[Vo]:One advantage of Schauberger Doppledrall is that it turns Coriolis stress direction

[David Jonsson]

Hi

I found an advantage of Schauberger Doppeldrall - double whirl in English.

The idea is that Taylor-Dean vortex creation is prevented by letting the
Coriolis stress, that causes the buildup of Taylor-Dean vortices, act in
different directions instead of consistently the same direction as is the
case in unturned flow.

Taylor-Dean vortices are the same as Görtler vortices. They are described
in the plane perpendicular to the flow. A more general description is the
Coriolis stress caused in bent flows.

Dean vortices are mentioned as a lossy type of turbulence or drag in pipes
and are mentioned in incompressible flow like water in pipes. Görtler
vortices are usually mentioned in air with constraints like a plane wing.

Image and link to laboratory example:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/725368/are-dean-vortices-creation-prevented-in-certain-flows-with-helicity
Please also explain why the question was closed after one year.

David

[Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[David Jonsson]

https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244

Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/

I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades before I
got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he aimed for in
a safe way.

David Jonsson

[Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[David Jonsson]

Hi

The concept vortex seems to be used in different ways.

How is it used on this list?

David

Re: [Vo]:Galactic cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

[David Jonsson]

Here another guy who says particles from galaxy clouds change our climate
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL021890
The periodicity is 100 Myr and 1 Gyr.

I asked on Physics Stack Exchange about particles from space and how much
is required to form permanent cloud layers but the censors removed the
question saying it was unrealistic.


On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:18 PM H LV  wrote:

> Svensmark continues to build a case for his galactic view on climate
> change.
>
> https://phys.org/news/2017-12-link-stars-clouds-climate-earth.html
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
>
> Paper in Nature (Dec. 2017)
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
>

[Vo]:Saturn north pole polygon explained 46 years ago

[David Jonsson]

Some 46 years ago a good video was made on rotating flows.

It is number 19 in this series
Movies: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0EC6527BE871ABA3
Written lectures: http://web.mit.edu/hml/notes.html

Inertia oscillations and free shear layers
developed and filmed by
David Fultz
Hydrodynamics Laboratory
Department och the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago

The polygon structure similar to the one on Saturnus north pole can be seen
here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ans3tnvMyTk#t=1371
The structure can be produced in laboratory.

David

[Vo]:Dehumidifiers and temperature

[David Jonsson]

Hi

How does dehumidifiers like this one work?
http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/1377991/Dehumidifier-20-m-0011-lh
-White-Blue-renkforce-HD-68W

I assume that my personal experience of room temperature will decrease if I
run one (provided I have sufficiently high humidity). But I also realize
that the temperature of the air rises after being dehumidified. What is the
net subjective human effect?

David

Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research

[David Jonsson]

What happened to this? Four years later there could be results.

I think classifying it as materials science instead of nuclear physics
might be successful. Classifying it as nuclear science is very much more
problematic.

David

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Moab Moab  wrote:

> The European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and
> Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding
> research in LENR.
>
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf
>
> Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?
>
>

[Vo]:Betz's law and circulation/vorticity

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Can someone help me calculate the circulation (or vorticity,  ∇×v ) in
flows where Betz's law is used?

I think I know a way. It would be interesting to see if others find a way.

My way involves the following reasoning.

Betz's law determines the power taken from the flow and brought into the
turbine. This is equal to a force on the turbine equal to F = P / v.

Another way to determine the force on the turbine is to use
the Kutta–Joukowski theorem.

Do these two methods give the same result?

Maybe some other meaningful relation can be found by setting the force from
the two methods equal.

David

[Vo]:Direct flow acceleration

[David Jonsson]

Imagine a flying object, maybe a sphere or cylinder for simplicity, the gas
flowing around the object has to flow around it, the gas is forced to move
around the object. Such forces need to have a pressure gradient force (
volumetric force = ∇ pressure) , and the pressure change corresponds to a
temperature change with an adiabatic relation.

Imagine the flying object at two different speeds, v and v + Δv, close to
each other. Determine the difference in the temperature field in the
surrounding gas between the two situations.

My question is: If I artificially apply such a temperature field around an
object would it accelerate? (Would the object go from speed v to v + Δv ? )

David

[Vo]:Water tractor beams and Bjerknes

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Here is a special recent example where oscillations can create horizontal
movement of a floating object:
http://news.anu.edu.au/2014/08/11/physicists-create-water-tractor-beam/

Is it an example of any effect described by Vilhelm Bjerknes in his book
Fields of force from 1906?
https://archive.org/details/fieldsofforce00bjeruoft

David

[Vo]:Clockwise, counterclockwise or translation?

[David Jonsson]

Look at this very special kind of motion
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/lds3Wl

First I thought the clover turned clockwise, then by looking at the dots I
thought it turned counterclockwise. Then I realized all dots are moving on
straight lines.

If the dots were electrons I wonder what the magnetic field could be? In
the direction through the screen the B-field could be positive, negative or
zero. I suppose it is zero since there is no net rotation of charges?

David

[Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted

[David Jonsson]

Hi

The camera market is strange and weird. They sell 13 megapixel cameras
althoug very few can view more than 2 megapixel and commonly we view far
less. What DOES however improve quality is increasing bits per color from 8
to 16 or more. 8 bit is just a bad heritage from a time when memory was
expensive and performance slow. So why aren't there any 16 bit cameras
available? I found one for $1500.

The full dynamic range of the eye is 1:100 which requres encoding of 20
bits per color or 60 bits per pixel, and the static range is 1:1
representable with 14 or 42 bits. Such pixels would be a much better choise
compared top increasing the megapixel to absurd levels.

With 60 bit colors the true intensity of the light would be recorded in the
image.

Further increase of features would be an alpha channel for transparency.
This cahnnel should not be 8 bit. It should be 60 bits as well because
transparency can be different at different colors. One 20 bit alpha-channel
per color makes a 60 bit alpha channel. Together with the original color
thats 120 bits per pixel.

Monitors aren't much better. I just search and only found two monitors with
12 bits per color as maxiumum resolution

David

Re: [Vo]:IR detection of CO2

[David Jonsson]

Fine!

What would it take to build a sensor based on this physics
http://www.habmigern2003.info/future_trends/infrared_analyser/ndir/IR-Absorption-GB.html
 ?

One IR-LED and maybe 4 photo diodes, or a prism combined with a linear CCD?
Some slow ADCs in a cheap MCU.

It seems possible to do this for far less than $259 - the price of a sensor.

David

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote:

  I am certainly no expert in this area, but the specs call it NDIR and
 there is a wikipedia page on that topic:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondispersive_infrared_sensor

 Andre


 On 03/07/2013 07:34 AM, David Jonsson wrote:

 Hi

  How does a infrared gas meter like this one work?

 http://www.co2meter.com/collections/co2-sensors/products/sprintir-100-percent-co2-sensor

  David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, +46703000370

Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd)

[David Jonsson]

Such a large impact means it had a high speed on impact and distintegrated.

David

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I visited it once and the story is that the meteorite came in at a steep
 angle and is buried under one of the rims.

  Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered
 (fwd)

  In reply to  Vorl Bek's message of Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:27:07 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 And I have always wondered about Meteor Crater in Arizona; I never
 understood why a little digging did not expose a big chunk of
 extraterrestrial rock at the centre of the crater; but there is
 nothing.

 Maybe it went deeper and molten rock covered it, so all you see now in the
 bottom of the crater is the cooled and solidified crust that was molten at the
 time.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:100% conversion of heat to electricity with thermophotovoltaics

[David Jonsson]

So what is wrong with the Wikipedia article?

What I mean is that regardless of how efficient the thermophotovoltaic is
there is no other way for heat-energy to escape the enclosure except as
IR-light converted to electricity. With this forced arrangement how can
electricity generation be anything except 100 %?

There is no Carnot cycle since energy flows from one end to the other.
There is no cycle involved.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, +46703000370


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  David,

 ** **

 You are possibly misreading this article. It is poorly written to begin
 with.

 ** **

 Carnot efficiency affects all heat engines in a similar way. 

 ** **

 Moreover, it is a basic limitation which deducts “off the top” so all
 other inefficiencies deduct from the lower number.

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* David Jonsson 

 ** **

 Hi

 I have imagined using thermophotovoltaics to produce a highly efficient
 conversion from heat to electricity.

 Imagine having a heat source in a very thermally well insulated container.
 In the same container there is a thermophotovoltaic cell converting the
 heat radiation into electricity.

 Wouldn't a cell like that be very efficient? What stops it from being 100
 % efficient, or having its efficiency reduced only by leaks in the thermal
 insulation?

 Even if the Carnot efficiency
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophotovoltaic#Efficiency

 is low it doesn't affect the total efficiency. The emitter will always be
 hotter than the converter, since the converter converts some of the heat
 radiation. There will always be some efficiency. Increase of dark current,
 as Wikipedia mentions as a reason for efficiency decrease at higher
 temperature, should be the same in both directions in the converter and
 could not lower efficiency.

 Either efficiency could be higher or the explanations of the efficiency
 lowering effects are wrong.

 ** **

 Best would be to build a device and see what will happen. 

 ** **

 David

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations

[David Jonsson]

I hope I can follow up on this later. I was thinking about someting else.

Are there any coordinate transformations for the Sagnac effect?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  Well basically Lorentz is all about V^2 as you approach C but if the
 isotropy is broken as suggested by Casimir geometry or suppression then
  the square of the distance is trumped by the cube or fourth of 1/ the
 plate separation.–(A relativistic interpretation is supported by a 1996
 paper, “Cavity QED”http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdfby 
 Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes an abrupt break in
 isotropy between Casimir plates and a 1999 paper “The Light Velocity
 Casimir Effect http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9911/9911062.pdf” by
 Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk  which proposes the Casimir cavity as a
  relativistic environment where the velocity of light appears to increase
 relative to outside the cavity.  It is also supported by a paper from Dr
 Carlos Calvet  “*Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions
 in Quantum 
 Vacuum”*http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm.
 It is further evidenced by claims of modified radioactive decay rates in
 metal pores and powders of Casimir geometry. 

 In all cases above the normal Lorenntzian formulas fall apart, in fact the
 relationship becomes dynamic with change in Casimir geometry having far
 more effect on the isotropy then any gravitational effect… what we call
 isotropic is really just a very slow gradual change we call gravity – we
 always knew this din’t exist below the planl scale with quantum foam and
 wormholes coming into play but what remains controversial is that these
 breaches in isotropy can be aggregated or segregated to manifest themselves
 in the physical world via Casimir geometry. Where we are accustomed to
 Lorentzian contraction on the single axis approaching C the contraction
 observed due to suppression would be symmetrical with no need for any
 spatial displacement.

 Fran

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 9:48 AM
 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz
 transformations

 ** **

 I was checking the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and it
 mentions that it relies on space being homogeneous or on isotropy of
 the space. Why are these assumptions made?

 ** **

 See
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_physical_principles
 

 ** **

 And as far as I have read 1 or 2 or neither holds in the group method of
 deriving

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_group_postulates
 

 1. does not hold since two Lorentz transformation correspond to one
 rotation and one Lorentz transformation.

 2. does not hold since Lorentz transformations are not associative 

 ** **

 I think it is a shortcoming to make preassumptions.

 ** **

 David


 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

 ** **

[Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations

[David Jonsson]

I was checking the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and it mentions
that it relies on space being homogeneous or on isotropy of the space.
Why are these assumptions made?

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_physical_principles

And as far as I have read 1 or 2 or neither holds in the group method of
deriving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_group_postulates
1. does not hold since two Lorentz transformation correspond to one
rotation and one Lorentz transformation.
2. does not hold since Lorentz transformations are not associative

I think it is a shortcoming to make preassumptions.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Linear motion Sagnac accelerometer

[David Jonsson]

A linear Sagnac interferometer works in regard to producing fringe shifts
when accelerated. This can easily be understood by considering the Doppler
effect and the retardation that the light does along the linear path of the
light. The Doppler effects do not cancel out since there is a delay in
mixing source and destination signals.

Redo the experiments with light frequency changing over time, for example
as a ramp function, to get an effect on speed and not only acceleration. If
there is a linear Sagnac effect even in this case the beat frequency would
differ at different speeds. Do this experiment on a rotating frame as well.
The common understanding is that the rotating frame would be affected by
speed and the linear interferometer would not.

Agree? Mail this suggestion to Wang if you have his address.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Sagnac coordinate transformations

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Coordinate transforms based on Sagnac effect become somewhat different from
the Lorentz-transformations.

Can you imagine how I have derived these?

Primed (t', x', y', z') coordinates follows the rotation. Unprimed (t, x,
y, z) are not rotating.)
t' = t/(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = x*(1+v^2/(c^2-v^2)) , whos' first Taylor term becomes = x*(1+v^2/c^2)
y' = sqrt((v*y/c/2)^2+y^2) = y*sqrt(1+(v/c/2)^2), very similar to the
Lorentz x' transform
z' = should be similar to y (z' = sqrt((v*t/2)^2+z^2)) but somewhat more
complex sin z is in radial direction. It becomes somewhat shorter towards
the center compared to away from the centre.

