[Vo]:Lugano test and IR Cam...
Hi, I start to make a quick analysis of the Lugano test result. There is probably big errors, since my approach is bachelor level (not my job). http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/959-IR-Cam-brochure/?postID=2001#post2001 From the manufacturer documentation it appears that IR cam just measure the energy received in the wavelength range http://www.optris.fr/telechargements-cameras-infrarouges?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Zubehoer/IR-Basics.pdf the Optris 160 cam just use an array of bolometer (not quantum detectors) I have made a spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v4QYFuzSHjsEGYBXeO_5M1me9BxbdvXRQjjUiL5sJFg/edit?usp=sharing the idea is that for temperatures and wavelength I estimated by the Planck law, I averaged (flat distribution, maybe not the good one, but this is approximation) the luminance over the 7.5-13um and i obtain a measurement which is what I estimate the IRcam received if the body was black. I adjusted the result to account from what the physicist have entered as the emissivity/temperature curve assuming rey body. I compare the value with the one at 450C (assuming the calibration is correct at 450C). one thing I found is that the luminance on the IR cam range is nearly linear with the temperature... the result is that it seems that the IR cam recieved 2.8 more energy at perceived 1400C, because it assume the emissivity was nearly halved... 2.5x radiated energy at 1250. this shows that an error in emissivity could reduce greatly the real temperature. imagining that the emissivity is the same at 800-900W (perceived 1250/1400C) than at 450W/450 then the temperature may only be 850C and 925C (800-900W). it is a great error, however anyway the total radiated energy is anyway 5.8x and 8x assuming that the faulty emissivity is stable as assumed to explain the IR cam error... This is to compare with the 1.75 and 2x power in on the active run. thus it seems that what the emissivity error cause as error on the temperature, it correct on the total boltzmann law power radiated. Emissivity error seems not to be an excuse for the skeptic position, it is on the opposite increasing the result. Note that lowering the emissivity is not possible as the temperature would be too huge, and i1400C is already hard to swallow... and skeptics don't swallow it. the weakness of my quick spreadsheet is that I did not add the estimated convection power. As I have understood of the report it is linear with temperature, not T^4, and it is about the same range as radiation around 450C. It seems I neglected too many factors in my sheet, because the apparent COP from the temperature is much more huge than the 3.6 given by the physicists If someone can correct , and extend with convection factors. if someone could also estimate what should be the emissivity to have COP=1, if possible.. Here is my curve of the luminance averaged over 7.5um-13um depending on celsius temperature, with the linear curve fitting with 91%*(T-218°C) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7h5Pyv_VGO6NEEtNnpzdV85Rms/view maybe that estimated approximation of temperature to IRcam response can allow to make good estimation if the impact of emissivity
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Eric-- You have indicated that the space where pair production occurs is not empty. You indicate the space must have an electromagnetic field which interacts with an incoming photon. We have assumed different conditions necessary for pair production. You may be correct that empty space does not support pair production. I always understood it does. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? In the case of an incoming high-energy photon, the pair is produced as a result of the interaction of the photon with an electromagnetic field. The momentum of the incoming photon is conserved in the momentum of the outgoing electron and positron. Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? I assume it does. Do you have a reference (other than Hotson) that says that the rest mass does not include the energy of the intrinsic angular momentum? Since the spin of the electron and positron is presumably intrinsic, I gather they would not be an electron and a positron without it. Their spin is +/- 1/2, which gives them fermi statistics. If they had a different spin, e.g. integer spin, they would have different characteristics and be other than an electron and a positron. (Note there's also the analogous case of the muon and antimuon, etc.) Eric
[Vo]:new analogy for LENR
Dear Friends, I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/11/a-new-analogy-for-lenr.html It is a product of my autumn of discontent. The winter will be probably much better and the spring excellent. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT
The thread below found on a 2007 forum thread http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Speed--Of-Light-Depends-On-Vacuum-Permittivity-_16713.html makes reference to a paper http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT. The takeaway is clear that C is inversely proportional to vacuum energy density such that it slows when compacted by high velocity or equivalently strong gravitational fields. The more interesting and exploitable feature is that time gets faster when vacuum density gets lower such as occurs with Casimir geometry. Although normally uniform at macro scale it is a seething sea at the planck scale and Casimir geometry can be perceived as a sorting mechanism that segregates some of these seething planck scale variations into nano scale reservoirs large enough to act upon physical matter occupying or passing though the reservoirs such as Mills hydrino or Rossi's hydrogen. czeslaw 30th July 2007 - 02:31 PM I do not know if the speed of light was considered according to this context on the Forum. I found an interestin link : RECONSIDERING LIGHT-SPEED It is at this point in the discussion that a consideration of light-speed becomes important. It has already been mentioned that an increase in vacuum energy density will result in an increase in the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability of space, since they are energy related. Since light-speed is inversely linked to both these properties, if the energy density of the vacuum increases, light-speed will decrease uniformly throughout the cosmos. Indeed, in 1990 Scharnhorst [48] and Barton [20] demonstrated that a lessening of the energy density of a vacuum would produce a higher velocity for light. This is explicable in terms of the QED approach. The virtual particles that make up the seething vacuum can absorb a photon of light and then re-emit it when they annihilate. This process, while fast, takes a finite time. The lower the energy density of the vacuum, the fewer virtual particles will be in the path of light photons in transit. As a consequence, the fewer absorptions and re-emissions which take place over a given distance, the faster light travels over that distance [49, 50]. However, the converse is also true. The higher the energy