Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
There should not be any extra energy than was present in the high velocity gas and other cloud before the impact. The energy after the collision is distributed differently since the large volume of gas would likely be heated by the collision. Any additional heat energy that is passed to the large volume of gas is extracted from the high velocity stream. Of course there may be other places that energy can be deposited after the collision, but the total before and after should be the same. Consider that the high velocity incoming gas has a significant quantity of kinetic energy due to its motion. Once it has collided, it slows down as it becomes a portion of the larger gas cloud. That is the source of the extra energy you are seeking. I suppose that what I am discussing is the standard answer, but it is the way I understand the physics. So far, I have never been able to prove that it is in error. I have studied many cases and they all match the theory. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum David Roberson Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:32:56 -0800 If you look into this scenario in detail, you will see how the total angular and linear momentum is conserved separately. The high velocity gas impacts the large volume of gas and sends the total mass at an average slower velocity in the direction that the input stream is moving. The total momentum of the system would be conserved as always. I have trouble with that standard answer. I don't see how thelarge volume of gas ends up with the same momentum if part of theenergy has been inevitably converted into heat. Where does theextra energy come from?
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I agree with you Eric, the jury is still out. Ed's way of thinking is more in line with my recent thoughts about a retarding magnetic field effect. He may not agree, but it is easier for me to understand how a process that slows down the snap action associated with the acceleration of the charged particles by the strong force could allow the energy to be dissipated slowly instead of in one large pulse. I visualize forcing the proton(s) to crawl to the nickel nucleus or each other kind of like moving through molasses. After all, it is well known that electromagnetic radiation is generated by the acceleration of charged particles and the rate of that acceleration must determine the spectrum of the radiation emitted. Large magnetic fields have been shown to divert moving charged particles. As I have mentioned previously, DGT has reported the presence of a much larger external magnetic field that anyone would have expected and I assume that they would not have placed that report into the public arena had it been false. I am taking them at their word about this measurement until proven otherwise. A large external magnetic field might well translate into an extremely large internal field at the active sites. Couple that with positive feedback and you get a significant amount of power generation. So far this is the theory that I favor. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, I am not convinced that PdD works this way, and frankly - it is a diversion to even bring it up for now, since it detracts from the really important issue - which is the proper understanding of the Rossi effect. How is it a diversion to bring up an apparently well-established conclusion that a large quantum of mass energy can be fractionated without penetrating radiation? That was the point that was at issue. Answer: it's not a diversion. The conclusion may be flawed, the evidence may be flawed, the interpretation may be flawed, and/or the research may be flawed. But a consensus conclusion about the fractionation of a 24 MeV quantum into non-penetrating radiation is something to be addressed in a conversation dealing with the question of whether fractionation is possible. I'm not trying to say that the fractionation conclusion is for sure what is going on, either in NiH or in PdD. Only that it's not out in the wilderness either, as some would tendentiously make it out to be. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones
The link does not work for me. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 7, 2014 11:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf This is a perspective which goes back before PF - some on Vortex will not like to revisit. The most interesting finding is the RF signature - which is seen with a very good correspondence to the excess heat spikes. This is from the collapse of the magnetic field, so that ties in with recent threads here. Worth a read - no matter what your feeling are towards the author.
[Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts
Looking deeper into the magnetic coupled positive feedback LENR reaction, I have a few ideas to pass along. I understand that a magnetic field has essentially unlimited access to the atomic structure. By this I mean that a large, static external field can penetrate through the electron cloud surrounding atoms as well as proceed directly throughout the region of the nucleus. The same is certainly not true for an electric field since movement of charged particles takes place to eliminate any internal field outside the atoms themselves. This freedom of magnetic field movement enables coupling to exist among electrons and protons that make up the atomic structures of all connected, and particularly nearby, atoms. i suspect that any magnetic coupling path which transports a significant quantity of energy away from a reaction site would exhibit rapid variations in its magnitude and direction. This rapid flux change would likely be attenuated as it passes through the conductive metal lattice and tends to limit the distance of the effective coupling. The expected attenuation is proportional to the rate of fluxuation. Another interesting feature of the magnetic field behavior is that nickel has magnetic domains that modify the local field pattern within the metal at low to moderate temperatures. At above the Curie temperature(355C) this effect goes away and that also happens to be in the range of temperatures at which LENR activity begins to become important. This may be a coincidence, but I suspect not. I believe that a positive feedback mechanism is in play because of the large magnitude of the measured external magnetic field reported by DGT. Any random process that results in charge movement must tend to cancel out the field when integrated over a significant volume of material. So, if the magnetic coupling among the active sites enhances the reaction rate and those induced reactions increase the initial field in phase, then both build to a large level as I have mentioned previously. A characteristic of this type of system would be for it to exhibit a threshold effect. Until adequate coupling between sites exists, very little LENR activity would be expected to occur. Too few of what we typically refer to as NAE and you only see weak nuclear activity. Perhaps the normal magnetic domains of moderate temperature nickel disrupt the process which again might attenuate the coupling. Impurities within the metal could be a factor to contend with in some instances. The list of problems which prevent the positive feedback from reaching the required threshold may be extensive and has done a significant job of obscuring LENR. DGT apparently has discovered the recipe that enables the magnetic coupling to occur. The same likely is true of Rossi, although he has not publicly described any magnetic field effects except in coded terms. The recent revelation that PF used a large external magnetic field supports the present concept. If their system had adequate natural internal magnetic coupling and the associated feedback, then the external field may not have been necessary. Is anyone aware of how a strong magnetic field from an external source effects the structure of atoms? Do the electrons adjust their orbits in such a manner as to eliminate the external field that extends into the nucleus in a manner similar to the behavior of a super conductor? This is important to understand if we are to determine how the nearby nuclei couple via the field. Also, movement of the charges associated with the metal atoms as well as the hydrogen might reveal the hidden mechanism responsible for the fusion. The exact cause is still lacking explanation. The question remains as to how a strong guiding magnetic field can enhance a fusion reaction that then makes a significant contribution to the driving field. Axil has one general proposal to consider, but there may be a more specific one. Dave
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob, This information that you share may be a clue to follow up on. Exactly how the field interacts might to be important. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- One other idea is that the early failure of many of the P-F effect experiments did not pay attention to the magnetic field present in P-F's original experiment. Hagelstein's current lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by displaying the arrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have the platinum coil that P F used. There was no comparable magnetic field applied to the Pd electrode in those null experiments. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large difference between what you are proposing and what they claim. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate. It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report. At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we have been discussing in this thread. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions (“Bosenova”) and proton super currents. DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.” DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing a super proton current directed at the nickel powder. The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder zone. DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic field.” DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the optical effect. All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as related to the soliton monopole. The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen envelope. The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which starts with spark ignition.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
It is interesting that the magnets are shown in that application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 3:28 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Of interest - in this regard is that the magnetic field used inthe Letts/Cravens effect is fairly weak. Did not Dennis mention to vortex thatit needs to be weak and the effect goes away if it is too strong? Here is a paper mentioning 700 Gauss – across the cathode face,from a pair of ceramic magnets. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf One wonders if a platinum coil provides something in the range of700 Gauss at the current being used. -OriginalMessage- From: Bob Cook Hagelstein'scurrent lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by displaying thearrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have the platinum coilthat P F used. There was no comparable magnetic field appliedto the Pd electrode in those null experiments.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, you have offered an idea for a mechanism that might allow coupling between a locally large magnetic field and nearby fusion events. I remain skeptical of this type of effect but I want to understand how it operates according to your concept. I have a few questions for you to review that might help me to determine how your idea fits into typical LENR systems. First of all, is what you are describing real? Has anyone actually determined a way to connect instrumentation that proves that a half soliton of polaritons exist in nickel? Where do these particles reside when they are functioning? Are they surface effects or captured within nano particles, etc.? How physically large would one be? Are they nano sized? How long does a typical one exist within the environment? Can they exist at 1000 degrees C? Do they emit a magnetic field that extends beyond their local area? Is the magnetic field steady and of a DC nature? Last evening you implied this was true, but I want to ensure that I understood you correctly. Do they move around in space or are they trapped in one location? You mentioned that they behaved like a bar magnetic, does that suggest that they have a bipolar field as one might expect? How does the soliton encourage fusion to occur? What type of fusion do you anticipate when enhanced by this mechanism? When fusion within a coupled area occurs, why does the field of your assumed particle increase? There are many more questions that will arise if we are to understand how your particles operate in conjunction with a real LENR system.The ball is in your court to make your case since I remain skeptical of the reality of the process. Now would be a great time for anyone else with knowledge of what Axil is proposing to assist. And Axil, how confident are you in what you are describing? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist
I have realized for many years that magnetism is just another way of observing moving electric charges. Even though the behavior of the underlying moving charges can be used to define how they effect other charges, it is more convenient to express the effects by invoking a magnetic field in many instances. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:25 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Except for when I have written it, I have never seen the words Magnetism doesn't exist written. But this confuses me because while the illusion of magnetism is pretty convincing we can all agree the expected forces in any magnetic situation are electric at each end (magnetic fields are created by and felt as electric fields orthogonal to the claimed magnetic field). And the expected so-called magnetic forces are predicted by the distortion of motion on electric fields. Each and every magnetic force/induction from magnetism can be expected by looking at how the electric fields are distorted through motion. And when I first figured that out, I thought it was just my idea, till the good folks on this list many years ago pointed out that all of this was known, that Special Relativity included precisely this. So given that the forces are expected without any magnetic field, just a complete (and complex) analysis of electric fields distorting from motion (vector sum analysis). And given that magnetic fields are only created by moving charges and only ever felt as a perpendicular electrical force. They why does no one else but me say Magnetic fields do not exist!?? This requires that motion also does not exist or is illusion. Harry Certainly they are a convincing and useful illusion. Sure, holding 2 permanent magnets can make holding this belief very hard, but but if the permanent magnets are replaced with electromagnets it is easy to see how all the expected forces and induction occurs from the moving electric fields pancaking, and the lines bending when feed AC. John For
Re: [Vo]:Superconductors and voltage
While looking at reviews for Caver A. Mead's book, I read a review that said he made a mistake including voltage in a calculation for superconductors. Now I think that there must be voltage of a type in superconductors, there are 2 types of voltage. One is the voltage drop across a conductor. This is similar to the voltage on a charged capacitor. But there are other type is kinetic voltage, this is where a charge is moving at a given velocity as it used in particle accelerators. Voltage of this type can be compared to (or come from) inertia, and if electrons are moving then there will be some persistence even if impedance is removed since electrons still have mass. There is no need to apply a voltage across the leads of a superconducting loop for current to flow. Any current present will continue indefinitely. And, if you do apply a voltage, the current will ramp up as long as the voltage is applied. The ramp rate is established by the voltage you apply and the inductance of the loop. If a superconducting ring that carried a current was suddenly opened, the electrons are still moving and must compress slightly as they come to a stop leaving the ends momentarily charged to some degree. All of the energy stored within the magnetic field must be either converted into heat by arcing across the open circuit and heating the air, or by charging the effective capacitance formed by the open leads. The energy given to the capacitor will be returned to the loop inductance when the current reverses and this process can ring indefinitely as long as the loss is zero. Additionally imagine a superconductive loop in an alternating EM field, there is a voltage induced by the changing magnetic field (or relativistically distorted electric field) and this does not lead to a voltage drop, but there is still a voltage, if this loop was opened and a normal circuit inserted you would indeed see a voltage. There is a voltage drop in this case due to the AC current induced within the loop flowing through the loop inductance. It does not lead to heat because the voltage and current are at right angles to each other. Indeed even if we use a resistive wire in such a loop, no voltage drop is noted, and yet there is still a voltage present to overcome the resistance, and the resistance is still impeding the flow of electrons. But would it be correct to say that this is happening with no voltage, even though none can be read by any instrument? Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying here as I would expect to see a voltage drop measured across the ends of any resistor carrying current. The resistive wire case would show a drop that increases the further along the resistive line you go. Of course, you must choose some point as the reference of zero volts. ]John Dave
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Thanks Axil, I will continue to review your information and see if I can determine how it might apply to the positive feedback behavior suggested by DGT's report. Additional questions may come up from time to time. The first link you posted concerning the half soliton suggests that it was measured at very low K temps. It is not clear that they function at the temperatures required for a nickel hydrogen system. We will definitely need to flesh out the other concepts thoroughly. At this point, the generalities would be difficult to convert into concrete expectations. What experiments would you suggest that could be used to demonstrate that your ideas are valid? The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you have offered an idea for a mechanism that might allow coupling between a locally large magnetic field and nearby fusion events. I remain skeptical of this type of effect but I want to understand how it operates according to your concept. I have a few questions for you to review that might help me to determine how your idea fits into typical LENR systems. First of all, is what you are describing real? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=6cad=rjaved=0CFIQFjAFurl=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fpdf266642937.pdfei=7kXxUpa9DeipsATKroCIAgusg=AFQjCNH9IF2oRszmaRJ4rkknbGsvIYRk4wsig2=Q-yhTiI4Qi-69cMk4I9iPA Has anyone actually determined a way to connect instrumentation that proves that a half soliton of polaritons exist in nickel? DGT must have do so and I suspect will do a whole lot more. Rossi too if I don't miss my guess. Where do these particles reside when they are functioning? I belevive these are the NAE in LENR and the hot spots in Nanoplasmonics, Solitons form between nano-particles of hydrogen an other elements. Are they surface effects or captured within nano particles, etc.? Solitons form in topological defects, where dipole vibration is interrupted by a break in the lattice. The break forces the electrons to form a whirlpool due to the extreme curvature in the lattice break. Any defect in a lattice will cause whirlpool formation. How physically large would one be? About a nanometer in diameter more or less. Are they nano sized? These plasmoids can combine together. In the LeClair system they grow very large and powerful when many small plasmoids(aka solitons) combine together because in liquid they are not pinned by a defect so they can move around. How long does a typical one exist within the environment? The Phys.org article I reference yesterday states that they last a very long time. Can they exist at 1000 degrees C? Yes, and far higher. Do they emit a magnetic field that extends beyond their local area? LeClair said the he found them making marks in his walls and trees outside his lab. That says they can be mobile. Photon-21 states that they found them a long way from the spark discharge. Is the magnetic field steady and of a DC nature? Yes. Last evening you implied this was true, but I want to ensure that I understood you correctly. Yes, again. Do they move around in space or are they trapped in one location? See above. . You mentioned that they behaved like a bar magnetic, does that suggest that they have a bipolar field as one might expect? Half solitons have only one pole; either north or south but not both. How does the soliton encourage fusion to occur? The magnetic field screens fermion charge like happens in the fractional quantum hall effect, What type of fusion do you anticipate when enhanced by this mechanism? Fusion of many nuclei into one new one; Mostly protons pairs into a large Z element like nickel. When fusion within a coupled area occurs, why does the field of your assumed particle increase? The soliton converts gamma energy into more magnetic field strength in a positive feedback loop. There are many more questions that will arise if we are to understand how your particles operate in conjunction with a real LENR system.The ball is in your court to make your case since I remain skeptical of the reality of the process. Now would be a great time for anyone else with knowledge of what Axil is proposing to assist. And Axil, how confident are you in what you are describing? By the way, solitons as monopoles are the hottest thing in particle physics because they support the duality of EMF. This is important for S-duality ( super-symmetric particle physics) http://www.google.com/url?sa