David

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields

[David Jonsson]

The velocity distributions of the ZPE can be determined with the
Fizeau-Fresnel-effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Fresnel_drag_coefficient

Polarizability and magnetizability can be speed and direction dependent
according to the Fizeau-Fresnel-effect.

Can you imagine a process to determine ZPE effects based on the Fresnel
drag coefficient?

Remeber that particles in hydrogen gas moves at 2 km/s at room temperature.
High speeds are present in our environment.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Good question… 

 How can ANY properties of the vacuum/ether/ZPF be measured?

 ** **

 Until we have instrumentation which is capable of detecting and measuring
 one or more properties of the vacuum, it will remain an enigma; an unknown.
 

 ** **

 It was MEMS and nanotech that allowed us to test for the Casimir force… so
 perhaps a ZPF multimeter is not far off.

 ** **

 -Mark

 ** **

 *From:* David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:52 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and
 magnetic fields

 ** **

 How could the velocity distribution of those virtual particles be
 determined?

 ** **

 David

 ** **

 On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1305.pdf

  

 --

 ABSTRACT

 In summary, according to the analysis of the energy and force of the
 electric and magnetic fields on the basis of vacuum polarization, it is
 concluded that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the vacuum
 virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a rearrangement of
 the vacuum polarization. Thus, the electromagnetic wave can be

 regarded as a successional changing of the vacuum polarization in space.
 Also, it is found that the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge
 possess an average half length

 a = 2.8 × 10^−15 m. 

 This result leads to the knowledge that an electric field has a step
 distribution of the energy density, which eliminated the divergence in
 calculating the electron’s electrostatic energy. And it is known that there
 is a relation between the fine structure constant and the vacuum
 polarization distribution, which reduced the mystery of the constant α.
 Finally, it is figured out that an extremely high energy density of the
 electromagnetic field can be ∼ 10^29 J/m^3, which implies an optical
 power density ∼ 10^33 W/cm^2;

 far higher than the Schwinger critical value.  With these interesting
 findings, we anticipate that the vacuum polarization investigation of the
 fields will be developed further and applied to more fundamental problems
 of physics.

 -

  

 Some of you will remember how I’ve expressed my thoughts on a qualitative
 model I’ve been developing which is based on a physical model of the vacuum
 and its properties and behavior which results in the things that we
 perceive to be subatomic particles/atoms.  Remember how I regretted not
 having the mathematical skills necessary to quantify my qualitative model?
 Well, it would seem that this person has beat me to it!  His description of
 the propagation of an EM wave a “…successional changing of the vacuum
 polarization in space” is exactly how I envision it.  I hope this scientist
 continues to develop his ideas, and gets some help from other bright minds…
 I’d like to see where this path might lead!

  

 -Mark

  

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Assymetric Maxwell stress tensors

[David Jonsson]

OK, fine. I am primarily looking for theoretical support. Experimental
proof is also valuable bu not for me at this moment.

David

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Will be posting videos soon.

 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

 --- On *Mon, 7/23/12, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com* wrote:


 From: David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
 Subject: [Vo]:Assymetric Maxwell stress tensors
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Date: Monday, July 23, 2012, 8:39 AM

 Are there any?

 It seems like a big shortcoming if there aren't any.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

  Simply put when torsion is extreme enough, the vectors of normally
 perpendicular forces such as electricity and magnetism may become almost
 parallel;they undergo a kind of distant parallelism brought about by such
 extreme warping of space.  Depending upon the amount of torsion, those
 vectors may not necessarily be perpendicular any more, but deviate slightly
 or greatly from such perpendicularity.

 pg 34/ Top Secret Torsion/Secrets of the Unified Field/ Joseph Farrell

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/4138926072/
 2009 Flux Capacitor Model

 E X B embodiments on separately phased resonances
 The Flux Capacitor is a spatially interacted electrical resonance.
 Resonance is the balancing of magnetic and electrical fields to contain
 equal field energies, where expression of this energy uses a coil for the
 magnetic flux, and a capacitor for the electric field energy. Normally
 these two different field energies exist in separate space, and because
 they oscillate they also exist in separate timings, whereby when one field
 is full the other is empty. The first premise of the flux capacitor is to
 Tconstruct a device whereby the vessels containing each energy expression
 themselves can exist in the same space at right angles, thereby creating a
 third reaction force to be obtained in the remaining third angle in space,
 here to be obtained by non-magnetic stainless steel rods protruding from
 the water capacitor. The aim here is to split the water molecule into
 oxygen and hydrogen fuel with the minimal amount of energy. Two 90 degree
 phased flux caps can share timings of field energy which is the goal of
 these endeavors, where the magnetic field from one resonance can be
 spatially interacted with a concurrent electric field from another
 separately phased resonance.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/4138199465/

 Axially Insulated Water Capacity in 465 hz Resonance
 This shows the effect of just the electric field resonating from the
 right coil at 2700 volts on a hand held grounded neon bulb. Notice that the
 end connection of the neon need not touch the central electrode of the
 water capacitor; the electric field energy passes through space itself. The
 input voltage is obtained from a mere 7 volts obtained from an AC car
 alternator rotating at a constant rpm to output 465 hz. To achieve the
 higher voltage output shown here a first stage of resonance is employed
 which multiplies the initial voltage 15 fold. These comprise two 500 ft
 wire spools of 14 gauge wire stacked in series; ~ 23 mh@2.6 ohms using 5
 uf for 465 hz resonance. This first stage of series resonant rise is
 necessary to achieve any appreciable amperage through the secondary
 (interphasal) resonance to be formed into a flux capacitor principle,
 whereby this then increases the voltage almost another 17 fold. Each of the
 ending flux capacitor components are 180,000 ohms impedance at this
 frequency. The coils contain almost 8 miles of 23 gauge wire. An AC
 alternator is used to obtain the needed higher frequency to enable the
 resonances to spatially exist inside each other, which then involves
 special circumstances. Since every changing electric field also appears out
 of phase as a changing magnetic field according to the derivative of the
 electric field's rate of change in time, induced currents can be measured
 when a second coil is employed to surround the axial capacity employed as
 the first resonance to be engaged, which is shown here without the addition
 of the second resonance in the three phase triangle. It is found that the
 induced currents due to induction via spatially enclosed capacity inserted
 into the coils interior volume: that this value comprises 2/3 the amount of
 current registered when the interphasing is given its actual separately
 phased line connections. The second resonance uses an ordinary spatially
 separate plate plexiglass capacity.
 Essentially this second large coil in the 60 Henry range @ 840 ohms
 can be preliminarily tuned to the spatial influence of the initial
 resonance; however during this tuning where L2C2 has its capacity varied as
 a shorted loop formation, an amperage meter can be enclosed in this loop to
 find the point

Re: [Vo]:Sagnac effect, optical gyroscope lock-in

[David Jonsson]

The MM device does rotate sitting on a rotating Earth globe. It is not a
translational movement. It can be seen as part of a Sagnac interferometer
going around the globe.

David


On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 The MM device does not rotate, right?

 T

 On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM, David Jonsson
 davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Thanks for this reference. I thought lock in was also present in a
 optical
  fiber gyroscope or any type. Now I realize that the differences are big
  between different types of interferometers. Are you sure it is not
 involved
  in other types?
 
  What do you base your conclusion on that it isn't involved in the
  MM-interferometer?
 
  David
 
 
  On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, David Jonsson
  davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
   Hi
  
   Can someone refer me to the lock-in effect in optical gyroscopes? I
 have
   also heard the effect being mentioned as a phase lock loop effect.
  
   Could lock-in effect also be present in a straight interferometer
 like a
   Michelson-Morley-interferometer?
 
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope
 
  end
 
  I don't think it relates to the MM experiment.
 
  T
 
 

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields

[David Jonsson]

How could the velocity distribution of those virtual particles be
determined?

David

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1305.pdf

 ** **

 --

 ABSTRACT

 In summary, according to the analysis of the energy and force of the
 electric and magnetic fields on the basis of vacuum polarization, it is
 concluded that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the vacuum
 virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a rearrangement of
 the vacuum polarization. Thus, the electromagnetic wave can be

 regarded as a successional changing of the vacuum polarization in space.
 Also, it is found that the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge
 possess an average half length

 a = 2.8 × 10^−15 m. 

 This result leads to the knowledge that an electric field has a step
 distribution of the energy density, which eliminated the divergence in
 calculating the electron’s electrostatic energy. And it is known that there
 is a relation between the fine structure constant and the vacuum
 polarization distribution, which reduced the mystery of the constant α.
 Finally, it is figured out that an extremely high energy density of the
 electromagnetic field can be ∼ 10^29 J/m^3, which implies an optical
 power density ∼ 10^33 W/cm^2;

 far higher than the Schwinger critical value.  With these interesting
 findings, we anticipate that the vacuum polarization investigation of the
 fields will be developed further and applied to more fundamental problems
 of physics.

 -

 ** **

 Some of you will remember how I’ve expressed my thoughts on a qualitative
 model I’ve been developing which is based on a physical model of the vacuum
 and its properties and behavior which results in the things that we
 perceive to be subatomic particles/atoms.  Remember how I regretted not
 having the mathematical skills necessary to quantify my qualitative model?
 Well, it would seem that this person has beat me to it!  His description of
 the propagation of an EM wave a “…successional changing of the vacuum
 polarization in space” is exactly how I envision it.  I hope this scientist
 continues to develop his ideas, and gets some help from other bright minds…
 I’d like to see where this path might lead!

 ** **

 -Mark

 ** **

[Vo]:Extreme pipes, extreme pumps: Nord Stream

[David Jonsson]

Nord Stream is 1200 km long, 1200 mm wide and transfers 55 billion m^3 of
gas per year. At 150 bar that's 10 m/s. And pumping that amount consumes
the power 170 MW. The power content of the gas flow compares to 70 GW.

Where is all heat going in the compression stage of the gas? The gas (with
Cp/Cv=1.3) becomes 660 C hot.

How big is the drag in a pipe like that?

Here it says 366 MW pumping power and 220 bar.
http://urresult.ru/?cat=123
Even worse, but I didn't take the warming of the gas in the pumps into
consideration.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Doing fun with ionized air

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Deuterium lamps can ionize air:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313_nkw=Deuterium%20arc%20lamp_sacat=0_clu=2_fcid=192_localstpos_stposgbr=1
The special thing with it is that air begins to be ionized
with radiation shorter than 159 nm. So with this lamp you can do special
things. Ionized air becomes senitive to MHD. It can become a waveguide for
other types of radiation. It might dampen some type of radiation.

Maybe someone at this list can buy and maybe show some special effect?

It is also very dangerous to live tissue. Be careful.

David

Re: [Vo]:Sagnac effect, optical gyroscope lock-in

[David Jonsson]

Thanks for this reference. I thought lock in was also present in a optical
fiber gyroscope or any type. Now I realize that the differences are big
between different types of interferometers. Are you sure it is not involved
in other types?

What do you base your conclusion on that it isn't involved in the
MM-interferometer?

David


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, David Jonsson
 davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi
 
  Can someone refer me to the lock-in effect in optical gyroscopes? I have
  also heard the effect being mentioned as a phase lock loop effect.
 
  Could lock-in effect also be present in a straight interferometer like a
  Michelson-Morley-interferometer?


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope

 end

 I don't think it relates to the MM experiment.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Any SLIders out there? I am one.

[David Jonsson]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 On Fri, 18 May 2012, David Jonsson wrote:

  What is happening when you turn off the LEDs? Where is that described? It
 looks like a possible explanation.


 Three-dollar e-field detectors, see the project page:

  
 http://www.amasci.com/emotor/**chargdet.htmlhttp://www.amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html


 But if streetlights respond to DC fields, then nearby cars and distant
 thunderstorms would have enormous effect.


Thanks. I will try to build one.

Will this transistor do?
http://www.newark.com/nte-electronics/nte451/transistor-jfet-n-channel-4ma-i/dp/29C4598

An idea is to build an array of these and measure with a cheap
microcontroller.

David

Re: [Vo]:Does Taylor diffusion affects heat?

[David Jonsson]

I have been thinking for a while and I think it should because heat
conduction is also described as heat diffusion.

Can someone please try a simple experiment to check this? Rotate anything,
preferably a gas, and check if the radial heat conductivity decreases.

David



On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:56 PM, David Jonsson
davidjonssonswe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Taylor diffusion means that diffusion is affected by Coriolis forces and
 thus moves in circles and effectively reduces radial diffusion in rotation
 fluids. Do not mistake this for Taylor dispersion which is an effect
 which increases diffusion.

 Since heat flow is a kind of diffused heat I wonder if it also is affected
 by Taylor diffusion. The heat motion is definitely affected
 by Coriolis forces.

 How could this be analyzed?

 It seems to have some strange consequences in regard to entropy. It seems
 like entropy doesn't increase as much when rotating but that seems also
 versy counterintuitive and it seems like a too easy trick to lower increase
 of entropy. Common reasoning implies that the process is requiring energy
 which is usually the case to lower entropy increase.

