with his concept of upshifted VUV but in a MUCH more inclusive way - where he concentrates on a specific spectrum the relativistic interpretation upshifts the entire radiation spectrum by virtue of changing the quantum time unit... time dilation. I don't recall if his equations supported the 1/distance^4 we observe in Casimir effect but if so then it might be an equivalent way of saying the same thing AND I am not the first to suggest these seemingly opposing methods would lead to the same results. If vacuum wavelengths should turn out to be simply working models it does not subtract from their usefulness, More so to the creation of a static environment where the Casimir plates are braced apart and the stiction force remains permanently unrequited instead of allowing the plates to move and the pressure negated. Because both theories result in an upshift in em frequencies with respect to a permanent cavity they are in agreement regardless if the achievement is thru COE or time dilation. These forces would be of little use if the plates were perfect - like a nanotube you would only observe catalytic action at openings and defects where energy density changes but nature provides a tapestry of geometries when you leach a softer metal from a harder metal to form a skeletal cat or allow loose nano powders to randomly pack together to form a bulk material- it is these changes in energy density you need to exploit with a 3rd body such as gas atoms to create asymmetries. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert: Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero.
Re: [Vo]:heat after death at 3 liters per hour flow rate
I sent that last post by mistake. Fumble fingers. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Trust no one. 8^) Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert: Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero. I didn't have to read far to find a major error. Perhaps it is just the kind of clerical error I make often, but I would think it would be self evident to anyone reading the article. The author writes: One of the early Casimir experiments [3] using the sphere and flat plate geometry measured the Casimir force in the 0.6 –6 mm range. The sphere was a 4 cm diameter spherical lens and the flat plate was a 2.5 cm diameter optical flat, the optical surfaces Cu coated with a top Au coating. A noticeable change in the Casimir force was not found until the gap between the sphere and flat plate reached the 0.6 mm lower limit. More recently, the Casimir force was determined [4] with an atomic force microscope using an Au coated sphere about 200 mm in diameter and a flat plate. The Casimir force Fc was measured from 0.1 to 0.9 mm and corrected for plasmon frequency, roughness of the surface, and finite temperature. Even the thought of measuring the Casimir force at these scales is ridiculous! Using: Fc = pi^2 * h * c * R / (720 z^3) with the given numbers R = 4 cm and z = 0.6 mm I get Fc = 5.0426x10^-19 N Fc = 5 x 10^-17 grams force The thought of measuring 10^-17 grams force at these size scales is ridiculous! The use of cm and mm dimensions is throughout the paper. It may be a systematic typographical error, but it does not look like it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis: Which is to say we outside the cavity appear to be the Paradox twin approaching C and slowing down due to time dilation relative to the modified ratio of V^2/C^2 inside the cavity. Interesting thought. Could this be tested when we diffuse a radioactive gas into Raney Nickel and measure the radioactive decay rate?. Another possibility to measure the time dilation could be by measuring the frequency of magnetic nuclear spin resonance. Best, Peter The following experiment showed no large change in dissociation energy of H2 molecules within a one micron thick (0.001 mm) Casimir cavity: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/src/srcreport.htm This dissociation energy is dependent on the H2 molecular vibrational frequency, which should change for all molecules in the cavity if time dilation occurs for matter within a small cavity. It does not appear this happens. This experiment demonstrates some of the difficulties of experimenting in this genre. It is notable that NMR has been done extensively on metals with absorbed hydrogen. No time dilation effect has been noted in the literature I have read on this. I would expect radioactive decay rates to be a function of nuclear transit rates of electrons. This rate could be increased or decreased, depending on the chemical environment, electron status, of the lattice environment into which hydrogen is absorbed. Transiting electrons bring large amounts of kinetic energy into a nucleus. This can obviously be disruptive to an already unstable nucleus. There was a study that showed an accelerated decay rate for a radioactive element with orbitals compressed by trapping the element within C-60 cages. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Electron-nucleus interaction probabilities are increased by the increase in the near nucleus electron density. This premise may sound far fetched, but the chemical-nuclear relationship is no longer easily dismissed because it has been firmly established with regard to electron capture. 18 A nearly one percent difference in half life occurs simply due to the difference between electron wave functions for 7Be atoms inside C60 instead of Be metal. Further, the half life for 7Be atoms inside C60 was found to decrease upon cooling, and this was correlated to electron density at the Be nucleus.19 18 Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 19 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron- Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 21:18, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Trust no one. 8^) Yes, this are multiple observers describing their more or less accurate view of an elephant. I have decided to believe in the elephant ;-) Peter.