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large difference between what you are proposing and what they claim. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate. It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report. At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we have been discussing in this thread. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions (“Bosenova”) and proton super currents. DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.” DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing a super proton current directed at the nickel powder. The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder zone. DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic field.” DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the optical effect. All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as related to the soliton monopole. The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen envelope. The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which starts with spark ignition.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelliin a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From:Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gammarays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have beenarguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, thissounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the firstplace. That is really the crux ofthe Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction inwhich substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release.The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his beliefthat there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note thatof late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutationof nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni- Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashedand rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetratingradiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusionin mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversibleproton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort– and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all ofphysics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens onthe sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong forcereaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner withan expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative onLENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi.That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there isabove a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bearsotherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seenand is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with anysuggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from thestart (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can becalled “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, theywill be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, andeven1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billionwould stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboringthe main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is forreal - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is dueto the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, couldnot find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with hisprobes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially abackground level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot beoveremphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient tosuggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” prevents thatsuggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and theones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be differentfor other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysisof the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Ed, the magnetic field interaction has some traction. DGT, Dennis Craven, and Rossi all have mentioned observations that suggest magnetic interaction. If I recall, one of the government labs found correlation as well. It may be a blind alley as you appear to believe, but what if a strong clue to some LENR behavior is lurking within the data? Of course, I have long been seeking some form of coupling between adjacent NAE that leads to the explosive crater phenomena. Phonons, photons, or perhaps a shared magnetic environment might assist in some way to organize group behavior. I also harbor the thought that an extreme magnetic field might be the mechanism which offers fusion energy a slow escape process. We assume that a magnetic field can reach through the electron cloud and into the nucleus freely. The same in not true for electric fields. That is just a couple of reasons that I find magnetic interactions attractive to ponder. It may be a dead end, but it has possibilities. As you say, there are many ways to waste time and each has to choose his path. You come down hard against the W-L theory, but for some reason many including NASA seem convinced that they are moving ahead. I tend to agree with you on that one and perhaps we are both wrong. What was that dark shadow that just passed through the doorway? :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts. Ed Storms Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors. This field induces some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity. The new fusions are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner. Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large total magnetic field. You do not observe one without the other being present. Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a significant external magnetic field. The requirement for the correct positive feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working system. The above scenario represents my latest thinking. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated. I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons. The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal) B field. I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the spin, angular momentum and transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous quantum connected system. I have always thought that the He formed in the process starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons (conserving angular momentum) and hence vibrational phonons--heat. Linear momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process. Also, apparently similar (perceived the same) physical phenomena have differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. I tend to agree with Axil. His comment that if you look deep enough (the picture will make sense) is the basis for scientific investigation. Bob Cook (Stalecookie) (My first response to this blog.) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors. This field induces some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity. The new fusions are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner. Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large total magnetic field. You do not observe one without the other being present. Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a significant external magnetic field. The requirement for the correct positive feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working system. The above scenario represents my latest thinking. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated. I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons. The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal) B field. I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the spin, angular momentum and transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous quantum connected
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
That might explain what they are actually planning. The transverse field at the end of the coils must have been left out of the drawing by accident. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends, when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with the electrodes connected to a load On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
I just took a careful look at the drawing and there is a B field shown inside the area of the output power loop. That must represent the field that we did not see earlier. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends, when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with the electrodes connected to a load On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
You are describing a strange particle Axil. It is not clear as to whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC nature. Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of ensemble? Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the field? I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
If I understand what you are saying, I should be able to place a large magnet in front of one of these polaritons and it would be attracted to it. Is that correct? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment except that the half soliton has only one pole. Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet. Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and no RF involved. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are describing a strange particle Axil. It is not clear as to whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC nature. Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of ensemble? Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the field? I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
I have a question regarding the Casimir effect that someone might be able to assist me in answering. There is discussion of how this effect is able to squeeze the hydrogen atom into one of the fractional states and I wonder why this same force does not push apart the atoms or whatever else may be generating that force. Please offer an explanation as to why the hydrogen is squeezed but the surrounding atoms are not pushed back in an equal and opposite manner. Are we to believe that the Casimir force acts in only one direction and in violation to Newton's laws? Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 12:55 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR Also ifeach Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of the so called catalyst it would be as part of “casimir” group not individually - and as the tapestry changes wrt a moving gas atom it will experience changes in this field – dynamic casimir effect. I am not even sure that transmutation would effect that field as long as the element remains metal and does not significantly change the local geometry the casimir force should remain unchanged.. IMHO it is a difference of scales where the same HUP responsible for the random motion of the gas atoms at the lower scale can be unbalanced and accumulated at a higher scale by the Ni. [1/plate spacing ^3] to form regions with different values of casimir force. Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily? Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have to contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would have to be converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please consider the obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi even has withdrawn this claim. Ed Storms On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Just saw this: http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/ pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni atom where I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from translating back to normal as the suppressing geometry is left behind via random motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the dilated atom to slip “behind” the Ni atom on temporal coordinate and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such that the fractional atom doesn’t have opportunity to slip back into normal ground state anywhere in the surrounding region… accumulating hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to return to normal after having left the geometry that caused their condition. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Huizenga dies
It is unfortunate that he did not live long enough to understand the damage he caused to the world by his vendetta against cold fusion. One, or perhaps two more years and we would have witnessed his mea culpa. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 30, 2014 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Huizenga dies NYT is stuck in 1999 John R. Huizenga, Physicist at Fore of Nuclear Era, Dies at 92 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/science/john-r-huizenga-physicist-at-fore-of-nuclear-era-dies-at-92.html?hpwrref=obituaries; “It’s as dead as ever,” Dr. Huizenga told The New York Times in an interview. “It’s quite unbelievable that the thing has gone on for 10 years.”
[Vo]:ECAT Computer Model Calibration
A few days ago I speculated that a COP of at most two would be measured for an ECAT that undergoes only one power pulse starting from a cold state. Both of the table top sized box demonstrations performed by Rossi essentially operated in this manner and there seems to be plenty of controversy expressed by the skeptics as to the actual energy delivered. Having been told by Rossi that his ECAT operates with a COP of six specification they were expecting to measure six times as much output energy as applied electrical input energy. I was also expecting performance of this nature because at the time I had not generated a computer model utilizing a thermal control technique. Placement of thermocouples by Rossi were less than optimum which left a question as to how much energy was actually being measured by the output instrumentation. This cloud remained over the demonstrations, in my opinion, and allowed doubt to exist as to whether or not he achieved his COP of six specification. I have since constructed a thermal energy controlled computer model of the ECAT that can be operated with a COP of six as Rossi insists. The model typically operates with a duty cycle of 1/3 to 1/4 depending upon how close I allow the core temperature to approach the thermal runaway level. I have also observed that essentially all of the information attributed to Rossi within his journal describing operation of the ECAT fits the model. I realized that I had not discussed calibration runs for my model to show that it can handle the case where the core is thermally inactive. I overlooked the importance of adding that information to my other post which should add credibility to the model predictions. Today I made another series of computer model runs and can report that I obtain a COP of approximately .995 under the inactive core condition. The expected value would be exactly 1, but my model does cease operation before every morsel of energy has been collected at the output node and there are typical rounding errors. The model is based upon many assumptions and for this reason can not be as accurate as I would prefer. I have relied upon the statements that Rossi has slowly leaked to the public and there is little doubt that he is leaving out some of the important parameters effecting operation of his ECAT device. Also, to generate a model of any sort I have had to choose a function representing the thermal power generated by the core as temperature changes. My choice is a forth order relationship for this series of runs and changing that function impacts the critical behavior of the device but not its general nature. The main point I wish to convey is that a one shot ECAT demonstration run will not be closely indicative of what is to be expected during continuous operation. One should not expect to see a high level of performance (COP) unless the ECAT operates for a significant number of hot power cycles. Some day soon I hope to compare his actual verified ECAT operation to the predictions of my latest model and to have an opportunity to adjust the parameters for a better fit. Dave
Re: [Vo]:LENR monopoles.
Let me speculate about the magnetic field. My suspicion is that the magnetic field encourages the LENR activity. The additional LENR activity somehow interacts with the magnetic field to increase the strength of that same field. Thus you have a positive feedback mechanism in effect that ensures that both the magnetic field and LENR activity are significant. I don't know how these fields interact, but the coupling might well be the reason that LENR is difficult to observe. If the coupling is too light, then nothing of significance occurs because the positive feedback loop gain is less than unity. If the loop gain is greater than unity, then you find the device exhibits good performance. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR monopoles. On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How do you reconcile the existence of the high powered magnetic spots in the operating DGT reactor? Why was there a direct correlation between the magnetic output of that reactor with its heat output? What was the source of those magnetic spots in a 700C plasma after the spark discharge? Riddle me this Eric. Assuming we have a basic understanding of the scope and applicability of DGT's claims about magnetic transients (which I don't), I would assume they arise due to something other than quasiparticles. For example, there could be current transients. Why not start with the simplest explanation first instead of reaching for the fancy stuff? Eric
Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR
I consider a magnetic field the consequence of a time changing electric field. The electromagnetic effects that we experience depend upon which observation frame we happen to occupy. This is demonstrated by considering how a charged particle appears to a stationary or moving observer at some distant point in 3 dimensional space. One sees nothing but an electric field, the other records a combination of magnetic and electric fields. Both are valid measurements. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 7:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR No one ever wrote an equation that conserves magnetic flux. In order to determine if something is conserved when it can be transformed into different forms, you HAVE to be able to MEASURE how much of EACH different form is present... It only APPEARS as if mag-flux is not conserved... The mag-field is the physical manifestation of a polarization of the vacuum (ZPF or Zero Point Field), and we have no way to measure the local amount of vacuum, so you can't tell whether its conserved or not. -mark On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I don't know if anyone is now interested in this. Its old stuff. If you watch Walter Lewin at MIT Academic Earth he says often the the magnetic force is non-conservative. Energy and momentum are conserved in equations. No one ever wrote an equation that conserves magnetic flux. This just goes without saying. I, however, say it loudly in my published works. The only things that are not conserved are inertial mass and magnetic flux. They are related as magnetic fields carries the inertial mass of moving stuff. Electrical engineers employ soft iron to increase the magnetic force. Soft iron increase the flux produced by a coil by a factor of about 10,000. I found the soft iron equivalent for the other forces. Its a vibrating Bose condensate. Frank -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 3:30 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR What where did this emergent inductance come from? More magnetism that came from nothing. I was upset, this would make the test harder. Magnetism is not a conserved force. Somethings it springs out of nowhere. This is a general property of all of the magnetic force s. The above interests me but are there any specifics on this, especially published papers?
Re: [Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR
The superconducting regions might be detectable by the way they interact with electromagnetic waves. There is discussion about trapped photons from time to time and that might be due to the zero loss walls of a superconducting cavity. I can't think of a better method of trapping energy for a significant amount of time. This process may appear somewhat like what happens when a photon impacts an atom and its energy is stored within. The superconducting cavity could behave like a much larger version that can trap many photons at the same time. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The claims are based on assumptions, not on direct measurements normally used to identify a superconductor. Yes, the claims are speculation. It would be impossible to make direct measurements across microscopic domains. - Jed
[Vo]:ECAT COP with One Power Pulse
There seems to be a great deal of contraversy related to the actual COP demonstrated by Rossi during his public tests. I especially recall the two that used the table top cubic device that he plans to place within his megawatt shipping model. Several of us made attempts to calculate the thermal energy being delivered to the load and had various degrees of success. The input electrical energy was relatively easy to calculate since Rossi supplied us with the drive waveforms, but the thermal energy being delivered from the unit was not obvious. With this issue in mind, I was wondering how my latest computer model of the ECAT would perform under similar conditions. The results from the runs are intuitive and I felt that it should be reported. One observation that stands out is the relatively small value of COP that is obtained during a single input power pulse run.If a steady series of like pulses are applied to the ECAT it will result in a net COP that can readily average the 6 value that Rossi claims. Maintaining this COP is not trivial under the best of circumstances, but good control technique can accompolish the task. A COP of the value that Rossi plans to deliver in production (6) requires him to push the core temperature to a degree that is relatively close to the thermal runaway limit according to the model. The close proximity to the run away point enables the temperature decay process an opportunity to delay its transition downward. That delay is the key to delivery of a high COP. If instead of continuous operation you only desire one input drive cycle then the period during which you heat the box up to operational temperature is wasted to a great extent. Much of the input energy is applied during a time when the core is cool and not exhibiting any major positive feedback.That ensures that this initial heat merely becomes transferred to the output without much boosting. So, when the wasted input energy is taken into consideration and only one drive toward the thermal run away threshold is enacted, the model predicts that the overall COP would be around 2. Compare this to the COP of 6 that would be obtained under continuous input drive pulse conditions that Rossi describes. I use his published duty cycle (1/3 to 1/4) as the input waveform for my model. With this result in hand, it is easy to understand why the skeptics complain about the overall demonstration. This gives them plenty of opportunity to suggest that the COP is actually unity and it certainly would not be 6. A low COP is going to be generated unless a much longer test is conducted with a tight power control process. Dave
Re: [Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR
Bob, I was unaware of the fact that superconductors only work at DC. I knew they were used in microwave cavities so I assumed that the effect was more broadband than you are suggesting. What is the theory that leads to them loosing their capabilities as frequency is increased? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR Note that superconductors are only zero resistance for DC. As the frequency goes up, there is a finite resistance that increases with frequency. At 1 GHz RF, the superconductor still has some advantage over copper at the same frequency. As you start going beyond 10 GHz superconductors become less useful and at some frequency, there is a cross-over and copper is better. For the upper microwave bands, resonators with highest Q are pure dielectric devices with no conductor at all. So using a superconductor for THz or optical resonators is not practical. HTC superconductors are worse than type 1 superconductors in this respect. Otherwise superconductors would always look white (or mirror if polished) if they were zero resistance at optical frequencies because they would have perfect reflectance. HTC superconductors are black. 1D systems will behave differently, and there may be some opportunity there. I don't believe SPPs are 1D. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The superconducting regions might be detectable by the way they interact with electromagnetic waves. There is discussion about trapped photons from time to time and that might be due to the zero loss walls of a superconducting cavity. I can't think of a better method of trapping energy for a significant amount of time. This process may appear somewhat like what happens when a photon impacts an atom and its energy is stored within. The superconducting cavity could behave like a much larger version that can trap many photons at the same time. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The claims are based on assumptions, not on direct measurements normally used to identify a superconductor. Yes, the claims are speculation. It would be impossible to make direct measurements across microscopic domains. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Jeff Driscoll says: |smaller fractions than 1/137.0359 are not possible because electron would be going faster than light| Special Relativity explains the electron speed of light limit in a somewhat reasonable manner. In that case the maximum speed is approached as the limit to a continuously increasing value. There is no free travel throughout all possible velocities until you hit a brick wall, but instead an increasing resistance until that limit become unobtainable. I suspect that Mills' theory is in error if he assumes a zero width transition. The time dilation and length contraction effect must somehow find their ways into his model and perhaps I misunderstand what he explains. Jeff, are you aware of how it includes these issues? If he eventually does include these two well supported phenomena, then the 1/137.0359 fraction most likely will be changed to a new one. Then, my hope for inclusion of all the integer and fractional values might reappear as a consequence. Just seeking a better understanding of nature. No honest question should be off limits. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the
series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e.
