from:"John"

Actually, I have another one...

Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop
experiences a pushing outwards.

Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates.

No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a
force pushing away from the center.
But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and
while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the
force placed?

It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric
permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe
it is virtual particles being polarized?

The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment
before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions
all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same.

This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be polarized,
then it can also be thrust against!




On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:42 PM, John Berry  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> *On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:John, there might be the odd
> exception.I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it
> isn't practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a
> photos that explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.Now, the
> easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without
> switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to
> affect Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an
> electromagnet establish a field, a large fieldAnd then you have a second
> electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled.Then,
> before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the
> first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.Standard physics
> says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate
> outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the
> first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have
> affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.*
>
> But it cannot be instantaneous.
> If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity.
>
> The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with
> nothing to react against.
> We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary
> force.
> The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant
> before any force would kick in.
> Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on
> the other.
> And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other
> and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case!
>
> The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is
> unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point.
>
>
> *  So after a very short time, CoM is restored.*
>
> It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an
> electromagnet by the time the field got to it.
> Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment,
> but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is
> considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable,
> and I doubt it can be.
>
>
> *  I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in
> the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space.
> (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field
> - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)*
>
> Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the
> electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon.   If that is what you
> think happens, this this need a far more careful examination.
>
> BTW, there is a patent on the concept...  Not that that means much.
>
> *So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has
> experienced no forces.*
>
> *As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet,
> or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves
> deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field,
> so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other
> finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the
> other magnet.*
>
> *By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and
> therefore the CoE...*
>
> *And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields,
> near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would
> consider a blow.*
>
> *This is not wrong, Unless as I

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

*On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:John, there might be the odd
exception.I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it
isn't practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a
photos that explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.Now, the
easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without
switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to
affect Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an
electromagnet establish a field, a large fieldAnd then you have a second
electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled.Then,
before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the
first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.Standard physics
says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate
outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the
first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have
affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.*

But it cannot be instantaneous.
If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity.

The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with
nothing to react against.
We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary
force.
The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant
before any force would kick in.
Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on
the other.
And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other
and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case!

The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is
unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point.


*  So after a very short time, CoM is restored.*

It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an electromagnet
by the time the field got to it.
Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment,
but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is
considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable,
and I doubt it can be.


*  I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in
the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space.
(That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field
- by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)*

Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the
electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon.   If that is what you
think happens, this this need a far more careful examination.

BTW, there is a patent on the concept...  Not that that means much.

*So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has
experienced no forces.*

*As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet,
or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves
deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field,
so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other
finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the
other magnet.*

*By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and
therefore the CoE...*

*And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields,
near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would
consider a blow.*

*This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that
momentum in the opposite direction.*

*I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
the photon to be coming from.*

*There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the
mechanical effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly
accelerating or decelerating the charge.  After this sudden acceleration,
its effect then radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause
acceleration of remote charges - which finally balance the CoM equations
for solid matter (which were unbalanced while the radiation was in
transit).*

Sounds like a photons under a different name to me

Well, I did say going in that if you think that enough EM energy is
released in the relivant direction as to explain the forces, that I
couldn't really easily make the case that it is, but I think most peoples
knowledge of the momenta of ultra low frequency photons is sufficiently
lacking that this makes it a challenging one to further debug.

In which event, for fun I propose an alternative, take a Transformer with a
donut core, put in DC, establish a magnetic field, then place negative
charges around the donut and positive charges toward the center, then
collapse the magnetic field.
The inductive pulse will push negative charges in space, or on electrodes,
around, but as we have more protons in the center, and m

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

On 5/06/2018 4:32 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
LOL have i not just clearly delineated the terms of their equivalence?

Allow me to put it more tangibly:

 - Apply a 9.81 N force vertically between two 1 kg masses, the moment both are 
dropped into freefall.

 - We observe a kind of inverted 'slinky drop' effect - the upper mass hovers 
stationary in mid-air, whilst the lower one plummets at 2 G.

 - We've thus input momentum to the system, by applying a force between two 
masses, but which has nonetheless only accelerated one of them.

 - Without the upper mass to push against, we couldn't've applied any further 
acceleration to the lower one, beyond that from gravity.

 - So the lower mass will reach a speed of 19.62 m/s in a one second drop time.

 - 1 kg @ 19.62 m/s = 19.62 kg-m/s.

 - Half this momentum came from gravity.

 - The other half came from the internally-applied 9.81 N force.

 - So we've definitely raised some 'reactionless momentum' here - with certain 
caveats of course.
I don't think so.  The earth has experienced an unbalanced attraction to 2 Kg 
masses in free-fall near its surface - so it will have accelerated upwards 
slightly to meet these masses (just as it accelerates upwards to meet the moon 
when the moon is overhead).

 - Now let's get rid of the lower mass, and replace it with an angular inertia, 
rotating about a fixed axis.

 - We can apply the 'downwards' end of the linear force to the rim, or else the 
axle of the rotor, such as via a ripcord or whatever.  Forget about the mass of 
the 'actuator' for now, just consider the raw distributions of momentum from 
the applied forces.

 - If we choose an MoI of '1', then as before, the upper 1 kg mass will hover 
stationary, experiencing equal 9.81 m/s accelerations in each direction, up as 
down, whilst the rotor spins up at the rate of 9.81 kg-m^2-rad/sec.
(I imagine you intended 19.62 kg-m^2-rad/sec^2 here?)

 - That MoI of '1' could be comprised of 1 kg at 1 meter radius...

 - ...or equally, 4 kg at 500 mm radius...

 - ...or 250 grams at 2 meter radius..

 - Or indeed any arbitrary distribution of mass and radius within practical 
limits.
Agreed but you haven't specified at what radius the ripcord is being applied 
to?  The moment of inertia is one thing (and it seems you are trying to keep it 
constant), but the radius at which you apply the force (via a ripcord or 
whatever) to produce torque, and spin-up the wheel is a separate parameter that 
you haven't discussed?

 - However, since 'radians' are a function of diameter of the rotor, the actual 
angular momentum we measure IN those units is by definition speed-dependent 
(kg-m^2-rad per second).  It's a relative measure - and a very useful one at 
that - but it also has an objective magnitude, a scalar quantity independent of 
its actual spatial dimensions!

We have proven this, since changing the MoI whilst maintaining the 
internally-applied 9.81 N force will break this balancing act, and the 
'suspended' 1 kg weight will instead rise or fall.
If you change the moment of inertia of something that is already spinning then 
its spin-rate and stored energy changes.  This is the well known effect that 
occurs when a spinning skater pulls in her arms.  Her moment of inertia 
decreases which means that spin rate must increase (to keep angular momentum 
the same), and likewise the energy stored in the spin must increase (she 
supplied this energy by pulling her arms in against centrifugal force).

Thus the equality of the magnitude of absolute inertia - independent of its 
time-dependent measurement dimensions - has been empirically proven.  You've 
just disproven anyone who tries to tell you it's conceptually 'impossible' to 
convert, much less compare, between them.
Sorry but I don't see your argument.  I am not sure what you mean by "absolute" 
inertia?  Are you speaking of inertia (=mass) or moment of inertia (=mass x 
radius^2) or maybe momentum (m v) or maybe angular momentum (m r^2 rad/s)?  
They are all very different quantities with different units and different 
dimensions and cannot be added or compared in magnitude.

Now, if i'd just Googled that question, i'd've come to the same conclusion as 
you and everyone else.

But having worked it out from first principles, i do not need to worry what 
anyone else thinks.  Hypothesise, test, rinse and repeat.  Whatever the result, 
it is what it is.  That's the only kinda 'Googling' that really counts.

The upshot of that equivalence, however... is an effective 'reactionless 
acceleration', with no change in GPE.

We've applied gravity to cancel or invert the sign of our counter-momentum.  
There's actually a few different ways of doing this, but the most interesting 
ones are of course those that enable the accumulation of such momentum, thus 
allowing its constant energy cost of production to diverge from its effective 
value as a function of the accumulating V^2 multiplier, via the standard KE 
terms.

Consider the energy

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially 
incomplete.

All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity manifesting 
that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between the respective 
force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar - essentially, 'ambient' 
quantum momentum.

When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number scribbled 
down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation determined by 
the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated at lightspeed - 
ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the respective dimensions 
of the given energy terms.

Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective dimensions, 
any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes in time and space 
is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how each term scales in 
the other's domain.

If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains, then 
their equality is a given.  And yet, it would be a step too far to conclude 
that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it.  When we spend 1 
J lifting a weight, so having performed work against gravity, there isn't a tab 
somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J".  The fact that we only get 1 J back 
out from the drop is simply an incidental consequence of the invariant input vs 
output conditions.  But it's not manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just 
the same amount of energy / work.
I agree with you.  It is not manifestly the same joule.  So depositing money in 
the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power into the 
electricity grid).  I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills and pull the 
same amount out in another city in $50 bills.  It is not manifestly the same 
cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes sure that the amounts 
always balance!  So Nature does the same job as the bank tellers and 
accountants.  Whenever you do the calculation correctly, after allowing for 
incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance sheet always balances 
perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that gravity owes Bob 1 J!

