RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
My math background, particularly use of proper math terminology, is somewhat elementary at times. Recently, I have taken several refresher courses in calculus. It's been an interesting experience. I was not familiar with the term "Laplace–Runge–Lenz vectors". I may have shorthanded the term, for my own elementary needs to "Velocity Vectors" as pertaining to planetary orbits. "Velocity Vectors" is easier for me to remember. ;-) This is a good wikipedia link. I'm pretty sure I will be going through it with a fine tooth comb. The information here is VERY relevant to what I'm working on. I've already started comparing notes. This is going to take a while. Thanks for the Link Daniel. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Yes! ^_^'" 2016-05-24 21:30 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net>: > "LRL" = "LGL"? > > I assume you miss keyed "R" as "G". > > From: Daniel Rocha >
RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
"LRL" = "LGL"? I assume you miss keyed "R" as "G". From: Daniel Rocha > I posted above, but, here it goes again :) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
I posted above, but, here it goes again :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits 2016-05-24 20:37 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net>: > What does "LGL" stand for? > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
What does "LGL" stand for? >From Daniel: > I have other projects! But if I have to suggest anything is to try to > find Kepler's law using LGL vectors in the simplest way.
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
I have other projects! But if I have to suggest anything is to try to find Kepler's law using LGL vectors in the simplest way. 2016-05-24 19:08 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net>: > > You're working on a third way? >
RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Woah! I didn't expect to see so much commentary on this particular thread. I had to re-subscribe a while longer. Harry, the link you supplied on Feynman's Lost Lecture on Motions around the Sun did the trick for me. I finally get what your animated GIF was trying to tell me. I like what Feynman did with the empty foci. That is cool! Thanks! It will be interesting to see if I can find any linkages with what Feynman did and what I'm trying to work out with my own velocity vector work. You're working on a third way? Daniel, thank you very much for sharing the links to Gary Rubenstien's lectures on Newton's Principia Explained. Over the years I have actually generated a lot of animated computer code that essentially exploit Newton's principals. Doing do animates planetary orbits very nicely. It's fun to do. Indeed, I proved to myself that the area of each plotted triangle do equal each other. As long as one keeps individual iterations reasonably small the accuracy can turn out to be astonishing, several orders of magnitude accurate. Thanks for giving me another excuse to delay doing my house-work. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Daniel that did not make it clear to me. I can take critic. I just think throwing rocks when you sit in a glasshouse is less than smart. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism: > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball > > Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and > after it only played characters that are way, way too serious. > > > > 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros : > >> Steven, >> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself. >> Fun - did not see the connection though. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +1 916 436 1899 >> >> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and >> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) >> >> >>
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
I'm sorry, orbits. You could try to find the law using it.
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
There is also the LRL vector, which can be used to derive Kepler's law in 3 lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Yes, it is possible to begin with kepler's laws and the law of inertia and derive the force law of gravity or to begin with the force law of gravity and the law of inertia and derive Kepler's laws. I am working on third way. Harry On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Newton's derivation of the force of gravity from Kepler's law of ellipsis > is explained nicely in this series of lectures: > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB3D1F0F64E98FDBF > > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Hmm! Gary also derived using the original method, so it is good to see both approaches and how algebra makes life so much easier than just using geometric algebra. In Newton's time, though, geometric algebra was widely teach, more so than algebra, including theorems about ellipsis which are not as well known nowadays.
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Newton's derivation of the force of gravity from Kepler's law of ellipsis is explained nicely in this series of lectures: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB3D1F0F64E98FDBF Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Here is another baseball clip, but this one is from the Bad News Bears (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWN1xWdKbHY Harry On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism: > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball > > Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and > after it only played characters that are way, way too serious. > > > > 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros : > >> Steven, >> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself. >> Fun - did not see the connection though. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +1 916 436 1899 >> >> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and >> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) >> >> >>
[Vo]:Langmuir/Hydrogen
This source makes an interesting claim: http://www.chavascience.com/index.php/en/hydrogen/langmuir-excess-energy-from-hydrogen That Langmuir was dissuaded from publishing anything that suggested a gain in regard to atomic hydrogen. If true, it confirms my feelings about 'heresy' and 'excommunication' poisoning the pursuit of science.
