RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned
previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic
'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first
derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago.  I've visited Dr. Rueda
several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my
undergrad work.

 

Their first paper on this topic was:

   B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678

 

It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma
was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable.  Comments from the
peer-reviewers went something like this:

"Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but
it just can't be."


Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT!

 

It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math.  and take a
look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of
mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations.  Anyway,
here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005:

 



Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis

Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch

(Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3))

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3

 

This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions:

"(7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant
electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the
mass of the cavity structure."

 

-Mark Iverson

 

 

From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

 

I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is
the acceleration of an energy flow. 

 

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html



-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

Then my idea is bust. 

 

But so is Special Relativity.

 

There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive.

 

John

 

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

 

Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously.  I think the
field lines come out straight from the Sun.  

 

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: John Berry   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

 

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

 

I would say that they do. 

 

I assume you mean propagate instantaneously?

At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR.

 

If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the
earth would consistently have an arc concaved  in the opposite direction
from the Sun's rotation.  I do not think this is observed.  However, it may
not have been looked for.  

 

 

 

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: John Berry   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia

 

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

John--

 

Three points for clarification:

How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or
rotate around the axis?

 

In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it
as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that
orientation.

You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to
the acceleration axis.

 

In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each
coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and
one behind.

If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the
front of the spaceship, and one around the rear.

 

 

Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and
acceleration of the solenoid?  If so why?

 

Because electrons tend to stay in the wire.

Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets.

 

Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light?

 

It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof
of this idea.

 

But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this
time, it is still a worthwhile discovery.

 

  It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive
feedback force on the electrons.  So a question is how fast does the
inductive force happen?

 

That is a good question.

After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate
instantaneously.

 

But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction.

 

 

BTW here is another version that might make it clearer:

 

 

Increase of inertia: 
Make a square solenoid air 

[Vo]:A relativistic Shrödinger's cat

[H Veeder]

>From the appendix of the paper "Stellar Aberration: the Contradiction
between
Einstein and Bradley"

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO2PDF/V14N2RUS.pdf


Apeiron, Vol. 14, No 2, April 2007 111
© 2007 C. Roy Keys Inc. — http://redshift.vif.com

Appendix I: A relativistic Shrödinger’s cat

The spherical light propagation for all inertial observers imposed
by the light postulate, besides being incompatible with the observed
stellar aberration effect (as showed in this article), gives rise to the
following paradox. Let us imagine a slightly modified version of the
relativistic light clock, in which the wave source is a laser, and thus
capable of emitting light not in a radial way, but in one single
direction.
Furthermore, imagine that along this direction, at a distance D
from the source, there is a detector capable of releasing, if hit by a
light pulse, a lethal gas in a box which contains a cat (Fig.7).

At a given instant, the laser emits a light pulse towards the
detector. According to an observer at rest with respect to this device,
the light pulse reaches the detector after a time D c , and the cat dies.
But according to an observer in perpendicular motion relative to
the velocity of the light pulse, on the basis of the light postulate the
light pulse does not reach the detector, because in the time this pulse
travels the distance D, the detector has changed its place, travelling a
distance vt, and, in absence of a radial emission, no spherical wave
front can reach it. Therefore, according to the observer in motion, the
cat does not die. We are therefore now facing a similar result to that
obtained in the famous thought experiment conceived by Shrödinger
to disprove Quantum Mechanics.† In fact, on the basis of the
principles of the SRT, two observers do not view the same event at
two different times (relativity of simultaneity), but view two different
events, that is, two different realities! The Shrödinger paradox is
usually solved by appealing to the inapplicability of Quantum laws to
macrocosm systems, instead ruled by the entropy law. Our relativistic
paradox takes instead place entirely in the macrocosmic world, and
therefore a superposition of contradictory macroscopic events cannot
be avoided. But simply because of this reason, it turns out to be
unacceptable.

---

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

[Rob Dingemans]

Dear Steven,

Thanks for sharing this video, I enjoyed it.

Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jczBXmr7yo

This continuous video shows startup of a HHO Hot Cat from room temperature
to 831F

I wonder what electrode that the water clusters of come off of, the
hydrogen electrode, the oxygen electrode or both.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGWrJ9J5ffM
>
> This video shows HHO interaction with and without nanoparticle contact
> with the catalytic convertor substrate.
>
> When the water crystals are allied to the catalytic substrate, full heat
> capacity is produced. When the water crystals are filtered out of the HHO
> gas stream by a fibrous pad, reduced heat capacity results.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw
>>
>> This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into
>> heat in an auto catalectic converter.
>>
>> The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse"
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
>>> "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
>>> function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source
>>> (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).
>>>
>>> It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.
>>>
>>> Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid
>>> capable of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization
>>> function will support the Mouse function.
>>>
>>> I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
>>> support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.
>>>
>>> These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint
>>> sprayer, air brush, diesel fuel injector.
>>>
>>> I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation
>>> effect during atomization.
>>>
>>> The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter
>>> from a late modeled car either new or slightly used.
>>>
>>> Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto
>>> catalytic converters as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw
>>>
>>> Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
>>> nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.
>>>
>>> You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
>>> produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>
>
> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
> start over.
>

 Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the
 hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I
 would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:

 "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
 experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
 explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
 should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
 theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
 modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
 results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
 competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
 up."


>
> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
> these hypotheses as practical.
>
>
> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>  What next?
>

> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
> experiments.
>
>
> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>

 I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
 answers to these last two questions.


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGWrJ9J5ffM

This video shows HHO interaction with and without nanoparticle contact with
the catalytic convertor substrate.

When the water crystals are allied to the catalytic substrate, full heat
capacity is produced. When the water crystals are filtered out of the HHO
gas stream by a fibrous pad, reduced heat capacity results.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw
>
> This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into
> heat in an auto catalectic converter.
>
> The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse"
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
>> "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
>> function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.
>>
>> We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source
>> (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).
>>
>> It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.
>>
>> Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid
>> capable of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization
>> function will support the Mouse function.
>>
>> I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
>> support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.
>>
>> These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer,
>> air brush, diesel fuel injector.
>>
>> I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation
>> effect during atomization.
>>
>> The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from
>> a late modeled car either new or slightly used.
>>
>> Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto
>> catalytic converters as follows:
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw
>>
>> Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
>> nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.
>>
>> You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
>> produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:

 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
 experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).


 I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
 behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
 start over.

>>>
>>> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
>>> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
>>> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
>>>
>>> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
>>> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
>>> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
>>> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
>>> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
>>> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
>>> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
>>> competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
>>> up."
>>>
>>>

 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
 these hypotheses as practical.


 Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
  What next?

>>>
 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
 experiments.


 What good are the results from a flawed theory?

>>>
>>> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
>>> answers to these last two questions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw

This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into
heat in an auto catalectic converter.

The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse"


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
> "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
> function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.
>
> We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source
> (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).
>
> It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.
>
> Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable
> of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization function will
> support the Mouse function.
>
> I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
> support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.
>
> These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer,
> air brush, diesel fuel injector.
>
> I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect
> during atomization.
>
> The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from
> a late modeled car either new or slightly used.
>
> Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto
> catalytic converters as follows:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw
>
> Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
> nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.
>
> You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
> produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
>>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>>>
>>>
>>> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
>>> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
>>> start over.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
>> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
>> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
>>
>> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
>> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
>> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
>> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
>> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
>> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
>> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
>> competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
>> up."
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
>>> these hypotheses as practical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>>>  What next?
>>>
>>
>>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
>>> experiments.
>>>
>>>
>>> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>>>
>>
>> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
>> answers to these last two questions.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
"mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.

We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source (mouse)
and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).

It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.

Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable
of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization function will
support the Mouse function.

I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.

These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer,
air brush, diesel fuel injector.

I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect
during atomization.

The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from a
late modeled car either new or slightly used.

Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto catalytic
converters as follows:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw

Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.

You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.




On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>>
>>
>> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
>> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
>> start over.
>>
>
> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
>
> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
> competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
> up."
>
>
>>
>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
>> these hypotheses as practical.
>>
>>
>> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>>  What next?
>>
>
>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
>> experiments.
>>
>>
>> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>>
>
> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
> answers to these last two questions.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the 
>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
> 
> 
> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior 
> in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to start over.
> 
> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical 
> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest 
> that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
> 
> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this 
> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an 
> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should 
> be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory 
> predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said 
> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results 
> and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing 
> theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up." 

I could not say it better!

