Re: [Vo]:Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist
Well, of course, natural behavior trumps any model. If you have watched the Nova program, Monster of the Milky Way, (an outstanding show), you will see the well founded data that there is a million+ solar mass dark object of some kind in the center of our galaxy. This is measured by the highly kinked star orbits looping around the unseen object (you can see the phenomenal orbits in this show). So, it is clear that extreme mass dark objects CAN form. What happens inside the event horizon of such objects is still up for grabs, but obviously this object did not radiate away all of its mass in a radiant explosion. There may be no singularity inside the event horizon - the physics inside does not obey our known laws, and in some similarity to the nucleus of the atom, the nature of the inside of the event horizon is nearly impossible to probe. Bob Higgins On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 09:04 PM 9/24/2014, H Veeder wrote: Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist Not quite ... just that collapsing stars won't form them. Also, their simulation stops shortly after the bounce -- they predict an explosion/evaporation, but can't show that yet.
[Vo]:first drone delivery service
Germany’s post office beats Amazon and Google with launch of world’s first drone delivery service Deutsche Post AG, Europe’s largest postal service, is about to begin deliveries of medication and other urgent goods to the island of Juist using unmanned helicopters after securing approval from state and federal transport ministries and air traffic control authorities to operate in a restricted flight area. The vehicles, called parcelcopters, will operate from Friday, weather permitting, and fly for four to six weeks in the pilot project, the Bonn-based company said yesterday. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/26/germanys-post-office-beats-amazon-and-google-with-launch-of-worlds-first-drone-delivery-service/
[Vo]:The Riverless Dam the Drinking Bird
Super-efficient electrolysis is often talked about and seldom reduced to practice. This came up twice in recent weeks and the subject never fails to disappoint, when the final numbers come out. As of 2014, there is no known and replicated way to achieve over 90% conversion of electrical energy into water splitting without using another energy component, such as sunlight or waste heat. Many are misled by overly exuberant researchers who continually publish claims for hydrogen, to be competitive with natural gas, but none of these claims have held water so to speak. However, the recent mention of C60 as a catalyst could be important - since, when mixed in water - buckyballs tends to naturally pick up one or two extra electrons and become an anion as a preferred stable species. The anion is lower density but there are limits to electrostatic manipulations due to Coulomb forces. This carbon ion is a true form of auto-ionization, and could be put to possible use to transfer electrons in a way that could produce net energy or alternatively - hydrogen gas. Additionally, any electrical output could actually be used to split water so that the H2 and O2 gases are then bubbled up and used to increase water flow in a hybrid arrangement. It would be hard to do this without a risk of explosion, however. On paper at least, auto-ionization provides a potential way for a slurry of hydrated C60 to transfer electrons at decent amperage from ground to a remote and elevated electrode. Eliminating all loss is what super-efficient electrolysis is all about, and there could be an even more basic way to use auto-ionization and buoyancy together, to actually go self-powered. Presumably this will not violate CoE since the water will cool. The river-less dam... this was my dream last night. It was probably influence by reading about the free energy proposal for what is in effect, a giant drinking bird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird No joke- someone thinks this would work. Supersizing that design to industrial proportions sounds too crazy to consider, but this is a similar wild dream, yet it can be a little more practical and does not depend on thermodynamics so much as electrodynamics. Either or both can be incorporated into the a virtual dam. Imagine a very high water tower - supported by hundred-meter tall conduits. The conduits are paired, as up-down - and made of a non-conductive structural material (fiberglass or carbon-fiber). For instance two up-conduits and two down-conduits will provide balanced support for a bulbous reservoir filled with water (plus a high surface are of electrode material). You may be familiar with the water towers at Eindhoven, which are not paired. The bulbs can be painted black to absorb solar energy during the day, but this is not required. Between the up-and-down legs of the water-tower conduits, at the base or below ground, there water-turbines. Despite the high head of water, there is very low water pressure differential between the up-down pairs. The flow of water is maintained by having a few tons of C60 distributed as a colloid in the circulating water and a circulation rate of many tons of water per minute. It is negatively charge when rising and neutral when falling. When auto-ionized, the anions are lighter. The idea is that the lower electrode for charging electrons into the carbon will be coated with a cold cathode emitter, and the elevated electrodes, for removing electrons from the buckyballs, will be coated with doped PN diode semiconductor. Flow will be arranged so that the carbon picks up electrons at the base and then gives them up at the top. On paper, there is satisfactory bandgap which works for this, but who knows what the actual losses are - or how much water can be moved by electron charge alone or whether the emf is really free? Can tons per minute of water be circulated by auto-ionization? Would heat transfer in addition to auto-ionization be synergetic? Can water-splitting be added for buoyancy without the risk of explosion. If so... voila... the Riverless Dam. If not, another drinking bird type of proposal. attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:introduction to LENR parameters problem