(1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the other
integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is found to be
valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the 1/137 term.
But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we
prefer. :(
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that retain
locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon representing
the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a classical angular
momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 attached.
Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron becoming a photon as it
approaches the lowest level.
Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...,
1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.)
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
I must have stated that incorrectly if you came to that conclusion. The fine
structure constant is very important as we have always accepted. My comment is
toward Mills' theory and the emphasis on the 1/137 state. I want to
understand why his theory truncates at 1/137 instead of the continuation toward
1/infinity. It would be beautiful if his orbitspheres continued in that
manner and no special fractional state at 1/137 is anticipated.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Why would you attach no special consideration to the fine structure constant?
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the
series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e.
(1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the other
integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is found to be
valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the 1/137 term.
But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we
prefer. :(
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that retain
locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon representing
the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a classical angular
momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 attached.
Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron becoming a photon as it
approaches the lowest level.
Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...,
1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.)
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Jeff, sometimes the conclusions drawn are due to an error of an unknown type.
I suspect that the FSC difference that you mention falls into that category.
Reminds me of the announcement by CERN of the neutrino speed exceeding that of
light which was retracted once a hardware problem was resolved.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
http://io9.com/5642233/ask-a-physicist-is-the-fine-structure-constant-really-constant
excerpt:
About a decade ago, the UNSW team found, much to everyone's surprise, that
billions of light years away, the FSC was slightly smaller than it is here on
earth. The difference is pretty miniscule, however, only about 1 part in a
hundred thousand. In other words, the physics at the other end of the physical
universe would look nearly (but not exactly) like it does here on earth. That
means that the diagram above shows an effect about 10,000 times larger than the
group actually observed. The signal is small enough that people are right to be
concerned about whether or not the UNSW team got their errorbars right.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the
series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e.
(1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the other
integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is found to be
valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the 1/137 term.
But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we
prefer. :(
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that retain
locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon representing
the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a classical angular
momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 attached.
Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron becoming a photon as it
approaches the lowest level.
Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...,
1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.)
Eric
--
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
That is right Harry. Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-)
Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values which is
like the quantum theory as I understand. Practical values are limited by how
easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that is far less than
infinity.
This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way. Mills
predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while
quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square. This is a huge
difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly
established. How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one calculation
than the next without being obvious?
Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware. Does anyone know
of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that supports one
of these theories?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be no
debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be.
Harry
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the
series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e.
(1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the other
integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is found to be
valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the 1/137 term.
But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we
prefer. :(
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that retain
locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon representing
the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a classical angular
momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 attached.
Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron becoming a photon as it
approaches the lowest level.
Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...,
1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.)
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
I really do not have any idea about how difficult it would be to prove the
atomic size issue, but that might actually become the main deciding measurement
once completed. Either the size goes up directly with the excitation energy
level or much faster as the square of that number. I bet this will be done
soon if not for some complex issue.
Actually, I read that the excited hydrogen electron has several significantly
different than spherical shapes according to Wiki and DGT referred to as
Rydberg orbitals. It is not evident why they are not spherical, but that is
what the authors claim.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
I assume it is either impossible or almost impossible to measure the size of an
excited hydrogen atom (i.e. n = 2, 3, 4 ...) - otherwise Mills would use that
as proof,
Though he shows through math why his size is correct - google correspondence
principle Randell Mills
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
That is right Harry. Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-)
Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values which is
like the quantum theory as I understand. Practical values are limited by how
easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that is far less than
infinity.
This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way. Mills
predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while
quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square. This is a huge
difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly
established. How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one calculation
than the next without being obvious?
Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware. Does anyone know
of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that supports one
of these theories?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be no
debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be.
Harry
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the
series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e.
(1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the other
integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is found to be
valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the 1/137 term.
But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we
prefer. :(
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that retain
locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon representing
the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a classical angular
momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 attached.
Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron becoming a photon as it
approaches the lowest level.
Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...,
1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.)
Eric
--
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Jeff, I have toyed with the concept of traveling faster than light and mentioned some of the consequences I expect on this list a while back. From the electrons point of view, its mass remains the same regardless of any velocity it may have relative to other observers. The only way I can understand the behavior of particles circulating within an accelerator is to assume that time dilation and length contraction must exist between relative observers. The operators of the device measure the speed of the electron as it circles the accelerator ring and see that it is moving at almost the speed of light. Time therefore passes much slower for the electron from the operators point of view. This condition should make the electron's mass appear greater to the machine operator, but that may be just his conclusion based upon the difficulty in changing the direction of the electron with his magnetic deflection process. The same should be true for any electric field acceleration process. This behavior makes sense if the electron is significantly exceeding the speed of light by its measurement referenced to the dimensions of the accelerator when the electron is at rest. The time dilation and length contraction work hand in hand in this particular case. We might assume that the same situation holds for an electron orbiting a proton of hydrogen in the small orbitsphere fractional energy cases. Perhaps that would allow larger denominators than 137, in which case the electron moves faster than light and time dilation and length contraction greatly impacts its behavior. If true, the fraction 1/137 just happens to be the special case where the electron speed(as estimated by the electron) is that of light, but smaller fractions may be possible. After all, most series do not truncate at an odd term, so maybe the series goes to 1/infinity if time dilation and length contraction are taken into account. It would be an interesting calculation to determine the radius of the orbitsphere when the fraction is 1/infinity while taking time dilation and length contraction into account. That might suggest that the atomic electron states of hydrogen could go from infinity to 1/infinity which is well balanced. That is the kind of beauty I like to see in nature. Jeff, have you seen any derivation from Mills' equations that specifically point to the 1/137 fractional orbitsphere as being special? Could it be that this just happens to be fairly close to the physical constant and assumed equal? I have to ask why 1/138 is not a valid value as well. I am not convinced that Mills' theory is correct in any way, but am speculating about some interesting characteristics that may be possible if it has validity. Mark this post as blue sky wild speculation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 10:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory I did some reading and using the concept of mass increases as the velocity approaches the speed of light is not a good way to look at it (for reasons that are not totally clear to me). There is time dilation and length contraction for an object (the electron) as it approaches the speed of light - but essentially the physicists are saying don't interpret that as mass increase. I found this quote from Einstein on the hyperphysics website: Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote: It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M (the relativistic mass that approaches infinity at v = c) it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c3 I find it amazing that these 5 simple energy equations (from my earlier post) still work even though electron is undergoing length contraction and time dilation as it approaches the speed of light at orbit state n = 1/137. Mills says that the ratio of charge to mass (e/m) is a constant for the orbiting electron as it approaches the speed of light. I was hoping that would be the reason that the energy equations work correctly during time dialation and length contraction for the electron - but I don't see that in the equations so that may not be the answer. But the end result is amazing in terms of elegance 5 simple equations all equal the rest mass of the electron to 9+ significant digits. Jeff On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the information Jeff. I was expecting his mass calculation to increase or remain the same as the speed of the orbitsphere approached light speed. Now I will have to understand why it is supposed to become less. That was not even on my radar! We
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I didn't make an effort to identify exactly which water molecules are loosing energy in the process. The end result is the same; the water left behind is cooler and less energetic than it was before the vaporization occurs. What process do you consider active leading to the vapor escape with the nano material device?Perhaps you are thinking that a tiny packet of steam escapes the surface in a manner somewhat like boiling water and that would have interesting implications as well. Regardless of how the liquid water ends up as a vapor I expect it to take the same net energy to reach the same end state. Where the required energy comes from should be capable of discovery. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 3:09 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. Dave says: When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. No, it's not a similar process. Macro temperature is a statistical effect (an average of molecular energies). The molecules leaving water as it evaporates are those with highest energy (they escape easiest). This also accounts for the lowering temperature effect of evaporating fluids. Yes, in some countries when the weather is (very) hot, people hang damp cloth in the windows to lower the air temperature. /Sunil
Re: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem
Jones, Thanks for the assist. In your theory of RPF, in what form is the energy released? In the usual solar fusion process a neutrino escapes the active region to carry away excess energy. Since they are difficult to capture, most leave the sun along with the mass and energy from their creation. Are you expected something similar according to your idea? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 11:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Two answers to the solar neutrino problem Instead of hijacking the previous thread, one detail is now morphed into a new topic based on this exchange. From: John Berry DR wrote... I find that the CoE is an effective way to validate the interactions among them. JB Really? ...Do you know how the Neutrino was 'Discovered', or should I say Invented? ...There was an apparent breach of the CoE in nuclear fusion (IIRC) and it was assumed that because they must balance anyway that the missing energy forms into some hard to detect particle. This is a pretty good summary of what science must do to adjust the books on the rare occasions when things do not work out as expected - since the neutrino was indeed an invented species... but it was not invented from scratch, so to speak - since there were other properties which we needed to account for, besides some of the missing energy in the solar fusion cycle, leading to helium. We also have conservation of spin, angular momentum, charge, lepton number etc. and therefore the neutrino filled many roles before it was finally discovered in the fifties. But the prevalence of solar neutrinos still after half a century comes up short of the number that should be there, even with next invention which is called neutrino oscillation. LENR now provides the same opportunity to describe a new kind of exothermic reaction - both on Earth and in the Stars (having a solar model). Neutrinos are not massless, as we now know, but seemed to be when first detected during nuclear experiments on Earth. NOTE also that the value of neutrino mass itself is NOT DEDUCTED from the standard solar model calculations and that failure may imply that the problem is more extreme. IOW - if the neutrino mass were accounted for in the first instance, then the so-called solar neutrino problem would be more severe than it seems (even with oscillation another kludge). OK - I'm mentioning all of this neutrino business as background for the proposition that the best way to explain one important version of LENR - the one involved in the Rossi effect (and probably the Mills effect as well) is by way of that major physical detail which neutrino detection has made clear to us. Which is to say that we may not have been stating the problem correctly. There is another large energy source on the sun besides deuterium fusion ! Maybe more than one, since Mills has an explanation for a hydrino energy source in the corona, but there is another one which I'm proposing. First - let's be clear that the major detail which the standard cosmological model misses is that the net energy release on our Sun, as evidenced by neutrinos - is at least twice the level that it should be from fusion to helium - and possibly triple. The solar neutrino problem can be verbalized in two ways and the second way is NOT that there are missing neutrinos (ALL neutrinos are accounted for) but that there is another primary source of energy (perhaps more than one) besides the known nuclear fusion reaction of deuterium, which ends in helium. Mills finds one of those gainful reactions in the solar corona through excess UV emissions due to hydrogen redundancy. The other one in this hypothesis is being called RPF or reversible proton fusion. In short, the reaction of two protons which forms a diproton, which is the most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe by far, is not net neutral. This RPF reaction provides via QCD a fraction of the net energy of the sun without any neutrinos and thus balances the books more elegantly than any other model. Moreover, it is also the same energy pathway which turns up in nickel-hydrogen LENR on Earth. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Mike, do you believe that those older cavitation devices operated at over unity? My main concern is that it is so difficult to make accurate measurements of that type when the answer is so very close to 1. Too bad the effective gain was not significantly higher. That would make our lives a lot easier unless we happened to be too close to one of those devices exhibiting too much gain! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 1:23 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two Years ago an industrial water heater was marketed sing cavitation. The sales point was that it could use wastewater, but tests showed that it was an over-unity device. Over-unity was not ‘claimed’. I don’t know if they are still in business. Several investigators in the CF field used cavitation as a mode. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. His methods and experiments have no relation to the Papp device. As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. It remains an engaging topic for speculation. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A molecular sieve is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as desiccants. Some examples include Activated charcoal and silica gel As in the movie The Andromeda Strain, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction (AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli reaction} On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper “Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst” which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates *nascent H2O* which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a ‘placeholder’ against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory and experimentation and publication. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? Radiation can be generated at every frequency above zero radians per second but, as you suspect, it becomes difficult to develop an efficient radiating structure at near zero. In the case of an atom, no radiation at all should be allowed, regardless of how inefficient the radiating structure unless it happens to be at one of the defined energy lines. So, if Mills' model has a structure that allows the distant E and H fields to vary in time at any rate, then it would radiate at that frequency. A non radiating structure can be shown to hold the far E and H fields constant at all frequencies. The loop carrying DC that I often use as a model is an example of a structure that does not radiate, but that is only true when continuous smooth DC flows around the loop. If for an experiment you collected the distributed charge from the perimeter of the DC loop and turned it into a single point charge in motion around the loop, radiation would be generated. This is a result of the accelerated charge in motion around the perimeter of the loop. When you spread the charge evenly however, each tiny incremental charge is accelerated and radiates into space. But, radiation is balanced out in all far field directions by the vector summation of all of the infinite incremental radiating segments. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 4:20 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:48:41 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. It is the nature of the photon itself which imposes the restriction. Photons have certain requirements, and if the moving electron can't meet those requirements, then no photon can be constructed. The result is trapped energy, which can't radiate, because the requirements can't be met. Mills uses the Haus condition to explain the trapping, while I use lack of angular momentum to explain it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to be zero for simplification. I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating with discrete hot spots. The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible below the ground state. Hence (IMO) the reason for the ground state. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Come to think of it, if a single photon were to remain trapped within a tiny cavity, it would loose energy and be converted into lower frequency photons as that occurred unless the cavity had no loss. If you consider that many photons could be trapped in the same hole together, energy loss should still occur. Would each behave individually and all slowly loose energy in synchronism? Would the loss be taken from one while the others remain intact? Classical analysis has not problem dealing with this situation since it would only be concerned with the total energy. That may be a more appropriate way to handle these cases. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:47 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I agree with you Axil. I suspect the theory will stand or fall when it attempts to explain many of these special cases. So far, the applications have been limited. If the theory is to move ahead it must be tested and stressed. I am trying to keep an open mind in spite of plenty of questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement But Dear David, If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that your main posit is correct. You could have missed something important. Hand waving just won't due. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon energy for a long time. Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super conductive? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon source.. Reference, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have a different opinion of the events. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a lower limit to radiation as a phenomenon. According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron spirals down to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that claim incompatible with what you're saying here? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/ Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized nanometric scale. Here is a application of this ability. Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol distillation, and medical equipment sterilization. Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy to heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles suspended in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules surrounding the nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the temperature of the remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the cost of many steam-reliant processes. The Rice team used a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight on a small tube of water containing high concentrations of nanoparticles suspended in the fluid. The water, which had been cooled to near freezing, began generating steam within five to 20 seconds, depending on the type of nanoparticles used. Changes in temperature, pressure, and mass revealed that 82 percent of the sunlight absorbed by the nanoparticles went directly to generating steam while only 18 percent went to heating water. “It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi Halas, director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. Halas says that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of what you can use steam for.” The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive steam-generation devices for small-scale water purification, sterilization of medical instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries with limited resources and infrastructure. The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and other fluids has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at using the particles to absorb light and generate steam. In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles optimized to absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light hits the particles, their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 °C, the boiling point of water, causing surrounding water molecules to vaporize. Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains somewhat of a mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that the absorbed sunlight should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before causing any water to boil. “There seems to be some nanoscale thermal barrier, because it’s clearly making steam like crazy,” Halas says. The system devised by Halas and colleagues exhibited an efficiency of 24 percent in converting sunlight to steam. Todd Otanicar, a mechanical engineer at the University of Tulsa who was not involved in the current study, says the findings could have significant implications for large-scale solar thermal energy generation. Solar thermal power stations typically use concentrated sunlight to heat a fluid such as oil, which is then used to heat water to generate steam. Otanicar estimates that by generating steam directly with nanoparticles in water, such a system could see an increased efficiency of 3 to 5 percent and a cost savings of 10 percent because a less complex design could be used. Otanicar cautions that durability—the ability of nanoparticles to repeatedly absorb sunlight and generate steam—still has to be proved, but adds that the 24 percent efficiency achieved in the current study is encouraging. “It’s just the beginning for optimizing this approach,” he says.