Re: [Vo]:New translations of papers into Portuguese
MJ feli...@gmail.com wrote: Coletânea de artigos sobre o aparelho de fusão a frio de Andrea Rossi Hmmm . . . It is properly formatted in EndNote but by the time it gets converted to HTML format by my Pascal program the ã characters are lost. I guess I should convert them to a. American software is provincial when it comes to ASCII codes from other languages. We can't process anything but [a..z]. Especially software from long ago like this compiler. The abstract looks okay. It comes out: Andrea Rossi e Sergio Focardi realizaram uma demonstração pública em 14 de Janeiro de 2011 do ECat (catalisador de energia) aquecedor de água Rossi, um reator níquel-hidrogênio a fusão, na Universidade de Bolonha (Itália). Um groupo de cerca de 50 scientistas da universidade e do Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN, o Instituto de Física Nuclear Italiano) onde se examinou o dispositivo. O experimento foi organizado pelo Dr. Giuseppe Levi e outros docentes da Universidaede de Bolonha/INFN. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 05.09.2011 23:56, schrieb Horace Heffner: Good question Peter, A possible answer begins on page 7 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf The lateral forces on capacitor plates is due to fringe fields. The Casimir force is highly non-linear, so fringe forces differ from electrostatic forces, and this difference leads to a means to extract zero point energy. Yes but highly non-linear means very difficult to calculate, bvut doesnt necessarily mean the it is a nonconservative force. Of course. The ordinary plate separation is a 1/r^4 force, but it is symmetric; it takes the same amount of energy to separate plates separated by r as gained from moving to r separation. However, the force at plate edges, as I proved, is highly dependent on edge geometry, and is not conservative there. Casimir force is heavily researched nowadays, because it is the strongest force at nanometer distances and therefore a big problem for nanomachines. This doesnt look like a nonconservative force. The other point is, that there are experiments to measure the force, but these dont give 100% proof, so it is unproven. There are theories that deny vacuum energy and derive the casimir force from other atomic forces. It was never measured between parallel plates, because this is technically too difficult. For the experimental proof they used a gold plate and a gold sphere and they needed 1/2 year until they had removed all dust and could measure it. So it is only indirectly proven, because the results from this measurement had to be extrapolated. Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero. I am unable to go deep into all this (Or I might be able, but dont see why it would be rewarding for me), so which of all this theories should I believe? I dont know ;-) Best, Peter If you want to look for zero point field rewards, the place to do so is in the nucleus. MEMS sizes produce energies trivial in comparison. See: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 21:18, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Trust no one. 8^) Yes, this are multiple observers describing their more or less accurate view of an elephant. I have decided to believe in the elephant ;-) Peter. The elephant exists, but is it in the room without everyone realizing it? 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New translations of papers into Portuguese
I changed the a which changed the name: Bacchi, S., *Coletanea de artigos sobre o aparelho de fusao a frio Rossi*. 2011, LENR-CANR.org. New name: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BacchiScoletanead.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Fran Group: Please Reconsider the following pointTime-Frame-Based Casimir Effect
The Quantum Vacuum itself exerts radiation pressure all of the time on everything. As measured within the accelerated time-frame, photon collisions of a given intensity are happening at exactly the same rate as the corresponding photons that manifest outside of the cavity, as measured from that external time frame; however, when we stand outside of the cavity, we see these equally energetic collisions as happening at a faster rate, inside the cavity and we conclude that more outward directed momentum is being imparted, inside the cavity than outside the cavity. The observer inside the cavity would see the same difference in forces, except he thinks the outside world is passing through time more slowly; therefore, he concludes that his side of the cavity walls are receiving momentum at a normal rate, but that the corresponding photons are striking the external walls more slowly. In other words, both observers agree that there is more outward directed pressure inside the cavity than there is inward directed pressure acting on the exterior of the cavity. Again, the pressure is the same inside and outside the cavity in each of those time frames, but they both see the same resulting difference in pressure from their own perspective. Really, the question hinges on whether the inside surface of the wall is in a different time zone than the outside surface . I think, if our theory is true, that the surfaces inside the cavity must be inside the faster time zone since it is this very surface that is causing the time-rate shift. Otherwise, the space would still be too small for the longer waves! What is causing the Casimir Effect if what I am saying is not true? Scott Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:25:02 -0400 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: scott...