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Whoops, I sent that before I was finished. I wanted to add that a mathematician named Gary Rubinstein did a nice series of videos explaining Feynman's geometrical derivation of Kepler's laws. No calculus is used because the argument is strictly geometrical. Here is the first of eight videos in the series. Each one is about 10 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObVDk7WPm9Y Anyway, I will let you resume your house-work. Harry On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:08 PM, H LV wrote: > Steven, > > Your criticisms are quite justified. The problem is I don't know how to > pause a gif animation. At this time I didn't expect to leave more than an > "impression" so I apologize if the lack of detail frustrated you. > > Are you familiar with a book called Feynman's Lost Lectures? It is based > on Feynman's lecture notes, where Feynman recontructs Newton's > *geometrical* derivation of Kelper's laws. He reconstructs it up to a > point, but then he admits that he lacks the geometrical knowledge to follow > Newton's argument to the end so he employs a modern trick using velocity > vectors to simplify the argument. > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > >> Harry, >> >> I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further >> temptation to commit commentary. >> >> I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've >> learned about my own R&D endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to >> manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be >> delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater >> appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to >> get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's >> easy to get run over. >> >> Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested >> in further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might >> be able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible >> chunks so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there. >> >> Regards, >> >> Steven Vincent Johnson >> orionworks.com >> www.zazzle.com/orionworks >> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com >> >> >> >> >> >> From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] >> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes >> >> Harry, >> >> Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and >> with the rest of the Vort Collective. >> >> Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. >> Incredibly elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to >> build complicated animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my >> critique! (Don't worry. I'm still extremely impressed.) >> >> I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various >> points. There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as >> you try to get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with >> what you are trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better >> understood and appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could >> break the steps down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend >> adding some descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something >> important has or is about to happen. >> >> One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related >> work is that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by >> the fact that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice >> observer, the person will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not >> their fault. It's just too much data for a novice to digest in one meal. >> When they get lost, they give up. We forget that in our own heads what now >> looks so utterly clear and simple to us still looks utterly confusing to a >> novice. We have spent weeks and months working out all the geometry in our >> own brain. The information has essentially become hardwired in our >> understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. Alas, a new observer >> has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into their own >> wetwiring. >> >> I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to >> understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It >> would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very >> different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research >> into orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can >> be discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do >> is add a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One >> apparent difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear >> to be more simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that >> Kepler revealed in
Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Steven, Your criticisms are quite justified. The problem is I don't know how to pause a gif animation. At this time I didn't expect to leave more than an "impression" so I apologize if the lack of detail frustrated you. Are you familiar with a book called Feynman's Lost Lectures? It is based on Feynman's lecture notes, where Feynman recontructs Newton's *geometrical* derivation of Kelper's laws. He reconstructs it up to a point, but then he admits that he lacks the geometrical knowledge to follow Newton's argument to the end so he employs a modern trick using velocity vectors to simplify the argument. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > Harry, > > I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further > temptation to commit commentary. > > I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've > learned about my own R&D endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to > manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be > delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater > appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to > get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's > easy to get run over. > > Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested in > further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might be > able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible chunks > so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there. > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > orionworks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com > > > > > > From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes > > Harry, > > Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and > with the rest of the Vort Collective. > > Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. Incredibly > elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to build > complicated animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my > critique! (Don't worry. I'm still extremely impressed.) > > I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various > points. There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as > you try to get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with > what you are trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better > understood and appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could > break the steps down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend > adding some descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something > important has or is about to happen. > > One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related work > is that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by the > fact that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice observer, > the person will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not their