 Help me solve this. I have always found entropy to be a strange and weak
 concept. Or maybe the total entropy changes Taylor diffusion and Taylor
 dispersion balances each other?

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Any SLIders out there? I am one.

[David Jonsson]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:57 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 On Wed, 16 May 2012, David Jonsson wrote:

  I am a SLIder myself. I can turn off some lights just by passing by foot
 or


 I'm not one myself.  But I did get a chance to expound on my personal
 conventional-yet-crackpot bio-electrostatics explanation of some examples
 of the phenomenon:

  Lung-powered human VandeGraaff disease?  William Shatner's Weird or What
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=neYxvtqH8QMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neYxvtqH8QM


What is happening when you turn off the LEDs? Where is that described? It
looks like a possible explanation.

David

[Vo]:Any SLIders out there? I am one.

[David Jonsson]

Check the definition if you need to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference_phenomenon

I am a SLIder myself. I can turn off some lights just by passing by foot or
bicyce. I discovered this by chance. I don't affect the light in any
directly conscious way. It just happens. I hope I can put it on video but
the problem is it only works with some lamps far away from where I live
now.

Anyone with car in Stockholm could help. And please bring courageous and
honest witnesses.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Does Taylor diffusion affects heat?

[David Jonsson]

Taylor diffusion means that diffusion is affected by Coriolis forces and
thus moves in circles and effectively reduces radial diffusion in rotation
fluids. Do not mistake this for Taylor dispersion which is an effect
which increases diffusion.

Since heat flow is a kind of diffused heat I wonder if it also is affected
by Taylor diffusion. The heat motion is definitely affected
by Coriolis forces.

How could this be analyzed?

It seems to have some strange consequences in regard to entropy. It seems
like entropy doesn't increase as much when rotating but that seems also
versy counterintuitive and it seems like a too easy trick to lower increase
of entropy. Common reasoning implies that the process is requiring energy
which is usually the case to lower entropy increase.

Help me solve this. I have always found entropy to be a strange and weak
concept. Or maybe the total entropy changes Taylor diffusion and Taylor
dispersion balances each other?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:The efficiency of the Silex isotope separation method

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Assume you could get absorption of a laser photon in unranium hexaflouride
based on uranium 235 and not in 238. I can not imagine what I read in
newspapers since the optical excitation would be almost the same.
Rotational and vibrational spectrum however would differ by approximately
1% or less.

Even if an optical absorption can have an effect at say 2 µm according to
http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v16/i5/p442_s1?isAuthorized=no

Makes the speed difference for one photon absorption to become v = 2hf/mc =
2h/m/lambda = 0.0011 m/s which is somewhat more realistic.

But to what extent would collisions in the gas speed up
heavier molecules and slow down the lighter ones?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Seasonal variation of halflife: tritium test

[David Jonsson]

Interesting. Is the variation due to sidereal or calendar day?

David



On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt.stea...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 It is also well established that the intent and expectation of the
 experimenter can influence radioactive decay, so it would be difficult to
 separate that out from the other possible influences.

 Hoyt Stearns
 Scottsdale, Arizona US

 -Original Message-
 From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com]
 Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:57 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:Seasonal variation of halflife: tritium test



 Interesting thread going on in SED newsgroup...

Re: [Vo]:Physics depends on choice of coordinates

[David Jonsson]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  David Jonsson's message of Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:57:44 +0100:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Why have we
 been told that electric potentials in matter are too weak to cause
 nuclear reactions when the Madelung series summation can give a totally
 different result?

 ...perhaps because electron migration prevents the build up of high
 potential
 differences in metals?


Could be. I haven't checked on that.

David

[Vo]:Can the fusor inertial electrostatic confinement really work as described?

[David Jonsson]

I have problems imagining Electrostatic pressure from the positively
charged electrodes would keep the fuel as a whole off the walls of the
chamber, and impacts from new ions would keep the hottest plasma in the
center. which is said here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor#Design

What is a more detailed and traditional way of describing this?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Physics depends on choice of coordinates

[David Jonsson]

Hi

The Madelung constant is vital for our existence. At least some crystalline
matter can not exist if it is divergent. The Madelung constants, there are
different ones for different crystals, have by experiment and common
experience a finite value. This means that our reality is cubic and
not spherical. Any mention of physics being coordinate invariant is thus
falsified. Coordinate invariance is just an assumption that
some physicists have made based on ideals instead of real experiences.

The math behind this is not hard to grasp. Imagine having to divergent
series. One is diverging towards positive infinity and the other towards
negative infinity. If you add those two together they can become convergent
depending on in which order the additions are being made.

On the other hand it is imaginable that spherical mass distributions have
divergent Madelung constants meaning that their atoms have a diverging
electric potential, and that cubic distributions have finite electric
potentials for their atoms.

I think it would be very interesting to have a convergent Madelung constant
for a crystal and then change something so that it becomes divergent.
Extreme potentials would then appear in the matter and maybe progress above
what is needed for fusion or fission. One thing that strikes me is that
Plutonium has a lot of different possible crystalline states. Maybe this is
connected with it being radioactive? I ask for an investigation regarding a
connection between nuclear activity and Madelung divergence. Why have we
been told that electric potentials in matter are too weak to cause
nuclear reactions when the Madelung series summation can give a totally
different result? I have seen reports being mentioned where it says that
the shape of an object can affect the rate at which a radioactive material
is decaying. One could assume that spherical mass distributions radiate
more than cubic masses.

On the other hand I haven't examined at what rate the Madelung constant
diverges. If it is diverging at sizes of a black hole then truly it is
describing reality. Could someone investigate this further? I just need an
argument against anything that is referring to coordinate invariance. I do
think alternatives to coordinate invariant theories should and even must
be examined.

Solvability of equations is sometimes also dependent on coordinate choice.
The advance of physical science is said to have originated from changing to
an origo at the Sun instead of Earth, and currently there is a problem of
having it in a galactic centre.

At a more philosophical level there is also support for that the way of
viewing gives different experiences.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Xavier Luminous 
xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com wrote:

 One's choice of coordinate systems is entirely arbitrary... It's a
 mathematical tool you choose to suit the problem at hand, not linked
 to nature in any physical way.

 On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  I'm only pointing out a practical consideration that is central to
 science.
   If you can't communicate you relinquish reproducibility.
 
 
  On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:
 
  I imagine that Newton's laws would be difficult to understand in certain
  coordinate systems but that does not suggest that they fail to function.
  Are you implying that the laws of physics work or not depending upon the
  view point?  I contend that the real world does not care what coordinate
  system we select to observe it as our choice is merely for our
 convenience.
  Maybe we are not discussing the same issue.
 
  Dave
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 3:45 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
 
  Newton's laws in spherical coordinates
 
  Sure... why not?
 
  Give it a try and report back.
 
  On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
  wrote:
 
  I do not agree that the choice of coordinate systems changes the
 physics
  of any experiment.  I only see the coordinate system chosen as a way to
  locate the position and other position derivatives of a body.
 
  Could you explain how the Madelung constant would relate to real world
  effects?
 
  Dave
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 6:42 pm
  Subject: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
 
  Hi
 
  The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system
  can not be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this.
 It
  becomes divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic
  coordinate. Covariance can thus be forgotten.
 
  Check
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant
 
  Are there any other examples

[Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates

[David Jonsson]

Hi

The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system can
not be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this. It
becomes divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic
coordinate. Covariance can thus be forgotten.

Check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant

Are there any other examples of this effect where choice of coordinate
system gives different values?

David


David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:FTL Neutrinos a Loose Connection

[David Jonsson]

Thier choise of Sagnac effect instead of Lorentz contraction is in itself a
very interesting choice. How come they did so when the founders of
relativity did the opposite?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
 wrote:
  But in an effort to eliminate many arguments re: relativistic
 miscalculations of satellite orbits, I thought they conducted additional
 experiments using synched atomic clocks in lieu of GPS satellites.
 
  Did the atomic clocks feed the same HSSL cards over the same fiber link?

 I would think that these scientists would recognize the commonality of
 the link before making such an embarrassing announcement

 BTW, Happy Engineers' Week!

 T

[Vo]:Meter for measuring electromagnetic radiation

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Is this device doing what it is said it is doing?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Electromagnetic-Radiation-Detector-EMF-Meter-Tester-NEW-/110794415512?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protectionhash=item19cbdc9d98#ht_5657wt_1396


It is so cheap that I bought one. I get some problems in my fingers after
using laptop and mobile phone that I would like to investigate.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Ultimate toy: Neocube

[David Jonsson]

Check
http://www.theneocube.com/?gclid=CKG2qdX8ua0CFc5YmAodanPUBA

Perfect for building lattices and crystals. Someone even built a
supercluster with 8000 spheres.

I am ordering 1000 spheres now.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Ultimate toy: Neocube

[David Jonsson]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, David Jonsson
 davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Check
  http://www.theneocube.com/?gclid=CKG2qdX8ua0CFc5YmAodanPUBA

 Here's the list owner playing with the neocubes:

 http://amasci.com/amateur/beads.html


Very interesting, but I ended up ordering only 864 spheres.  It seems like
a perfect gift.

But I can't understand how the magnetic field aligns. Some combinations
must be impossible?

David

[Vo]:Do some analysis on time varying radioactivity counts

[David Jonsson]

I have a radioactivity counter going for a piece of Cs 137.
You find it's log here
http://a.djk.se/counts.txt

First column is the sequence number.
Second column is the timestamp in seconds since 1970 with microsecond
precision. I am trying to keep it at 2 seconds. When the ntp correction is
done there can be a big timestep like this

33057 : 1324332734.041153 : 6850633
33058 : 1324332818.342256 : 6850938

Third column is the ticks in the geiger tube. Typically 200 per second.

Sometimes the rechargeable battery runs out in the counter and then
the counts drop.

Sometimes data is missing but counts have to be accumulated over
several minutes anyway to get statistical precision so this is not a
problem.

The counter is 32 bit unsigned and will return to zero after 4 billion
something. This is close to 8 months.

This is a setup trying to determine the variations in nuclear decay
over time measured by several people, for example

Baurov http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=21399929

Jere Jenkins http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1470

The measurements are done in central Stockholm, Sweden.

I hope to improve this experiment over time. Right now I am just doing
preliminary trivial measurements.

If anyone could donate one or several better radiation counters to me I
would be happy.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Viscosity of the sun

[David Jonsson]

Hi all

I would like to determine the shear stress in the Sun so I need to know its
viscosity. Does anybody know it or how to derive it? The shear flow in the
Sun and other stars is a riddle.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Energy-stress tensor of the sun

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Can anyone help me to find it?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light

[David Jonsson]

Regarding gravitational time dilation. Since gravitational acceleration is
countered exactly by centripetal acceleration I can not see why it should be
included in the pdf you refer to.

David

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 The GPS device corrects for this error. In fact, this is the first source
 of error accounted by the device:


 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-112516142975720/unrestricted/ch7.pdf

 Either all GPS devices they used were broken or the result is just a
 coincidence.


 2011/10/14 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

 On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Don't bury Einstein yet:
 
 
 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
 
  Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
  Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the
  familiar four (three of space, one of time). It's possible that the
  speedy neutrinos tunnel through these extra dimensions, reducing the
  distance they have to travel to get to the target. This would explain
  the measurement without requiring the speed of light to be broken.
 
  Those neutrinos probably knew a short cut in the other 6 dimensions.

 Well it wasn't extra dimensions.  It was relativity itself.  They
 needed entangled clocks!

 http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/?p1=blogs

 Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity

 T

[Vo]:Regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar

[David Jonsson]

Hi

The Michelson-Morley experiment and similar linear interferometers are
actually rotating when they are in use. They are thus similar to
Sagnac-interferometers.

A rotating Michelson-Morley interferometer looks like in the attached
picture.
[image: image.png]
The black interferometer in this picture rotates and thus has different
positions at different times. The light-ray however is moving along a
straight line and hits the end of the interferometer at time t0+dt and is
reflected back at the origin at t0+2dt. As is seen in the picture the light
is moving a somewhat shorter distance than the length of the interferometer.
The path length of the light ray can be easily calculated.

With angular velocity omega and length L of the interferometer and speed of
light c the light ray path l becomes
l = L*cos(omega*L/(2*c))
or relative to the interferometer length
l/L = cos(omega*L/(2*c)) = sqrt(1-sin(omega*L/(2*c))^2) which for small
angles approximates to sqrt(1-(omega*L/(2*c))^2)

Compare this with the Lorentz-contraction
L/L0 = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

The expresions are definitely similar. They imply that v = omega*L/2. For an
11 meter long interferometer, the length that Michelson and Morley used in
later experiments, v becomes 7.3 *10^-5 *11/2 = 4 * 10^-4 m/s which is a
very low speed. Much lower than is detectable with such an interferometer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Early_experimentsThe
null result of the Michelson-Morley-interferometer is explained by Lorentz
contraction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Length_contraction

So, would you say that the interferometer is shortened as special relativity
says or that the light rays are shortened as shown above?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
image.pngattachment: rotating_interferometer.png

Re: [Vo]:The faster than light neutrino speed should be determined in a non rotating frame

[David Jonsson]

OK, bore a big hole then if you want it to be comparable with a light ray
measurement. In the meantime check radio signals to satellites. Then you
cant use the principle of relativity.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:

 **
 There would seem to be no other way of explaining a result like: I send a
 photon from point A to point B and measure the time of flight. I then send a
 neutrino. The neutrino gets there faster.