You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother 
Nature.  The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations.  When applied 
correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the equations 
themselves are balanced.  I believe that you can achieve an imbalance, but not 
by operating in accord with Newton's equations.  You have to do something a lot 
more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect that has not been noticed and a 
term that has not been included in the equations.  And it is bound to be a 
small effect (eg < 1% of energy being exchanged) or it would have been noticed 
a long time ago.

With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out, or 
less.  An under-unity, or over-unity result.


Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which the 
energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade heat.  I'm 
talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense.  For example:

 - Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper in 
1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to latch 
onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the iron's 
subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach its 
corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if its 
coercivity is low enough).

So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long after 
the mechanical action's all over.

We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and audio 
amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as progressively 
harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of their 
lower-coercivity neighbors.   After some time, the clicking noise abates, and 
so we know the sample's at Bmax.

We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the 
mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.

Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not occur 
instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity - it 
outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input during the 
outbound integral over the same distance.

So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
By my calculation you have got nothing out.  You let the magnet fly and collide 
into the pig-iron so that the 1 J you might have recovered from its kinetic 
energy ended up as heat during the collision.

Following this the permanent magnet slowly magnetises the pig-iron.  To the 
extent that this is slow (due to magnetic viscosity) and occurs in jumps 
(generating Barkhausen noise), this process is lossy and generates

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:
John, there might be the odd exception.

I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't 
practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos that 
explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.

Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without 
switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to affect 
Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an electromagnet 
establish a field, a large field

And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted 
or repelled.

Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the 
first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.
Standard physics says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet 
will propagate outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely 
through the first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would 
have affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.  So after a very 
short time, CoM is restored.  I am confident that if you were to include the 
momentum of the field in the calculation, then CoM would be continuously 
satisfied over all space.  (That is after all how physicists would work out the 
momentum of the field - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)

So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has 
experienced no forces.

As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, or 
both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves deeper 
into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, so one finds 
the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other finds it 
decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the other magnet.

By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and 
therefore the CoE...

And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, 
near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would 
consider a blow.

This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that 
momentum in the opposite direction.

I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for the 
photon to be coming from.
There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the mechanical 
effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly accelerating 
or decelerating the charge.  After this sudden acceleration, its effect then 
radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause acceleration of remote 
charges - which finally balance the CoM equations for solid matter (which were 
unbalanced while the radiation was in transit).

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

On 5/06/2018 12:37 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Consider a 1 kg weight, connected by a pulley cord to another mass that slides 
horizontally without friction.  You may verify that the rate of change of net 
system momentum is a constant, invariant of the ratio of gravitating to 
non-gravitating mass - taking gravity as 9.81 N, it is precisely thus 9.81 
kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass.

So, the amount of non-gravitating mass could be anything from zero to infinity, 
but regardless of whether the gravitating mass is rising or falling, the rate 
of change of net system momentum is always 9.81 p/s/kg (where p=mV).

This is not, as one might suspect, a consequence of Galileo's principle - that 
gravity defies F=mA - but rather a direct manifestation of it.  Same-same, no 
matter what force we apply.

Now switch out that linear-sliding mass for an angular inertia instead.  If we 
measure its angular inertia in terms of kg/m^2, and given that moment of 
inertia (MoI) is equal to mass times radius squared, we can select a mass of 1 
kg at 1 meter radius for an MoI of '1'.

If we measure its angular velocity in terms of radians per second, then we have 
numerical parity with its linear equivalent for an equal distribution of 
absolute momentum - that is, if we applied a linear to angular force between 
them of 1 Newton for 1 second, we obtain 1 kg-m/s of linear momentum, and also 
1 kg-m^2-rad/sec of angular momentum.

Likewise, if we employ a 1 kg drop-weight to torque up that MoI, the system 
gains 9.81 p of net momentum per second.

Since they're equal absolute magnitudes of inertia, albeit in their respective 
dimensions, the net system velocity remains equally-distributed between them.

Hence with 9.81 p of net system momentum, we have 4.905 p on each inertia - 1 
kg dropping at 4.905 m/s, and an MoI of '1' rotating at 4.905 rad/s.

However, since the objective distance 1 radian corresponds to is dependent upon 
the dimensions of the circle in question (it's a relative, not absolute, 
quantity), this same point applies to the 'magnitudes' of angular momentum 
we're measuring for any given angular velocity; so for instance if we double 
the mass radius, then per mr^2 we quadruple the MoI,
All looks OK (even if rather strange language) to here.
but also halve the relative (angular?) velocity compared to the linear value 
wherein inertia is a fixed function of rest mass.  Hence, repeating the 1 
second, 1 kg drop, we'd again obtain 4.905 p on the weight, but '9.81' p on the 
MoI - for a 'net' total of '14.715' p
This is numerically correct but dimensionally incorrect (which is maybe why you 
use the quotes).  Angular momentum does not have the same dimensions as linear 
momentum and so they really cannot be added in this fashion (just as you can't 
add 4.905 meters to 9.81 square-meters and obtain a reasonable result as 14.715 
somethings).
... i'm using scare-quotes there to highlight my point; the objective value of 
the absolute magnitudes of momentum and their distribution remains 9.81 p/s for 
the net system, regardless of how the angular component is represented.

.  .  .

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

John, there might be the odd exception.

I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't
practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos
that explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.

Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work
without switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets
to affect Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an
electromagnet establish a field, a large field

And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is
attracted or repelled.

Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect
the first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.

So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has
experienced no forces.

As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet,
or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves
deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field,
so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other
finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the
other magnet.

By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and
therefore the CoE...

And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields,
near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would
consider a blow.

This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that
momentum in the opposite direction.

I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
the photon to be coming from.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop  wrote:

> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> .  .  .
> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
> ostensible purpose.  Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
>
> If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like
> bearings, springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries.
>
> .  .  .  you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is.
>
> Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics
> mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at.
>
> Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the
> thing has its entire guts out.  You can see the values of everything, in
> every field.  Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas
> that can be manually checked by anyone.  So you can independently calculate
> the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent
> variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself
> that everything is being presented accurately.  You can immediately
> replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles.
>
> Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on conservation
> of energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity".  If they do seem to
> produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by checking "the
> input and output work integrals" you can pin down which formula you have
> entered incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which excess energy
> appears (or disappears).  It is only when you get a perfect energy balance
> throughout (as well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is finally working.
>
> On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> .  .  . i've already done it.  .  .  No New physics.
>
> Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it.  You have
> simply made a mistake.  I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics
> to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or
> included in error.  Even if the person does not understand what you tell
> them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain
> it to someone else at a detailed enough level.
>
> If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler
> did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing
> (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need
> correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated.
> But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics,
> then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a
> mistake.  . . .  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
>
> Consider an illustration that might help.  Supposing you started with a
> litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very
> complicated transformation processes.  So you might boil it to a vapour,
> condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through
> filters of various sorts, freeze some and g

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

On 4/06/2018 11:19 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
.  .  .
The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two inertias, 
which nonetheless only accelerates one of them.
This I suggest is your problem.  If you apply a force between two masses or 
inertias, then one must accelerate in the opposite direction to the other 
(Newton's first law).  If one of them is massive enough (eg make it the earth), 
then only the light one is accelerated by any measurable amount (but the tiny 
acceleration of the heavy one ensures that momentum is conserved).

You could apply a force between two equal inertias so that one accelerates 
forward and the other accelerates backwards, and then bounce one of them off a 
wall fixed to the earth say.  Now you would have them both moving in the same 
direction and with the same speed.  But their total kinetic energy would be 
equal to that put in during the acceleration phase (the bounce being elastic 
and conservative).  So each would contain say 0.5 joules of energy for a total 
of one joule put in by the initial acceleration impulse.  Let's call this 
square one.

At this stage you could then apply the same accelerating impulse as the first 
time between the two inertias (which are now both travelling along together) 
and the speed of one would double, while the other would become stationary.  
Here the kinetic energy of one has gone up by a factor of 4 (due to v^2) to 
become 2 joules while the energy of the other has gone down to zero - the total 
being the 2 joules that have been put in by the two accelerations (so no gain). 
 Call this square two.

Then we inelastically collide them (as by a length of string being pulled 
taut), equalising their velocity, and keep repeating that process, whilst 
monitoring input / output efficiency (how much energy we've spent vs how much 
we have).
As you note, inelastic collisions waste kinetic energy by turning it into heat. 
 So joining the stationary mass to the travelling mass inelastically with a 
piece of string will produce a combined speed which is just the same as the 
speed of both masses before applying the second impulse (from conservation of 
momentum).  So the entire effect of the second impulse will have been undone 
taking us back to square one.

I see no way to progress beyond square two that does not simply take us back to 
square one?

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
.  .  .
The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its ostensible 
purpose.  Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like bearings, 
springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries.

.  .  .  you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is.
Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics 
mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at.

Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the thing 
has its entire guts out.  You can see the values of everything, in every field. 
 Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas that can be 
manually checked by anyone.  So you can independently calculate the input and 
output work integrals, from their respective dependent variables, which are 
also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself that everything is being 
presented accurately.  You can immediately replicate the results on the back of 
an envelope, from first principles.
Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on conservation of 
energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity".  If they do seem to 
produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by checking "the input 
and output work integrals" you can pin down which formula you have entered 
incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which excess energy appears (or 
disappears).  It is only when you get a perfect energy balance throughout (as 
well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is finally working.