fault. > It's just too much data for a novice to digest in one meal. When they get > lost, they give up. We forget that in our own heads what now looks so > utterly clear and simple to us still looks utterly confusing to a novice. > We have spent weeks and months working out all the geometry in our own > brain. The information has essentially become hardwired in our > understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. Alas, a new observer > has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into their own > wetwiring. > > I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to > understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It > would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very > different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research > into orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can > be discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do > is add a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One > apparent difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear > to be more simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that > Kepler revealed in his three famous laws. I think I have found that > simplicity too. Two of the three additional laws (Laws 4 & 5) are actually > already known to scholars. But their significance is not understood (or > perceived) as additional Kepler laws. I want to rectify that. The third new > law (law 6) is, to the best of my knowledge, unknown to the public domain. > It shows how to use the empty foci to construct velocity measurements. > > Steven Vincent Johnson > orionworks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com > > > From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] > Sen
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and after it only played characters that are way, way too serious. 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros : > Steven, > I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself. > Fun - did not see the connection though. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > > Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and > enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) > > >
[Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1
Various threads have sprung up making it difficult to follow the Rossi story.I propose we start with part 1 and add more as it gets too long. Here is the best description of details of the 1 MW plant from Mats Lewan https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/ * All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy. * The flow meter was mounted according to all standard requirements, for example at the lowest point in the system. * The MW plant was placed on blocks, 33 cm above the ground, to make sure that leaking water or any hidden connections would become visible. * The two IH representatives present at the test were Barry West and Fulvio Fabiani (who worked for Rossi from January 2012 until August 2013, when the MW plant was delivered to IH in North Carolina, after which he was paid by IH as an expert who would make the technology transition from Rossi to IH easier). West and Fabiani reported to JT Vaughn every day on the phone. * Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during the test. * During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept. * The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000 square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600. * The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the process was running 24/7. * The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof. * The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling). * He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be conservative. The ERV accepted. * IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance. * The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day. * At the end of the test, the ERV dismounted all the instruments by himself, in the presence of Rossi and IH, packed them and brought everything to DHL for transportation to the instrument manufacturers who would recalibrate the instruments and certify that they were not manipulated. * After the test, IH wanted to remove the MW plant from the premises in Florida, but Rossi would not accept until the remaining $89M were paid according to the license agreement. Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys then agreed that both parties should lock the plant with their own padlocks (as opposed to the claim by Dewey Weaver—a person apparently connected to IH, but yet not clear in what way—that ‘IH decided to padlock the 1MW container after observing and documenting many disappointing actions and facts’). Mats also adds Rossi and his Swedish partner Hydrofusion have made an offer $3 – 5 million to buy a 10,000 sq.ft factory there, where Rossi says he intends manufacture 500,000 QuarkX reactors per year.Difficult to see why Rossi would spend this kind of money if the E-Cat didn’t work. Mats says he has “been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, .” IH have made a rather vague statement about not being able to duplicate Rossi’s results.Jed claims he has data that shows the 1 MW plant had a COP = 1 and t
[Vo]:Time to see LENR as a Whole
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-24-2016-to-see-lenr-field-as-whole.html I consider modesty and, especially humility as semi-qualities and therefore now I dare to say that this subject is important indeed When the time of this idea will come... Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Steven, I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself. Fun - did not see the connection though. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:13 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > From Lennart: > > > Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to > > verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse. > > You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk > Starting around 0:40 to 1:17 > > Steven Vincent Johnson > orionworks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com > >
RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
Harry, I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further temptation to commit commentary. I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've learned about my own R&D endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's easy to get run over. Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested in further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might be able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible chunks so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes Harry, Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and with the rest of the Vort Collective. Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. Incredibly elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to build complicated animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my critique! (Don't worry. I'm still extremely impressed.) I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various points. There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as you try to get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with what you are trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better understood and appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could break the steps down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend adding some descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something important has or is about to happen. One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related work is that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by the fact that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice observer, the person will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not their fault. It's just too much data for a novice to digest in one meal. When they get lost, they give up. We forget that in our own heads what now looks so utterly clear and simple to us still looks utterly confusing to a novice. We have spent weeks and months working out all the geometry in our own brain. The information has essentially become hardwired in our understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. Alas, a new observer has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into their own wetwiring. I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research into orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can be discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do is add a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One apparent difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear to be more simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that Kepler revealed in his three famous laws. I think I have found that simplicity too. Two of the three additional laws (Laws 4 & 5) are actually already known to scholars. But their significance is not understood (or perceived) as additional Kepler laws. I want to rectify that. The third new law (law 6) is, to the best of my knowledge, unknown to the public domain. It shows how to use the empty foci to construct velocity measurements. Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes Steven, I know that in the past you have wondered if the second focus of an ellipse could have any role to play in the determination of orbits, since it plays no role in Kepler laws or in Newton's derivation of Kepler laws. Well a few years ago, I invented a geometrical method in which the second focus of an ellipse is first located prior to determining the shape and size of an orbit. Information about speed and escape velocity is first mapped to positions on the circumference of a circle and this point is used to projectively locate the second focus (Fe) relative to the planet which is located at the first focus (Fp). Once the second focus is located the shape of orbit can be computed. However, my computations consist
[Vo]:Fwd: Lithium ION bricking
The cold fusion book is still selling within the top 100 of its class. That's were it has been for a long time. Maybe I am have an impact and then again maybe not. http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/159789011?ie=UTF8&ref_=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_6_last#3 Frank Znidarsic
[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking
a.ashfield Thanks, yes it is a MINI and I love it. I had a Corvair Air convertible when I was 16. I loved it. I ran as well as the electric bike, always broke down. In a quest to restore my youth I bought another convertible at 62. It's working with that. The midi (not MINI) is below and not selling well. I sold two. The cold fusion books are still sell several a mouth. http://www.amazon.com/Znidarsic-Science-Books-MIDI-Staff/dp/B0189W31BK/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1464103292&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Good luck with your electric car. Get ready to fork out $10,000 every so for for a new battery pack. Get ready to run for it when it bricks. Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
>From Lennart: > Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to > verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse. > You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk Starting around 0:40 to 1:17 Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking
I used to, in the 70's, work with battery powered mining equipment. You could tell when the battery was dying. The equipment slowed down and it was time to charge it up. A ruined lead acid cell appears like an open circuit. I have found out, through the school of hard knocks, that lithium ion does not work that way. It will respond like a fresh battery during a time when the battery is getting ruined. A ruined cell appears like a short circuit. The sad part about this is that the cell voltage only goes low under full load. That's just when you need the battery the most. You put it under full load to get out of the way. I would not want my a car to brick on an entry ramp to an expressway. A nice picture of the MINI is below. The ICE has improved in efficiency so much that the hi-bread may be dead. The roll over bars pop up during a roll over. I hope never to test this option. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/images/mini.jpg Frank Z
[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking
Frank, I assume you mean MINI (not midi) I used to drive my mother's regular mini as a young man. It went around corners like it was on rails. Some years ago I laid a 240 3ph cable to the front of the house while doing some mods, expecting to get an electric car. We have just got a Hyundai Tucson having calculated you still don't get the extra cost back from an electric vehicle. I have thought the IPCC got the effect of CO2 wrong for many years now. Maybe you will be able to resurrect your electric bike with 20 E-Cat QuarkXs in the the future ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Alain Sepeda. "but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH labs." If either works it is enough. Anyway it looks like the old E-Cat is passe and the QuarkX is the future. As is too obvious no one knows enough to do more than speculate. Roll on June and more data. Adrian
[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking
I built a lithium ion powered bicycle to test out the technology. It has a 48 volt 10 AH LI-ion battery with a 2 KW external drive. The lower rated internal drive smoked within a few days. I used a Magic Pie motor. The motor broke free of its torque arm and spun free on its shaft a number of times. This ripped the wires out of the motor and blew out the hall effect position sensing transistors. I spent many hours fixing this problem. I bought 3 hub motors before this was all done. They are less than $200. My most recent modification was to weld the shaft on the torque arm. That looks good so far. They are both hardened steel parts and the weld could snap. I told the welder to get it hot and put on a lot of metal. I was crossing the road with the bike going for a space in the traffic. I gave it the full throttle. It should have made it across with room to spare. The battery management system cut of the supply power and the bike bricked. I had to peddle it very hard against the load of the motor to get out of the way. The traffic did not slow down for me one bit. A truck was coming fast. The Battery Management System senses a low voltage on one of the cells and cuts of the power pack to save the battery. Of course that bricks the bike and risks me. I jumped out the shutoff transistor. I would watch when the battery manually and limit its use this way. There was no more bricking. One year later the battery is ruined. Four of the cells no longer hold any charge. Several others hold only a volt. They should hold 3.5 volts. The cells appear to be internally shorted out. It's $500 for a new battery. That's a bit steep and the bike may just sit in the shed forever. I would never want an electric car. I purchased anther toy in my older age; a MIDI Cooper convertible. I got it used for a good price. I am 6 ft 4 in and fit nicety in it. It has a gasoline engine that used very little gasoline and is doing just fine. ICE forever! Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.