 This should show up the fact that neutrinos are faster than photons unless
 there's some error.

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Saturday, October 01, 2011 1:47 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The faster than light neutrino speed should be
 determined in a non rotating frame

 Hopefully this one is correct.  Sorry for the multiple posts on this.  I am
 surprised and happy to see the archives now save and show  jpgs.

  On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:16 AM, David Jonsson wrote:

  I made a calculation in an inertial system and found that the CERN-OPERA
 neutrino speed was by some percent due to the rotation of the Earth around
 its own axis. Do you agree that the calculation should be made in a non
 rotating system? By the time CERN sends and OPERA receives the Earth
 rotation makes OPERA to come a bit closer. How many of you agree or disagree
 with this?

 Silvertooth, Bryan G. Wallace, GPS and laser gyroscopes also supports this
 view. It is not suitable to apply the principle of relativity in a non
 inertial rotating frame.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



 The OPERA experiment neutrino beam is directed from CERN, 46�14'N   6� 3'E,
  to  Gran Sasso LNGS lab,  42�25'N  13�31'E.  The geometry of this is shown
 in Fig.1, in OPERA.jpg, attached.

 Point C is CERN, the neutrino origin.  Point S is San Sasso at the time of
 neutrino departure.  Since San Sasso is east of CERN, the earth rotates
 away, eastward,  from CERN during the time of flight of the neutrino.  This
 makes the distance *longer* than would be estimated by distance between
 geodetic coordinates.  The neutrino arrives at the new San Sasso location
 S', which is eastward from S by distance d.  Only the neutrinos initially
 aimed at point S' arrive there.

 Assume the distance C to S is 730 km stated in the Adam et al. OPERA
 article.  Assume point B to be 730 km from point C on the line from C to S'.
  The neutrino thus has to travel the additional distance x from B to S' due
 to the eastward motion of the earth during its time of flight.

 Let point A be the point due south of CERN and due wet of San Sasso, i.e.
 at 42�25'N, 6�3' E.  The distance C to A s then about 404 km, and A to S 608
 km.  The angle of the direction of CERN from due wast as seen from San Sasso
 is thus roughly ATAN(404/608) = 33.6�.

 The earth's radius if 6371 km.  San Sasso is located at latitude 42.42�N.
  Its radius of rotations is thus cos(42.4)*(6371 km) = 4720 km. Its speed of
 rotation is thus 2*Pi*(4720 km)/(24 hr) = 343 m/s.

  The speed of CERN due to earth's rotation is 2*Pi*cos(46.2�)* (6371
 km)/(24 hr) = 321 m/s.  The 22 m/s speed difference between CERN and San
 Sasso is not enough to relativistically affect the measurements, especially
 given the extreme effort put into clock synchronization and geodetic
 coordinate location.  The relative motion however,  is enough.  A
 non-rotating linear motion approximation is sufficient to approximate the
 expected effect.

 Light travels 730 km in (730 km)/(3x10^8 m/s) = 2.435x10^-3 s.  In that
 time San Sasso moves d = (2.435x10^-3 s) * (343 m/s) = 0.835 m eastward. The
 distance x added to the travel can thus be approximated as x = cos(33.6�) *
 d = 0.833 * (0.853 m)  = 0.71 m.  The travel time of the neutrinos should be
 increased by (0.71 m)/(3x10^8 m/s) = 2.36x10^-9 s = 2.36 ns. The neutrinos
 were observed arriving 60.7 ns early.  This extra 0.71 m, 2.36 ns, had it
 not been taken into account, would have made the neutrino arrival time 60.7
 ns + 2.4 ns = 63.1 ns early vs speed of light.

 Failure to account for earth's rotation thus provides approximately a
 2.4/60.7 = 4 % error.  However, this error is in a direction which makes the
 anomaly even greater.

 Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






OPERA.jpg

Re: [Vo]:The faster than light neutrino speed should be determined in a non rotating frame

[David Jonsson]

It takes time to check your calculation. I can confirm one thing and that is
that the eastern location of OPERA relative CERN makes the beam to travel
longer, not shorter, than the distance measured on earth. I was wrong in my
first calculation

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:

 Hopefully this one is correct.  Sorry for the multiple posts on this.  I am
 surprised and happy to see the archives now save and show  jpgs.

 On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:16 AM, David Jonsson wrote:

 I made a calculation in an inertial system and found that the CERN-OPERA
 neutrino speed was by some percent due to the rotation of the Earth around
 its own axis. Do you agree that the calculation should be made in a non
 rotating system? By the time CERN sends and OPERA receives the Earth
 rotation makes OPERA to come a bit closer. How many of you agree or disagree
 with this?

 Silvertooth, Bryan G. Wallace, GPS and laser gyroscopes also supports this
 view. It is not suitable to apply the principle of relativity in a non
 inertial rotating frame.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



 The OPERA experiment neutrino beam is directed from CERN, 46°14'N   6° 3'E,
  to  Gran Sasso LNGS lab,  42°25'N  13°31'E.  The geometry of this is shown
 in Fig.1, in OPERA.jpg, attached.

 Point C is CERN, the neutrino origin.  Point S is San Sasso at the time of
 neutrino departure.  Since San Sasso is east of CERN, the earth rotates
 away, eastward,  from CERN during the time of flight of the neutrino.  This
 makes the distance *longer* than would be estimated by distance between
 geodetic coordinates.  The neutrino arrives at the new San Sasso location
 S', which is eastward from S by distance d.  Only the neutrinos initially
 aimed at point S' arrive there.

 Assume the distance C to S is 730 km stated in the Adam et al. OPERA
 article.  Assume point B to be 730 km from point C on the line from C to S'.
  The neutrino thus has to travel the additional distance x from B to S' due
 to the eastward motion of the earth during its time of flight.

 Let point A be the point due south of CERN and due wet of San Sasso, i.e.
 at 42°25'N, 6°3' E.  The distance C to A s then about 404 km, and A to S 608
 km.  The angle of the direction of CERN from due wast as seen from San Sasso
 is thus roughly ATAN(404/608) = 33.6°.

 The earth's radius if 6371 km.  San Sasso is located at latitude 42.42°N.
  Its radius of rotations is thus cos(42.4)*(6371 km) = 4720 km. Its speed of
 rotation is thus 2*Pi*(4720 km)/(24 hr) = 343 m/s.

 The speed of CERN due to earth's rotation is 2*Pi*cos(46.2°)* (6371 km)/(24
 hr) = 321 m/s.  The 22 m/s speed difference between CERN and San Sasso is
 not enough to relativistically affect the measurements, especially given the
 extreme effort put into clock synchronization and geodetic coordinate
 location.  The relative motion however,  is enough.  A non-rotating linear
 motion approximation is sufficient to approximate the expected effect.

 Light travels 730 km in (730 km)/(3x10^8 m/s) = 2.435x10^-3 s.  In that
 time San Sasso moves d = (2.435x10^-3 s) * (343 m/s) = 0.835 m eastward. The
 distance x added to the travel can thus be approximated as x = cos(33.6°) *
 d = 0.833 * (0.853 m)  = 0.71 m.  The travel time of the neutrinos should be
 increased by (0.71 m)/(3x10^8 m/s) = 2.36x10^-9 s = 2.36 ns. The neutrinos
 were observed arriving 60.7 ns early.  This extra 0.71 m, 2.36 ns, had it
 not been taken into account, would have made the neutrino arrival time 60.7
 ns + 2.4 ns = 63.1 ns early vs speed of light.

 Failure to account for earth's rotation thus provides approximately a
 2.4/60.7 = 4 % error.  However, this error is in a direction which makes the
 anomaly even greater.

 Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






OPERA.jpg

[Vo]:The faster than light neutrino speed should be determined in a non rotating frame

[David Jonsson]

I made a calculation in an inertial system and found that the CERN-OPERA
neutrino speed was by some percent due to the rotation of the Earth around
its own axis. Do you agree that the calculation should be made in a non
rotating system? By the time CERN sends and OPERA receives the Earth
rotation makes OPERA to come a bit closer. How many of you agree or disagree
with this?

Silvertooth, Bryan G. Wallace, GPS and laser gyroscopes also supports this
view. It is not suitable to apply the principle of relativity in a non
inertial rotating frame.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:What is a UFO detector?

[David Jonsson]

Hi

On this page various UFO detectors can be bought? How do they work? What
mesurable disturbances are UFOs causing?
http://www.imagesco.com/ufo/ufo-detectors.html#ufo-02

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:What is a UFO detector?

[David Jonsson]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 David sez:

  Hi
  On this page various UFO detectors can be bought? How do they work? What
  mesurable disturbances are UFOs causing?
  http://www.imagesco.com/ufo/ufo-detectors.html#ufo-02
  David

 I would recommend purchasing the second article in the list, the one
 with the cool looking spiral fractal pattern.  Great conversation
 piece.


I won't by anything until I get an explanation about what is being measured.

It seems that they measure any changes to the earth magnetic field bigger
than some threshold.

I have ordered a three axis magnetometer but I don't know hat to build with
it. maybe I do a similar detector.

You can build a similar device yourself for less than $10 with a PC
interface over USB so you can get all data logged.
Buy a MSP430 microcontroller board for $4.30 incl. shipping from TI:
https://estore.ti.com/Search.aspx?detail=1k=MSP-EXP430G2
and buy a 3-axis sensitive magnetometer at Digikey för $3.79:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detailname=342-1082-1-ND

Put them together via I2C with some soldering and maybe some voltage level
adaptions and have the MSP430 send the data over USB to a PC that logs
everything and send the measured data to some site on Internet. This setup
is 10 times cheaper than the Imagesco stuff and better since everything is
logged.

If you can't detect a UFO with this device, which should be very unlikely,
you will likely be able to detect the expected big magnetic storms
originating from solar eruptions expected this and next year.

David

Re: [Vo]:Spring constant between water molecules derived from bulk modulus

[David Jonsson]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM, David Jonsson 
 davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi

 Can someone help me to derive the spring constant between water molecules
 based on the bulk modulus of water? It seems simple but i just
 can't figure it out.

 How does spring constant between water molecules in
 F = - k x
 relate to the bulk modulus
 K = - V dp / dV

 k = spring constant
 F = force between molecules
 x = elongation of spring or displacement of molecules relative each other
 K = bulk modulus of water = 2.2 MPa. It describes the pressure needed to
 make a relative volume change. 1 % compression requires 22 kPa, 10 %
 compression requires 220 kPa, etc.
 V = Volume of the fluid
 dV = volume change due to pressure
 dp = pressure change causing volume change

 This is a general question for all fluids and not only water. It has
 vortex and rotation applications. I will show you later.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

  I don't know that a simple model like springs connecting the molecules
 works for a liquid, but here's a way to connect the concepts:


So what would be used then?

Thanks for your contribution.

What I actually is trying to determine is to find the speed of the molecule
in specific directions. If I have the spring constant then it is easy to
determine the temperature. And as you can guess from earlier postings I will
determine centrifugal effects based on these velocities. A ball park
estimate is that it is just a little lower than for gases at the same
temperature. Assume that the speed i gases is the same for fluids and
solids. When the molecule is in the middle when the spring potential energy
is zero all energy has to be in the kinetic energy of the molecule and thus
be the same as for gas molecules when they fly freely without collision. And
the means speed of something in periodic oscillation is the maximum
speed/2^½ ~ 0.7 of the max speed and mean RMS speed is 0.5 of max speed.
This means that the variations in vertical acceleration for molecular motion
(the Eötvös effect) has the same formula as for gases but with
proportionality factors of 0.5 or 0.7. The tangential effect is still under
investigation by me and I currently investigate two or three alternatives.
The Eötvös effect on atomic and molecular motion is very interesting. It
means that water and rock on Earth weighs 0.04 % less than their mass. This
should be detectable. The effect is proportional to the temperature. Imagine
the effect on hotter places like the interior of planets and stars.

Good. The problem appeared to be somewhat simpler than I first thought. It
is interesting to see that centrifugal variation is independent of the
oscillation frequency of the molecule.

I really needed this since I will present the results in less than three
weeks:-)

I think the model error is less than 2% based on the difference between
isothermal and adiabatic bulk modulus, found here:
http://physchem.kfunigraz.ac.at/sm/service/water/H2Obetat.htm

Greetings from the Bergian Garden in Stockholm,
David

[Vo]:Spring constant between water molecules derived from bulk modulus

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Can someone help me to derive the spring constant between water molecules
based on the bulk modulus of water? It seems simple but i just
can't figure it out.