Ed Storms
>  
> 
>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these 
>> hypotheses as practical.
> 
> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.  What 
> next?
> 
>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these 
>> experiments.
> 
> What good are the results from a flawed theory?  
> 
> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail 
> answers to these last two questions.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[James Bowery]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>
>
> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
> start over.
>

Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:

"If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
up."


>
> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these
> hypotheses as practical.
>
>
> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>  What next?
>

> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
> experiments.
>
>
> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>

I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
answers to these last two questions.

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

[Terry Blanton]

Whoa!  I never considered the merge.

But, my decision actually causing the split is a bit anthropocentric
and does not comply with string theory.  Yes, I did consider that in
the haze of the cactus button; but, I found a conflict with
predestination.  But, merge?

Thanks!

RE: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hi Terry, my old friend.

 

Yes, I did follow through to both web sites, the current one and the other
still under construction. It might be interesting to see what they
eventually post at the new cite. I assume they will post lots of far-off
stuff, some of it controversial. Maybe Jesus-flipping-the-bird will feel
compelled to add some more succulent critiques. ;-)

 

Regarding your thoughts on PD versus FOC:

 

Freedom of Choice versus PreDestination has been hotly debated for
centuries. I find it interesting that not only did science try to explain
the universe as nothing more than a big lumbering predictable machine,
certain religious philosophies have gotten into the act as well.

 

There exists a particular not well known contemporary religious-like
philosophy that I personally find appealing. The philosophy states that when
you are confronted with a major life-altering choice you really DO split
into two different parallel virtual realities. Both virtual realities will
then go on to experience what the consequences of the major choice you had
made from then on. What's different about this particular brand of
philosophy is that they claim not only do splits occur, merges happen
equally as often. I suspect certain kinds of psychic merges are experienced
as a distinct moment of disorientation as your psyche tries to sort out a
collection of confusing past memories. A dominant timeline needs to be
reconstructed out of the merging of two or more separate realities. Perhaps
a more benign "merge" is experienced as that weird feeling of deja vue. In
other words this particular philosophy perceives our individual experiences
of Virtual Reality as a form of an intricate braded rope where multiple
splits and merges are constantly intertwining with each other. When we
finally die, (when our psyches begin the recycling process) all of the
probable realities eventually merge back into one major core psyche for one
great big uber-massive life-review. So, you really do get to find out if
marrying Maggie versus Bernadette turned out to have been the better
choice... or not. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

 

RE: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim

[Jones Beene]

Guys,

 

Impressive, but suspicious..

 

Given the name of the company - could it be 500 watts electric and 100,000
watts of solar ?

 

Or is this some type of LENR ?

 

 

From: Nigel Dyer 

 

There is a performance report:

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf

I would suggest that the current figure is likely to be right, in that 100kA
at 4V would require some interesting electrical enigineering, so was the
voltage actually nearer 5kV rather than 5V.  Again however 5kV at 100A
requires some interesting electrical engineering.   A picture of the setup
would clarify

Bob Higgins wrote:

If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an over-unity
COP of 443 (44300%).   

 

I checked the math.  2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH. 

 

What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo.  They
must mean 500kW input.  This would put their COP to be 44.3% which is still
good and is not an over-unity claim.

 

Adrian Ashfield wrote:

Solar Hydrogen Trends claim:

Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 KWhr
at a cost of $1.80

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/ 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Bob Cook]

Ed and Jones--

I'm glad I believe in the old adage "No Friction No Motion"  and that it 
applies to debate of LENR.


Carry On.

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Edmund Storms" 

To: 
Cc: "Edmund Storms" 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day


Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different 
and unrelated phenomenon.  Consequently, a discussion is impossible because 
we are discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your 
concept is correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief.


On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, 
regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how 
to make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do 
you know how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me 
how to do this so that I can replicate his success?


Ed Storms
On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


From: Edmund Storms

Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied
to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to
make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment
plays a role.

Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of
cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you 
not

consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear.

Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new
SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply 
lucky
or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who 
want

to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better
ways.

These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP 
and

triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion
as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for
practicality if Ni-H is real.

Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and 
instead

marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in
experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If 
not,

it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are
not relevant to Ni-H.

At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try
to understand what makes his work completely different from your old 
school

experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast.

That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN
which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some
glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not
interfere.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different and 
unrelated phenomenon.  Consequently, a discussion is impossible because we are 
discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your concept is 
correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief.  