density of the vacuum, the more virtual particles will interact with the light photons in a given distance, and so the slower light will travel. Similarly, when light enters a transparent medium such as glass, similar absorptions and re-emissions occur, but this time it is the atoms in the glass that absorb and re-emit the light photons. This is why light slows as it travels through a denser medium. Indeed, the more closely packed the atoms, the slower light will travel as a greater number of interactions occur in a given distance. In a recent illustration of this light-speed was reduced to 17 metres/second as it passed through extremely closely packed sodium atoms near absolute zero [51]. All this is now known from experimental physics. This agrees with Barnett's comments in Nature [11] that The vacuum is certainly a most mysterious and elusive object...The suggestion that the value of the speed of light is determined by its structure is worthy of serious investigation by theoretical physicists. http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:44:46 -0500: Hi, [snip] If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left then they would not carry away any momentum or energy. Normal drives require that an amount of momentum that equals that which is imparted into the ship be ejected in an opposite direction. If the particles are given kinetic energy, then annihilate, the annihilation energy will be larger than the energy required to create them (the excess being the kinetic energy they received). So what happens to the excess? Does it appear as EM radiation, or does it modify the zero point field (ZPF) locally? This may result in momentum being transferred to the ZPF i.e. the substratum of the universe, which being vastly more massive than the craft itself means that the craft itself effectively ends up with all of the energy. This is basically what I was trying to get at. The converted energy may end up as kinetic energy of the craft itself. As to a traveler not being able to tell that he is going faster, that is clearly not so. He can measure the change in red/blue shift of the stars. That will even tell him what direction he is traveling in. In simple terms he uses the same method we do when traveling in a car, he looks out of the window. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:06:09 -0500: Hi, [snip] I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave Perhaps, because they are only virtual particles, they are still connected to the ZPF, and hence are effectively infinitely massive. That would mean that the energy imparted to the particles would approach zero, while still allowing transfer of momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
One issue that tends to support the thought that the internal energy can vanish without a visible trace is that the man onboard the ship can detect that he is undergoing acceleration while the drive is active. If it is eventually confirmed that a force arises from the activation of the drive then energy will be imparted onto the ship according to his measurements. Even though all velocities are considered relative, a change in velocity can usually be determined. That is reason to sustain hope for reactionless drives becoming a reality. It remains to be proven that the force obtained will be practical. So far there is reason to suspect that it does not exit at all. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:06:09 -0500: Hi, [snip] I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave Perhaps, because they are only virtual particles, they are still connected to the ZPF, and hence are effectively infinitely massive. That would mean that the energy imparted to the particles would approach zero, while still allowing transfer of momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:08:27 -0500: Hi, [snip] Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and the guy within. First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended length of time. Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing the drive. After all of his mechanizations the final result is that he comes to rest at the original location and at the original velocity in space. If such a drive exists, then the answer is obvious. Returning to his original velocity does not cost extra energy. Quite the reverse, the energy originally expended to create kinetic energy of the vehicle is now returned, as the vehicles kinetic energy is converted back into potential energy, IOW he uses the vehicles kinetic energy to recharge his batteries, so that once back at his original position and velocity, he also has the same mass that he started out with. (The concept is analogous to regenerative braking). Of course in practice, recharging the batteries will not be 100% efficient. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Here I have to disagree. It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy during both accelerations. If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will just vanish as far as any observer can determine. The guy on the ship is satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to accelerate regardless of the direction of that movement. This strange state of affairs is what makes me suspect of the entire concept. The mass just seems to vanish from the universe. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:08:27 -0500: Hi, [snip] Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and the guy within. First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended length of time. Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing the drive. After all of his mechanizations the final result is that he comes to rest at the original location and at the original velocity in space. If such a drive exists, then the answer is obvious. Returning to his original velocity does not cost extra energy. Quite the reverse, the energy originally expended to create kinetic energy of the vehicle is now returned, as the vehicles kinetic energy is converted back into potential energy, IOW he uses the vehicles kinetic energy to recharge his batteries, so that once back at his original position and velocity, he also has the same mass that he started out with. (The concept is analogous to regenerative braking). Of course in practice, recharging the batteries will not be 100% efficient. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:new analogy for LENR