On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
.  .  . i've already done it.  .  .  No New physics.
Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it.  You have 
simply made a mistake.  I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics to 
check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or included 
in error.  Even if the person does not understand what you tell them, you can 
often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain it to someone else 
at a detailed enough level.

If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler did), 
then you could be right and you could have made an amazing (re)discovery that 
would require all the basic physics text books to need correcting with the NEW 
PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated.  But if it is just maths and 
simulation applied to standard known physics, then everybody who knows this 
stuff KNOWS that you must have made a mistake.  . . .  Sorry to be the bearer 
of bad news.

Consider an illustration that might help.  Supposing you started with a litre 
of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very complicated 
transformation processes.  So you might boil it to a vapour, condense it in a 
fractional distillation column, run fractions through filters of various sorts, 
freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, ad nauseum.  In the end, no 
matter what you did to it, you will not have managed to increase or decrease 
the number of molecules of water through any of these processes.  The amount of 
water at the end would be just the same as what you started with - and almost 
all well educated people would refuse to believe otherwise.  Without NEW 
CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an overunity production of water molecules.

Well the same is true of energy.  You can transform it in far more ways than 
you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of joules (just 
as the number of molecules) remains constant.  Physicists know this and CANNOT 
believe otherwise.  Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS to explain how the 
extra joules came to appear within the system, it is simply not possible to 
believe.  All the physics equations that we have are based on the conservation 
of energy because we have never had a system in captivity to study that breaks 
this law.

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Vibrator, there are a number of claims involving violation of CoM and CoE,
and it involves an asymmetry in the rate a acceleration/deceleration.

I wonder if that fits your description.

Also sometimes this seems to include a influence or energy field exiting
the mass.

Is this maybe the case?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:03 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> Sorry if i've been unclear - i've already done it.  It's done.  No New
> physics.  No magic.  No possibility of error.  Definitive, conclusive,
> indisputable, unambiguous and unequivocal proof positive, it's in the can,
> it's a wrap, a done-deal, a fait accompli, an actual physical gain, not an
> 'implied' one; 37.8 Joules of gravity*mass*height transforms seamlessly
> into 72.1 Joules of mechanical energy in one second, leaving 34.3 Joules
> free and clear after the weight is re-lifted and the mechanism fully reset
> to its initial conditions, thus an efficiency of 90% OU, or 190% of unity,
> together with a corresponding 1.4 meter drop in the zero momentum frame.
> Buy a free-energy machine, get a free warp drive.  It's here.  Now.  Done
> and dusted.  Ready for deployment.  Trivially easy to replicate, and could
> probably be validated on the back of an envelope.
>
> There's nothing theoretical or speculative about it, both CoM and CoE
> remain inviolable - the results can only be interpreted as evidence of a
> quantum-classical system rather than creation ex nihilo (evidence of such
> being epistemologically impossible), and arguably we all know classical
> systems are inherently quantum-classical anyway;  it is but a question of
> thresholds.
>
> It's just a perfectly normal free-energy warp drive using bog-standard
> mechanics - force, mass and motion - entirely dependent upon the
> immutability of CoM and CoE at every step in the process.
>
> Like i say, there's temporal symmetry to net changes in momentum, and a
> spatial one.  Usually they're hard-coupled due to mass constancy, however
> this is an epiphenomenal symmetry, not a truly fundamental one, and it can
> be broken, and i HAVE broken it, and this spatiotemporal momentum asymmetry
> results in a gain in mechanical energy explicitly caused by the
> bog-standard V^2 multiplier in 1/2mV^2 and 1/2Lw^2 - the normal mechanical
> energy terms.
>
> Starting to think i should maybe bind that explanation to a macro key...
>
>
> The only new aspect is that traditionally, the 'net thermodynamic energy'
> of the universe only takes into account all possible displacements against
> all fundamental force fields (the net work done from bang to bust) -
> whereas the vacuum energy.. well, just Google "vacuum catastrophe".
>
> The interaction i'm demonstrating pulls momentum from whatever the applied
> force field (so gravity, EM, inertial forces (ie. 'G-force'), springs or
> whatever), and mechanical energy (KE or PE or some combination of each)
> from the Higgs field - not by my or Bessler's design, but the universe's..
> so if there's any 'mistake', you're taking it up with the wrong person..
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:20 PM, H LV  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it is possible to devise a mathematical/conceptual framework for
>> mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics would exist as a special case but
>> the alternative framework would allow for the construction of a perpetual
>> motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century
>> and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
>> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
>> quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new
>> concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Vibrator ! 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ..right, just spammed it to Tajmar.  Who could possibly be more
>>> qualified or interested?  Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's
>>> already aware of the Bessler case..
>>>
>>> Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're apparently
>>> far too sensible..
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator ! 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.

 It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the
 uni's are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.

 Perhaps you could help refine my template?

 "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
 free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
 masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
 and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"

 The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to
 Imp. College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting
 one...

 So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure
 its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Could you not make a design, a mirror design that cancels out the effects?



On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> I could make a video right now that'd go viral overnight - at least within
> our crank circles - and every back-yard inventor from here to Calcutta will
> promptly go start generating "energy from gravity" (in their mistaken
> belief anyway), whilst inadvertently applying equal opposing
> counter-momenta to Earth on every cycle.
>
> I'd give us maybe a few weeks - couple of months tops - before the full-on
> cannibal holocaust and ELE, but the TL;DR is that any unprecedented changes
> to the planet's resting momentum state will cause cataclysmic
> meteorological, marine and geological upheaval - much of the worlds'
> densest conurbations are concentrated around low-lying coastal areas, and
> any small variation in the lunar tidal lock will unleash the hounds of
> hell..  any minor perturbation will precipitate all manner of tidal surges,
> mega-quakes and volcanism, any minor effective radial motion of the solid
> inner core relative to the mushy outer layers will send pressure waves
> upwards, aligned along the axis of acceleration, there'll be oceans
> sloshing here and there, crazy high-pressure atmospheric systems, the
> Earth's thermal dynamo will break homeostasis with the lunar cycle... we
> could destabilise the Moon's orbit, or our solar orbit, or both, and this
> is just considering the effects from stray linear momenta - stray angular
> momenta are another risk (and could be caused by simply lying the system
> horizontally with respect to gravity, perhaps in the mistaken belief this
> will prevent grounding stray momentum; it won't, instead converting it
> directly to axial angular momentum and so interfering with day-length and
> axial tilt and hence the seasonal equilibria etc.), etc.
>
> Still, i guess i could rake in a few YouTube clicks in whatever short time
> we had left...
>
> It has to be done safely, or not at all..   a great rush to off-grid
> utopia and mass water desalination and it'll be a short-lived victory..
> we're simply not used to the prospect of such a fast-acting form of
> pollution.  It's usually something we consider our grand kids will mostly
> have to deal with, on the scale of centuries, or at least decades.
>
> We could be looking at a key variable in the Drake equation, and Fermi
> paradox...  every step in the gain principle is entirely dependent upon CoM
> and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to - it works because of
> them, not in spite of them.  Hence any assumption there's anything 'free'
> or inconsequential about it is wholly inconsistent with the current
> results..  again, you cannot have mechanical OU without an effective break
> in momentum symmetry.  The resulting net rise can be mutually-cancelled by
> an identical counterposed momentum, but if this is not done then the excess
> starts accumulating, and one way or another, things start speeding up or
> slowing down...  basically, accelerating.
>
> So yeah.. all good fun, no question..  but this is big boys' toys..  And
> not in the 'Newton's cradle' kind of way..
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The common thinking about successful over unity is to produce a COP of 6
>> or over. The one application that you might try is a toy. If your invention
>> can operate without any inputs, this type of toy could go viral. people
>> would buy it just to understand how it could work. Try the toy industry.
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Vibrator ! 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @John - cheers mate, like i say, i have indisputable proof-positive
>>> already, it's just a question of what the hell to do with it.  Who to show
>>> it to, if i also want some kind of, umm, fiscal recompense..  ghastly
>>> subject, but i've been really burning the candle both ends on this for five
>>> years and ain't got two pennies to rub together.  Like Bessler, i feel the
>>> most desirable outcome for moi would be a full-disclosure IP sale; buyer
>>> walks away with everything, my hands washed.
>>>
>>> I just crank-emailed a London IP attorney - not that i could even afford
>>> their services, and not that i even have a particular 'embodiment' to
>>> protect..  it really is just an interaction, albeit, performing 'the
>>> impossible' - input 38 J, in 1 second it spits out 72 J, with 34 J excess
>>> left after reset.  190% of unity.. so yeah, not expecting a reply, but even
>>> if they are so courteous, you can't patent the laws of nature any more than
>>> a PMM.
>>>
>>>
>>> @Axil - likewise appreciated, but i re

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Vibrator, now you have described a little better, I still implore you to
put money aside.

I have been studying this field for over 20 years and only sunk money into
it.