If I understand right, this idea from Lawandy seems compatible with some recent posts by Ecco on Quantum Heat so I think you may have something there. It will be interesting to see where it goes. > On 23 May 2016, at 19:13, Jones Beene wrote: > > The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist. There > is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me the > most is not Holmlid’s but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a > dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of pairs > is possible with no electrons – instead the charge is balanced by deflated > electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR site. > There is no “Rydberg matter” per se, but this dense state can be labeled as > IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen. > > From: Stephen Cooke > > Oops i meant H(0) of course > > Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen: > > Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or > is a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it? > > Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or > would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band? > > If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would > they look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of > protons, would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some > offset due to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and > different spin state of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to > dynamics of the proton pair? > > Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it > sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require > interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable? > >
Re: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.
Thanks for pointing me towards these theories Jones Beene I will try to take a look at them. I have a few other questions about H(0) and D(0) to add to my earlier list if I may: If the two nuclei are separated by 2.3 pm I suppose the are rotating about their center of mass. Would those nuclei generate Bremsstrahlung radiation or would they be in some kind of non radiating stable electron like orbitals, around the center of mass (i.e. Some kind of proton or nuclei orbitals rather than electron orbitals)? Would the electron orbitals be perturbed by the dynamics of the paired nuclei?. A kind of 2.1 body problem. If so would this lead to photon radiation from the dynamic impacts on the electron orbitals? Could the nuclei orbitals or orbits be comparable in magnitude in size to the slow neutron cross sections for those nuclei? Is there something about the charge distribution of the pair of electrons in an S orbital with angular momentum 0, that allows the protons to orbit in a pair inside this orbitals? Or do the protons or nuclei themselves form a kind of couper pair in there orbit state? Could one nucleus influence the weak force interactions in the other nucleus when in these close configurations? I.e. Could one nucleus stimulate electron capture in the paired nucleus? And if so could the resulting neutron be captured? What would be the effect on H(0) or D(0) if one of the electrons is excited to a higher orbital state such as a P1 orbital? I guess if the electrons are in conduction bands half of these questions are irrelevant. Probably too many questions too with no answers so I apologize about that. I'm just curious if QM orbital modeling has explored any of these concepts. > On 23 May 2016, at 19:13, Jones Beene wrote: > > The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist. There > is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me the > most is not Holmlid’s but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a > dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of pairs > is possible with no electrons – instead the charge is balanced by deflated > electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR site. > There is no “Rydberg matter” per se, but this dense state can be labeled as > IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen. > > From: Stephen Cooke > > Oops i meant H(0) of course > > Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen: > > Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or > is a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it? > > Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or > would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band? > > If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would > they look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of > protons, would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some > offset due to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and > different spin state of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to > dynamics of the proton pair? > > Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it > sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require > interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable? > >
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.
On Mon 5/23 Jones said [snip] The theory that appeals to me the most is not Holmlid's but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired.[/snip] which also fits nicely with lack of hydrinos available for study and Mill's reliance on hydrides. From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen. The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist. There is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me the most is not Holmlid's but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of pairs is possible with no electrons - instead the charge is balanced by deflated electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR site. There is no "Rydberg matter" per se, but this dense state can be labeled as IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen. From: Stephen Cooke Oops i meant H(0) of course Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen: Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or is a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it? Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band? If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would they look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of protons, would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some offset due to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and different spin state of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to dynamics of the proton pair? Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. Question is if they could not replicate anything, or just replicate something usable. Fraud is not even a problem if it works for IH. Doubt on methodology is also a problem with a test. Dubious behavior is also a possible problem, increasing question on methods. but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH labs. 2016-05-24 14:30 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield : > Jed, > > ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial > ventilation would be fatal"" > > Why did you set up that straw man in the first place? Is your source > Dewey Weaver? I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have. > > > As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the > poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and > the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud. It is not clear > to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant didn't work or that > that they can't duplicate the results. > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.
Jed, ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal"" Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?Is your source Dewey Weaver?I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have. As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud. It is not clear to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant didn't work or that that they can't duplicate the results.