How does spring constant between water molecules in
F = - k x
relate to the bulk modulus
K = - V dp / dV

k = spring constant
F = force between molecules
x = elongation of spring or displacement of molecules relative each other
K = bulk modulus of water = 2.2 MPa. It describes the pressure needed to
make a relative volume change. 1 % compression requires 22 kPa, 10 %
compression requires 220 kPa, etc.
V = Volume of the fluid
dV = volume change due to pressure
dp = pressure change causing volume change

This is a general question for all fluids and not only water. It has vortex
and rotation applications. I will show you later.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Taylor columns explain a lot of vortex strangeness

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Are you aware of these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_column :
A rotating fluid has a specific kind of rigidity, it does not quite act
like a fluid anymore.

It seems to explain a lot of vortex phenomena. The effect was described in
1868 and are not mysterious at all. There will be layers in a vortex since
the hardness vary with rotation speed

I am very surprised that this effect isn't referred to for vortices since it
has been known for 143 years.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Frenet Serret ambiguity

[David Jonsson]

Hi

This is a mail in the same series as before: stresses in gas.

Admit that it is not obvious what is B and what is N in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet-Serret_formulas

Imagine the animated spring on the right to be longer and curved so that the
end is attached to the beginning. In that case one can even imagine a
trinormal pointing to the center of the circular spring.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Inert gas engine

[David Jonsson]

It is more efficient since there is no energy loss in heating on rotational
energies as there are with diatomic gases. The only problem is ofcourse to
heat the gas. More of the heating energy goes into gas expansion in noble
gases compared to diatomic gases. I assume that good Sterling engines use
noble gas. There is too much hush hush regarding Sterling techniques.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Frank Roarty froarty...@comcast.netwrote:


 Frank X. Roarty

  Original Message 
 Subject: Inert gas engine
 From: Frank Roarty froarty...@comcast.net
 To: hoyt.stea...@gmail.com
 CC:

 Hoyt,
 The inert gas engine was developed from the Papp engine. For those such as
 myself that believe all these anomalies from Black Light Plasma,
 sonoluminesence to the heat anomalies in metal powders and lattices are all
 based on vacuum engineering of energy density by use of casimir geometry
 relative to the random motion of ionized gases. I did a blog on the Papp
 engine back in March see froarty.scienceblog.com which has a lengthy reply
 from John Rhoner the CEO of Plasma ERG and patent author.
 fran

Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume

[David Jonsson]

Good to hear. I have been thinking since March last year. First step is to
determine if Coreolis or centrifugal acceleration is the case.

David
On Jun 15, 2011 10:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 On 11-06-15 09:03 AM, David Jonsson wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
 mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:



 But using the Newtonian mechanics model itself, if you arrive at
 the conclusion that the box is lighter when the ball is bouncing,
 you can safely conclude that you did something wrong. That's not
 a conclusion you can ever get to from the Newtonian model.


 OK, sorry, but I also later came with a correction.

 Lets change the setup so that the ball bounces sideways. Do you agree
 that it now becomes lighter? This is because the centrifugal forces.
 The increase and decrease does not balance to zero.

 Do you also agree that with the sideways bouncing ball there is also a
 small torque on the box, due to the same differences in centrifugal
 acceleration?

 Dunno -- I'm going to have to think about that one, and I haven't had
 the time to really understand it. It seemed wrong when a similar
 assertion was first posted (months ago) and still seems wrong to me but
 I haven't got a proof that it's wrong, so I could be the one who's wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume

[David Jonsson]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:



 On 11-06-11 01:58 PM, David Jonsson wrote:

 Hi

 This obvious fact from hot air balloons and rising smoke is also the case
 in constant volume. Just do the math if you can't see what I mean.

 Imagine a ball on lying at rest in a box. This is equivalent of a cold
 gas. All pressure from the ball is on the bottom of the box. The weight of
 the ball is just added to the box. Now let the ball do very fast bounces up
 and down. The box will not weigh as much as before because the ball is also
 bouncing on the ceiling of the box with almost as strong impulse as it is
 bouncing on the bottom. The box + ball weighs less.


 Wrong.

 You are claiming that a bouncing ball violates conservation of momentum,
 which is certainly false.  What's more, you're attempting to show it with a
 gedanken experiment, based on the Newtonian mechanics model of the world,
 which includes conservation of momentum in its postulates!  You can know
 with certainty before you start that the effect you're claiming isn't going
 to show up in your gedanken, unless arithmetic itself is logically
 inconsistent!

 If momentum is conserved, then total impulse on the ball due to impacts
 with the sides of the box, over a period of time, must exactly negate the
 total impulse delivered by gravity.  Otherwise the ball's net momentum will
 change, and it obviously doesn't (at the end of the experiment, in the
 middle of a cycle, the ball's moving at the same speed it was, in the middle
 of a cycle, at the beginning of the experiment).

 Net weight of the ball is the average force needed to hold it up, which is
 the total impulse delivered to it divided by the total time.  That *can't*
 change, by conservation of momentum, no matter how you assume the ball moves
 within the box.

 Do a real experiment, and demonstrate this, and you will have proved
 Newtonian mechanics is busted.  That's very unlikely, but not absolutely
 ruled out on logical grounds.

 But using the Newtonian mechanics model itself, if you arrive at the
 conclusion that the box is lighter when the ball is bouncing, you can safely
 conclude that you did something wrong.  That's not a conclusion you can ever
 get to from the Newtonian model.


OK, sorry, but I also later came with a correction.

Lets change the setup so that the ball bounces sideways. Do you agree that
it now becomes lighter? This is because the centrifugal forces. The increase
and decrease does not balance to zero.

Do you also agree that with the sideways bouncing ball there is also a small
torque on the box, due to the same differences in centrifugal acceleration?

David

[Vo]:EM waves in water

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Is there a chance that an electrical heater from 50 Hz AC will leave
electromagnetic waves in the water? Are there any good pages on this
subject?

I remember someone connecting a coil to a sound source and had water in the
coil and that the water picked up the magnetic field. Who was this?

Besrt wishes,
David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:New book deriving static EM-fields from EM-radiation: Per Wallander - From Maxwell to Big Bang

[David Jonsson]

The Swede Per Wallander, retired from Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
has written a book about deriving electric and magnetic fields from
electromagnetic radiation fields:
http://www.perant.se/radiation/
He derives several effects in the book.

The ideas are not unlike Heaviside, Bearden and ZPE.

The most special thing about it is that it explain nuclear binding force as
being electromagnetic. This could explain electrostatic changes of nuclear
stability and maybe cold fusion. The step charging of capacitors resembles
Bearden's ideas on the subject.

The book is 72 pages long. Read and tell me what you think and I can
summarise and send back to Per. He says he is not going to work more on the
subject but maybe something can change his mind.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume

[David Jonsson]

Now I think I am wrong. I forgot that higher speed makes bouncing more
frequent so the effect cancels out. But the horizontal effect is still
there. So it is still true that hotter gas in constant volume becomes
lighter. Unless something is happening at the walls.

David


On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Hi

 This obvious fact from hot air balloons and rising smoke is also the case
 in constant volume. Just do the math if you can't see what I mean.

 Imagine a ball on lying at rest in a box. This is equivalent of a cold gas.
 All pressure from the ball is on the bottom of the box. The weight of the
 ball is just added to the box. Now let the ball do very fast bounces up and
 down. The box will not weigh as much as before because the ball is also
 bouncing on the ceiling of the box with almost as strong impulse as it is
 bouncing on the bottom. The box + ball weighs less. The faster the ball
 moves the less time it spends between bounces and the less can it's speed
 change. Speed change is time multiplied with gravitational acceleration and
 the faster it moves the less the speed can increase and decrease between the
 bounces.

 The same must be the case for a gas. Gas is just a collection of small
 balls. The same must be the case if the box is removed and the gas molecules
 bounce against each other. Right?

 I have written before about this on the Internet but only for tangential
 motion but today I realized it must also be the case for vertical motion. In
 tangential motion the centrifugal acceleration  increases and thus makes
 balls as well as gas molecules appear as having less weight.

 From the garden of the Stockholm Observatory,
 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume

[David Jonsson]

Hi

This obvious fact from hot air balloons and rising smoke is also the case in
constant volume. Just do the math if you can't see what I mean.

Imagine a ball on lying at rest in a box. This is equivalent of a cold gas.
All pressure from the ball is on the bottom of the box. The weight of the
ball is just added to the box. Now let the ball do very fast bounces up and
down. The box will not weigh as much as before because the ball is also
bouncing on the ceiling of the box with almost as strong impulse as it is
bouncing on the bottom. The box + ball weighs less. The faster the ball
moves the less time it spends between bounces and the less can it's speed
change. Speed change is time multiplied with gravitational acceleration and
the faster it moves the less the speed can increase and decrease between the
bounces.

The same must be the case for a gas. Gas is just a collection of small
balls. The same must be the case if the box is removed and the gas molecules
bounce against each other. Right?

I have written before about this on the Internet but only for tangential
motion but today I realized it must also be the case for vertical motion. In
tangential motion the centrifugal acceleration  increases and thus makes
balls as well as gas molecules appear as having less weight.

From the garden of the Stockholm Observatory,
David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:The moving flame effect

[David Jonsson]

Has this some application to vortex motion?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.2153-3490.1959.tb00018.x/pdf
The question was first asked in 1686.

The effect is about a flame rotated around teh outer rim of a cylindrical
vertical container. The fluid inside is said to rotate against the rotation
of the flame.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Another view on superrotation

[David Jonsson]

Superrotation is shear flow on gas planets and stars and it requires an
explanation since there appears to be no force or stress to drive them.
Recently I came up with the following idea after having tried two others
with limited success.

Assume that gas or matter flowing along planets' or stars' rotation around
its axis is less affected by viscous drag compared to flow going against
the. This is because of differences in centrifugal acceleration between
these two cases. Matter being less affected by gravity due to centripetal
acceleration pushes less on the underlying matter and will have its viscous
shear stress reduced. In a gas or other fluid with thermal motion there will
be particles moving in any direction and they will be slowed down
differently depending on direction of motion relative the rotational
direction.

How could this be quantitatively determined?

If another more practical and smaller size example helps you to better
imagine the physical situation you can think of a gas centrifuge for uranium
enrichment. There should be high shear flow in that case as well and not as
we are erroneously informed on various places on Internet that there is
solid body rotation. Does anyone here think it is correct to lie about
physics in order to stop understanding of it and thus prevent proliferation
of technologies based on the effect? It is both impressive and disgusting
that someone has been capable of keeping this kind of physics undeveloped
for over a century. It would have been natural to see this combination of
fluid mechanics and thermal physics to appear soon after the appearance of
kinetic gas theory.

Now with bin Ladin killed maybe physics can flourish a bit further.

David


David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Gas centrifuges

[David Jonsson]

I surfed on gas centrifuges and two models were mentioned. One was about
solid body rotation and the other about a pancake model.

The physics in a gas centrifuge is very complex.

Can anyone liste all the effects taking place? Just the adiabatic heat
gradient there must be enormous.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic abundance only from stars?

[David Jonsson]

Yes, tell me why Carbon 13 is more common than Carbon 12 in some parts of
the Universe. This was discovered by the Swedish Satellite Odin.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Alexander Hollins
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:
  in our case, natural is a reference to whats found on earth, yes no?

 In nature.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Detecting absolute motion

[David Jonsson]

I have been thinking a lot on how to differentiate between rotational motion
where the curvature or rotation radius is very high and translational
motion. In the case when gravity balances centrifugal acceleration it
becomes hard. There are methods involving thermal motion. I have mentioned
these effect before on the list in other subjects.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:

 On 04/23/2011 01:53 PM, francis wrote:

 On Sat 4/23/11 Mauro wrote

 [SNIP]

 The proposed explanation is as follows:

 1) Light is not pushed by the emitting device. It leaves the emitting
 device as a perturbation in the medium, and propagates at a fixed
 velocity.
 That velocity is dependant only on the medium, and is c when the medium is
 a
 vacuum. 2) The receiving device is also moving, in the same direction as
 the
 emitting one(they are solidary, fixed on the same experimental setup). 3)
 If
 the whole experimental setup is moving(due to earth's rotation and
 translation, tipically) the receiving device will be going farther from
 the
 emitted ray in some cases, and towards the emitted ray in some other
 cases.
 Because, as we said before, the emitted ray is independent of the emitting
 device's velocity. That way, absolute motion will be detected in the
 direction at which the time delta is greater. The light ray will take
 longer, travelling at a fixed velocity, to reach the receiving device,
 because the travel distance in that direction will be greater. Again,
 because the receiving device will be moving away while the light ray is
 travelling towards it.



 If this is not the case, we must postulate that the movement of the
 emitting
 device affects the velocity of the ray of light. And therefore c is not
 constant. Or, we must postulate that the medium is moving solidary with
 the
 experimental setup. And we have detected ether entrainment.



 Take notice that I'm not talking about relativistic effects, because there
 are none. The emitting and receiving devices are both solidary. That is,
 their relative velocity is zero.