On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, 
regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how to 
make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do you know 
how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me how to do 
this so that I can replicate his success? 

Ed Storms
On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

>   From: Edmund Storms 
> 
>   Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied
> to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to
> make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment
> plays a role. 
> 
> Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of
> cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not
> consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear.
> 
> Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new
> SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky
> or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want
> to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better
> ways. 
> 
> These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and
> triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion
> as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for
> practicality if Ni-H is real.
> 
> Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead
> marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in
> experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not,
> it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are
> not relevant to Ni-H.
> 
> At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try
> to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school
> experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. 
> 
> That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN
> which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some
> glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not
> interfere.
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 

Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim

[Nigel Dyer]

There is a performance report:

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf

I would suggest that the current figure is likely to be right, in that 
100kA at 4V would require some interesting electrical enigineering, so 
was the voltage actually nearer 5kV rather than 5V.  Again however 5kV 
at 100A requires some interesting electrical engineering.   A picture of 
the setup would clarify


Nigel



On 15/03/2014 16:22, Bob Higgins wrote:
If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an 
over-unity COP of 443 (44300%).


I checked the math.  2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH.

What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo. 
 They must mean 500kW input.  This would put their COP to be 44.3% 
which is still good and is not an over-unity claim.



On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Solar Hydrogen Trends claim:

Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to
221.5 KWhr at a cost of $1.80

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Edmund Storms 

Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied
to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to
make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment
plays a role. 

Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of
cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not
consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear.

Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new
SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky
or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want
to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better
ways. 

These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and
triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion
as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for
practicality if Ni-H is real.

Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead
marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in
experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not,
it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are
not relevant to Ni-H.

At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try
to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school
experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. 

That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN
which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some
glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not
interfere.

Jones




<>

Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
No typo.  Apparently the figures have been replicated by an independent 
company

See http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf

Adrian Ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> From: Kevin O'Malley
>  
> And also perhaps here:
>  
> Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it).  
> That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on 
> Vortex-L until I pointed it out.

Jones, please tell me where Sinha proposed to use a laser to remove energy from 
a system. I have only one paper in my collection by this author that describes 
using a laser to improve coupling between the Lochon and the lattice to 
increase the fusion rate. 

Laser stimulation of low-energy nuclear reactions in deuterated palladium, 
Current  Sci., 91 (7) 907-912 (2006)

Ed Storms
>  
> T
>  
>  
>  
>  

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:
> May you enjoy the following momentary distraction...

I'm happy you found your problem.  You may ignore my private email.
Eskimo.com has all new hardware and some new software and you likely
collided with a firewall of sorts.

But you missed the tree.

BTW, did you follow to the website? ( wearethefuture.com )  It
ultimately leads to upriser.com .  Looks like a site you would enjoy.

The discovery about superposition used by plants to increase
efficiency is a fairly recent one.  I think we spoke of it here.
http://goo.gl/Wx5ubB  Watching that reminded me of a link between
superposition and string theory that I stumbled across in my formative
years while under the influence of schedule x pharms.

I was trying to resolve in my own mind how it was possible for freedom
of choice and predestination to co-exist in reality.  It came to me
that there must be an infinite number of realities and when the cusp
of choice arrived we did the so popular quantum jump to that reality.
But another me, which I was not with at the time, stayed in his
reality.  This is a form of superposition.  And it ties in with what
Susskind describes in The Cosmic Landscape.  There must be 10^500
universes out there and we are simply riding the wave.

Hey, thanks for sharing.  Made my day.

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

A good path James, but with a few potholes.

On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:

> The critical path seems to me to be:
> 
> 1) Economically elicit statistically significant results.

Rossi has done this but he has not reveal how. 

> 2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol.

Many ideas have been suggested but only Rossi has demonstrated a device.

> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the 
> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).

I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in 
LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to start over.

> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these 
> hypotheses as practical.

Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.  What 
next?

> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these 
> experiments.

What good are the results from a flawed theory?  

We need more competent theoreticians to take an interest and a way to evaluate 
proposed concepts. Right now we have a collection of established theories that 
exists as islands with no relationship to each other nor to what is generally 
known about LENR.  