Dear Friends, This publication: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/lenr-needs-actionable-parameters.html was written: a) as weekend lecture for you; b) as a request to you to tell many important things about LENR and its parameters that I have forgotten or didn't know Thank you, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Four Ways to View the Multiverse
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:34:18 -0700: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton I came to this conclusion decades ago when trying how freedom of choice and predestination could co-exist: Every time you make a choice, you spawn a multitude of universes, leading to umpteen other yous some of them living very different lives... Damn. I can't seem to get back to the universe where I invented a Ni-H powered engine... where are those red pills, anyway? I'm stuck in one where I've invented it, but can't find anyone to build it. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Four Ways to View the Multiverse
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: And Mills may be correct when it comes to his belief in determinism. QM could have been wrong for 100 years. The pilot wave theory might have been dropped way too quickly. I've always had feeling that the Copenhagen interpretation involves some hand waving. Eric
Re: [Vo]:introduction to LENR parameters problem
*In my opinion regarding the needed actionable design parameters, the Ni/H reactor design is built on the proper design and production of the micron sized micro particles that are currently in use in the current designs of the Ni/H reactors.* *Since LENR is based on the geometry of nanostructures, the randomness in the performance in the Old Time LENR devices (i.e. Those tritium chips, restricted to a small number of randomly produced localized 'hot spots') was centered on the random production of an effective nanostructure shape that was ideal at producing the LENR effect. * *Now we know what that shape is and can incorporate the fabrication of that nanostructure into an effective LENR design. * *Effective engineering concepts based on an effective theory of causation are required to make a commercial LENR system work. The KEY engineering concept is the production of nano-spikes on the surface of 5 (or there about) micron micro-particles.* *The spikes should be as sharp as possible to concentrate the projection of the magnetic fields produced by surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs) formed by these sharp nanostructures. These nanostructures should conform as close as possible to the shape of a parabola for the proper projection and focusing of the magnetic field in a tight beam that converges into a point in space.* *See* *Surface plasmon polariton beam focusing with parabolic nanoparticle chains* *To make the like work to this refererence, first go to* *http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-15-11-6576 http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-15-11-6576* *Then go to the PDF link in that page.* *Snip* *Summarizing, we have realized the efficient SPP focusing with parabolic chains of gold nanoparticles. The influence of excitation wavelength and geometrical system parameters has been investigated with the help of LRM imaging, demonstrating good stability and robustness of the focusing effect. Numerical simulations based on the Green’s tensor formalism have shown very good agreement with the experimental results, suggesting the usage of elliptical corrections for parabolic structures to improve their focusing of slightly divergent SPP beams.* *The SPP splitting effect observed with narrow parabolic structures might also be found useful* *in SPP micro-optics.* *End Snip* *Coming up with a manufacturing process that produces a forest of parabolic pillars on the surface of nickel micro-particles is no mean feat. * *But once certainty in the efficacy of the parabolic nano-pillar design is established as the optimum shape of the LENR active geometry as opposed to cracks, some bright nano-engineer will come up with a way to produce this key LENR topology.* On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, This publication: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/lenr-needs-actionable-parameters.html was written: a) as weekend lecture for you; b) as a request to you to tell many important things about LENR and its parameters that I have forgotten or didn't know Thank you, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:introduction to LENR parameters problem
To make the link to the reference work in the first post above, first go to http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-15-11-6576 Then go to the PDF link in that page. Some great experimental pictures of parabolic nano-pillars are found there. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *In my opinion regarding the needed actionable design parameters, the Ni/H reactor design is built on the proper design and production of the micron sized micro particles that are currently in use in the current designs of the Ni/H reactors.* *Since LENR is based on the geometry of nanostructures, the randomness in the performance in the Old Time LENR devices (i.e. Those tritium chips, restricted to a small number of randomly produced localized 'hot spots') was centered on the random production of an effective nanostructure shape that was ideal at producing the LENR effect. * *Now we know what that shape is and can incorporate the fabrication of that nanostructure into an effective LENR design. * *Effective engineering concepts based on an effective theory of causation are required to make a commercial LENR system work. The KEY engineering concept is the production of nano-spikes on the surface of 5 (or there about) micron micro-particles.* *The spikes should be as sharp as possible to concentrate the projection of the magnetic fields produced by surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs) formed by these sharp nanostructures. These nanostructures should conform as close as possible to the shape of a parabola for the proper projection and focusing of the magnetic field in a tight beam that converges into a point in space.* *See* *Surface plasmon polariton beam focusing with parabolic nanoparticle chains* *To make the like work to this refererence, first go to* *http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-15-11-6576 http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-15-11-6576* *Then go to the PDF link in that page.