 [/SNIP]



 Mauro,

I have only read the Consoli  Constanza abstract so far
 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576   and was looking at the pdf  when
 your
 new thread arrived so I will first reply to you and then delve further
  into
 the paper you recommended. I don't agree that measurements from your
 device
 would vary with direction other than mechanical limits of perfectly
 matching
 multiple light sources and measuring devices but I have to admit that I
 haven't yet studied these lesser deviations that you mention which were
 measured in the MM experiment or their significance. You seem to imply a
 much lower than expected difference was measured but I am not clear on
 what
 significance  you ascribe to these values.   The biggest hurtle with your
 alternative measurement remains that we are already at the limit of
 measurement devices using fringe patterns. I can see the merit of your
 relative measurements to any pattern CHANGES as you rotate the device
 between the X,Y,Z axis, It could easily mitigate what we saw gravity do to
 the measurements last year of a vertically designed MM fixture - but I am
 unsure if the opposite fringe patterns would have any meaningful static
 relationship to each other -your hope would be a min/max measured beam
 delay
 in one orientation that reverses to max/min measured beam delay when you
 reverse the orientation?


 Yes. I'm propossing using light detectors and synchronized clocks(very
 precise clocks) to measure
 the differences in departure and arrival times in one-way travel, instead
 of using interferometers in two-way travel.
 I suggest you to take the time to reflect on the experiment, and to
 evaluate the possible outcomes and its consequences.
 Reading about the Sagnac effect is probably also a good idea.
 The proposed experiment is probably not easy to perform, because of the
 needed precision and stability of the clocks. Although it must
 be feasible, given current technology.


  I would not expect any changes at all since my
 premise is that any spatial direction is 90 degrees displaced from time so
 spatial direction becomes unimportant and only changes in velocity if
 measured relative to another inertial frame would reveal changes in the
 rate
 at which the ether intersects with our spatial axis. Perhaps measuring
 changes in the half lives of radioactive gas caused by a catalyst or the
 propagation time of a laser through the lower energy density of a Casimir
 cavity would reveal more about the ether and it's orientation than
 revealed
 by the MM technique. I still refer to the ether as having an
 orientation
 even though it remains forever in a hidden dimension from within one's own
 inertial frame because we know that highly accelerated objects shift to a
 different angle between time and space from our perspective

[Vo]:Spring constant in plasma oscillations

[David Jonsson]

This might be an easy question but it is not on my mind right now.

I would like to determine the trajectory of the electrons in plasma
oscillations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation

I need this in order to find out how big an eventual magnetic field from in
can be in the case of rotating medium.

The plasma oscillation is like a thermal vibration in the sense that
electrons go back and forth. Since the central acceleration is different in
forwards and backwards motion the orbit of the electron is not linear but
sightly elliptic and thus rotating and giving cause to a magnetic field.

I sit in a park in Stockholm and I try to determine this effect. Winter has
ceased and there are bumble bees, wasps and butterflies flying around here.
The first ones I have seen this year. i have 4 hours battery left on the
laptop and I hope this is enough for at least some partial results.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Spring constant in plasma oscillations

[David Jonsson]

I have really found a bad thing. On the link below they talk about effective
mass whewre they model the mass of the electron as a tensor instead of
calculating with the forces from surrounding atoms. It looks real bad. I was
planning on using the well known spring formula omega^2 = k/m and now m
turns out to be a tensor!

I think it is bad physics to insert the concept of effective mass tensor. It
is being detemined by measurements with various methods so it can include
other effects.

I think it would be better to assume that permeability and permittivity
changes in space. That leads to an apparent change in electron mass since it
increases the magnetic reluctance of the electron. Since the mass and charge
relation of an electron is fixed it is impossible to distinguish if an
apparent increase in inertia of the electron is due to mass increase or
change in its magnetic field. Since mass is to be considered fixed and
permeability (µ) and permittivity (€) variable I think it is better to stick
to that view.

I will use the classical electron mass with eventual alterations to € and µ
if needed.

David

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 3:33 PM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This might be an easy question but it is not on my mind right now.

 I would like to determine the trajectory of the electrons in plasma
 oscillations:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation

 I need this in order to find out how big an eventual magnetic field from in
 can be in the case of rotating medium.

 The plasma oscillation is like a thermal vibration in the sense that
 electrons go back and forth. Since the central acceleration is different in
 forwards and backwards motion the orbit of the electron is not linear but
 sightly elliptic and thus rotating and giving cause to a magnetic field.

 I sit in a park in Stockholm and I try to determine this effect. Winter has
 ceased and there are bumble bees, wasps and butterflies flying around here.
 The first ones I have seen this year. i have 4 hours battery left on the
 laptop and I hope this is enough for at least some partial results.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Spring constant in plasma oscillations

[David Jonsson]

If you search on effective mass you will find a tensor.

David
On Apr 24, 2011 9:02 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com
wrote:
 I didn't see tensors mentioned in the Wikipedia page. Tensors of what
degree? Wouldn't you be dealing with a distribution of them anyway?



 Sent from my iPhone.

 On Apr 24, 2011, at 10:28, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I have really found a bad thing. On the link below they talk about
effective mass whewre they model the mass of the electron as a tensor
instead of calculating with the forces from surrounding atoms. It looks real
bad. I was planning on using the well known spring formula omega^2 = k/m and
now m turns out to be a tensor!

 I think it is bad physics to insert the concept of effective mass tensor.
It is being detemined by measurements with various methods so it can include
other effects.

 I think it would be better to assume that permeability and permittivity
changes in space. That leads to an apparent change in electron mass since it
increases the magnetic reluctance of the electron. Since the mass and charge
relation of an electron is fixed it is impossible to distinguish if an
apparent increase in inertia of the electron is due to mass increase or
change in its magnetic field. Since mass is to be considered fixed and
permeability (µ) and permittivity (€) variable I think it is better to stick
to that view.

 I will use the classical electron mass with eventual alterations to € and
µ if needed.

 David

 On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 3:33 PM, David Jonsson 
davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
 This might be an easy question but it is not on my mind right now.

 I would like to determine the trajectory of the electrons in plasma
oscillations:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation

 I need this in order to find out how big an eventual magnetic field from
in can be in the case of rotating medium.

 The plasma oscillation is like a thermal vibration in the sense that
electrons go back and forth. Since the central acceleration is different in
forwards and backwards motion the orbit of the electron is not linear but
sightly elliptic and thus rotating and giving cause to a magnetic field.

 I sit in a park in Stockholm and I try to determine this effect. Winter
has ceased and there are bumble bees, wasps and butterflies flying around
here. The first ones I have seen this year. i have 4 hours battery left on
the laptop and I hope this is enough for at least some partial results.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Ontologies of heat

[David Jonsson]

Too bad that kinetic theory didn't lead to a combination with fluid
mechanics.

David
 On Apr 18, 2011 11:22 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Until about 200 hundred years ago, there were three competing ontologies
on the
 nature of heat.

 1) Only cold is a real entity, so heat is the relative absence of cold.
 2) Hot and cold are both real entities, so that heat is a mixture of hot
and
 cold.
 3) Only heat is a real entity, so cold is absence of heat.

 Within each ontology there were also competing theories about the nature
 of cold and hot, such as the caloric vs the kinetic theory of heat in the
case
 of no.3,
 As we all know the third ontology has come to be regarded as the truth.

 Interestingly each ontology suggests different approaches to the practical

 problem of heating and cooling.

 The first says:
 When cooling is desired you must add cold.
 When heating is desired you must remove cold.*

 The second says:
 When cooling is desired you may either remove heat and/or add cold.
 When heating is desired you may either remove cold and/or add heat.*

 The third says:
 When cooling is desired, heat must be removed.
 When heating is desired, heat must be added.*

 The approaches labled with a '*' are applicable to Rossi's reactor.

Re: [Vo]:Vector form of centripetal acceleration in terms of v and v'

[David Jonsson]

I want acceleration perpendicular to velocity. It should be something like
v' x v
Wiki talks about Omega and I don't have it. I have the Navier Stokes
equations. Ofcourse local rotation or vorticity could be used for
centripetal acceleration.

Say I have the NS equations. How do I get the perpendicular acceleration
from there?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote:

 Describe in what way? How was the Wikipedia page insufficient?


 Sent from my iPhone.

 On Mar 27, 2011, at 20:52, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Can someone help me?

 More specifically: I need to be able to describe the acceleration
 component perpendicular to the direction of the flow.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force was close but did not give
 me what I needed.

 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Vector form of centripetal acceleration in terms of v and v'

[David Jonsson]

Can someone help me?

More specifically: I need to be able to describe the acceleration
component perpendicular to the direction of the flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force was close but did not give me
what I needed.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:More change regarding rotating gas: less shear and new normal stress variations

[David Jonsson]

I had to adjust my calculations again because of failures of the previous
calculations. It is significantly simplified and the torque effect is now
much lower than in previous versions. I can no longer explain the Venusian
winds.

One thing I still wonder about is how an equilibrium could be established.
Since no net rotation acceleration is taking place in the gas
some counter shear stress is taking place and I wonder if the shear stress
from the observed shear flow could be balancing the effect. This explains
why the flow is contrary to derived shear. On the other hand that shear is
horizontal and the derived stress is vertical.

I ask you to visit
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1381
and tell me what you think, Critique is appreciated as well as affirmations.

I also have some idea on how to calculate on liquid and solid matter and on
plasma. The funny thin is that my initial estimate on plasma is
that electromagnetic fields can establish due to the effect.

I also plan to include normal stress variations that are also due to thermal
motion into the same article. You can find the basis of that part on
Physicsforum:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=464979
Read it from bottom and up to get the corrections first.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:More change regarding rotating gas: less shear and new normal stress variations

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Nice comments.

It will probably take months until I have reach as far as to answer your
questions

On Jupiter there are complex winds, some faster and some slower than the
planet.

I would gladly treat the winds on any planet but there is too little data on
them. I need pressure and temperature dependency on depth in the atmosphere.
Maybe it can be derived. It will be very interesting to see inf the normal
stress component significantly alters the scale height (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height ) H = kT/Mg of the atmosphere.
That would be a real breakthrough. g in that formula is dependent on thermal
motion as show in the Physicsforum thread. Another thing is that not very
deep down in the atmosphere it will be so hot that there will be ionization
with free electrons. Electrons are so lightweight and fast that the thermal
effect on their centripetal acceleration makes their g value very much lower
than the ions and thus produce an electric field directed inwards. I find it
very interesting and I am surprised it hasn't been investigated. I have read
something about an electric field on Jupiter or Saturn. On the Earth it
is varying over the day between 80-120 V/m. I wonder how much the thermal
stress contributes to that.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Interesting paper David,



 This comment is more about the scope and/or open-endedness of the paper.



 As I am reading though it, I am hoping to find any suggestions towards the
 intriguing question posed in the opening – that the winds on Saturn are
 incredibly fast and blow 500 m/s faster than the planet. Why or how did your
 original model answer that? Is there an electrical component? Also there is
 the old problem – does such a fast wind blow only in one direction? That one
 has possibly been answered – it blows both ways. How could this not create
 more stress, not less?



 Obviously you did not set out to answer these questions about the winds on
 Saturn, but I am left asking – if there is anything new that we know before
 ? It might be wise to limit the reader’s expectations at the start.



 Jones



 *From:* David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Friday, February 11, 2011 6:33 AM
 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* [Vo]:More change regarding rotating gas: less shear and new
 normal stress variations



 I had to adjust my calculations again because of failures of the previous
 calculations. It is significantly simplified and the torque effect is now
 much lower than in previous versions. I can no longer explain the Venusian
 winds.



 One thing I still wonder about is how an equilibrium could be established.
 Since no net rotation acceleration is taking place in the gas
 some counter shear stress is taking place and I wonder if the shear stress
 from the observed shear flow could be balancing the effect. This explains
 why the flow is contrary to derived shear. On the other hand that shear is
 horizontal and the derived stress is vertical.



 I ask you to visit

 http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1381

 and tell me what you think, Critique is appreciated as well as
 affirmations.



 I also have some idea on how to calculate on liquid and solid matter and on
 plasma. The funny thin is that my initial estimate on plasma is
 that electromagnetic fields can establish due to the effect.



 I also plan to include normal stress variations that are also due to
 thermal motion into the same article. You can find the basis of that part on
 Physicsforum:

 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=464979

 Read it from bottom and up to get the corrections first.



 David


 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Mean gas speed in specific direction

[David Jonsson]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:



 On 01/25/2011 06:43 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
  Hi
 
  We know that mean root square speed in specific perpendicular
  directions is like this
 
  Vrms^2 = 3 Vrmx_x^2 = 3 Vrmx_y^2 = 3 Vrmx_z^2
 
  What is the relation for the mean linear speed Vavg in specific
  directions?


...


 and finally, distributing the (1/N^2),

  Vavg^2 = (Vavg_x^2 + Vavg_y^2 + Vavg_z^2)

 Unless I messed it up somewhere...