But what you offer could send man to the stars and stop us from damaging
the planet.
But as soon as money gets in the way, things go bad, so many inventions
have been lost to a combo of inventors seeing dollar signs (however
deserved) and corporations buying off inventors and shelving, or killing
off inventors, it happens.

But if you release it publicly, and it changes the world, it is still
possible you might be able to make some money fro it, the rights to the
story, the movie, the book alone...

But what you need to do is disclose it in a clear, convincing and
straight-forward a way possible.
And when you are doing something that is "impossible", you really have to
make it compelling.

The best way by far IMO is for you to build your machine and try to make it
3D printable, then give away the 3D printing plans to people for a proof of
concept model.
And sell improved 3D printer plans for upgraded models that are maybe
useful and not just a desktop toy.

This is by far the most powerful way to get your idea out there as anyone
with a suitable 3D printer can just press print and see if it works!

I have tried to convey a very very simple proof for breaking the
conservation of momentum and it seems to go over peoples heads, I honestly
don't know why.

John

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> @John - cheers mate, like i say, i have indisputable proof-positive
> already, it's just a question of what the hell to do with it.  Who to show
> it to, if i also want some kind of, umm, fiscal recompense..  ghastly
> subject, but i've been really burning the candle both ends on this for five
> years and ain't got two pennies to rub together.  Like Bessler, i feel the
> most desirable outcome for moi would be a full-disclosure IP sale; buyer
> walks away with everything, my hands washed.
>
> I just crank-emailed a London IP attorney - not that i could even afford
> their services, and not that i even have a particular 'embodiment' to
> protect..  it really is just an interaction, albeit, performing 'the
> impossible' - input 38 J, in 1 second it spits out 72 J, with 34 J excess
> left after reset.  190% of unity.. so yeah, not expecting a reply, but even
> if they are so courteous, you can't patent the laws of nature any more than
> a PMM.
>
>
> @Axil - likewise appreciated, but i really wouldn't have the means to
> accomplish that.
>
> More to the point, i don't want to be wasting my time and everyone else's
> lovingly polishing my turd of an engineering effort when BAE or Mercedes
> could have a thousand experts doing the Lord's work on it.
> I work as a courier for a living.  It's basically picking up packages, and
> then delivering them - but usually the address to deliver to is ON the
> package, so, for me, that's just about the right amount of
> 'responsibility'.  I can pretty much totally handle it (and they say one
> day i might even get paid).   THIS on the other hand..  it's too hot a
> potato for little old me.  But it also doesn't have an address on it, hence
> my quandary.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 AM, John Berry  wrote:
>
>> Yes, but that is hard to do.
>>
>> And scammers have sold stuff in the past...
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The best way to sell an idea is to produce a product based on the idea
>>> that can make money and lots of it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:15 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>>>
>>>> correction:  Ideally film the construction
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi vibrator.  The "right" people are hard to fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE could possibly
>>>>> be violated and won't even humor you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, that's not true, a lot of people who don't know what that
>>>>> even means will happily believe you, but they will not be of any use 
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will entertain the idea you could be on to something.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I'm not good with equations, and no one would listen to me either.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO the only option you have is of building it, either in reality, or
>>>>> possibly in some suitable trusted simulation software.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to prove what you are claiming, there are basically 4 ways of
>>>>> doing that.
>>>>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Yes, but that is hard to do.

And scammers have sold stuff in the past...

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The best way to sell an idea is to produce a product based on the idea
> that can make money and lots of it.
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:15 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>
>> correction:  Ideally film the construction
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi vibrator.  The "right" people are hard to fine.
>>>
>>> Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE could possibly be
>>> violated and won't even humor you.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's not true, a lot of people who don't know what that even
>>> means will happily believe you, but they will not be of any use either.
>>>
>>> I will entertain the idea you could be on to something.
>>>
>>> But, I'm not good with equations, and no one would listen to me either.
>>>
>>> IMO the only option you have is of building it, either in reality, or
>>> possibly in some suitable trusted simulation software.
>>>
>>> You have to prove what you are claiming, there are basically 4 ways of
>>> doing that.
>>>
>>> 1: Argue the case in English.
>>> 2: Argue the case in Math.
>>> 3: Argue the case in a simulation.
>>> 4: Demonstrate it by building it in as open and transparent a means
>>> possible, ideally fil the construction, use actualy transparrent materials
>>> everywhere possible.
>>>
>>> Actually, there is a 5th possibility and you should consider if this is
>>> possible carefully...
>>>
>>> 5: Make a 3D printable working model of your discovery.
>>>
>>> As for IP, f*ck it, the world needs what you have, you will never be
>>> able to profit from this in the way you deserve, but trying to will lead to
>>> the inventions suppression and maybe your death.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Vibrator ! 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously
>>>> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
>>>>
>>>> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
>>>>
>>>> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
>>>> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing consistency -
>>>> no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All values have also
>>>> been checked with manual calcs.  The results are incontrovertible - this is
>>>> neither mistake, nor psychosis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that
>>>> time is stare in disbelief at the results.
>>>>
>>>> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from
>>>> first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the maths
>>>> do, confirming the theory.
>>>>
>>>> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the CoM
>>>> violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent upon the
>>>> former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct causal
>>>> relationship.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it
>>>> to the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know about
>>>> it, and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile crank-emails
>>>> to universities and govt. departments etc.?
>>>>
>>>> I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with
>>>> making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to sit on
>>>> - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them,
>>>> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...  it's
>>>> just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can actually be
>>>> measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.  Simply no room
>>>> for error or ambiguity.  Unequivocal 'free' energy; currently around 190%
>>>> of unity.  You definitely want to see this, and i desperately want to share
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> What should i do though?  How does one proceed, in this kind of
>>>> situation?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

 correction:  Ideally film the construction

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> Hi vibrator.  The "right" people are hard to fine.
>
> Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE could possibly be
> violated and won't even humor you.
>
> Actually, that's not true, a lot of people who don't know what that even
> means will happily believe you, but they will not be of any use either.
>
> I will entertain the idea you could be on to something.
>
> But, I'm not good with equations, and no one would listen to me either.
>
> IMO the only option you have is of building it, either in reality, or
> possibly in some suitable trusted simulation software.
>
> You have to prove what you are claiming, there are basically 4 ways of
> doing that.
>
> 1: Argue the case in English.
> 2: Argue the case in Math.
> 3: Argue the case in a simulation.
> 4: Demonstrate it by building it in as open and transparent a means
> possible, ideally fil the construction, use actualy transparrent materials
> everywhere possible.
>
> Actually, there is a 5th possibility and you should consider if this is
> possible carefully...
>
> 5: Make a 3D printable working model of your discovery.
>
> As for IP, f*ck it, the world needs what you have, you will never be able
> to profit from this in the way you deserve, but trying to will lead to the
> inventions suppression and maybe your death.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously
>> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
>>
>> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
>>
>> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
>> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing consistency -
>> no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All values have also
>> been checked with manual calcs.  The results are incontrovertible - this is
>> neither mistake, nor psychosis.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that
>> time is stare in disbelief at the results.
>>
>> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from
>> first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the maths
>> do, confirming the theory.
>>
>> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the CoM
>> violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent upon the
>> former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct causal
>> relationship.
>>
>>
>> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.
>>
>>
>> But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it to
>> the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know about it,
>> and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile crank-emails to
>> universities and govt. departments etc.?
>>
>> I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.
>>
>>
>> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with
>> making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to sit on
>> - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?
>>
>> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them,
>> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...  it's
>> just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can actually be
>> measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.  Simply no room
>> for error or ambiguity.  Unequivocal 'free' energy; currently around 190%
>> of unity.  You definitely want to see this, and i desperately want to share
>> it.
>>
>> What should i do though?  How does one proceed, in this kind of situation?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Hi vibrator.  The "right" people are hard to fine.

Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE could possibly be
violated and won't even humor you.

Actually, that's not true, a lot of people who don't know what that even
means will happily believe you, but they will not be of any use either.

I will entertain the idea you could be on to something.

But, I'm not good with equations, and no one would listen to me either.

IMO the only option you have is of building it, either in reality, or
possibly in some suitable trusted simulation software.

You have to prove what you are claiming, there are basically 4 ways of
doing that.

1: Argue the case in English.
2: Argue the case in Math.
3: Argue the case in a simulation.
4: Demonstrate it by building it in as open and transparent a means
possible, ideally fil the construction, use actualy transparrent materials
everywhere possible.

Actually, there is a 5th possibility and you should consider if this is
possible carefully...

5: Make a 3D printable working model of your discovery.

As for IP, f*ck it, the world needs what you have, you will never be able
to profit from this in the way you deserve, but trying to will lead to the
inventions suppression and maybe your death.

John

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously
> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
>
> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
>
> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing consistency -
> no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All values have also
> been checked with manual calcs.  The results are incontrovertible - this is
> neither mistake, nor psychosis.
>
>
>
> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that time
> is stare in disbelief at the results.
>
> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from first
> principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the maths do,
> confirming the theory.
>
> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the CoM
> violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent upon the
> former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct causal
> relationship.
>
>
> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.
>
>
> But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it to
> the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know about it,
> and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile crank-emails to
> universities and govt. departments etc.?
>
> I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.
>
>
> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with making
> a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to sit on - so
> how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?
>
> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them,
> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...  it's
> just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can actually be
> measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.  Simply no room
> for error or ambiguity.  Unequivocal 'free' energy; currently around 190%
> of unity.  You definitely want to see this, and i desperately want to share
> it.
>
> What should i do though?  How does one proceed, in this kind of situation?
>

Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

2018-04-17 Thread John Berry

I am currently working on something potentially related.