Ed Storms

> 6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be 
> attained.
> 7) Repeat from step 2.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This 
> means we need to understand the NAE.
> 
> Ed Storms
> 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[James Bowery]

The critical path seems to me to be:

1) Economically elicit statistically significant results.
2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol.
3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these
hypotheses as practical.
5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
experiments.
6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be
attained.
7) Repeat from step 2.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This
> means we need to understand the NAE.
>

> Ed Storms
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim

[Bob Higgins]

If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an over-unity
COP of 443 (44300%).

I checked the math.  2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH.

What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo.  They
must mean 500kW input.  This would put their COP to be 44.3% which is still
good and is not an over-unity claim.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

>  Solar Hydrogen Trends claim:
>
> Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5
> KWhr at a cost of $1.80
>
> http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/
>

RE: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

FYI,

This was the post I was trying to get out since last night. As best as I can
tell I think Vortex may have not liked the original You Tube URL. I never
really noticed this before but apparent YT links are secured (https). When I
converted the original link over at tinyurl Vortex stopped having a snit
over it.

This is very odd. This seems like new Vortex behavior I've never run into
before. I've posted countless You tube links to Vortex before with no
problems.

steve

**

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

May you enjoy the following momentary distraction...

I was recently queued in to the following You Tube video. Maybe you'll
experience a few moments of enjoyment as I did innocently watching it. It's
called "We are from the Future". Lots of pretty special effects. Granted, it
gets a little repetitious at times, but not enough to turn me off of it.

http://tinyurl.com/pbrzl6g

Some of the posted comments were amusing. Apparently some became deeply
disturbed by the generally positive subliminal messages and imagery the
creators of this video were trying to convey. Some felt a strong need to
warn others of what they felt was too much pseudo science and new age
mumbo-jumbo masquerading as an interpretation of reality that they adamantly
do not believe in, such as from a poster whose graphic handle depicts Jesus
flipping the bird at you.

Oh what the hey! Chill out dude! I just liked watching it. It wuz pretty!

Enjoy!
--
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - "We are from the future"

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

May you enjoy the following momentary distraction...

I was recently queued in to the following You Tube video. Maybe you'll
experience a few moments of enjoyment as I did innocently watching it. It's
called "We are from the Future". Lots of pretty special effects. Granted, it
gets a little repetitious at times, but not enough to turn me off of it.

http://tinyurl.com/pbrzl6g

Some of the posted comments were amusing. Apparently some became deeply
disturbed by the generally positive subliminal messages and imagery the
creators of this video were trying to convey. Some felt a strong need to
warn others of what they felt was too much pseudo science and new age
mumbo-jumbo masquerading as an interpretation of reality that they adamantly
do not believe in, such as from a poster whose graphic handle depicts Jesus
flipping the bird at you.

Oh what the hey! Chill out dude! I just liked watching it. It wuz pretty!

Enjoy!
-- 
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

And also perhaps here:

 

Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it).  
That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on 
Vortex-L until I pointed it out.

 

The interesting thing about laser cooling is that the photons from the laser 
are typically very hot. A blue laser can have photons with equivalent 
temperature of 15,000 degrees.

 

As far back as the “Einstein refrigerator” we have known that one can use heat 
to produce cooling - but with laser irradiation it is different. A laser photon 
can cause an atom to emit photons of a higher average energy than the one it 
absorbed from the laser - and thereafter cooling will follow, but only so long 
as the cooled atom does not heat up via absorbing low energy radiation from its 
containment structure – the same one which absorbed the very hot re-emission 
from the cooled atom. 

 

Thus laser cooling only works well at extremely low pressure, and therefore 
laser cooling to form a BEC may not be relevant to LENR at all - since we are 
going for high power density, and a vacuum is not conducive to that.

 

However, when everything is tuned to a phonon frequency which is the operating 
temperature of the hot pressurized reactor – say 350 degrees C, then a laser 
which is radiating photons in the IR of about that energy (the 15 THz band 
which NASA loves), we can bring the a entire system into a kind of 3-way or 
triple coherence called “superradiance”. This is photon, phonon and magnon 
(spin wave) coherence. Triple coherence promotes tunneling. A magnetic field 
promotes magnons.