* *Snip* *Summarizing, we have realized the efficient SPP focusing with parabolic chains of gold nanoparticles. The influence of excitation wavelength and geometrical system parameters has been investigated with the help of LRM imaging, demonstrating good stability and robustness of the focusing effect. Numerical simulations based on the Green’s tensor formalism have shown very good agreement with the experimental results, suggesting the usage of elliptical corrections for parabolic structures to improve their focusing of slightly divergent SPP beams.* *The SPP splitting effect observed with narrow parabolic structures might also be found useful* *in SPP micro-optics.* *End Snip* *Coming up with a manufacturing process that produces a forest of parabolic pillars on the surface of nickel micro-particles is no mean feat. * *But once certainty in the efficacy of the parabolic nano-pillar design is established as the optimum shape of the LENR active geometry as opposed to cracks, some bright nano-engineer will come up with a way to produce this key LENR topology.* On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, This publication: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/lenr-needs-actionable-parameters.html was written: a) as weekend lecture for you; b) as a request to you to tell many important things about LENR and its parameters that I have forgotten or didn't know Thank you, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. [snip] I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of PF's research. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it can form an epicatalytic process then it is very relevant. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
I suggest that a very fast monolithic reaction process will allow Helium-2 (diproton) to form. Then immediately, before the positrons decay can take place producing neutrons, two diproton atoms will fuse to the latent helium 4 intermediate product will take place comprised of 4 protons. After positron emission produces 2 neutrons to form helium 4,, the characteristic LENR emission of 1,02 MeV gammas will manifest, Upon the collision of a particle and an anti-particle, e.g. electron and positron, these are annihilated as particles and the mass of these particles converted into energy. Electron and positron have a rest mass which is together equal to an energy of 1.02 MeV. Upon the annihilation of both particles, two gamma, The usual radiation product of a LENR reaction is positrons and lots of them. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:34 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. [snip] I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of PF's research. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it can form an epicatalytic process then it is very relevant. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
Upon the annihilation of both particles, two gamma, should read Upon the annihilation of both particles, two 512 KeV gamma are produced that travel in an antiparallel direction away from the point of annihilation . On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest that a very fast monolithic reaction process will allow Helium-2 (diproton) to form. Then immediately, before the positrons decay can take place producing neutrons, two diproton atoms will fuse to the latent helium 4 intermediate product will take place comprised of 4 protons. After positron emission produces 2 neutrons to form helium 4,, the characteristic LENR emission of 1,02 MeV gammas will manifest, Upon the collision of a particle and an anti-particle, e.g. electron and positron, these are annihilated as particles and the mass of these particles converted into energy. Electron and positron have a rest mass which is together equal to an energy of 1.02 MeV. Upon the annihilation of both particles, two gamma, The usual radiation product of a LENR reaction is positrons and lots of them. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:34 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. [snip] I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of PF's research. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it can form an epicatalytic process then it is very relevant. Harry
[Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension
In waiting of the second independent third party report. http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123564999_3.pdf via: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ECat.LENR/ Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123564999_3.pdf In this document an intellectual property law firm requests on Rossi's behalf reconsideration of his September 2010 US patent application, making several amendments. The 2010 application is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110005506 Among the amendments is the dropping of claim (8), which had to do with the catalyst: 8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used. Presumably a patent application that requires that one both be knowledgeable in the art and also have access to a secret catalyst did not pass muster with the patent examiner. Scanning over the original patent application, a number of details caught my eye that I had heard about in one or another connection but did not recall from where: - The notion that there is proton capture in nickel. - Mention of the boron shielding. - Mention of the lead shielding. - Mention of the shielding being used to prevent radiation from escaping the copper tube. No doubt some or many of these details have changed in connection with more recent iterations of the E-Cat. I'm guessing that it's in Rossi's interests to make the minimal changes necessary to the application to keep it alive, or otherwise risk having to file a new application and move the date of priority forward. For that reason perhaps there has been no attempt to remove the parts about proton capture, for example; I assume they have since discovered that any proton capture is a minor process if it occurs at all, but I could obviously be wrong on this detail. The idea of proton capture goes back at least to Piantelli, and it appears to have been inherited by Rossi as the default explanation as of the writing of the 2010 application. Just a wild, uninformed guess, but I wonder if this request is a moonshot by the patent attorneys to keep the 2010 patent application in play. Rossi probably needs to file a new patent application. I'm guessing that a new application would look pretty different in its details. Eric