Looks credible.



 More simply, average velocity is the same as total velocity up to a
 scale factor, and that's the same as momentum, so it just behaves like
 like a vector.


 
  And assuming isotropic distributions (Vavg_x = Vavg_y = Vavg_z) leading
 to
  Vavg^2 =  3Vavg_x^2 + Vavg_y^2 + Vavg_z^2
  which is like the relation on top.

 You presumably meant

Vavg^2 =  3Vavg_x^2 = Vavg_y^2 = Vavg_z^2

 and that certainly looks right, if Vavg_{x,y,z} are all equal.


I meant Vavg^2 =  Vavg_x^2 + Vavg_y^2 + Vavg_z^2

which for equal distributions in all directions is  Vavg^2 =  3Vavg_x^2 =
3Vavg_y^2 = 3Vavg_z^2

So Vavg_x =Vavg_y =Vavg_z = Vavg/sqrt(3)

Not that bad anyway. I explain the shear flow on Venus by a factor 13%.

David

[Vo]:Mean gas speed in specific direction

[David Jonsson]

Hi

We know that mean root square speed in specific perpendicular directions is
like this

Vrms^2 = 3 Vrmx_x^2 = 3 Vrmx_y^2 = 3 Vrmx_z^2

What is the relation for the mean linear speed Vavg in specific directions?

Could it be like this, that the components can be vector summarized to get
the total?
Vavg^2 =  Vavg_x^2 + Vavg_y^2 + Vavg_z^2

And assuming isotropic distributions (Vavg_x = Vavg_y = Vavg_z) leading to
Vavg^2 =  3Vavg_x^2 + Vavg_y^2 + Vavg_z^2
which is like the relation on top.

If so then I have to recalculate my gas shear stress derivation on arXiv.
But since I am not sure I need some confirmation first. Please help.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Force from bouncing ball higher than resting ball?

[David Jonsson]

Thanks all. Easy when getting it explained. Net linear momentum is the same
so this means impulse have to be the same too.

Actually I was thinking about gas molecules in a container. If heating would
increase weight. The ball example shows it can't increase pressure on the
bottom.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:36 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Of course, in practice the results can sometimes indicate that momentum
 isn't conserved.

 This example is in principle not dissimilar to some inertial propulsion
 concepts and there is evidence that some may work.


 On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:



 On 01/22/2011 08:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
  Hi
 
  Imagine a ball lying on a plane. The wheight is the mass times the
  gravitational acceleration.
 
  Imagine a bouncing ball. Momentarilly the force from it on the plane
  is higher and when it is in the air the force is zero.
 
  My question is if the time averaged force from the two different
  situations are the same or if either ball has a higher time averaged
  force on the plane below.

 Time averaged force is the same; otherwise momentum isn't conserved.

 Assume a cycle takes time 't'.

 Net change in the ball's momentum over one cycle is zero (since it ends
 up going at the same speed, in the same direction, as it was to start
 with).  Therefore, total momentum added to the ball during one cycle,
 from all sources, must sum to zero.

 Total momentum from gravity is g*m*t.

 Total momentum from the bounce force is F*T, where F is the force of the
 bounce and T is the duration of the bounce.

 The two must be equal, so F*T = g*m*t.

 Average upward force is

  A = F * (T/t)

 so

  A = (F*T)/t = (g*m*t) / t = g*m

 **

 And when a truck full of chickens with 3 ton gross weight is about to
 drive over a bridge rated at 2 tons, it doesn't do the driver any good
 at all to bang on the side of the truck.  The chickens all fly up into
 the air inside the truck, but none the less, it still requires 3 tons of
 upward force on the wheels to support the truck and chickens.  ('Course,
 if he's got a ton of chickens on board, chances are they're too fat to
 fly, anyway.)


 
  Good night ( 02:38 AM in Stockholm),
  David
 
  David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
 

[Vo]:Force from bouncing ball higher than resting ball?

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Imagine a ball lying on a plane. The wheight is the mass times the
gravitational acceleration.

Imagine a bouncing ball. Momentarilly the force from it on the plane is
higher and when it is in the air the force is zero.

My question is if the time averaged force from the two different situations
are the same or if either ball has a higher time averaged force on the plane
below.

Good night ( 02:38 AM in Stockholm),
David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Dark matter / galaxy rotation problem approached with simple classical physics

[David Jonsson]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Jonsson 
davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have derived an effect which differs from Newton/Kepler orbits but with
 the wrong sign apparently increasing the problem even more.

 I would be glad if someone could check the calculations before I take them
 further. It would also be nice to calculate on some real example.


 http://djk.se/Dark%20matter%20problem%20approached%20with%20classical%20physics,%20local%20rotation%20increases%20the%20centrifugal%20force%20away%20from%20the%20galaxy%20core.pdf

 How big is the anomalous acceleration at our solar system?


OK, the solar system is an example where the effect is very small and
practically negligible.

I have been looking for binary stars where the effect might be noticeable
and it seems like HM Cancri is such a case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J0806.3%2B1527
Those white dwarfs spin around each other at 500 km/s.

I give all the details for the calculation in case anyone wants to check
them.

With the help of this nice tool http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/eqtogal_tool i
could calculate the galactic coordinates based on the coordinates in
Wikipedia, which gave me
Epoch J2000.00 coordinates: 08 06 23.20 + 15 27 30.2 = Galactic coordinates:
LII=206.9253 BII= 23.3960
Leading to this distance in lightyears from the galaxy core
*cos(((207.3669 - 180) / 360) * 2 * pi) * 16000) + 26000)^2) +
((sin(((207.3669 - 180) / 360) * 2 * pi) * 16000)^2) + ((sin((23.9625 / 360)
* 2 * pi) * 16000)^2))^0.5 = 41389.7368 light years
**= 12.689869 kpc *Which according to this graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).JPG
has about the same orbital speed around the galaxy of 220 km/s as our solar
system
The equation I derived on the top link says
a = (vs^2 + vp^2/2)/r
which means centrifugal acceleration depends on both the stars' speed in the
orbit around the galactic core vs and the spinning speed around its binary
vp.
Classical acceleration ac = vs^2/r compared to a is
a/ac=(vs^2 + vp^2/2)/r/(vs^2/r) = (vs^2 + vp^2/2)/r/(vs^2/r) = (220^2 +
500^2/2)/220^2 = 3.6
So in this case the gravitational pull has to be 3.6 times higher than even
the dark matter addition.

I think I add this to the document as a relevant example.

What would happen in the case of lack of that strong gravity?

David

Re: [Vo]:Dark matter / galaxy rotation problem approached with simple classical physics

[David Jonsson]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Mauro Lacy's message of Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:23:01 -0300:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Let's calculate the acceleration produced by 200 million suns. This is
 doomed to fail because, as we know, galaxies don't obey Newton's
 gravitational law, but just to have an idea:
 a= Fg/msun = G msun*2*10^11/(26000 * 9.4607305e+15)^2 =
 4.3882998825*10^-10 m/s^2
 
 Which is two times the centripetal acceleration... if we suppose that
 the central bulge contains half the visible mass, the standard
 calculation will coincide with the observed values for our Sun. But it
 will fail for stars farther from the center, which are also moving at
 250 km/s.
 
 In the wikipedia entry
 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Milky_Way
 you can see the expected vs. observed galactic rotation curves
 
 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_%28Milky_Way%29.JPG
 
 And they inf fact coincide in the case of our Sun.
 
 Anyways, any effect smaller than, let's say, 2*10^-11 m/s^2, can be
 safely ignored.
 [snip]
 I would be interested in a calculation of the strength of the magnetic
 attraction/repulsion between the galactic magnetic field and the Solar
 magnetic
 field, and by how many orders of magnitude it differs.


Sounds relevant, but I have nothing to add.

David

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

[David Jonsson]

Using sidereal time instead of 86400 seconds lowers the value by 0.001 % and
is thus very small.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:

 
 
  On 01/11/2011 04:43 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
  Yes, under effects of centripetal acceleration which is by the way
  an erroneous title since it should be centrifugal acceleration.
 
  Don't think so.  In Newtonian terms, the acceleration's centripetal,
  caused by the centripetal force, which is provided by gravity.  The
  fictitious centrifugal force is the outward-pointing acceleration of a
  uniformly moving non-rotating object (times its mass) which is observed
  from a rotating frame.  However, in the rotating frame, the acceleration
  you're concerned with -- and the acceleration which leads to the
  centrifugal force -- is directed inward, and is centripetal.

 If I didn't understand incorrectly, what David is saying is that when you
 determine G empirically, by example by using a scale, centrifugal
 acceleration must be discounted, because it's affecting the scale weights.
 That is, the scale weights are subjected not only to gravitation, but also
 to a centrifugal force, because they are inertial masses in rotation. And
 also translation, by the way. To be extremely precise, you would also need
 to consider the component of Earth's acceleration around the Sun, and
 other accelerations. I suppose all those influences must be much smaller
 than variations in G due to ambiental and geographical factors. The same
 for the difference between sidereal and solar day, probably.

 
 
 
  What I write there is in its entirety:
  The denominator should use the sidereal day of 86 164.0905 seconds
  instead of 86 400 since inertia is relative the stars and not the Sun.
  David Jonsson 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC) --- Preceding unsigned
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures comment added
  by Davidjonsson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidjonsson (talk
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidjonsson . contribs
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidjonsson)
 
  That sure sounds right.  (Just to be nit picky, I might argue that
  rotation is absolute, and the stars just provide some convenient distant
  markers; there's no reason I can see to think a centrifuge wouldn't work
  even if the universe were nearly empty.)
 
 
 
  David
 
  David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
 
 
 
  On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com
  mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  Is this the right link?
  Harry
 
 
  *From:* David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
  mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
  *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
  *Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM
  *Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined
 
  Hi
 
  Ain't I right?
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration
 
  Sidereal period should be used and not solar.
 
  Do you support a change?
 
  David
 
  David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
 
 
 
 

[Vo]:Dark matter / galaxy rotation problem approached with simple classical physics

[David Jonsson]

I have derived an effect which differs from Newton/Kepler orbits but with
the wrong sign apparently increasing the problem even more.

I would be glad if someone could check the calculations before I take them
further. It would also be nice to calculate on some real example.

http://djk.se/Dark%20matter%20problem%20approached%20with%20classical%20physics,%20local%20rotation%20increases%20the%20centrifugal%20force%20away%20from%20the%20galaxy%20core.pdf

How big is the anomalous acceleration at our solar system?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Dark matter / galaxy rotation problem approached with simple classical physics

[David Jonsson]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:

 On 01/12/2011 07:38 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
  I have derived an effect which differs from Newton/Kepler orbits but
  with the wrong sign apparently increasing the problem even more.
 
  I would be glad if someone could check the calculations before I take
  them further. It would also be nice to calculate on some real example.
 
 
 http://djk.se/Dark%20matter%20problem%20approached%20with%20classical%20physics,%20local%20rotation%20increases%20the%20centrifugal%20force%20away%20from%20the%20galaxy%20core.pdf

 I'll take a look later and comment back.
 
  How big is the anomalous acceleration at our solar system?

 If you're talking about the anomalous acceleration of the solar system
 around the milky way, you can calculate it using the centripetal
 acceleration formula. I've calculated it in the past. If the Sun is
 rotating around the galaxy at 220 km/s, and the distance to the center
 of the Milky Way is ~ 26000 light years, and assuming we're orbiting the
 galaxy in a circle(which sounds like a good approximation) the Sun must
 be subjected to a centripetal acceleration ac = v^2/r ~= 2 x 10^-10 m/s^2


Right, and how big is the mass of the galaxy inside the orbit of the solar
system. I also need that to determine the error.

I calculated the anomalous effect from my paper and the acceleration was on
the order of 10^-26. Apparently too weak and in the wrong direction, or a
mistaken calculation.



 You might be interested in a thread in physics forums called solar
 system motions (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=383916)
 where I discuss the subject with some members. The thread called
 Alternative theories being tested by Gravity probe B 
 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104694)  from which the
 previous thread was split off, is interesting also.


Hopefully I can check later.

Regards,
David

[Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

[David Jonsson]

Hi

Ain't I right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration

Sidereal period should be used and not solar.

Do you support a change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration
David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

[David Jonsson]

Yes, under effects of centripetal acceleration which is by the way
an erroneous title since it should be centrifugal acceleration.

What I write there is in its entirety:
The denominator should use the sidereal day of 86 164.0905 seconds instead
of 86 400 since inertia is relative the stars and not the Sun. David Jonsson
20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsignedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures comment
added by Davidjonsson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidjonsson
(talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidjonsson
 • contribshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidjonsson
)

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Is this the right link?
 Harry


 *From:* David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

 Hi

 Ain't I right?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration

 Sidereal period should be used and not solar.

 Do you support a change?


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration
 David

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Could this be true? An article about rotating gas

[David Jonsson]

Please see what I wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1381

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1381David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Centrifugal forces balancing gravity only in specific cases

[David Jonsson]

Hi

I have a 80 kB file with that subject. A quick calculus made with Wolfram
Alpha.