I want to keep chasing what I am chasing, but there could be overlap.  I am
passing an unidentified energy that cannot be detected until it passes
through a "window", but this works better if the detector is above, it does
not (without modification) work if the order is reversed.  Probably just
coincidental similarity.

I have a Geiger counter, and I have some HV supplies, but I don't have
anything to make a vacuum.



On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am happy to hear peoples ideas with reasons behind those ideas. But to
> engage in testing others ideas often means one has to set aside ones own
> ideas. That is obviously an infinitely losing game as individuals are but
> one person and the world wide web is an infinite number of others ideas.
> Science has always been a combination of inspiration and perspiration
> though it is in the sweating in the performance that the donnas are
> separated from the primadonnas.
>
>
>
> Watch and wait or join me and make a difference.
>
>
>
> The greatest threat to the world is waiting for someone else to save it.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:40 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> Still, I have a reason for considering that this might possibly work
> better in the vertical plane, and not by producing an artifact,
>
>
>
> So I guess you have tried it in different orientations?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have three identical Geiger’s that I switch positions to constantly
> challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as
> well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the
> precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be
> intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the
> experiment. So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more
> precision and care, an effort in process at this moment.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are
> vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?
>
>
>
> How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect?
>
> Could you ground the shields?
>
> Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to
> the spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.
>
>
>
> As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to
> eliminate any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical
> fields. Only the Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows
> the anomalous count at multiples of the background.
>
>
>
> Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors
> in this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be
> induced in a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well
> be either gammas or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged
> with known beta sources and are quite unable to count betas.
>
>
>
> They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have
> recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller
> who helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their
> existence decades before my discovery experiments.
>
>
>
> There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that
> will bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and
> Piantelli.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of
> the thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger
> counter activity.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
> *To:* vortex-l

Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

2018-04-17 Thread John Berry

Still, I have a reason for considering that this might possibly work better
in the vertical plane, and not by producing an artifact,

So I guess you have tried it in different orientations?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have three identical Geiger’s that I switch positions to constantly
> challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as
> well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the
> precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be
> intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the
> experiment. So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more
> precision and care, an effort in process at this moment.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are
> vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?
>
>
>
> How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect?
>
> Could you ground the shields?
>
> Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to
> the spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.
>
>
>
> As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to
> eliminate any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical
> fields. Only the Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows
> the anomalous count at multiples of the background.
>
>
>
> Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors
> in this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be
> induced in a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well
> be either gammas or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged
> with known beta sources and are quite unable to count betas.
>
>
>
> They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have
> recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller
> who helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their
> existence decades before my discovery experiments.
>
>
>
> There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that
> will bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and
> Piantelli.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of
> the thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger
> counter activity.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> ·
> New
>
> ·
>
> · #54
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2461-new-energy-world-symposium-in-stockholm-on-june-18-2018/?postID=84069#post84069>[image:
> 4766-the-test-png]
>
>
>
> Regarding Alan glow tube test...
>
>
> THUNDER ENERGIES,   <http://www.thunder-energies.com/>a company that uses
> DR. RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers
> uses a variant of Alan Smith's experiment.
>
>
>
> http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10
> <http://www.thunder-energies.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-18/11-articles/19-article-10>
>
>
>
> Quote
>
> *The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons
> from a hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):*
>
> *1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending
> on the desired neutron CPS;*
>
> *2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of
> tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and*
>
>
>
> *3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high
> current rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.*
>
> *As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus
> creating a plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the
&g

Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

2018-04-16 Thread John Berry

 Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect?
Could you ground the shields?
Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to
the spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ  wrote:

> Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.
>
>
>
> As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to
> eliminate any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical
> fields. Only the Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows
> the anomalous count at multiples of the background.
>
>
>
> Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors
> in this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be
> induced in a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well
> be either gammas or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged
> with known beta sources and are quite unable to count betas.
>
>
>
> They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have
> recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller
> who helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their
> existence decades before my discovery experiments.
>
>
>
> There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that
> will bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and
> Piantelli.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of
> the thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger
> counter activity.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Meshugganons
>
>
>
> ·
> New
>
> ·
>
> · #54
> [image:
> 4766-the-test-png]
>
>
>
> Regarding Alan glow tube test...
>
>
> THUNDER ENERGIES,   a company that uses
> DR. RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers
> uses a variant of Alan Smith's experiment.
>
>
>
> http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10
> 
>
>
>
> Quote
>
> *The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons
> from a hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):*
>
> *1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending
> on the desired neutron CPS;*
>
> *2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of
> tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and*
>
>
>
> *3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high
> current rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.*
>
> *As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus
> creating a plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the
> proton and the electron along a magnetic field line with the appropriate
> spin and other couplings; an engineering means called triggers compress the
> electron inside the proton, by supplying the missing energy (which is about
> one million electron Volts, 1 MeV).*
>
> *Display More*
>
>
>
> Sometimes a theorist can save an experimenter a lot of work by avoiding
> duplicating existing technology.
>
>
>
>
>
> Santilli thinks that neutrons can be formed out of a union of protons and
> neutrons. This is nonsense. What Santilli is producing are muons. the same
> particle that Alan is generating. The US government is using cosmic ray
> generated muons to detect nuclear material in shipping containers now.
>
>
> Cosmic-Ray Muons Reveal Hidden Void in the Great Pyramid
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/n…oid-in-the-great-pyramid/
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> Muon Thomography are well known as a means to detect nuclear material
>
>
>
> Innovations In Nuclear Detection: Muon Tomography
>
> http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/khan1/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

2018-01-30 Thread John Berry

>From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not gravitational
mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to
ordinary matter. "

Really?  Can that really add up?

Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.


John Berry

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in
> Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later
> category.
>
>
>
> As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice
> man for this)
>
>
>
> Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an
> antigravitational force <https://www.google.com/patents/WO1995032021A1>
>
>
>
> The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and
> the Pentagon ignoredthemt?
>
>
>
> And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not
> even get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the
> reverse gyrotron?
>
>
>
> Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other
> credit and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately
> rationalize them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is
> that he is a creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply
> cannot put good ideas into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or
> more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser but after all these years
> there is not a satisfactory independent replication, nor a real sample of
> hydrinos to test.
>
>
>
> The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If
> so, he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation
> of why it failed.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar
> work into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim
> to have been the first …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
> For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:
>
>
>
> http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/
> summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

2017-07-24 Thread John Shop

As the smoke cleared Brian Ahern mounted the barricade and roared out:

I use outlook for e-mails.How do you block certain senders?


From: Che 
.  .  .


Best to filter all vortex mail to its own folder so that it doesn't get in the 
way of real email and you can delete en-mass when required.


Alternatively if it is only one annoying sender (and if I guess right), then 
you probably just have to mention to our list patron Bill Beatty that it looks 
like our petty-bourgeois grok is back and starting to get up lots of peoples 
noses - and Bill will banish him to vortexB again!

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

2017-04-24 Thread John Berry

s, this is undone
by having a capacitor which polarizes and separates these energies.

One theory I have is that these "virtual" or "Partial" or "other
dimensional" charges form a vortex above the craft that makes a type of
magnetic field that lifts the whole craft up.

It could even be that there are 2 different mechanism which both co-incide
in the one form, or that the 2 parts explained above work together in a way
I think I can explain, or maybe both.

But basically there are a large number of devices that I can explain with 2
different models of explanation.

Alas scientists find the whole thing too "woo-woo" even though theoretical
physics does predict and allow for such possibilities.

To spiritual people it's too scientific.

To researchers seeking Free Energy or Antigravity (both which I am
convinced are phenomena connected to the aether, not the least because they
often show up together with other anomalies and impossibilities) I can't
yet say exactly how to engineer the aether to achieve these goals with
certainty, even though it is abundantly clear to me that the aether is what
makes all so-called "Free Energy" including LENR.

To potential funders the ROI is too far off.

But I can prove what I say, but who care about a breakthrough if it still
needs more work to be useful, even if the potential it has is essentially
infinite.

Alas, sensitivity is useful for learning how to shift a low of energy from
the physical to the non-physical, but it does not give great insight on how
to make it physical again.

So the biggest scientific breakthrough is sitting here waiting or me to
build a competent and proper scale device with real energy input, or
waiting for me to discover how to "Macgyver" it with a paperclip, a 9v
battery and a magnet.