@hotmail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:RE: EXTERNAL: Time-Frame-Based Casimir Effect Hi Scott,I still don’t think you can derive directional thrust in our inertial frame but your point regarding motion is appropriate relative to how we define time and motion when describing relative effects between different inertial frames. What we describe as time dilation from our perspective outside a cavity is perceived as spatial motion from the local perspective of the remote object inside the cavity such that the as plates move closer together from our external perspective they have an opposing motion from an internal perspective that starts to add distance at the inverse of distance^4 – It is a very real motion to the vac wavelengths [virtual particles] allowing them to fit in a space that appears too small from our perspective outside the cavity. You may be able to create imbalances inside the cavity but I remain convinced the overall “pressure” remains balanced externally and internally and you need to involve a 3rd body such as gas atoms that have a natural affinity for one region over the other in order to create an exploitable asymmetry. My premise is that as long as the cavities taper smoothly into fissures and capillaries of sub atomic geometry the fractional gas can become further fractionalized and migrate into these relativistic confines as long as it remains in the center of the field and does not approach the cavity walls – If it slips out of the field it should rapidly translate through the fractionalized states and be rapidly squeezed out of the cavity by the confining walls. The confusion is that the Casimir plates modify both inertial frames- segregating energy density differently inside vs outside the cavity between as mentioned by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula in her paper Cavity QED http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf. This abrupt breach in isotropy is unlike any other macro phenomenon in nature. She also makes a point similar to yours regarding radioactive decays but based instead on spontaneous emission of Yb atoms in a mirror resonator being either enhanced or inhibited dependent on conditions. RegardsFran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Roarty, Francis X; Fran Roarty Subject: EXTERNAL: Time-Frame-Based Casimir Effect Fran, I think this is part of the difference between cavities that exhibit negative internal pressure or positive internal pressure. If we start by assuming that Lorentz Invariance applies to nanocavities then, at first, we expect the same pressure inside the cavity as outside the cavity, except for one little detail: Casimir Plates actually move! How can this be? Clearly, if we are correct, the pressure actually is the same in each time frame, but faster time means more instances of impulse as counted from a slower time frame; this gives us a positive pressure cavity. If time passes slower inside the cavity, then we have a negative pressure cavity. In other words, the time change is what is actually causing the Casimir Effect. Therefore, a
[Vo]:Fran Group: Please Reconsider the following pointTime-Frame-Based Casimir Effect
Scott, You are knocking on precisely the door I have been trying to open but the language so easily perverts between time and space when you switch perspectives between different inertial frames. The task is further obscured by our position that an apparently stationary region inside a cavity can utilize suppression to generate a different [equivalent?] inertial frame based on changes in the unit time instead of changing the velocity of an object[a gravity hill]. I agree with your pressure analogy which can trace its origin back to Puthoff's atomic model which is then further accumulated / segregated by virtue of Casimir geometry. Where I disagree however is that these pressures could have a spatial bias without use of a 3rd body to create an asymmetry - My posit is that the stream of virtual particles exist in a rolled up dimension that is 90 degrees displaced to our spatial plane and where this stream intersects with the spatial plane the virtual particles appear to grow from nothing outward into our spatial dimension at a specific xyz coordinate and then just as quickly shrink back out of our spatial dimensions in a never ending stream. Therefore the pressure is balanced along the time axis and it requires a 3rd body to interact with these fields in an asymmetrical manner to force the balance to redistribute between time and space. My bet is that hydrogen atoms used by Rossi or Mills are exchanging time for energy and would be much older than hydrogen that was never circulated through a cavity - We know the difference in light speed thru a Casimir region is only infinitesimally faster than C as perceived outside the cavity but this is the most rapid example of an object transitioning the region and piloted directly thru center of the cavity - think about the accumulating dilation of an object such as a gas atom residing for hours and slowly migrating into ever decreasing geometry with the possibility of fractionalized atoms achieving confinements up to 137 times smaller than a normal atom could achieve. Regards Fran On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:38:41 -0700 Wm. Scott Smith wrote The Quantum Vacuum itself exerts radiation pressure all of the time on everything. As measured within the accelerated time-frame, photon collisions of a given intensity are happening at exactly the same rate as the corresponding photons that manifest outside of the cavity, as measured from that external time frame; however, when we stand outside of the cavity, we see these equally energetic collisions as happening at a faster rate, inside the cavity and we conclude that more outward directed momentum is being imparted, inside the cavity than outside the cavity. The observer inside the cavity would see the same difference in forces, except he thinks the outside world is passing through time more slowly; therefore, he concludes that his side of the cavity walls are receiving momentum at a normal rate, but that the corresponding photons are striking the external walls more slowly. In other words, both observers agree that there is more outward directed pressure inside the cavity than there is inward directed pressure acting on the exterior of the cavity. Again, the pressure is the same inside and outside the cavity in each of those time frames, but they both see the same resulting difference in pressure from their own perspective. Really, the question hinges on whether the inside surface of the wall is in a different time zone than the outside surface . I think, if our theory is true, that the surfaces inside the cavity must be inside the faster time zone since it is this very surface that is causing the time-rate shift. Otherwise, the space would still be too small for the longer waves! What is causing the Casimir Effect if what I am saying is not true? Scott