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity gain. There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is present. I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment. Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just that. Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this process? You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being converted directly into vapor. How is that much different? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the output energy content of the steam produced. Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar cells. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/ Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized nanometric scale. Here is a application of this ability. Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol distillation, and medical equipment sterilization. Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy to heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles suspended in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules surrounding the nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the temperature of the remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the cost of many steam-reliant processes. The Rice team used a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight on a small tube of water containing high concentrations of nanoparticles suspended in the fluid. The water, which had been cooled to near freezing, began generating steam within five to 20 seconds, depending on the type of nanoparticles used. Changes in temperature, pressure, and mass revealed that 82 percent of the sunlight absorbed by the nanoparticles went directly to generating steam while only 18 percent went to heating water. “It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi Halas, director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. Halas says that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of what you can use steam for.” The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive steam-generation devices for small-scale water purification, sterilization of medical instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries with limited resources and infrastructure. The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and other fluids has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at using the particles to absorb light and generate steam. In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles optimized to absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light hits the particles, their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 °C, the boiling point of water, causing surrounding water molecules to vaporize. Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains somewhat of a mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that the absorbed sunlight should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before causing any water to boil. “There seems to be some nanoscale thermal barrier, because it’s clearly
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water vapor may be difficult to discern. When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, then that should get our attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. One characterization of the process that you have not considered is localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average temperature of the waterdoes not rise. Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration might result. Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity gain. There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is present. I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment. Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just that. Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this process? You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being converted directly into vapor. How is that much different? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the output energy content of the steam produced. Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar cells. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/ Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized nanometric scale. Here is a application of this ability. Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol distillation, and medical equipment sterilization. Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy to heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles suspended in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules surrounding the nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the temperature of the remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil. I do not know what is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating. We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected under the nano-particle causation principle. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water vapor may be difficult to discern. When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, then that should get our attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. One characterization of the process that you have not considered is localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average temperature of the waterdoes not rise. Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration might result. Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity gain. There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is present. I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment. Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just that. Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this process? You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being converted directly into vapor. How is that much different? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the output energy content of the steam produced. Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar cells. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes. I once saw what some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw. In that case, I would have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail before accepting that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary as the Papp engine would take that level of involvement. It seems too good to be true. The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described. Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. Here is some believe your own eyes type data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year award back in the 70s.. When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil. I do not know what is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating. We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected under the nano-particle causation principle. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water vapor may be difficult to discern. When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, then that should get our attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. One characterization of the process that you have not considered is localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average temperature of the waterdoes not rise. Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration might result. Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity gain. There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I do not think this would be a problem. Remember, the amount of steam formed must still be proportional to the amount of heat energy injected. A device such as this can only make a small quantity of steam from a well defined amount of heat energy. If some method is found to extract heat from the remaining liquid somewhat like a heat pump, it would only last for a short time. The deception would also be easy to detect. Dave -Original Message- From: torulf.greek torulf.gr...@bredband.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. This ability of nano particles to make steam with lesser energy input may also make it possible to get false positive result in LENR. If nano particles is used and laser or maybe some other simulation is used and the steam or evaporation is used for calorimetry. Torulf On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:28:22 -0500, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Here is some believe your own eyes type data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year award back in the 70s.. When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil. I do not know what is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating. We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected under the nano-particle causation principle. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water vapor may be difficult to discern. When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, then that should get our attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. One characterization of the process that you have not considered is localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average temperature of the waterdoes not rise. Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration might result. Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity gain. There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is present. I do not see any need to assume LENR
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I look at this issue from another angle. If Papp had a real engine, then why would he want to keep it from humanity? It seems more likely that he wanted to prevent others from seeing that his device was a fake and the liquids would make that obvious. Many people would like to prevent being viewed as having committed a fraud or being a faker, even when they face death. I for one would want the future generations to benefit from my work. It is selfish to do otherwise. Feynmann, on the other hand, should not have acted as he did during that demonstration. He may have been correct in assuming that the device was a fraud, but there is no way to be positive about that belief. He should have found other ways to prove his point since he could not know the consequences of the action he took. I hope he learned an important lesion. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. More... When Papp found out he was going to die, Papp flushed his secret fuel mix from all his engines three months before he died. If the Papp engine was a scam, why would Papp go to the trouble just to keep his secret from the world? On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall power removed the Papp engine should have stopped. This is what RF thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power output until it blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was assuming. This is the behavior of a gainful LENR system. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Jed, I thought so too, whenGene first published the other side of the story. But if your read Feynman’saccount carefully, and you should - then you will see that Papp himself unpluggedengine and handed the plug to Feynman. Feynman did not unplug the machine –he merely failed to give back the plug to Papp. BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGALOBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM. Thus the liability is withPapp. If this had gone to trial there is no doubt Feynman would have prevailed. However, to settle out ofcourt was probably the best thing for all concerned since there was a fatalityand Cal Tech has deep pockets. However that death is onPapp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally responsible. From:Jed Rothwell Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is your “back to reality” information on Pappfrom Feynman himself. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman wasresponsible for the accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not,you should NEVER, EVER monkey with equipment or unplug a control unit withoutasking permission. If we assume it was not real, and power in equalledpower out, it was still high powered device under the control of theelectronics. Even a fake machine is dangerous if you suddenly disconnect thecontrols. It is like reaching over from the passenger seat and turning off theignition in a car driving on a highway. Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive,unobservant jerk. He sure was in this case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I sure hope not! If Mills really has a device that performs as he indicates, then I will be super pleased. There is great pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into production and be used by thousands of happy clients. Nothing feels better than seeing your design out in public performing a task that is needed and I can not imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others out of their investment funds. I say cheat because the guys that supported Papp, in the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their money. Papp should have been ashamed to take the money that these investors entrusted to him with that type of attitude. I know many people who have accepted funds to start companies and they typically worry more about the people who trust them that they worry about their own situation. If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he appears more like a fraud than otherwise. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described. Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into production:. Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it when I can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look around, I have all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go through all the trouble that comes with production. Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle that runs virtually for free? This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors. It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that. If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use. That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this technology is real. So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that they are doomed. Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the doors in time to save themselves. Are you aware of any past attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine? I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as revolutionary as the Papp engine. How can I or anyone else trust our normal senses to be right about such a device? From what I read, Papp did not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone out of his control. Who are we to trust to make a determination that that device was not a fraud? Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics community. So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept. That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such a system. Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I wish him plenty of luck. But, until strong evidence is presented I will harbor significant doubt. I have a suspicion that you are also not convinced that the Papp engine is totally above board. Am I right? Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death. Hiding the secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual. Instead, it is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be tarnished reputation intact into the future. Apparently he did a great job of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam. Maybe that one was real and I just do not understand it either? Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap. First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that will put oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there is. Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence to believe in it. Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production without considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that others are also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have significant resistance to believing it short of exceptional evidence. I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the utility of something does not overcome the resistance of belief and powerful entrenched interests. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes. I once saw what some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw. In that case, I would have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail before accepting that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary as the Papp engine would take that level of involvement. It seems too good to be true. The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described. Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. Here is some believe your own eyes type data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year award back in the 70s.. When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I have dealt with crooks before Axil. On several occasions I designed radio devices that worked as advertised but the clients realized that I was too busy to spend the time and effort suing them to collect the bonus payment earned. You can understand why they found themselves having to maintain the software designed into the product when upgrades were desired. I suppose they made a business decision that was not honest, but saved them capital. The behavior I described above was not typical of most companies. I can't recall working with a criminal psychopath in the past, but I have certainly met some strange owners. I steered clear of anyone I found to be dishonest at the first hint of that behavior. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. You should further your education into human nature by dealing with a criminal psychopath. Bernie Madoff is not available anymore but I am sure there are many more doing business on wall street. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I sure hope not! If Mills really has a device that performs as he indicates, then I will be super pleased. There is great pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into production and be used by thousands of happy clients. Nothing feels better than seeing your design out in public performing a task that is needed and I can not imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others out of their investment funds. I say cheat because the guys that supported Papp, in the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their money. Papp should have been ashamed to take the money that these investors entrusted to him with that type of attitude. I know many people who have accepted funds to start companies and they typically worry more about the people who trust them that they worry about their own situation. If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he appears more like a fraud than otherwise. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described. Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into production:. Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it when I can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look around, I have all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go through all the trouble that comes with production. Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
That may be the solution Axil. Pride can make people do things that they would not do otherwise. I am sure most of us have said of done things that we later realized was not entirely accurate but failed to set the record straight. Perhaps, as more of your existence becomes entangled in the idea, you do not allow yourself to fail and loose face. I suspect there are a number of physicists that we all know that are beginning to understand that they have essentially made fools of themselves by their opposition to LENR and can not allow themselves to admit their long time errors. Most will go to their graves with the secret. My two cents worth. -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. I have a possible take on a man like Mills who has invested so much into this theory that might be Papp like. If his world saving invention was found to contradict the hydrino theory, he might pull a Papp and kill the project to maintain his place in history. When a man ties his ego so very tightly to something, then to protect that beloved thing, the welfare of the world can go to hell. Just a thought... On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle that runs virtually for free? This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors. It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that. If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use. That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this technology is real. So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that they are doomed. Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the doors in time to save themselves. Are you aware of any past attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine? I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as revolutionary as the Papp engine. How can I or anyone else trust our normal senses to be right about such a device? From what I read, Papp did not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone out of his control. Who are we to trust to make a determination that that device was not a fraud? Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics community. So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept. That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such a system. Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I wish him plenty of luck. But, until strong evidence is presented I will harbor significant doubt. I have a suspicion that you are also not convinced that the Papp engine is totally above board. Am I right? Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death. Hiding the secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual. Instead, it is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be tarnished reputation intact into the future. Apparently he did a great job of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam. Maybe that one was real and I just do not understand it either? Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap. First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that will put oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there is. Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence to believe in it. Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production without considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that others are also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have significant resistance to believing it short of exceptional evidence. I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the utility of something does not overcome the resistance of belief and powerful entrenched interests. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
Perhaps so Eric. Many have been blinded by the need to acquire great wealth to such an extent that they missed achieving modest wealth altogether. I do not know much about Papp other than what I have read and that is limited. If his engine actually performed as he claimed it is a shame that it did not come into widespread use. Let's all hope that the major players in the LENR field do not fall into that same trap. Patterson may have been another inventor that could not accept anything less than all the marbles so he ended up with a few. I have concerns about some of the other major players as well, but so far they keep improving their designs. The competition is heating up and that might make this year the one we have all been anticipating. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 10:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps Papp had onerous licensing terms. Given that he is reported by Axil to have taken the specific step of making it more difficult to work out the composition of the full three months before his death, onerous terms would not be a surprise. Inventors can be a little unbalanced. I'm not arguing here that Papp had something; only that there might be a good reason people didn't take him up on his offer unrelated to the technology itself. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