John Berry

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:26 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> John,
> I honestly do not understand how an electrical charge is associated with
> gravity, but apparently some have observed a link.  The fact that
> gravitational forces are so weak with respect to electromagnetic forces
> tend to suggest that a very tiny coupling between the two would be all that
> is required in order to see some effects.
>
> My current position is one of a skeptical nature since I have not had
> sufficient opportunity to pursue the subject.  Do you know of any good
> links to research papers, etc. that I could follow when time permits?  If
> these types of interactions are possible then the payoff to society could
> be enormous.
>
> I also find circular like systems such as toroidal fields to possess a
> form of 'magic'.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 9:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish
>
> Thanks David,
> Do you also think it is interesting that it coincides with the Cap warp
> which several replicated and a few other similar claims...
>
> I can actually take the correlation further, but right there, does that
> not show that anti-gravity is very likely possible with a circular
> capacitor?
>
> There is a lot of evidence that circular things and circular arrays of
> things can do things that are extraordinary and unexpected by a single
> element.
>
> This is not out of reach, it can be explained.
>
>
> John Berry
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the
> link.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
> Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish
>
> I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the
> extraordinary side of science for the most part.
>
> But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a
> circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated
> by I think 3 people in total.
> http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing
> weight, more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive
> only.  One had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.
>
> Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US
> Airforce sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't
> even aware of the  "Cap warp" experiments.
>
> http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the
> -story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theeventchronicle.com%2Feditors-pick%2Fzero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp%2F%23=D=1=AFQjCNGtySmZC4RkwRYcZs5ksXJhNqOzdQ>
>
> Does that not make a very strong case?
>
> Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't
> wet and Nuclear this group isn't interested?
>
>
> John Berry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

2017-04-22 Thread John Berry

Thanks David,
Do you also think it is interesting that it coincides with the Cap warp
which several replicated and a few other similar claims...

I can actually take the correlation further, but right there, does that not
show that anti-gravity is very likely possible with a circular capacitor?

There is a lot of evidence that circular things and circular arrays of
things can do things that are extraordinary and unexpected by a single
element.

This is not out of reach, it can be explained.


John Berry

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the
> link.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
> Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish
>
> I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the
> extraordinary side of science for the most part.
>
> But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a
> circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated
> by I think 3 people in total.
> http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing
> weight, more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive
> only.  One had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.
>
> Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US
> Airforce sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't
> even aware of the  "Cap warp" experiments.
>
> http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-
> the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theeventchronicle.com%2Feditors-pick%2Fzero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp%2F%23=D=1=AFQjCNGtySmZC4RkwRYcZs5ksXJhNqOzdQ>
>
> Does that not make a very strong case?
>
> Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't
> wet and Nuclear this group isn't interested?
>
>
> John Berry
>

[Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

2017-04-22 Thread John Berry

I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the
extraordinary side of science for the most part.

But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a
circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated
by I think 3 people in total.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html

I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing
weight, more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive
only.  One had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.

Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US
Airforce sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't
even aware of the  "Cap warp" experiments.

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theeventchronicle.com%2Feditors-pick%2Fzero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp%2F%23=D=1=AFQjCNGtySmZC4RkwRYcZs5ksXJhNqOzdQ>

Does that not make a very strong case?

Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't
wet and Nuclear this group isn't interested?


John Berry

Re: [Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

2017-04-21 Thread John Berry

Oh wow,everyone get excited, there is a tiny deviation in the production of
muons over electrons even though there should be due to their energy but
it's a bit larger than that!
And as Muons die quickly, they aren't even useful.

This piece gives the view that physics is pretty much complete and the most
interesting thing that billions of dollars can do is find bulls#!+ like
that!

The huge gaps in understanding are ignored, but I'm glad they are tracking
down tiny details.

They are blind to so much!  The standard model can eat our dust!

John Berry

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> CERN Declares War On The Standard Model
> <https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/#>
>   Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017by Matt Williams
> <https://www.universetoday.com/author/mwill/>
> https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/
>
> Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012
> <https://www.universetoday.com/96132/higgs-like-particle-discovered-at-cern/>,
> the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the existence
> of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this end, the Large
> Hardon Collider beauty experiment
> <http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/> (LHCb) was established in
> 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring what happened after the Big
> Bang that allowed matter to survive and create the Universe as we know it.
>
> Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing things. This
> includes discovering five new particles
> <https://www.universetoday.com/134573/large-hadron-collider-discovers-5-new-gluelike-particles/>,
> uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry
> <http://home.cern/about/updates/2017/01/new-source-asymmetry-between-matter-and-antimatter>,
> and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring beta decay.
> These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press release
> <http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Welcome.html#RKstar>, could
> be an indication of new physics that are not part of the Standard Model.
>
> In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the decay of B
> 0mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon and a pair of
> electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are subatomic particles that are
> 200 times more massive than electrons, but whose interactions are believed
> to be the same as those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is
> concerned).
>
> <https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/lhcb_collaboration.jpg>
>
> *The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
> <http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch>*
>
> This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only predicts
> that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be produced with the
> same probability – with some constraints arising from their differences in
> mass. However, in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the
> decay process produced muons with less frequency. These results were
> collected during Run 1 of the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.
>
> The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April 18th, at
> a CERN seminar
> <https://indico.cern.ch/event/580620/attachments/1442409/2226501/cern_2017_04_18.pdf>,
> where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest findings.
> As they indicated during the course of the seminar, these findings are
> significant in that they appear to confirm results obtained by the LHCb
> team during previous decay studies.
>
> This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility that new
> physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the Standard Model
> (made possible with the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012),
> investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e. Supersymmetry
> <https://indico.cern.ch/event/580620/attachments/1442409/2226501/cern_2017_04_18.pdf>)
> has been a major goal of the LHC. And with its upgrades completed in 2015,
> it has been one of the chief aims of Run 2 (which will last until 2018).
> <https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/lhcb7.png>
>
> *A typical LHCb event fully reconstructed. Particles identified as pions,
> kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. Credit: LHCb collaboration*
>
> Naturally, the LHCb team indicated that further studies will be needed
> before any conclusions can be drawn. For one, the discrepancy they noted
> between the creation of muons and electrons carries a low probability value
> (aka. p-value) of between 2.2. to 2.5 sigma. To put that in perspective,
> the first detection of the H

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

2017-04-17 Thread John Berry

Yes Jed, and the more advanced the technology generally, the narrow the
range of success becomes.

This failure sharing idea might work ok if we were designing plows or
wagons, but even something as basic as the internal combustion engine is
too complex and has too narrow a range of success for collecting data of
failures to be a success :)

John Berry

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It might have limited application, but mostly, I don't see it, too often
>> success and failure is just an inch apart.
>>
>
> Yes! That is an important point. Unfortunately, failure is a more likely
> outcome. There are countless way to make an experiment fail, but only a
> narrow range of ways to make it work.
>
> A minor change to an experiment makes it go off the rails and no one
> notices. The example I often point to was Shockley's initial refusal to
> look at zone refining purification. If he had continued to refuse, I doubt
> Bell Labs could have made practical transistors when they did.
>
> Another recent example is the use of computer neural networks in
> artificial intelligence. Going back to the 1950s people had an intuitive
> feeling this should work. It resembles actual biological brains, which we
> know are capable of intelligence. But little progress was made, and the
> approach was ignored or even denigrated during the "AI winter" eras.
> Finally, about 10 years ago, the method was revived and greatly improved by
> using multi-level networks, where one network feed results into another.
> This, finally, produced outstanding results, unlike anything previously
> seen. This is the basis for the program that beat one of the world's best
> go players, and it is the basis for remarkable recent improvements in
> Google translate. See:
>
> https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-
> more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/
>
> This progress also came about because computer hardware is so much faster
> and cheaper. There are many examples of experiments that failed because
> they done before their time. They worked later on after better instruments
> were devised.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

2017-04-16 Thread John Berry

So if that was done with cold fusion...

IMO failures in experimental sciences are too specific for it to be
meaningful.

It might have limited application, but mostly, I don't see it, too often
success and failure is just an inch apart.

John Berry

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote:

> Excellent article.
>
> I have found that it is possible to find out some of the failures by going
> to conferences and talking with people.  For every field there is usually
> someone who knows what has been done, and what has worked and what has
> not.  The problem is that this is very hit and miss and the information is
> not very accessible, which is not a good way to do science
>
> Nigel
> On 15/04/2017 22:06, H LV wrote:
>
> Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures
>
> We don’t ask people in other professions to do it, but it’s vital for
> speeding up progress in crucial areas of research from climate to medicine
> and public health
>
> By Ijad Madisch on April 13, 2017
>
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-
> share-their-failures/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_BLOG
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 18/03/2017 2:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

The fact is that almost every educated and intelligent person would regard 
telepathy as supernatural . . .

First, I regard it as mythical, not supernatural. There is no solid evidence 
for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, it is natural, because so many 
other things people used to think are supernatural or inexplicable turned out 
to be explicable.
I am amazed that you have the gall to trot out the usual "there is no evidence" 
right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out and called 
"mind blowing"!  I guess once your mind is made up you really don't want to be 
bothered with evidence.  It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people 
that supposedly espouse the scientific method of determining truth.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 10:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> wrote:
I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.
I do not think there is rigorous proof of this. On the contrary, decades ago, 
computers began doing things that  people considered creative, such as 
re-inventing devices that AT patented in the early 20th century, and winning 
at chess and go. So far, every time people have set a goal post and claimed 
"computers will never do this" the people have been wrong. They have responded 
by moving the goal posts and saying, "that is not intelligent after all."
All the advances that have been made are ones which can be imagined and 
achieved with sufficiently advanced technology.  However AFAIK all of our great 
minds have so far failed to come to grips with consciousness and some (eg 
Penrose) have demonstrated that human minds at least can do what no computable 
algorithms can do.  When our best minds can't even imagine how something might 
be done given any imaginable computing ability, and there appears to be proof 
that conciousness can do the non-computable, I suggest that AI (being based on 
computable algorithms) will never achieve it.