I agree with most of your statements, Peter. Although I am a born optimism so I could word it differently:) In this particular regard it is hard to be an optimist. In another tread it has been discussed how to better sell the idea of LENR. All parties hope for a shortcut - but there is none. The management problem you compare to has the same dilemma and everybody think that it must exist a shortcut. It does not. I am not so sure those seven laws covers it all, but I am sure that more than 80% (Pareto) and that is good enough. The problem is of course that all the laws needs to be attended all the time. That requires the ordinary virtues; hard work , tenacity, integrity, knowledge, leadership, openness etc. etc. Often do we hope for luck, theft, or other shortcuts. They do not work. I can hear a constant analysis of what is wise to tell and how patents are made a little wrong because otherwise someone will steal the idea. Reality is that the idea cannot be stolen from a successful enterprise. I know I will hear opposition for saying so, but reality is what you so clearly explained. All ingredients need to be at hand to get success. The information in the patent is only good for someone who has all the other component. I would say that in regards to LENR nobody has all the other components. Unfortunately we do not exchange much info to correct the situation. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/11/a-new-analogy-for-lenr.html It is a product of my autumn of discontent. The winter will be probably much better and the spring excellent. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:43:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Here I have to disagree. It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy during both accelerations. If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will just vanish as far as any observer can determine. The guy on the ship is satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to accelerate regardless of the direction of that movement. This strange state of affairs is what makes me suspect of the entire concept. The mass just seems to vanish from the universe. If that were the case, then I would be suspicious of it too. That's why I think that if such a drive works at all, then the energy ends up as kinetic energy of the craft. As for the regenerative braking, consider this. It works with electric cars, because they can exchange momentum with the Earth through contact with the road. It is impossible for a normal rocket because they have no road with which to exchange momentum. However if this drive provides the capability of exchanging momentum with the ZPF, then the vehicle effectively has a road available to it while traveling through space, so regenerative breaking becomes a possibility. In the case of Sawyer's drive, it might manifest as virtual microwave photons becoming real photons in the drive, as it slows down. If these microwaves are then damped (i.e. rectified into DC and the energy stored), then they might constantly be replenished as the vehicle slows, thus converting the kinetic energy of the vehicle back into stored energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space/#.VHZ-ZZPF_U4 Cool.
Re: [Vo]:THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT
Francis: It sounds like the theory is pushing that C (speed of light) is not a constant. I have been saying such a thing for about a decade now. Here's an example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2270920/posts Even better http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/electrogravitics/index?tab=articles On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: The thread below found on a 2007 forum thread http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Speed--Of-Light-Depends-On-Vacuum-Permittivity-_16713.htmlmakes reference to a paper http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT. The takeaway is clear that C is inversely proportional to vacuum energy density such that it slows when compacted by high velocity or equivalently strong gravitational fields. The more interesting and exploitable feature is that time gets faster when vacuum density gets lower such as occurs with Casimir geometry. Although normally uniform at macro scale it is a seething sea at the planck scale and Casimir geometry can be perceived as a sorting mechanism that segregates some of these seething planck scale variations into nano scale reservoirs large enough to act upon physical matter occupying or passing though the reservoirs such as Mills hydrino or Rossi’s hydrogen. czeslaw 30th July 2007 - 02:31 PM I do not know if the speed of light was considered according to this context on the Forum. I found an interestin link : RECONSIDERING LIGHT-SPEED It is at this point in the discussion that a consideration of light-speed becomes important. It has already been mentioned that an increase in vacuum energy density will result in an increase in the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability of space, since they are energy related. Since light-speed is inversely linked to both these properties, if the energy density of the vacuum increases, light-speed will decrease uniformly throughout the cosmos. Indeed, in 1990 Scharnhorst [48] and Barton [20] demonstrated that a lessening of the energy density of a vacuum would produce a higher velocity for light. This is explicable in terms of the QED approach. The virtual particles that make up the seething vacuum can absorb a photon of light and then re-emit it when they annihilate. This process, while fast, takes a finite time. The lower the energy density of the vacuum, the fewer virtual particles will be in the path of light photons in transit. As a consequence, the fewer absorptions and re-emissions which take place over a given distance, the faster light travels over that distance [49, 50]. However, the converse is also true. The higher the energy density of the vacuum, the more virtual particles will interact with the light photons in a given distance, and so the slower light will travel. Similarly, when light enters a transparent medium such as glass, similar absorptions and re-emissions occur, but this time it is the atoms in the glass that absorb and re-emit the light photons. This is why light slows as it travels through a denser medium. Indeed, the more closely packed the atoms, the slower light will travel as a greater number of interactions occur in a given distance. In a recent illustration of this light-speed was reduced to 17 metres/second as it passed through extremely closely packed sodium atoms near absolute zero [51]. All this is now known from experimental physics. This agrees with Barnett's comments in Nature [11] that The vacuum is certainly a most mysterious and elusive object...The suggestion that the value of the speed of light is determined by its structure is worthy of serious investigation by theoretical physicists. http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html
RE: [Vo]:THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT
Fran, The important paper in this fine write-up is from Barton in 1990 - Faster-than-c light between parallel mirrors . the Scharnhorst effect rederived. Definitely an oldie but goody. it is the essence of the entire piece. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026939091224Y The most interesting subset of this phenomenon could be a situation where the mirrors are the reflective walls of hollow nanoparticles. From: Roarty, Francis The thread below found on a 2007 forum thread http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Speed--Of-Light-Depends-On-Vacuum-Permittivit y-_16713.html makes reference to a paper http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html THE VACUUM, LIGHT SPEED, AND THE REDSHIFT.