 

A coherent system, even a hot coherent system – which has triple-coherent 
energy dynamics will promote LENR – that is the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vo]:Does Vortex actively check for bad websites that might contain malware?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

I'm wondering. I repeatedly tried to posting something on Vortex last night
and this morning. They have all been immediately returned as
"Undeliverable". The post contained a You Tube link. It also contained two
additional web sites pertaining to what was in the You Tube video. I didn't
think there was anything obviously malicious about the two websites.

 

Does Vortex actively check locations for potential bad spam and malware?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion 
simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work 
on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. These are 
examples of mental games physics encourages that may or may not have any 
relationship to reality. Only years of effort supported by significant funding 
would be required to determine if these ideas have any value to physics or to 
LENR. 

Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we 
need to understand the NAE. The details that these speculations address will be 
explored later by future graduate students.  

The discussions on Vortex would also be more useful if they focused on the NAE 
and how it can be created in real materials. 

Ed Storms


On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> Kevin,
>  
> If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a 
> Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR 
> technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic – can it be applied 
> at high temperature.
>  
> All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal 
> issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed 
> with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual 
> experiments after all the years.
>  
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4
>  
>  
> From: Kevin O'Malley
> 
>  Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate 
> seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an 
> explanation of cold fusion:  ***Also perhaps here.
> 
> New Journal of Physics Volume 10 April 2008
> R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011
> 
>  
> 

[Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim

[a.ashfield]

Solar Hydrogen Trends claim:

Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 
KWhr at a cost of $1.80


http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

RE: [Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Vortex let this go through. But then it clamped down again.

 

I still can't post a new subject thread. This is weird.

 

Steve

 

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex

 

Pinging vortex.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

[Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Pinging vortex.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

Kevin,

 

If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a
Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR
technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic - can it be applied
at high temperature.

 

All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal
issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed
with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual
experiments after all the years.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4

 

 

From: Kevin O'Malley 


 Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
explanation of cold fusion:  ***Also perhaps here.


New Journal of Physics   Volume 10
 April 2008
 

R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011 

 

RE: [Vo]:[OT]More Alive than Dead?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Terry, et all.

Last night I discovered I can no longer post messages Vortex if I start a
new thread. 

Apparently, I can only respond to a post like yours. What's weird is that if
I change the subject thread and then attempt to mail it the post immediately
comes back as undeliverable.

If I try to create a brand new post using: vortex-l@eskimo.com address it
immediately comes back undeliverable as well.

Any suggestions?

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:[OT]More Alive than Dead?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Over 107 billion.

Makes me wonder how many times I've been recycled.


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

And also perhaps here:
Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it).
That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on
Vortex-L until I pointed it out.

  https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77012.html




http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2010/jul10/pinning-transition.html

Pinning Transition from a Luttinger-liquid to an insulated phase
Mott-insulator
--


*Pinning atoms into order: In an international first, physicists of the
University of Innsbruck, Austria have experimentally observed a quantum
phenomenon, where an arbitrarily weak perturbation causes atoms to build an
organized structure from an initially unorganized one. The scientific team
headed by Hanns-Christoph Nägerl has published a paper about quantum phase
transitions in a one dimensional quantum lattice in the scientific journal
Nature.*
With a Bose-Einstein condensate of cesium atoms, scientists at the
Institute for Experimental Physics of the University of Innsbruck have
created one dimensional structures in an optical lattice of laser light. In
these quantum lattices or wires the single atoms are aligned next to each
other with laser light preventing them from breaking ranks


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> Also perhaps here, this smart guy:
>
> *A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger
> liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical
> Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011).
>
>
> *Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in
> two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation
> Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� *
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>  Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein
>> Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell,
>> not as an explanation of cold fusion:
>> ***Also perhaps here.
>>
>> New Journal of Physics  Volume 10
>>  April 2008
>> 
>>
>> R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011
>> doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011
>>  Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with
>> dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
>> Matter
>>
>> R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6
>> Show 
>> affiliations
>>
>>  Tag this 
>> article
>>  PDF
>> (862 
>> KB)
>>  View
>> article 
>>
>>  Abstract  
>> References Cited
>> By  
>> Metrics
>>
>> Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
>> Matter
>>
>> Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to
>> quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing
>> fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be
>> exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and
>> precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where
>> evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by
>> analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at
>> zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and
>> bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole
>> crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low
>> density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also
>> shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to
>> describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined
>> 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL
>> hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to
>> the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the
>> collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic
>> conditions that coul