In any case in order to achieve the telepathic ability that seems to regularly 
occur between consiousnesses (which was the thrust of my original post), we 
will clearly need some new physics which has not yet been dreamed of.  Indeed 
it is so far from what we imagine possible that most will deny that it is even 
occurring!

  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will never 
understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.”

Supernatural phenomena do not exist, by definition. The universe and every 
particle in it is governed by uniform laws of nature. There are no exceptions 
to them. Any phenomenon that occurs in the universe is natural, by definition, 
and explicable in principle.
While you are correct, you cheapen our language by being pedantic about what 
useful adjectives *should* mean.  The fact is that almost every educated and 
intelligent person would regard telepathy as supernatural - even though in the 
end it must be incorporated into our understanding of nature and thus become 
"natural".  One could argue that it is also a physical phenomenon.  However we 
really need an adjective to differentiate between the physical world that we 
can touch and feel and the invisible world of telepathy and disincarnate 
intelligence and conciouness - the super-physical or super-natural.

At least, that is how things appear to be. That is the basis of science. No 
exceptions have been discovered so far, and there is no reason to think that 
brains or intelligence is an exception. A great deal is known about how brains 
work, and there are no pending mysteries that seem to be outside the known laws 
of physics and chemistry.
Only if you walk around with your eyes shut and ears blocked and refuse to 
notice them!  Did you even look at the evidence or read the guys paper?  How do 
you explain telepathy within our known laws of physics and chemistry!?

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 9:43 PM, bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "consciousness, . . . is a supernatural phenomenon."
> RIGHT-ON.  Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and 
> other real phenomena.
I am surprised that you agreed so readily that telepathy between 
consciousnesses is a real phenomenon, and as common and acceptable as 
quantum spooky action-at-a-distance!  (or did you miss the telepathy bit 
of the argument?)

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

. . .
I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from
being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a
bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language.
. . .
So I believed until quite recently. It appears that some birds can not only
understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you
giving any visible or audible clue! They can also compose grammatically
correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods
used to obtain the result:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals
including a review paper. (It is very difficult to author a review paper
because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited
after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field). So this is
not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it! You can also checkout some popular videos with
information on some other areas of his research:
Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to
lies by a skeptic)
People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any
time, ever. Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand
almost completely. However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a
supernatural phenomenon.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-16 Thread John

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

. . .
So I believed until quite recently. It appears that some birds can not
only understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking*
without you giving any visible or audible clue! They can also compose
grammatically correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the
size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical
methods used to obtain the result:

http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals
including a review paper. (It is very difficult to author a review
paper because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will
only be invited after you have become the recognized expert of a
particular field). So this is not some backyard ignoramus messing
about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it! You can also checkout some popular videos with
information on some other areas of his research:

Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in
response to lies by a skeptic)

People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can
do, any time, ever. Machines which we can invent are things that we can
understand almost completely. However consciousness, even animal
consciousness, is something we will never understand sufficiently to
create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

2017-03-08 Thread John Berry

Cancer is IMO easily treated.

But the treatments don't lead to patented medicine or expensive treatments.

I have zero fear of cancer.

John

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-
>> fraud-claims-nobel-prize-winner/
>>
>>
> This article is titled:
>
> "Most cancer research is a fraud, claims Nobel Prize Winner"
>
> I think that title overstates what the article says. I would title it:
>
> "Most cancer research is a dead end"
>
> . . . or "most cancer research is futile, or barking up the wrong tree."
> That is also the case with most cold fusion research. Also with most
> product development, programming languages, new grocery store food snack
> offerings, and just about every other attempt at innovation. Most of the
> time, most new ideas fail. That's unfortunate, but it is not fraud.
>
> On the other hand, there is also fraud. Also lots of sloppy research that
> should not pass peer-review, but it does. I have no way to judge whether it
> is "mostly" fraud and slop, or mostly an honest mistake. In cold fusion, as
> far as I know, most mistakes are honest.
>
> It is impossible to know an experiment is a mistake until you have done it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

2017-03-08 Thread John Berry

http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-fraud-claims-nobel-prize-winner/

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I believe there is a great deal of corruption in academic science. Several
> cold fusion researchers, biologists and others have told me about incidents
> such as harassment, publishing fraudulent data, stealing data during
> peer-review, and so on. Academic science has a public reputation of being
> ethical and directed only toward "learning the truth." I believe it is more
> political than the public realizes.
>
> The *New York Times* today published an article about an important
> scientist who has been accused of unethical behavior:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html
>
> Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass
>
> Quoting the lede:
>
>
> "Dr. Carlo Croce is among the most prolific scientists in an emerging area
> of cancer research involving what is sometimes called the “dark matter” of
> the human genome. A department chairman at Ohio State University and a
> member of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Croce has parlayed his
> decades-long pursuit of cancer remedies into a research empire: He has
> received more than $86 million in federal grants as a principal
> investigator and, by his own count, more than 60 awards.
>
> With that flamboyant success has come a quotient of controversy. Some
> scientists argue that Dr. Croce has overstated his expansive claims for the
> therapeutic promise of his work, and that his laboratory is focused more on
> churning out papers than on carefully assessing its experimental data.
>
> But a far less public scientific drama has been playing out in the
> Biomedical Research Tower that houses Dr. Croce’s sprawling laboratory on
> Ohio State’s campus in Columbus.
>
> Over the last several years, Dr. Croce has been fending off a tide of
> allegations of data falsification and other scientific misconduct,
> according to federal and state records, whistle-blower complaints and
> correspondence with scientific journals obtained by The New York Times. . .
> ."
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Li batteries

2017-02-12 Thread John Berry

The Samsung Galaxy has a serious battery fire issue.

I don't think it is that size has a huge impact on the probability other
than maybe scaling linearly obviously, but that it has a huge impact on the
seriousness of a problem.

John

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Millions of air passengers carry their cell phones onboard. Cell phones
> have lithium batteries, yet you don't hear about them being a problem. It
> would be interesting to know if there is a correlation between the size of
> the battery and the failure rate when airborne.
>
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I recently saw a sticker on an envelope that said "road transport only,
>> do not
>> send by air", and it occurred to me that the item in question probably
>> contained
>> Li batteries. I wonder why it's safe to transport Li batteries by road,
>> but not
>> by air?
>> Also most of the Li battery failures I have heard of have been in
>> aircraft. If
>> that's the case, then perhaps the higher level of cosmic radiation at
>> altitude
>> is the immediate cause of failure of Li batteries transported by air??
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Unsubscribe me, please

2016-10-27 Thread John Berry

"Bi Vort"., quite appropriate.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Lawrence de Bivort 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Lawrence de Bivort
>>
>
> You have to do it yourself.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a *blank* message to:
>   vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com
>   Put the single word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of the header.  No
>   quotes around "unsubscribe," of course.
>

Re: [Vo]:Article: Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol

2016-10-19 Thread John Berry

But Jones, then you burn the Ethanol putting the CO2 back into the air!

But if the Ethanol is used to make plastic, or something solid...



On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Rant of the day:
>
> Oak Ridge needs ever increasing levels of public funding, as does MIT and
> many other Labs that are too big for their own good… they will spend vast
> sums to continue with silly projects that are not grounded in economic
> sensibility. This looks like the same kind of fluff that MIT continually
> puts out, especially Nocera and the water-splitting schemes that have
> wasted enormous sums.
>
>
>
> Other money-pit Labs are catching on to the need for this kind of PR,
> thanks to MIT’s lead. When will the tax payer catch on?
>
>
>
> There is little on the planet which is more brain-dead than burning coal
> and then using twice as much energy as the coal has produced to convert the
> CO2 to ethanol. Someone duped an ignorant journalist at Popular Mechanics
> into the “carbon neural” mantra. LOL. PM should keep their lame level of
> reporting to the garage.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
>
>
> Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol
>
> http://flip.it/gybUw4
>

Re: [Vo]:Article: Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic field

2016-08-29 Thread John Berry

"zirconium pentatelluride,ZrTe5, that provides strong evidence for the
chiral magnetic effect:.

My research is all based on chirality of coils that produce fundamentally
different "currents".

This is no doubt closely related to my work!

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "This is because in ZrTe5 the electrons responsible for the current have
> no mass."
>
> That itself sounds like a dramatic claim, electrons with no mass?
>
> I am able to produce a current of something that I believe is like an
> electron albeit not propperly physical, and I believe it gains something by
> moving through magnetic fields.
>
> I think I might be moving something akin to a virtual electron, albeit one
> that does not have the correct quanta to manifest physically to regular
> meters, but can be readily detected by a significant percentage of the
> population including in conditions outside of any possible
> conventional explanation like the Placebo effect.
>
> But there is another current in the reverse direction that is denser and
> appears to be more like a proton.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic
>> field
>>
>> http://flip.it/bkDC21
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Article: Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic field

2016-08-29 Thread John Berry

"This is because in ZrTe5 the electrons responsible for the current have no
mass."