It is obvious that we are in disagreement on plenty of issues and I will leave it at that. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle that runs virtually for free? Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an acceptable mass market proven product. People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by someone in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently. This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors. Erm, no. Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage. Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are alternative methods for treatment for these. Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond conventional treatments. BUT despite this, MOST people with a death disease sentence do not investigate alternatives, and many if told just ignore them. LERN needs a great deal of investment and approval and agreement from many people before it is going to power anyones home. It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that. I completely disagree. If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use. Things are bought by oil and car companies and shelved. Inventors have sold out for hundreds of millions, I recall reading that Archie Blue, water car inventor sold out for a nice sum, though I can't find anything to support this at the moment. If you doubt that the automotive industry isn't in bed with the oil industry, I suggest you look at 'Who killed the electric car'. That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this technology is real. So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that they are doomed. Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the doors in time to save themselves. Are you aware of any past attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine? I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as revolutionary as the Papp engine. How can I or anyone else trust our normal senses to be right about such a device? From what I read, Papp did not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone out of his control. Who are we to trust to make a determination that that device was not a fraud? Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics community. He is also heavily invested in physics the way it was. I would not trust a sceptical person about something not being real... Any more than I'd trust a true believer in their subject (UFO's, God, etc...) that they are right. Both are horribly biased. I'd look at the evidence on a level playing field, not assume that my prejudices were meaningful (not let that tilt the playing field) and let the evidence speak for it's self. So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept. That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such a system. Why do you believe that it MUST be preserved? The idea that it is is just an idea. The belief that energy might be created isn't illogical, it merely goes against the assumption and general observation that it is conserved. Consider that you could have a monetary system in a computer simulation, and within the rules of the game money can't be created or destroyed, merely moved from one place to another... But a programmer could also setup a hotkey to increase money in a certain part of the simulation. Now money normally follows the observed rules that it is only moved around, pays off debts and is loaned out, spent etc, and sometimes illogically in seeming violation of the rules just appears out of nowhere. The same could be true with energy, it might be costless to produce energy if we are working at a sufficiently deep level, going beyond the rules of the game and into the underlying system literally changing the rules, working from a different level. Now I have no idea if this is so, but neither do you. Additionally even if God existed, he couldn't comment on the impossibility that anything could exist outside of the everything s/he thinks
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
It is enlightening to consider the structure of the universe and the many wonders that it reveals to us. Keep asking the right questions and you will find appropriate answers. I have observed the behavior of particles and energies for some time now and I find that the CoE is an effective way to validate the interactions among them. Of course I suspect that you are aware of the fact that mass is included as a component of the law by the rules of special relativity. I have seen no evidence that CoE is breached in LENR type low energy reactions and if you have any evidence to the contrary please inform me. Until there is reason to believe otherwise, I will use that measure as a requirement. If you open your mind too wide, your brains will spill out...as they say. Everyone must establish a criteria to evaluate nature and they should choose wisely. You mention Wilczek and his theory as one possible description of nature. Why would his theory hold more sway than others that compete? Just because he once received a Nobel does not mean that he has all the answers. All you need do is look back at the prize awards of past years and you will see many examples of errors in understanding that won the award only to be surpassed by later information. No one has had a Nobel taken back due to redefinition as far as I know. I am not inferring that Wilczek did not deserve his particular prize; only that having one does not place someone upon a pedestal above all others. At this point, I would not be surprised to find that much of our understanding is too shallow, especially in quantum mechanics. One day a theory will materialize that is much more complete since so little is actually known about simple items; the electron for example. Perhaps Mills has some insight that we have been missing to date. Time will discern the best theory. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. Here are some thoughts on the CoE. What major quantum physics theory would drastically oppose the CoE? The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, One instant you have one universe, next instant you have thousands that have split off due to probabilities. Does this mean that the many worlds theory is incorrect? Mass sure looked like it was conserved until physics showed that if you smash particles into other particles it can be created. Can you create matter by moving atoms around? Of course not, but can mass be created outside of the atomic system, by speeding protons to hit into other protons, or annihilation etc.. Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek has shown that matter can be shown to fit perfectly with the model that matter is made from fluid dynamics in a type of medium, the aether, or higgs field etc.. My belief is that matter and electromagnetism are just a tiny example of the number of ways that this fluid can move, and that other options might make for dark matter etc... (or Chi and other names given for non physical energy). If this substance is compelled into the right form, perhaps it is possible to form it into the right dynamics to be recognized by us as energy, but would it require energy to do that? Possibly not, maybe such a form can be made at little to no cost. Maybe it can not. But the point is that just like mass being conserved until you breach the boundary conditions where matter stops behaving in it's conserved manner and can suddenly be created and destroyed. Once you break beyond the game as usual and through the underlying mechanics of what keeps a proton as a proton, as a given mass and allows it to manifest as something else your views on matter change. There wasn't a law for the conservation of mass when the CoE was proposed, but probably only because it would have seemed obvious. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:10 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle that runs virtually for free? Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an acceptable mass market proven product. People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by someone in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently. This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors. Erm, no. Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage. Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are alternative methods for treatment for these. Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond conventional treatments
Re: [Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo
The video raises my expectations quite a bit, but there are many questions that need to be answered before I will be convinced that it works well. My main question at this point is why do they need 10,000 amps of drive current to get the power output? If the dynamic impedance is .1 ohms, which is typical and not very large, then the input power could be the same as the output at 10 MWatts. Nothing is said about the duty cycle of that large input power, so if it is low, perhaps this device performs somewhat similar to the ECAT. Home use of a device of this power level would be problematic due to the extremely large input drive power requirement. Perhaps they can scale it down to a level that would be more manageable for a single home or vehicle. Axil seems to think the device operates like a form of PaPP machine and that may be the case. My opinion is that it is too early to know exactly what they have built, but it would be great if it can operate with a COP of 3 or more. Since the output appears to be DC, the generator efficiency should already be taken into account. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for a miracle. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 12:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo Not every photon which encounters an atom or ion will photoionize it. The probability of photoionization is related to the photoionization cross-section, which depends on the energy of the photon and the target being considered. For photon energies below the ionization threshold, the photoionization cross-section is near zero. But with the development of pulsed lasers it has become possible to create extremely intense, coherent light where multi-photon ionization may occur. At even higher intensities (around 1015 - 1016 W/cm2 of infrared or visible light), non-perturbative phenomena such as barrier suppression ionization and rescattering ionization are observed. I I suggest that Mills add some chlorine and/or helium to his concoction to provide more powerful x-ray production from his spark. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excimer_laser On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am very impressed. My initial suspicion has been bolstered that Mills has developed a new version of the Papp engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine It is a Wankel engine variation that has 60 reaction spaces that fire at 200 times a minute. That is a firing rate of 12,000 pulses/minute, as compared to 500 for the Papp engine. The fuel produces nanoparticles that are super ionized by the arc where only the innermost electrons of the crystal remain unaffected in their atomic orbits. From Papp technology, there is little heat produced by the reaction: almost complete photo ionization of the potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles. Milles most probably is using potassium carbonate as the catalyst because it has the proper engineering characteristics to produce nanoparticles. Even though Papp technology is open source, the Mills engine design is original and innovative so his intellectual property claim might hold up. Here is a snippet from Papp engine theory that explains the basics of the power production principles. Remember that water and potassium can produce solid nanoparticles just like noble gases do. --- Where does the explosive force come from? The force produced in the Papp engine comes from the explosion of these clusters of gas and water atoms under the excitation of ultraviolet and x-rays. As the energy of this EMF goes up so does the explosive power of the clusters. When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low. On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp cluster explosion reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the cluster fragment expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion. Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity is similar in magnitude. The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it is for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Jeff, do you know whether or not Mills takes special relativity into consideration in his equations that lead to the excellent match with the fine structure constant? If he does, how does SR impact the calculation? There are interesting implications if he does not need to. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12 (i.e. 137) while Mills has 9+ significant digits that match the rest mass of the electron (i.e. 510998.896) and he does it for 5 equations that are classical and he does it in a logical fashion that a college physics student would understand, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From Quaternion Physics: In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, ½(e/q)² = 1/137.12 appears and is approximagely equal to α. Quaternions are the third normed division algebra. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory? If so, I have something to contribute: There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy. A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is therein defined): http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by complex numbers. An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy with the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and gravitational interactions respectively On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. == For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number of great circles (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere having radius R. 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a sphere having radius R. 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found in physics textbooks. The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the electron would be impossible in my view. Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different postulates. 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal to *only* the reduced Planck constant at
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Thanks for the information Jeff. I was expecting his mass calculation to increase or remain the same as the speed of the orbitsphere approached light speed. Now I will have to understand why it is supposed to become less. That was not even on my radar! We need to understand what might happen had the denominator become infinite in his fractional representation. Many times a limiting value holds key information and it seems odd that the value of 1/137 should be so important. I guess that this particular fraction is tied to the speed of light which is a well defined parameter. That might be the significance that we seek, so now I plan to go onto your site and look at the equations in more detail. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory yes, it is all in there, I can find it later, but if you look at his papers, you will see it the mass of the electron does not increase as the orbits get closer to 1/137 (and as it approaches the speed of light) as it approaches that 1/137 orbit, it becomes more similar to a photon having zero mass, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jeff, do you know whether or not Mills takes special relativity into consideration in his equations that lead to the excellent match with the fine structure constant? If he does, how does SR impact the calculation? There are interesting implications if he does not need to. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12 (i.e. 137) while Mills has 9+ significant digits that match the rest mass of the electron (i.e. 510998.896) and he does it for 5 equations that are classical and he does it in a logical fashion that a college physics student would understand, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From Quaternion Physics: In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, ½(e/q)² = 1/137.12 appears and is approximagely equal to α. Quaternions are the third normed division algebra. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory? If so, I have something to contribute: There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy. A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is therein defined): http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by complex numbers. An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy with the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and gravitational interactions respectively On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. == For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Power’s technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. I was attempting to explain how the probabilistic location and movement of electrons according to quantum mechanics is non radiating. As long as an observer at the far field locations does not detect a change in the E or H field vectors as a function of time, then no radiation will be generated. Begin with a DC current flowing within a loop of wire and you will see that at a far off location the H field remains constant for all time. No change generally means no radiation. Of course, there exists a constant value which leads to the magnetic field due to the loop current. Note that this is also at a zero radian per second rate if expressed in frequency terms. If you look into the situation further, you will realize that any 3 dimensional current path is non radiational provided the current flows at a constant rate at every point along the structure. Charges will be accelerated in most wire configurations, but no radiation is generated. The S,P,D, and any other orbital shapes can be accommodated. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 8:04 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. I believe the charge distribution in the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, in order to provide a replacement for the spin quantum number [1]. This gives the sphere an electric dipole moment. Two questions I have are (1) what regulates the distribution of charge when there's a single orbitsphere (e.g., hydrogen), and (2) how do the orbitspheres orient themselves when there are multiple, encapsulating orbitspheres? For example, why does the charge distribution not vary over time? And when there are multiple, containing orbitspheres, do they cancel one another out, with the distributions orienting in order to minimize Coulomb repulsion? Also, since the charge density over the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, I take it that a single great circle of circulating current of width dx will not have a vector sum of charge of zero. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. I get the impression that probability is not thought to apply -- the orbitsphere is the sum total of an infinite number of great circles of circulating current of width dx and (possibly varying) thickness dz. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this point. Eric [1] http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
My bad. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. Ah, no doubt my mistake. The hypothesized situations were so similar that I assumed you were discussing the Mills model of the atom. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
I, like you would greatly appreciate a theory that is more classical and deterministic. But, there is a great deal of human intellect and energy involved in quantum theory and we must be careful before it can be abandoned. It is our task to remain skeptical of a new theory and subject it to proper scrutiny. For this reason I am asking questions that I assume will have direct answers. I am confident that there are many other vorts that share my concerns. If the theory is valid, it will stand up to any test that we can subject it to. Mills should appreciate the opportunity that is before him to prove his assertions. One question comes up immediately from what you have just written about the fine structure constant. Why does the electron in that particular orbitsphere travel at the speed of light without any apparent increase of mass? I would anticipate that the momentum or energy calculations would be seriously impacted once that speed is approached. Special Relativity appears to work well in every case that I have analyzed and I wonder how it comes into play with Mills theory? I guess I would like to understand how the 1/137 orbitsphere is affected by special relativity considerations? I suspect that the number would be modified to something like 1/135 for example. Any comment? Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:00 pm Subject: [Vo]:Mills's theory I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. == For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number of great circles (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere having radius R. 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a sphere having radius R. 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found in physics textbooks. The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the electron would be impossible in my view. Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different postulates. 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not a function of principal quantum number). 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable orbits. You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: http://zhydrogen.com Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small magnetic interaction between the electron and the
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
Mike, I have no doubt that an electron that is spread into the two dimensional orbitsphere would not radiate. I think that the exclusion of the radial charge current components are not necessary for this to be true. I read many pages in Mill's well written document and came across an equation where he states that any inclusion of a radial current would lead to radiation and I am confident that is not true under certain circumstances. As I discussed earlier, the only requirement is that the currents associated with the orbitsphere would need to be continuous and of a DC like nature. It is easy to demonstrate that a steady flowing charge that is not reversing or changing magnitude with time at every point in space will not lead to radiation. A magnetic field will be formed by the flowing current, but no far field RF radiation pattern will be established. Perhaps you can clarify one point which so far has escaped my understanding of Mill's theory. Does his calculated orbitsphere change pattern with time under stable non radiation conditions? A simple way to put this question is: Does the stable orbitsphere have an AC component associated with it? I would assume that you would have the answer to this simple question if you understand his theory in great detail. I can attempt to clarify what I am asking further if you wish as I realize that the terms I am using may not match those that you are familiar with. The main point that I am attempting to make is that any smooth DC, 3 dimensional current pattern will not lead to far field energy escape(radiation). There are an infinite number of complex 3d shapes that are possible if the only constraint is to prevent radiation of photons. I have not analyzed the case where an AC current flow is required, so that might force the 2 dimensional patterns as calculated by Mills. So far I have not seen evidence that his electron orbitsphere is of an AC nature instead of the DC. Can you verify that he calculates AC flow (charge being a function of time at any spatial point) in these patterns? I am not attempting to discredit Mills in any way, and as a matter of fact would be thrilled to find that his work could simplify the many complexities of quantum mechanics. I just seek a better understanding of how his theory works and the nature of his electron orbitspheres. So far I have concluded that they are DC like and I hope someone can correct this belief if it does not accurately reflect his theory. Can anyone help answer this question? It is interesting that the BLP experiments show some of the expected lines from deep space radiation. That certainly might qualify as evidence in support of hydrinos. I hope to find time to look into that further since the other competing claims as to what constitutes dark matter seems like a long stretch. I find it easier to suspect that some error in measurement or understanding of gravitation or space is more likely than those. Can Mills bring us a bottle of hydrinos to analyze? They should generate pressure and have weight just as normal hydrogen even though it would be impossible to see them with normal illumination. Perhaps someone has seen a collection of this material in the past that I am unaware of. If, on the other hand, no one can collect hydrinos for measurement, then their existence is suspect. Can a loss of mass attributed to the formation of hydrinos and their subsequent escape from the system be shown? This would be strong evidence as well. One would think that a relatively large amount of hydrino formation must take place to generate a significant amount of chemical energy especially at the [1/4] state and the loss of this much mass, due to diffusion, easy to measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 7:02 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement Dave, I suggest you [free] download Vol. 1 of Mills GUTCP and follow the mathematical derivation of the orbitsphere contain therein. Be aware that the notion of ‘zero thickness’ has been debated to death in past years. Be aware also that Dr. Connet, a mathematician and department head attacked Mills with savage rhetoric over years until Mills silenced him by pointing out Connet’s errors in reading Mills’ analysis. Connet conceded that ills work has merit. As far as ‘dark matter’ is concerned, look in the website for an image of a star field, and look carefully at the papers cited below the image. Essentially, hydrinos are created by stellar processes. They have mass, but do not radiate, which defines ‘dark matter’. The reactions creating hydrinos *do* radiate and are seen in telescopes as ‘unknown sources’. But, the same lines have been seen in BLP experiments producing hydrinos. Mike Carrell From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:48 PM