Should I send it as an email attachment to the list or what?

Where could I upload it, without to much attention in case I make an
embarrassment of myself?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]: Refined materials (Was: A theory of zone melting)

[David Jonsson]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

  Zone melting purification is standard in the semiconductor industry since
 the 1940’s when it was developed at Bell Laboratories, enabling the
 development of the transistor. . . .


 It was secretly developed after hours, against the explicit orders of
 management, with the equipment stashed in a closet during working hours so
 that no one would find out and put the kibosh on the project.

 Does that sound familiar?

 See:

 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf

 William Shockley was in charge and he did not want people wasting their
 time on ultra-pure materials. If he had had his way, transistors would have
 remained a useless laboratory curiosity for many years. Shockley was
 brilliant but he had poor judgement when it came to engineering, technology,
 and business. He was kind of a paranoid nut too. He started a company,
 Shockley Transistor Company and ran it into the ground. But it was a great
 accomplishment despite everything, because it was training ground for the
 people who started Fairchild and the subsequent Fairchildren.



Why don't make pure magnetic materials so that transformer efficiency can
increase?

And why is transformers under load more lossy than those unloade. The
explanation of transfromer losses that I have read can't explain why the
loss is proportional to the effect through the transformer.

David

Re: [Vo]:A rotating molecule on a rotating planet appears lighter than a non rotating molecule

[David Jonsson]

I have read now.

Why can't they clearly write what it is all about? It seems like mystic or
allegoric activity.

Have they just found out the effect or can they really explain what it is
all about?

The mechanics behind my effect is really simple. Horizontal movement at the
escape velocity causes a stable trajectory where gravity forces are
cancelled by centrifugal forces.

If they are supposed to lift a flying wheel according to my idea with most
of its mass at its rim with a diameter of 0.4 meters they have to rotate the
wheel at 35.2 km/s = 28 000 revolutions per seconds = 1 680 000 rpm and that
is technically impossible. I think the speed record is around 500 m/s for
extremely well balanced cylindrical gas centrifues. Even a fingerprint will
give the cylinder an imbalance that makes it impossible to use at full
speed.

I calculated in the following way. The escape velocity on Earth is 11.2
km/s. Since a rotating motion is only partially horizontal in motion the
speed has to be multiplied with pi to get an average speed at the escape
velocity. The rest is geometry.

Laithwaite mentions speeds of 5-6000 rpm which is 0.4% of a full lift so
maybe the effect is noticeable.

David

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is beginning to sound like that great Heretic Eric Laithwaite.
 Appropriately, here is his Christmas Lecture:

 http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp

 On propulsion:

 http://www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp

 Laithwaite's patent:

 http://www.rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm

 issued posthumously.

 T

Re: [Vo]:A rotating molecule on a rotating planet appears lighter than a non rotating molecule

[David Jonsson]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:17 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  David Jonsson's message of Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:31:18 +0100:
 Hi David,
 [snip]

 It may be technically impossible for a significant mass, but I think that
 for
 individual molecules it would be trivial.

 e.g. two carbon atoms separated by a distance of say 3 Angstrom, I get

 Force to balance gravity x separation distance = minimal binding energy
 i.e.

 24*amu*g*3*Angstrom = 7.3E-16 eV

 which is absolutely trivial compared to the binding energy of most
 molecules.

 If one were to use a plasma of molecular ions suspended in a DC mag field
 (to
 orient them), spun up  with a superimposed EM field, it might have quite
 some
 effect. :)

 ...however I suspect that the real problem lies in that the end point of
 the
 centrifugal force is the center of rotation, not the center of the Earth.
 :(


No, rotation can be in regard to anything, not just one point. Rotation is
just acceleration and it can be arbitrary.

There are practical problems to do what you suggest. To align molecules like
that is very hard.

And there is no C2 gas molecule.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370




 I have read now.
 
 Why can't they clearly write what it is all about? It seems like mystic or
 allegoric activity.
 
 Have they just found out the effect or can they really explain what it is
 all about?
 
 The mechanics behind my effect is really simple. Horizontal movement at
 the
 escape velocity causes a stable trajectory where gravity forces are
 cancelled by centrifugal forces.
 
 If they are supposed to lift a flying wheel according to my idea with most
 of its mass at its rim with a diameter of 0.4 meters they have to rotate
 the
 wheel at 35.2 km/s = 28 000 revolutions per seconds = 1 680 000 rpm and
 that
 is technically impossible. I think the speed record is around 500 m/s for
 extremely well balanced cylindrical gas centrifues. Even a fingerprint
 will
 give the cylinder an imbalance that makes it impossible to use at full
 speed.
 
 I calculated in the following way. The escape velocity on Earth is 11.2
 km/s. Since a rotating motion is only partially horizontal in motion the
 speed has to be multiplied with pi to get an average speed at the escape
 velocity. The rest is geometry.
 
 Laithwaite mentions speeds of 5-6000 rpm which is 0.4% of a full lift so
 maybe the effect is noticeable.
 
 David
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:A rotating molecule on a rotating planet appears lighter than a non rotating molecule

[David Jonsson]

OK. Are there any calculations or clearly shown description on how it works?

Can anyone calculate it for a rotating planet compared to a
non rotating planet.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:38 PM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote:

 There are a number of claims of dropped rotating objects falling
 differently than non-rotating.



 On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is beginning to sound like that great Heretic Eric Laithwaite.
 Appropriately, here is his Christmas Lecture:

 http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp

 On propulsion:

 http://www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp

 Laithwaite's patent:

 http://www.rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm

 issued posthumously.

 T

[Vo]:A rotating molecule on a rotating planet appears lighter than a non rotating molecule

[David Jonsson]

Hi

I was calculating and found a strange thing. It seems like a rotating
molecule is less effected by gravity compared to a non rotating molecule.

Imagine a diatomic molecule at the equator of a rotating planet. The
molecules has its axis of rotation parallel to the planets axis. It seems to
me that the centrifugal force on the molecule is different when the molecule
rotates and when it is not rotating.

Speed of surface of the rotating planet = v
Radius of planet = r
Speed of the atoms in the rotating molecule = u
Mass of molecule = m ,(m/2 for each atom)

In the non rotating case the centrifugal force on the gas molecule becomes:
f = m v^2 / r

If the molecule rotates the centrifugal force is different on the two atoms
it consists of. Lets take the case when the molecule is vertical like this

  O    rotation of upper atom
   I
  O    rotation of lower atom

    rotation of planet
--Planet surface---

The centrifugal force on the upper atom becomes
fu = m / 2 * (v+u)^2 / r
and on the lower
fl = m / 2 * (v-u)^2 / r

adding the forces together to find the net effect gives
f = fu + fl = m / 2 * (v+u)^2 / r + m / 2 * (v-u)^2 / r =
= m / 2r * ((v+u)^2+(v-u)^2) =
= m / 2r * (v^2+2uv+u^2+v^2-2uv+u^2) =
= m / r * (v^2+u^2)

The effect is of course smaller at other positions of the molecule and the
mean value over an entire revolution would be somewhat lower but still
higher than the case when the molecule is not rotating.

It seems that the centrifugal force on the molecule is higher when it
rotates. Since the centrifugal force is opposed to gravity it means that the
rotating molecule would be less affected by gravity than the rotating one.
Can this really be the case? It has to apply to all rotating matter and not
only molecules as for example a rotating planet around a star.

Have I done something wrong?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?

[David Jonsson]

I was referring to the first post in the thread
Integral from -r0 to +r0 of (r0^2-r^2)/(R0-r)^2 dr
It was the result of approximation and full precision gives 1/r^2 as in
ordinary gravity.

But of course any non point mass will have tidal effects so the center of
mass issue remains. Are there any good sites on how this effect affects the
stability of orbits. Maybe some other effect is balancing this effect to
make orbits stable? Rotation of the elongation due to tidal effect also
complicates things. I can imagine that only certain combinations of tidal
elongation and rotation exists. Is the bulge of the elongation always
between 0 to pi/2 radians from the direction to the other body?

David


David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:

 I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
 Are you saying that gravity behaves in the traditional (Newtonian) way
 inside solid bodies? Do you have links or papers to experiments that
 support this? As I said, there are reported anomalies inside boreholes.
 How do you or others explain them?

 Take into account that although gravity can be related to mass and
 density, that is, it can have a dependency on mass and density, that
 does not mean mass and density are the causes of gravity. Indeed, it
 makes a lot of sense to think just the opposite: that which causes
 mass (or the effects of mass) has to be massless in itself, to avoid a
 circular argument. The cause of gravity must be immune to the effects of
 gravity, by the very definition of cause.

 On 11/27/2010 08:45 AM, David Jonsson wrote:
  Sorry, if the integration is done with higher precision it turns out
  to be the traditional one.
 
  But it is still useful for determining the gravity from other
  geometries. I think it is bad that bodies are approximated with point
  sources in their center of gravity.
 
  David
 
 
 

[Vo]:Super rotation, high wind speeds

[David Jonsson]

Hi

The higher rotation of outer layers of planets continues to occupy me. They
are very common on Earth, Venus, Saturn and Jupiter. Even the Sun has it an
even other stars. I have begun to think of an explanation where pressure and
viscosity changes due to rotational speed in the upper atmospheres or upper
fluid layers.

The basics is that fluid flowing along the rotation is less affected by
gravity since they have a centrifugal force associated with them. This is
also valid for the molecular motion. Any gas on a planet or any liquid on a
star has molecular motion in making centrifugal effects different on the
molecular level. Fluid flowing faster than the solid body rotation speed
cause less pressure on lower gas and hence lower viscosity making motion for
the fluid along the solid body rotation direction easier than flow against
it. That could be the reason behind all these apparently strange higher
rotation speeds found practically everywhere where. It could be present even
on galaxies since they use the concept of viscosity even there. The effect
could thus maybe lower the need for dark matter.

Can someone help me to determine the effect and find out if it is
significant on any know astronomical body?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?

[David Jonsson]

Sorry, if the integration is done with higher precision it turns out to be
the traditional one.

But it is still useful for determining the gravity from other geometries. I
think it is bad that bodies are approximated with point sources in their
center of gravity.

David

[Vo]:Solar internal rotation driven by convection?

[David Jonsson]

Hi

I was glancing at the title SOLAR CONVECTION AND INTERNAL ROTATION:
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/research/siv/siv_convection.php

Convection can not drive rotation. Convection is caused by temperature
gradients and gradients can not cause rotation.

Am I wrong? The same argument was once used to disprove rotational
electromagnetic engines which apparently do exist.

And when I think about it the water in water filled heaters does circulate.
It could ofcourse be the same apparently but physically not rotational
movement as in a vortex.

David
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/research/siv/siv_convection.php
David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:Weak understanding of forces on molecules

[David Jonsson]

I read of molecule of the month bombykol
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/bombykol/bombykolh.htm

It struck me that the forces between molecules are not well understood.

The force is just a distance dependency on a energy potential.

Higher orders of electromagnetic energy potentials should be investigated.

And I am not sure about the antenna design. It looks like electrodynamic
effects of it.

I would ask for someone investigate the molecular spectrum of bombykol and
see if it coincides with the harmonic frequencies of the moth antenna.

Something similar to Casimir forces could be the effect on the molecule.
Casimir forces should be understood as something limiting
the electrodynamical spectrum making the energy varying and thus act as
force on the molecule. Casimir effect is not only active for ZPE but for any
radiation.

For some other insect they proved that they could detect a chemical even
when it was too scarce in concentration to reach the antenna. This could be
explained as either a radio detection, or, which is plausible since the
receptors are dependent on physical presence of a molecule, that the antenna
attracts the molecules.

What do you say?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

[Vo]:High frequency UV radiation = VUV

[David Jonsson]

The special thing about 159 nm is that it is almost entirely absorbed by air
and ionizing it. Ionized air can be affected by other radiation to be
heated. Heating localized air around a body makes a push on it. I want to
elaborate with propulsion of this kind.

UV with shorter wavelenght than 159 nm is called VUV, vacuum ultraviolet,
since it can only exist in vacuum. It is absorbed by air. Very funny would
be to have tunable UV on the border between UV and VUV. The absorption rate
would then be adjustable and the radiation could pass arbitrarily far away
ffrom the radiation source. I want to heat air around an object as described
in my arXiv article on preventing shock waves. I think that the same
technique can be used to achieve propulsion as well and it could be the way
that flying saucers operate. They fly with apparently no moving parts and
UV/VUV in combination with heating could have the same effect.

I see that many vacuum UV lights can be bought:
http://www.google.se/search?hl=enq=vacuum+uv+lamp

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Test

[David Jonsson]

It goes to my spam folder anyway despite the fact that I have a filter.

I assume that the mailing list program is doing something wrong causing
Google to classify the mail as spam.

Maybe we shoud do a Google Groups of the list instead?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370



On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 G-mail tells me that this message, along with several others, would have
 gone to the spam filter if I had not set up a filter to prevent that.

 - Jed