[Vo]:Mike Carrell
(Ross) Michael Carrell died on Sunday November 23rd. Mike died peacefully in his bed at the extended care facility of Medford Leas. Condolences, candle lightings, and thoughts are most welcome at http://www.bradleystow.com/notices/R-Carrell/guest-book. - R. MICHAEL CARRELL of Medford, NJ, passed away peacefully on Sunday, November 23th, 2014. He was 87 years of age. Born in Des Moines, Iowa, he has resided in Medford for the past 10 yrs., moving there from Cinnaminson, NJ where he had lived for 30 yrs. He is the son of the late Ross Marmon and the late Helen (Knotts) Carrell and was a graduate of Iowa State University. He was an Principal AA Engineer for 38 years with RCA working for Camden, Moorestown and Princeton, NJ. He is the Beloved Husband of 53 yrs. of Helen C. (nee Collins) Carrell and is also the brother of the late Peter Carrell. Relatives and friends are invited to greet the family on Saturday, December 6th, 2014 day from 10:00 – 11:00 AM at the Trinity United Methodist Church, 36 W. Maple Avenue, Merchantville, NJ where a Memorial Service will be held on Saturday at 11:00 AM. Funeral arrangements are under the direction of the BRADLEY STOW FUNERAL HOME, Medford, NJ. In lieu of other expressions of sympathy the family requests donations to either Trinity United Methodist Church, 36 W. Maple Avenue, Merchantville, NJ 08109 or to the Medford Leas Activity Fund, 1 Medford Leas Way, Medford, NJ 08055. (www.BradleyStow.com)
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
It would be refreshing to find that the energy is returned, but I harbor no expectation of that occurring. Consider that what we consider acceleration is exactly the same as deceleration as far as a ship is concerned. In either situation the ship is changing velocity as a function of time due to operation of the drive. I visualize the ship as being at rest just before each acceleration takes place. A force is applied by the reactionless drive at that time which leads to an acceleration along the line of the applied force. It does not make any difference what direction that force takes when you consider that the drive begins to burn up our mass at the time it causes the acceleration. There is no mechanism available to capture the kinetic energy that is assumed to exist. If it so happens that microwave radiation or any other form of radiation is emitted from the vacuum as a result of the drive then there may be no need to consider it reactionless. In that case the spaceman can determine the location of his missing mass. Please understand that I am skeptical that a reactionless drive is actually possible. The only reason for this line of speculation is to consider the consequences in case an actual force is proven to exist when one of these devices is operated. That has not been firmly established. Do you believe that a reactionless drive is possible? I suspect that you are kidding. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 8:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:43:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Here I have to disagree. It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy during both accelerations. If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will just vanish as far as any observer can determine. The guy on the ship is satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to accelerate regardless of the direction of that movement. This strange state of affairs is what makes me suspect of the entire concept. The mass just seems to vanish from the universe. If that were the case, then I would be suspicious of it too. That's why I think that if such a drive works at all, then the energy ends up as kinetic energy of the craft. As for the regenerative braking, consider this. It works with electric cars, because they can exchange momentum with the Earth through contact with the road. It is impossible for a normal rocket because they have no road with which to exchange momentum. However if this drive provides the capability of exchanging momentum with the ZPF, then the vehicle effectively has a road available to it while traveling through space, so regenerative breaking becomes a possibility. In the case of Sawyer's drive, it might manifest as virtual microwave photons becoming real photons in the drive, as it slows down. If these microwaves are then damped (i.e. rectified into DC and the energy stored), then they might constantly be replenished as the vehicle slows, thus converting the kinetic energy of the vehicle back into stored energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
Oh my goodness. It is Kurt Vonnegut's *chrono-synclastic infundibulum*. No wonder Bill Gates has taken such a sudden interest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sirens_of_Titan On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space/#.VHZ-ZZPF_U4 Cool.