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
OK Mike, I desire a better understanding to what Mills has derived from classical fields. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to join that group provided I meet the qualifications. Perhaps Dr. Mills can answer my questions in person which I would appreciate greatly. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
Eric, I was suspecting that the hydrinos might be diffusing out of the system so that a relatively large mass would appear missing. The small mass converted to energy expected by a true fusion reaction is so tiny that it is extremely difficult to measure. The chemical reaction nature of hydrino generation that subsequently escape would be much easier to detect at low sub levels than fusion events. I am having a difficult time expressing what I refer to. It would be great if hydrinos could be captured in some vessel, but no one has reported having them around to measure as far as I know. That is my main point. Until some of these little guys are captured and tested I must remain skeptical. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:42 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Can a loss of mass attributed to the formation of hydrinos and their subsequent escape from the system be shown? This would be strong evidence as well. I think the transition from hydrogen to hydrino would show up as an apparent violation of conservation of mass/energy. You would get the transfer of heat to the catalyst during the transition to a sub-ground state, and then the remaining particle would fall into the epistemological void, becoming a dark-matter like entity and disappearing from most kinds of detection. (I recall mention that hydrinos can be detected in spectrographic analysis; perhaps it is only the less shrunken ones that can.) I.e., it would look like some mass disappeared, and that an amount of energy that is not equivalent to the disappearing mass was all remained. It would look like mass-energy was lost from the system. I too am skeptical about dark matter, about hydrinos, and about hydrinos being dark matter. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Thanks Jeff, I attempted to download some of the pdfs on BLP site and had no luck so far. I will look at yours next and hope for better. I prefer classical fields over quantum mechanics provided it covers the bases. It would seem very strange to find out that the current theories are easy to replace with Mills' concepts since they appear so differently based. Who knows, one day that might occur, and I will be pleasantly surprised. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 10:15 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I have a good intro to the basics of Mills's theory (plus much more detail) at http://zhydrogen.com/ much of it is details on the hydrogen atom and hydrinos - I don't go into details of SQM (Standard Quantum Mechanics) vs CQM (Classical Quantum Mechanics) where Mills's theory is based on CQM. Mills's theory fits existing data better than standard quantum mechanics and the equations are *much* simpler and easier to understand, though it takes some elbow grease to understand it, Jeff On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Mike, I desire a better understanding to what Mills has derived from classical fields. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to join that group provided I meet the qualifications. Perhaps Dr. Mills can answer my questions in person which I would appreciate greatly. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 8:42 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his *classical physics* can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics since the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
Jeff, Do you expect x-rays and gamma rays to pass through a cloud of hydrinos without interacting? This might be a way to see them if they are in fact considered dark matter. I recently read about a super powerful x-ray laser that could strip all the electrons from atoms and I bet it would do the same for hydrinos. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement Hydrinos are still matter, and is a gas, just like hydrogen, you can feel it with your hands if it is blowing out a tube. But light will pass straight through a giant cloud of it without being absorbed or reflected but it will be gravitationally bent: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Erik, conservation f energy applies. Understood. I'm not saying that hydrinos would violate conservation of mass/energy. I was making a point about what measurements would seem to record -- that instruments might tell the observer that visible mass seems to have been lost that is not accounted for by the balance of energy seen. No doubt I might be wrong. If someone knows of a detail that would make this otherwise, it would be interesting to know. (I've already mentioned spectrographic analysis as one possibility.) Eric -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
in addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
The more I think about hydrinos, the more I suspect that they would not be dark enough to hide from astronomers. Perhaps the clouds of hydrogen that we see and from which stars form are just a large number of hydrinos being decomposed back into hydrogen due to gamma radiation. One problem with this idea is that the sun and planets do not seem to have a huge excess of dark matter surrounding them and making their gravitational attraction inaccurate. Actually why do we not find dark matter all around us under normal conditions? If hydrinos were the missing dark matter, why do we not see a large effect from those nearby? Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 12:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement no, won't refract, just gravitationally bend here is a better link for dark matter: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/ On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:21 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: Hydrinos are still matter, and is a gas, just like hydrogen, you can feel it with your hands if it is blowing out a tube. But light will pass straight through a giant cloud of it without being absorbed or reflected but it will be gravitationally bent: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html Is it possible that hydrinos could refract light instead of reflecting it? Harry -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Kevin, the skeptics have failed to prove that Rossi does not have a real device. They always fall back on character assassination when they have nothing left. I guess you might think that if someone once committed a felony, then it is likely that they might repeat. This belief may be true in many cases, but it is unfair to anyone who has changed their ways. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 12:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered There seems to be another thing that skeptopaths engage in. They try to turn any LENR discussion into Andrea Rossi and his past. LENR had 14,700 replications before Andrea Rossi ever showed up on the scene. And BTW, Wikipedia recently removed all the supposed convictions of fraud for Rossi, because the evidence could not support it under a very simple response by Rossi that they need to either put up or shut up, so they shut up. Rossi is convicted tax evader. That's it. No fraud convictions, if Wikipedia is to be believed. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: tacticalogic I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef? Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PSTby Wonder Warthog [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Wonder Warthog Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PSTby tacticalogic [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: tacticalogic Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT follow up. NOTHING will induce them to actually examine the evidence. The honest skeptics do. 34posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 08:46:23 AM PSTby Wonder Warthog [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Wonder Warthog I’ve looked at LENR-CANR.org. It’s interesting research, but I can’t find any research that’s actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. 35posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 10:24:46 AM PSTby tacticalogic [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: tacticalogic I’ve looked at LENR-CANR.org. It’s interesting research, but I can’t find any research that’s actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. LOL. Yeah, right. You're read all the thousands of papers at LENR-CANR.org. SSRREEE you have. If you proceed from either of the start points I gave you, you will find the data quite easily, as the references to specific papers are well documented in both of them. But you won't, will you. 36posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 01:36:37 PM PSTby Wonder Warthog [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Wonder Warthog No, I
Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor
Axil, How does quantum mechanics explain this phenomenon? Is this new physics of some type or just super heating of the region where the IR contacts the particles? The IR must induce an extremely large electron current flow on the surface of the metal which of course leads to a strong magnetic field. Is it this field that lowers the threshold required to fuse? One of my favorite concepts is that the electric field induced by the rapidly changing magnetic field could accelerate protons so that they fuse. This would be a form of hot fusion if active. What is your opinion as to the mechanism? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:09 pm Subject: [Vo]:The photo reactor Beside neutrons, there is another less traveled road to the initiation of nuclear reactions that has been under the radar in the nuclear community. Many years ago, it was shown that high energy lasers could induce fission and fusion if the power of the laser pulse was strong enough http://physics.aps.org/story/v5/st3 Photo induced nuclear reactions begin to occur when the power density of the infrared light reached just under 10^^20 W/cm2. Since the time of unaided photo nuclear reactions were demonstrated at the turn of this century, it has been shown that gold nano-particles used as nano-lenses can amplify and concentrate infrared light by 9 orders of magnitudes. This is experimentally verified performance that comes out of the science of Nanoplasmonics. Now with gold Nano-particles, it is logical to expect nuclear reactions will occur when laser light with an intensity of 10^^10 W/cm2 to 10^^12 W/cm2 will occur. If you are interested, experimental results have been published as verification. That is 9 orders of magnitude less than unaided photo irradiation. Experiments using gold nano-particles in water suspension irradiated by laser light of this reduced level of intensity do in fact occur. Since then, experimentally verified light amplification by nano-structures has been observed to reach a top end of 10 to the 15 power. The idea is that if more and more nano-particle infrared photo concentration is applied to a system, then less and less infrared photon input energy will produce a nuclear reaction. In current photo reactors under development, with additional tweaking of more effective methods and materials, together with improved nano-structure shapes and topology, it is not unreasonable to expect that 10 to the 20th power concentration or more of photo application might be reached. In current photo based nuclear reactors, that means that it is reasonable to assume that nuclear reactions will occur if UNAPMLIFIED infrared light were to interact with properly engineered nanostructures. Increased infrared photo amplification is what has been done in the design of the current crop of Nickel/Hydrogen reactors. By the way, both the Mills reactor and the Santilli process are other examples of photo reactors but these inventors just don’t know it yet. The Open Physical Chemistry Journal, 2013, 5, 17-27 Confirmations of Santilli’s Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium and Carbon Into Nitrogen Without Harmful Radiations J. V. Kadeisvili, C. Lynch and Y. Yang Abstract: We present five independent confirmations of the intermediate controlled nuclear fusion of Nitrogen from Deuterium and Carbon without the emission of harmful radiations or the release of radioactive waste, first achieved by R. M. Santilli [12] following extended mathematical, theoretical and experimental research, and preliminarily confirmed by R.Brenna, T. Kuliczkowski, and L.Ying [13]. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topc ... 7TOPCJ.pdf This is just another spark driven nanoplasmonic LENR system. The photo driven anapole magnetic field produced by nanoparticles is recognized by the inventor but it is called a Santilli magnecules. A pattern is forming involving spark driven nanoparticle based LENR systems: Santilli, Mills, Rossi and DGT. The inventors of these systems all have a differing theoretical explanation of their reaction, but they are all basically the same nanoplasmonic driven photo reactors.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor
Maxwell's equations are classical and quantum mechanics are the more recent theory. I am wondering how quantum mechanics explains this behavior. Or, do they remain silent about the effect? What wave function allows this to occur? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor EMF concentration is just on of the features that the Maxwell equations allow to happen. With the proper methods, materials and procedures involving EMF waveforms(sub-wave-length focusing and resonances), restrictions on EMF concentration can be overcome to fantastic levels. The deep infrared(terahertz) is ideal for this type of wavelength manipulation because the wavelength is so long. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, How does quantum mechanics explain this phenomenon? Is this new physics of some type or just super heating of the region where the IR contacts the particles? The IR must induce an extremely large electron current flow on the surface of the metal which of course leads to a strong magnetic field. Is it this field that lowers the threshold required to fuse? One of my favorite concepts is that the electric field induced by the rapidly changing magnetic field could accelerate protons so that they fuse. This would be a form of hot fusion if active. What is your opinion as to the mechanism? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:09 pm Subject: [Vo]:The photo reactor Beside neutrons, there is another less traveled road to the initiation of nuclear reactions that has been under the radar in the nuclear community. Many years ago, it was shown that high energy lasers could induce fission and fusion if the power of the laser pulse was strong enough http://physics.aps.org/story/v5/st3 Photo induced nuclear reactions begin to occur when the power density of the infrared light reached just under 10^^20 W/cm2. Since the time of unaided photo nuclear reactions were demonstrated at the turn of this century, it has been shown that gold nano-particles used as nano-lenses can amplify and concentrate infrared light by 9 orders of magnitudes. This is experimentally verified performance that comes out of the science of Nanoplasmonics. Now with gold Nano-particles, it is logical to expect nuclear reactions will occur when laser light with an intensity of 10^^10 W/cm2 to 10^^12 W/cm2 will occur. If you are interested, experimental results have been published as verification. That is 9 orders of magnitude less than unaided photo irradiation. Experiments using gold nano-particles in water suspension irradiated by laser light of this reduced level of intensity do in fact occur. Since then, experimentally verified light amplification by nano-structures has been observed to reach a top end of 10 to the 15 power. The idea is that if more and more nano-particle infrared photo concentration is applied to a system, then less and less infrared photon input energy will produce a nuclear reaction. In current photo reactors under development, with additional tweaking of more effective methods and materials, together with improved nano-structure shapes and topology, it is not unreasonable to expect that 10 to the 20th power concentration or more of photo application might be reached. In current photo based nuclear reactors, that means that it is reasonable to assume that nuclear reactions will occur if UNAPMLIFIED infrared light were to interact with properly engineered nanostructures. Increased infrared photo amplification is what has been done in the design of the current crop of Nickel/Hydrogen reactors. By the way, both the Mills reactor and the Santilli process are other examples of photo reactors but these inventors just don’t know it yet. The Open Physical Chemistry Journal, 2013, 5, 17-27 Confirmations of Santilli’s Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium and Carbon Into Nitrogen Without Harmful Radiations J. V. Kadeisvili, C. Lynch and Y. Yang Abstract: We present five independent confirmations of the intermediate controlled nuclear fusion of Nitrogen from Deuterium and Carbon without the emission of harmful radiations or the release of radioactive waste, first achieved by R. M. Santilli [12] following extended mathematical, theoretical and experimental research, and preliminarily confirmed by R.Brenna, T. Kuliczkowski, and L.Ying [13]. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topc ... 7TOPCJ.pdf This is just another spark driven nanoplasmonic LENR system. The photo driven anapole magnetic field produced by nanoparticles is recognized by the inventor but it is called a Santilli magnecules. A pattern is forming involving spark driven nanoparticle based LENR systems: Santilli, Mills
Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor
I suppose that the reactions you favor such as d + p appear to be easier to believe because it is difficult to detect the p + p immediate ash. One suspicion that I have harbored for some time now is that the p + p reaction is very common within the sun's active region. But, the energy released at that event is rampart in the local environment and can easily break up one of the nearby proton pairs so that they return to separate components. From earlier research, I saw absolute proof that PP can not remain in that form, even thought the strong force should overcome the coulomb force once they are in contact. The reason being that D is the only stable pair of nucleons and any other pair will decay into D. This includes NN or PP. It does take time for the PP to decay into PN by the weak force, so I suspect that the reaction is not going to be all that common. The forces ready to break up the PP pair have plenty of time to do their jobs unless some mechanism exists that takes this energy out slowly. An electron capture seems to be the best bet since the 511 keV pairs are not detected. Ed's concept might be able to assist with this problem. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 3:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One of my favorite concepts is that the electric field induced by the rapidly changing magnetic field could accelerate protons so that they fuse. This would be a form of hot fusion if active. In the context of known physics, a p+p reaction will not go anywhere very quickly (unless Jones is right about reversible proton fusion). The proton-proton chain that is thought to power the sun relies upon a step in which a very unstable and short-lived [pp]* state is followed by a beta-plus decay to get a deuteron (and a positron and electron neutrino). This second step depends upon the weak interaction and is extremely slow, and hence unfavored. If the weak interaction were faster, the sun would rapidly burn through its fuel (or perhaps explode). For this reason, people proposing a p+p reaction of some kind in the context of LENR are compelled either to modify the application of the weak interaction (as in the case of Ed Storms, who seems to be saying that it just doesn't apply to the hydroton) or increase the rate of beta-plus decay by localizing energy in the system to get a neutron (Widom and Larsen) or do something else along these lines. It is the weak interaction that is causing their explanations so much difficulty. Because the weak interaction is (normally) so slow, I find the d+p, d+d, p+Ni, etc., reactions much more promising. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mike, I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery impacts those features. This *is* what GUTCP is all about. Many have attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the website, with details in journal papers. The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Beauty comes from truth. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are easier to swallow. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron in strongly correlated systems. The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly correlated chemical system? The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and orbitals. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably have somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental if these exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on this list, claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a hundred. Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500: Hi, How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses orbitals in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills experiments can't. [snip] Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor
Observation of your model reminds me of how electrons might be distributed as a
result of the presence of a strong high frequency resonance. If the particle
is tuned carefully then a sharp peak in response would seem likely. If the
drive frequency is not carefully tuned, the peak would be reduced a large
amount provided the particle acts as a high Q resonate tank.
I have difficulty accepting the condition that most of the particles have the
same resonant frequency since that parameter should be a strong function of the
3 dimensional shape of each nano particle as well as coupling to the nearby
ones. Perhaps the scrambling of the powder by external and internal fields or
vibrations results in regions that have a sharp resonant response where your
model operates. Also, there may be some unknown force that arises out of the
mix that coordinates the activity. Non linear systems occasionally tend to
generate peaks that far exceed any expected by linear vector additions and
rouge ocean waves appear to exhibit this type of behavior.
The reported extreme magnetic fields of the DGT device could be the agent that
scrambles and then coordinates the resonance you describe. I suspect that the
particles would be pushed and pulled by such a field.
My favorite type of coordinating mechanism is one that exhibits positive
feedback. In that case, the effect you seek causes a change to a variable that
reinforces the original agent of change. In this manner the field and effect
build together to a value that far exceeds any that would be observed by the
interaction of the relatively minor early stages. If the system only depended
upon the initial levels, the effect would be buried within the noise. My model
of Rossi's ECAT works in a manner somewhat consistent with that description.
If the ECAT did not exhibit positive feedback by thermal means, the controlled
power output would be much less. He appears to be fortunate in finding a
control means that allows his device to operate with a COP greater than 6.
If we delve into the world of oscillators, some ideas might arise that reveal
important clues. The large magnetic field seen by DGT likely is a result of a
large flow of charged particles within the device. Assuming that there is no
significant magnetic field before LENR takes over, I immediately would conclude
that there is some form of feedback involving the local magnetic field level
and the fusion reaction. Furthermore, the fusion reactions that arise as a
result of the local field must somehow cause that field to increase in
magnitude. Perhaps we should look for a mechanism that ejects electrons or
other charged particles in sync with the current magnetic field at each
location. If these suspect charged particles are randomly emitted, then they
would not tend to reinforce the original control field. This search for a
process appears to be an excellent project.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The photo reactor
David,
Here is an very simplified view of how colliding oppositely charged
plasmon waves might look when two adjacent metallic nanoparticles are
subjected to a large voltage gradient.
Surface electrons and protons (or +ions) quickly flow to opposite sides
and the nanoparticles collide with assistance of the local coulomb field.
The positive and negative charges at the collision point receive
large additional energy kicks from like-charges behind them and
opposite-charges in front. The additional collectively supplied
energy/momentum can be very large - and analogous to how the atom
at an arrow's tip borrows energy from the arrow body to penetrate
a target it would bounce off of if it was a separate atom.
| (+) (-) |
| -- VOLTAGE - |
| |
-+-+
---+++---+++
--- +++ --- +++
---+++---+++
-+-+
---+++---+++
--- +++ --- +++
---+++---+++
-+-+
NANOPARTICLE NANOPARTICLE
David Roberson wrote:
Axil,
How does quantum mechanics explain this phenomenon? Is this new physics
of some type or just super heating of the region where the IR contacts the
particles?
The IR must induce an extremely large electron current flow on the surface
of the metal which of course leads to a strong magnetic field. Is it this
field that lowers
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
I also find what appears to be a problem with the theory. Mills makes an assumption in the very beginning of his analysis that the electron orbit sphere must be of zero thickness with no radial component if it is to exist without radiation of electromagnetic waves. This is not true and can easily be demonstrated in an experiment. You can construct any three dimensional wire configuration you like containing the 2 dimensional surface that Mills assumes as well as any sections which head into and out of the third dimension he rejects. The only constraint is that the current flowing through this total structure does not change the charge distribution with time. The net result of a system that I am describing is a DC current flowing through the structure. It does not require any restriction upon its loop path, contrary to what Mills assumes. Perhaps he should go back to his original equations and see how this relaxed requirement impacts his model. There may be implications for the behavior of the hydrino orbitals that he predicts. It is refreshing to review how he is able to apply classical theory to the atomic realm and I would love to see quantum theory replaced with a more deterministic model. That is a long shot. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 10:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Mills theory. This theory is purported to be a universally applied theory of the atom, but it requires the mediation of a catalyst to appear. The requirement for a catalyst adds consideration of the chemically based mediation of other electrons associated with the catalyst to affect the quantum mechanical behavior of the atom in question. The mills hydrino theory is purported to be an atomic theory, but it is really a condensed matter theory. In other words, the Mills theory cannot rightfully describe the behavior of a standalone atom in terms of orbits of its electrons. Furthermore, the mathematical description of hydrino atom's behavior never includes the interactions of neighboring electrons and their influence on the hydrino atom. In the explanation of his theory to the best of my understanding, Mills never mentions how the actions and influences of the electrons that are in the environment of the hydrino atom effect or cause the hydrino atom On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, JeffD jef...@gmail.com wrote: I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory: http://zhydrogen.com I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom - and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct. http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT device last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD version). http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 Jeff On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, peter...@gmail.com wrote: This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. Not LENR, but energy Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
My understanding of fields is that the shell could be any thickness and that the electron cloud (I refer to the continuous charge field here) could occupy any three dimensional shape in space and still not radiate. The distribution does however determine the external magnetic field that is generated by the effective current flow. Motion of the charge distribution must be taking place for an external magnetic field to be present. I was reading one of the papers listed on your site about what was real and unreal when I saw the 2 dimensional requirement. Do you recall any theory by Mills that suggests that radiation from the electron orbital can be suppressed if the motion of the electron charge is anything but constant and of a DC nature? My suspicion is that it is not possible for an overall balance to be present in the far field region unless the current is DC. Any acceleration of charge generates a far field pattern and only an equal and opposite directed acceleration can balance that out. I visualize a loop of wire when I think of similar behavior. Everyone suspects that an electron circulating around that loop is subject to acceleration and will generate a far field radiation pattern. My model says that this is indeed the case. But as more electrons are added to the wire, better balance occurs. Eventually, when a continuous stream of them are circulating around the loop, a complete balance occurs. Any direction that is probed in the far field region will be completely balanced at every point in space as long as an extremely large number are looping. This effect has one hole in it which is a steady DC magnetic field. The DC field can be very complex in 3 dimensional spatial shape which is established by the motion of the electrons path. One interesting complication is that the magnetic field must consist of at least 2 poles from which it emanates. This ensures that the field fall off quickly with distance and that its total energy is well contained. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement he does give a thickness for the electron shell - it is very small, the thickness is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius equation applied to the mass of the electron is much smaller than the diameter of the electron shell. I cut and pasted this from one of his pdf's - the equations are not shown in this email, but it is from page 8 of this: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Classical_Quantum_Mechanics_102804.pdf == quoting from pdf above: The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but in order that the speed of light is a constant maximum in any frame including that of the gravitational field that propagates out as a light-wave front at particle production, it gives rise to a spacetime dilation equal to 2π times the Newtonian gravitational or Schwarzschild radius (equation deleted) according to Eqs. (178) and (202). This corresponds to a spacetime dilation of (equation deleted) Although the orbitsphere does not occupy space in the third spatial dimension, its mass discontinuity effectively “displaces” spacetime wherein the spacetime dilation can be considered a “thickness” associated with its gravitational field I have a *lot* of detail on Mill's theory at my websitehttp://zhydrogen.com/ Jeff On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I also find what appears to be a problem with the theory. Mills makes an assumption in the very beginning of his analysis that the electron orbit sphere must be of zero thickness with no radial component if it is to exist without radiation of electromagnetic waves. This is not true and can easily be demonstrated in an experiment. You can construct any three dimensional wire configuration you like containing the 2 dimensional surface that Mills assumes as well as any sections which head into and out of the third dimension he rejects. The only constraint is that the current flowing through this total structure does not change the charge distribution with time. The net result of a system that I am describing is a DC current flowing through the structure. It does not require any restriction upon its loop path, contrary to what Mills assumes. Perhaps he should go back to his original equations and see how this relaxed requirement impacts his model. There may be implications for the behavior of the hydrino orbitals that he predicts. It is refreshing to review how he is able to apply classical theory to the atomic realm and I would love to see quantum theory replaced with a more deterministic model. That is a long shot. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
It appears to me that they have most of the possible current levels covered. Why list ranges that include each other? Magnetic fields that are changing in magnitude or direction generate electric fields that can impart energy upon charged particles. A steady magnetic field is not able to supply energy to these charged objects, but can change their direction of motion. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:59 am Subject: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the Whats New tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - Patent Application Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, the following excerpt appears - The current density may be in the range of at least one of 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, [...] The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. [...] The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T. The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the plasma current filaments. Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less energy than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost to the catalyst. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron?
[Vo]:Some ECAT Model Observations
I spent a bit of time adjusting some of the parameters of my thermal control ECAT model and have a few observations. I suppose that it seems obvious that the greater the non linearity of the function binding core power generation to core temperature, the more critical will be the required control needed for stable high COP operation. I toyed with forth, third, second and the really wonderful linear order functions to establish the trend. An example of the type of function would be P=k*T^4. I prefer to use polynomial functions for this analysis since it is possible to construct most other functions from a series of polynomials and it is very easy to work with them. My model can use any function that I choose for this purpose with the exception of delay mechanisms. I suppose that they could also be incorporated if there is a good reason to believe that they are present and important. The linear function has the characteristic of allowing the ECAT to have a constant gain over any input temperature range somewhat like what Rossi used to say. Recently, that has been put aside as it should have been long ago to be more realistic. Any higher order relationship exhibits what I refer to as the two temperature effect. The first temperature of the pair is determined where positive feedback with a gain greater than unity takes over and the device begins its journey toward melt down. This path is followed toward an ever higher core temperature until one of two things happen. If the drive power is removed soon enough, the core will cease to increase in temperature and begin to cool down. This constitutes the normal operation function that I suspect Rossi uses. The trick is to remove the drive power at the correct time before the second temperature of the pair is reached. Unfortunately, the closer to that point you allow the device to reach, the higher the overall COP. And it appears that this behavior is fairly critical if reasonable COP is to be achieved. If you are too slow in removing the drive, then meltdown will result. Unless Rossi includes some method of rapidly extracting heat from the core region, the device can not be brought back to safe operation. I leave open the possibility of a design that is extremely well adjusted such that the functional relationship between core power generation and temperature drops rapidly before core destruction occurs. This seems unlikely, but the NAE might have some characteristic that ceases their activity while not being melted, or perhaps they regenerate after some delay and cooling. This is totally speculative. Some of the temperature waveforms that I observed as I adjusted the model parameters bear a remarkable resemblance to those observed during the recent tests. Particular attention should be applied to the exponentially rising waveform observed during the active drive pulse and the drawn out delay seen with the falling temperature. These waveforms are the signature of a system that exhibits gain as a result of the positive feedback effect I have mentioned. They become more pronounced as the gain is increased. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze, you sound like a bookie. Are you the one calling the shots in that game? Is anyone actually making bets according to your inputs? How liquid are the bets and can someone get into a position and then out again without delay? How is the money handled? If someone had bought a position that LENR exists earlier at 31%, how would they cash in now and make their 4% return? Dave -Original Message- From: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fulvio , the tech Director R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: Frelance Consultant European Gaming and Gambling Tech Market -4% Now back to 31%. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This is based on STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be updating this probability more frequently.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
John, it does seem rather arbitrary how his game works and hopefully he can help me understand it better. Does anyone actually risk capital on this issue? I have seen plenty of proof that Rossi has the real deal and I can not imagine how additional proof will make a difference to many others. The skeptics will all howl as usual with MY taking the lead. The only way that the world will accept that Rossi's ECAT is real is for them to be placed in common usage. There has been more than enough evidence already demonstrated. Dave -Original Message- From: Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Yesterday you were complaining about how stupid BLP and McKubre/Brillouin are and how annoying they were behaving. Now you see value in these reports, why? And you associate them with Rossi, why? You're all over the place Blaze, and your off-the-cuff guesstimating is beyond arbitrary. Why not just follow your own advice from yesterday and keep meaningless information yourself as well? Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. Ditto. That's going to be exciting when it lands. Regards, John On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fulvio , the tech Director R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: Frelance Consultant European Gaming and Gambling Tech Market -4% Now back to 31%. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This is based on STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be updating this probability more frequently.
Re: [Vo]:Some ECAT Model Observations
I guess I should have mentioned that I do include thermal storage within the materials. This behaves much like a capacitor and charge. That is what determines the time domain characteristics of my model. I was referring to a different type of delay, such as one that might show up if the temperature were applied to the core for a period of time and then some internal nuclear process, or whatever, begins to put out energy that builds up with time to its final value. The other normal case is handled well. It seems as though a two time constant system works well at the present time. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Some ECAT Model Observations In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:36:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] My model can use any function that I choose for this purpose with the exception of delay mechanisms. I suppose that they could also be incorporated if there is a good reason to believe that they are present and important. The cooling will always be delayed somewhat, due to the slow speed of thermal conduction. Hence thermal resistance will always play a crucial role. The lower the resistance, the faster the cooling can respond, and the more easily a high value exponent function can be controlled. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
At this point I would have to be shown iron clad evidence that the ECAT does not generate additional heat beyond what is used for drive. That would have to fall into the upper 90's. Dave -Original Message- From: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% So, Dave, I guess you're at .. what? 95%? 90%? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, it does seem rather arbitrary how his game works and hopefully he can help me understand it better. Does anyone actually risk capital on this issue? I have seen plenty of proof that Rossi has the real deal and I can not imagine how additional proof will make a difference to many others. The skeptics will all howl as usual with MY taking the lead. The only way that the world will accept that Rossi's ECAT is real is for them to be placed in common usage. There has been more than enough evidence already demonstrated. Dave -Original Message- From: Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Yesterday you were complaining about how stupid BLP and McKubre/Brillouin are and how annoying they were behaving. Now you see value in these reports, why? And you associate them with Rossi, why? You're all over the place Blaze, and your off-the-cuff guesstimating is beyond arbitrary. Why not just follow your own advice from yesterday and keep meaningless information yourself as well? Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. Ditto. That's going to be exciting when it lands. Regards, John On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fulvio , the tech Director R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: Frelance Consultant European Gaming and Gambling Tech Market -4% Now back to 31%. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This is based on STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be updating this probability more frequently.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
You are lucky in that case. The odds are in your favor and you should be able to obtain a position for next to nothing. Scalp em. Dave -Original Message- From: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% What I find fascinating is you guys probably think I'm a downer for saying 35%. But the reality is 99% of the scientific world probably thinks I'm a total crank for putting that much faith into Rossi. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At this point I would have to be shown iron clad evidence that the ECAT does not generate additional heat beyond what is used for drive. That would have to fall into the upper 90's. Dave -Original Message- From: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% So, Dave, I guess you're at .. what? 95%? 90%? On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: John, it does seem rather arbitrary how his game works and hopefully he can help me understand it better. Does anyone actually risk capital on this issue? I have seen plenty of proof that Rossi has the real deal and I can not imagine how additional proof will make a difference to many others. The skeptics will all howl as usual with MY taking the lead. The only way that the world will accept that Rossi's ECAT is real is for them to be placed in common usage. There has been more than enough evidence already demonstrated. Dave -Original Message- From: Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Yesterday you were complaining about how stupid BLP and McKubre/Brillouin are and how annoying they were behaving. Now you see value in these reports, why? And you associate them with Rossi, why? You're all over the place Blaze, and your off-the-cuff guesstimating is beyond arbitrary. Why not just follow your own advice from yesterday and keep meaningless information yourself as well? Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. Ditto. That's going to be exciting when it lands. Regards, John On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fulvio , the tech Director R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: Frelance Consultant European Gaming and Gambling Tech Market -4% Now back to 31%. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This is based on STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be updating this probability more frequently.
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
I mentioned the energy lost to the catalyst when I actually meant to include all of the various sinks. The main point I was intending to make is that energy and thus the mass associated with that energy exits the hydrino. I have one idea as to how that loss of mass may be distributed among the electron and proton. If the volume taken up by the electric fields is reduced by the closer orbital of the electron, then I would tend to think of it as being extracted from the field pattern. That would appear to include both components. This is speculation on my part. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:38:01 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Actually, the mass of the hydrino should be reduced since it has less energy than zero level hydrogen. That energy and hence mass has been lost to the catalyst. Not all the energy is lost to the catalyst. The rest appears as either UV or kinetic energy. According to my model mass is lost by both electron and proton. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document Does the relative mass of a hydrino increase with each reduced orbital radius due to the increase angular momentum of the orbiting electron? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cern Colloquium: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions?
Axil, The magnetic effects on the sun are a long way from Earth. It is true that the net field at the surface of the Earth is a vector combination of the Sun's field at that location with the Earth's, but the Earth's field is far dominate. The effect should have been seen by experiments conducted here in the past. It seems odd that no one would have tried changing the local magnetic field searching for interactions. It might be the result of some other particle. Or, just another random measurement seeking an explanation. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 12:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cern Colloquium: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions? The case for magnetism as a cause for nuclear reactions. http://phys.org/news/2011-09-physics.html Radioactive decay – a random process right? Well, according to some – maybe not. For several years now a team of physicists from Purdue and Stanford have reviewed isotope decay data across a range of different isotopes and detectors – seeing a non-random pattern and searching for a reason. And now, after eliminating all other causes – the team are ready to declare that the cause is... extraterrestrial. OK, so it’s suggested to just be the Sun – but cool finding, huh? Well… maybe it’s best to first put on your skeptical goggles before reading through anyone’s claim of discovering new physics. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics. On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare. The Sun is the source for huge explosions of magnetic force. Flares occur when accelerated charged particles, mainly electrons, interact with the plasma medium. Scientific research has shown that the phenomenon of magnetic reconnection is responsible for the acceleration of the charged particles. On the Sun, magnetic reconnection may happen on solar arcades – a series of closely occurring loops of magnetic lines of force. These lines of force quickly reconnect into a low arcade of loops leaving a helix of magnetic field unconnected to the rest of the arcade. The sudden release of energy in this reconnection is the origin of the particle acceleration. The unconnected magnetic helical field and the material that it contains may violently expand outwards forming a coronal mass ejection. This also explains why solar flares typically erupt from what are known as the active regions on the Sun where magnetic fields are much stronger on average. The appearance of the slowdown of the nuclear decay rate on earth that occurs at the onset of the solar flare indicate that magnetic interactions with the nucleus can modify nuclear activity. Magnetic energy is expended to accelerated charged particles outward from the sun. This flare activity temporally depletes magnetic force at the surface of the sun causing a reduction in nuclear decay rates. Yes, this is new physics. This solar evidence as well as Photo fusion and fission through laser radiation as described above is a result of magnetic effects modifying nuclear stability. On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The fixation on neutrons is part of the training imposedon nuclear physicists and engineers. But there is another less traveled road to the initiation ofnuclear reactions that has been under the radar in the nuclear community. Many years ago, it was shown that high energy laserscould induce fission and fusion if the power of the laser pulse was strongenough http://physics.aps.org/story/v5/st3 Photo induced nuclear reactions begin to occur when thepower density of the infrared light reached just under 10^^20 W/cm2. Since the timeof unaided photo nuclear reactions were demonstrated, it has been shown that goldnano-particles can amplify and concentrate infrared light by 9 orders ofmagnitudes. Now with gold Nano-particles, it is logicalto expect nuclear reactions will occur when laser light with an intensity of 10^^10 W/cm2 to 10^^12 W/cm2 will occur. That is 9 orders of magnitude less than unaided photo irradiation. Experiments using goldnano-particles in water suspension irradiated by laser light of this reducedlevel of intensity do in fact occur. Since then,light amplification by nano-structures has been
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
It will be interesting to get more details about this device. Hopefully, the testing is solid and not subject to interpretation. The current level being injected into the cell seems enormous and capable of causing difficulties in the measurement system. Also, the pulse nature of the activity complicates accuracy. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com; CMNS c...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 10:37 am Subject: [Vo]:BLP's announcement This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. Not LENR, but energy Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:More on the Higgs field in LENR - as a portal
Eric, Not so fast with doing away with CoE. I have not seen any proof that it is violated in any of these reactions. My suspicion is that it remains valid. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 10:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Higgs field in LENR - as a portal On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: At any rate, if we vorticians want to propose a more specific kind of straw man for consideration of how the gain comes into nickel-hydrogen LENR- but without the normal indicia of nuclear reactions, one possibility is ... One question I have is about dark matter and energy. Count me skeptical about them; but if they exist, given that we know so little about them, what's to prevent them, at least at a conceptual level, from being converted to normal energy or mass (or vice versa)? I think we would have to say goodbye to COE. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Basil Hiley Comments on Theoreticians and Experimental Science
Axil, It is premature to worry about understanding how LENR operates. One day it might appear very simple and we wonder why we did not understand it earlier. One look at a microprocessor and you have to realize how complicated it is, but we know how to make them by the boat full now. My belief is that the same thing will happen with LENR, but with the exception that LENR is far simpler. The big concern that I have about LENR is whether or not it can be turned into a dangerous weapon. Again, it is premature to know the answer to this question, but that might be one reason why the government has seen it necessary to withhold funding since they know something that is not published. So for now, I think it is best to do our best to place this important technology into use. The complicated understanding will have to wait until later. My bet is that it is quite simple once you have the materials purified. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 1:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Basil Hiley Comments on Theoreticians and Experimental Science As civilization has progressed over the centuries, humanshave been creating ever-more complicated systems, from the machines we livewith to the informational systems and laws that keep our global community together.Technology continues its relentless march toward increasing complexity — offering efficiencies andbenefits that previous generations could not have imagined — but with thisincreasing sophistication and interconnectedness come complicated and messyeffects that we can’t always anticipate. It’s one thing to recognize that the advance of technologycontinues to grow more complex, making the task of the specialist who build andmaintain our systems more complicated still, but it’s quite another to recognizethat many of these systems are for most people actually no longer completelyunderstandable. Which the imminent introduction of cold fusion into our society,we are now entering an new era where even the experts who are building these newsystems do not totally understand how they work in detail. We should beconcerned that the systems that will form the very foundations of society are nolonger understandable by anybody. Such a peculiar situation should give uspause. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I think we can agree the LENR effect is difficult to produce. Many people have made it work, some with ease and some with difficulty. About 800 examples are now described in the literature. However, this success was not universal and has not revealed why it works sometimes and not at others. This difficulty was used as a reason to reject the claim because it justified the belief in the impossibility of the effect. Now we know a lot more about the reality of the effect, so that the difficulty in replicating is only an inconvenience because a phenomenon can not be studied when it can not be made to happen. However, this inconvenience means nothing. LENR is an ordinary phenomenon of nature that we do not yet understand. I'm in the process of studying all the explanations and comparing them to what is known in LENR and in general science. The failure to make progress in explaining LENR is easy to see and a clear path to the correct explanation is becoming obvious, at least to me. The problem has a solution if you know where to look. Ed Storms On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:43 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Beaudette blames the US nuclear physicists , deified after Manhattan project, used with easy experimental setup where things always works the same... even nuclear experimentalist are too theoretical compared to the least chemist or biologist... when nuclear physicist denied LENr because it could not be replicated at 100% , ignoring it was sure replicated. when they stupidly asked for exact replication, which in real science is the best way to replicate artifacts, they were behaving like rotten kind used with easy science, easy experimental setup and perfect theory. i don't know if US Nuclear Physicist are the only to blame. on other subject I see the same deification of theory, of models, with observation ignored or tweaked when they dissent with models or theory. 2014/1/12 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com I wonder what would have happened if terrorists had killed all of the faculty of all of the Ivy League schools, including CalTech on April 15, 1989. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The lack of realism, combined with ignorance of the theoretical physicists was only one subfield of the war lost by cold fusion. A more holistic view of the situationi is necessary I daretothink. Nobody was able to explain CF- it seemed unknown nuclear multi-mystery phenomena with a weak correlation between nuclearity and the essential
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
That is amazing! I suspect that we are safe in assuming that none of the large objects will be traveling at greater than 3000 kilometers/second (1% of the speed of light). Unfortunately, that is plenty fast to destroy the planet if the object is large. I have never considered how much damage a space craft traveling near light speed would inflict, but apparently it would be bad news. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Amazing. I did not realize such a small object could cause so much damage, even at high speeds. If people ever make large interstellar spaceships the travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they better be careful how they steer them. If one goes out of control and whacks into a planet it will cause terrific damage according to these calculations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
It would be interesting for that speed gap to be filled. We might be able to guesstimate the density of these smaller object in some manner, although at the moment I am at a loss. The main thought that comes to my mind is along the lines that I mentioned previously about the bombardment of Earth, moon, and other planets that happened around a billion years after they were formed. The current theory as I recall is that these missiles came from our solar system when they were diverted by outer planets changing orbits. Of course, the history is mucked up by now and I doubt that the proof is there. Perhaps instead of being home grown, many of these arrived due to being ejected as nearby stars formed. It is likely that many moderate sized objects would be sent fleeing the inner regions of these new stars as large heavy planets take shape and give them the boot. It takes time to reach our sun and a billion years might be enough although I have not calculated how far they might travel during that period. The planet formation period is measured in the millions of years so that period would be relatively brief compared to billions. I am curious as to the distribution of the speeds of these objects as they head outwards. Would we expect them to arrive in waves or slowly dribble into our area? The density of impacts seen upon the moon look like a large gauge shotgun was the source. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Unfortunately that narrative leaves a huge gap between 72km/s and 0.01c (3000km/s) -- and it is right in the geometric middle of this gap that 1 million miles per hour falls: 500km/s. This is important because although it is disappearingly unlikely that one of these hypervelocity (million mph) stars would collide with anything in our solar system, the potential exists for a vastly larger number of vasly smaller objects -- objects on the order of the size of the 100ft diameter diamond asteroid exemplar of the narrative. What is the statistical distribution of such small, hypervelocity objects? Even if all of the potential hypervelocity starts were being ripped apart into precisely 100ft diameter diamonds traveling at 500km/s, I conjecture the odds of any of them impacting anything in our solar system, including the sun, would still be disappearingly small. Nevertheless, this would be an interesting exercise in astronomical numbers. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: What would happen if a million mile per hour 1 ton rock impacted? There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Web Page
There is interesting evidence that cosmic ray induced clouds determine the earth's temperature to a significant degree. The recent weak sun spot activity allowed more rays than usual and hence the colder weather. Let's hope that they return to normal levels so that we do not all freeze and starve. Review the historical cold spell that occurred during the middle ages for additional support for this concept. Very few if any sun spots were recorded during that episode. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 9, 2014 3:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Web Page In reply to a.ashfield's message of Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:26:01 -0500: Hi, [snip] Jed wrote. The extreme temperature in both hemispheres are caused by global warming. Many people opposed to climatology fail to realize that. Jed, this is a figment of post normal science. There is absolutely no proof for what you say and I have been following it for years. Even the UK Met Office (ever ready to knock back climate alarmism) says: Climate change happens on a global scale, and weather happens at a local scale. Climate scientists have been saying that for quite a while. Its impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change. I think you will find that the extremes are occurring at the peak of the solar cycle, and that there is a long term trend (our influence) for those extremes to get worse with each cycle. Below -78.5 ºC, CO2 freezes out of the air. Perhaps next solar cycle (i.e. in about 10-13 years time)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