That itself sounds like a dramatic claim, electrons with no mass?

I am able to produce a current of something that I believe is like an
electron albeit not propperly physical, and I believe it gains something by
moving through magnetic fields.

I think I might be moving something akin to a virtual electron, albeit one
that does not have the correct quanta to manifest physically to regular
meters, but can be readily detected by a significant percentage of the
population including in conditions outside of any possible
conventional explanation like the Placebo effect.

But there is another current in the reverse direction that is denser and
appears to be more like a proton.

John

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic
> field
>
> http://flip.it/bkDC21
>

Re: [Vo]:Gain from wires and magnets?

2016-07-17 Thread John Berry

Floyd Sweets device worked, but it is aetheric as well as electromagnetic.

It has accounts of antigravity, freezing wires, and once when overloaded it
made a vortex sound...

Many of the more credible coils and magnets free energy devices have other
anomalous effects besides mere overunity.

And what of the unexpected electrical energy in Rossi's work?
Or the mysterious lack of radiation in LENR?

The problem is that if you replicate an electromagnetic free energy device,
it won't work because it is a hybrid of electromagnetic and aetheric
engineering, and the aetheric part is dependent on details that are too
readily lost.

I can easily make this kind of energy and I now know how to basically
transition the aetheric so that it melds with electromagnetic energy.

The aetheric energy is also related to Kundalini, Chi etc.., but there are
many variations of this energy.

A number of people on this list have felt an energy from images I have
made, you I have found light can effect the underlying aether, suitable
enough for the majority of random people to feel something.
Including in situations where zero possibility of the placebo effect exist.

John

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> In such cases, it is really useful to simulate the system with a model
> that is entirely without unknown physics and see how the model compares
> with observation.  If it predicts the same phenomena, you can be pretty
> sure that the outcome was simply outside your expectation.  SPICE is a
> wonderful first-principles tool for a lot of this with wires and magnets.
>
>
>
> Yes, it is a great tool, but the previously unknown parameter or exotic
> material is the problem. Plus– SPICE, or any simulation, can be fooled by
> an incorrect assumption – as here.
>
>
> http://overunity.com/7403/this-ltspice-simulation-model-will-blow-your-mind/#.V4u7yDVgs9M
>
> SPICE works only on the known, in fact only on the well-known - and is
> specifically poor at modeling leakage inductance… which is a factor in EE
> that normally is not a good thing. Perhaps, like lemons, it can be made
> into lemonade (if that is what Graham is doing) but not modeled. Driving a
> specialty magnetic core past saturation presents problems for any model
> when other cores are in spatial proximity.
>
> The one-and-only acceptable recourse here, as always, is to “close the
> loop” in some way. If a circuit self-resonates for hundreds of hours with
> only microfarads of capacitance, and especially if substantial cooling of a
> magnetic core is seen during this time – you can throw the SPICE model out
> the window, until of course it is modified… but that always happens after
> the fact.
>
> Do you have theoretical problems (aside from natural suspicions) with the
> presentation of a self-powering circuit, driving a computer fan over a cold
> core and thus cooling a space, such that the net thermal balance is
> increased in entropy?
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

2016-06-18 Thread John Berry

No Jones, I was proposing that IF photons for make their way through a
barrier due to a cancelled waveform, then maybe protons as per your typo,
or other particles could also do so if their quantum wave functions
cancelled, and just MAYBE this is related to quantum tunneling.

And even then I'm not sure I was being serious, but then again I'm not
certain that I'm not being either.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* John Berry
>
> Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats)
> fired at a screen still produce an interference... So maybe protons could
> tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from another proton that
> interferes?
>
> John,
>
> Are you suggesting that the cone be filled with hydrogen in order to
> promote tunneling which then promotes photon pairing? That would be
> unlikely, since protons would then be lost to the continued operation of
> the device making it difficult to control. BTW - Here is the paper:
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
>
> Note that if the pairing hypothesis is correct, then the cone angle could
> be important as well as the gas fill or vacuum, and other dimensions, as
> well as the geometric ratios which would favor phase conjugation. One
> would think a parabola would be favored over a cone. These parameters can
> be calculated based on the frequency of 2.45 MHz, the wavelength of about
> 12 cm. This explains why some designs work and others do not.
>
> The quantum energy of a microwave photon (using standard commercial
> magnetron) is only in the micro-eV range (10^-5 eV) which is well below
> ionizing. The interaction of photons at such low energy is limited to
> molecular rotation and torsion if there is a gaseous medium in the device, 
> instead
> of vacuum.
>
> A dilute gas fill, such that the mean free path of the atoms (or
> molecules) was kept at wavelength resonance with the photons, could help
> (or hurt) depending on the design.
>
>
> *http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM*
> <http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html>
>
> If protons can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of cavity
> resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can
> escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from
> microwave
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

2016-06-18 Thread John Berry

Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats)
fired at a screen still produce an interference...

So maybe protons could tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from
another proton that interferes?

Could this be how tunneling works?

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Oops… obviously, that should read “photon” instead of “proton”:
>
> If photons [not protons] can become paired and out-of-phase due to some
> kind of cavity resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is
> that they can escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at
> risk from microwave ovens.
>
> If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another
> low point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this
> was debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven
> configurations which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than others.
> Recently, there are reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead of glass
> windows, melting. This could be due to the spacing in the see-thru metal
> grids… who knows?
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

2016-06-16 Thread John Berry

This reminds me of a question I have had.

Imaging we have 2 lasers putting out 2 coherent light beams along the same
path, one frequency is very slightly higher than the other.

Constrictive/destructive interference between the 2 beams mean that along
the path at time they double in strength, but at other points cancel.

So if you has thin lead shield, far far thinner than the length of the
interference wavelength, and you place this where they cancel

Surely the light would pass through this shield!

Indeed, could the light not be on slightly different paths just that they
only intersect and cancel at that one spot, and once through the shield
they no longer need to interfere!

Could some kind of diamagnetic opposite field creating energy that is
localized help to create invisibility?  Sort of a near field
superconducting anti-field that because it doesn't transmit with the light
allows an object to become invisible?

And is light ever absorbed anyway?  Or does it just result in an opposite
photon that reduces the energy to zero, both moving on forever in utter
undetectable insignificance?

John

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:11 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:44:29
> -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The author says:
> >
> >"photons must become paired up in order to discharge the fuel
> >cavity, so that the two photons in those pairs are essentially out
> >of phase, which means they entirely cancel each other out and have
> >no net electromagnetic field"
> >
> They also suggest that if it works the way they think it works, this will
> ensure
> a future for the technology. This is of course nonsense. If it works by
> ejecting
> photons, then you don' need the cavity at all. Just radiate the microwaves
> directly into space, or for that matter don't bother even creating
> microwaves,
> since heat would work just as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron

2016-05-25 Thread John Berry

I should have said: And that only as a group and or over time or at a
distance does the fields become a smooth inverse square with
no irregularities, perturbations or features.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe I'm missing something here, but all this strong, weak and 5th force
> nonsense...
>
> Couldn't it simply be that the electric field from a single subatomic
> particle isn't a perfect inverse square law field on the micro-scale
> especially at a single point in time, but has perturbations. maybe an axis
> related to spin.
>
> And that only as a group and or over time does the field become a smooth
> inverse square, indeed perhaps "lines of force" actually exist.
>
> This up close, packed into a nucleus or another tight cluster (Ken
> Shoulder electron charge cluster) the repulsion might be overcome.
>
> Not another force, just discontinuities in the electric field.
>
> Otherwise doesn't Ken Shoulders work point to a 6th force?
>
> John
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Russ, a great find.
>>
>> A new boson must carry a new force since bosons are force carriers. But I
>> wonder if this force could be something that comes out of the dirac
>> equations that has not been seen before experimentally,  Maybe this new
>> particle is carrying the monopole charge? The experimenters should put this
>> particle in a magnetic field and see how it bends.
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron
>>> coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they
>>> decay.
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of  course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit
>>> weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New force couples electron to neutron

2016-05-25 Thread John Berry

Maybe I'm missing something here, but all this strong, weak and 5th force
nonsense...

Couldn't it simply be that the electric field from a single subatomic
particle isn't a perfect inverse square law field on the micro-scale
especially at a single point in time, but has perturbations. maybe an axis
related to spin.

And that only as a group and or over time does the field become a smooth
inverse square, indeed perhaps "lines of force" actually exist.

This up close, packed into a nucleus or another tight cluster (Ken Shoulder
electron charge cluster) the repulsion might be overcome.

Not another force, just discontinuities in the electric field.

Otherwise doesn't Ken Shoulders work point to a 6th force?

John

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Russ, a great find.
>
> A new boson must carry a new force since bosons are force carriers. But I
> wonder if this force could be something that comes out of the dirac
> equations that has not been seen before experimentally,  Maybe this new
> particle is carrying the monopole charge? The experimenters should put this
> particle in a magnetic field and see how it bends.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here’s a lead on one of the great mysteries, just how is an electron
>> coupled to a neutron as clearly neutrons spit out electrons when they
>> decay.
>> http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungarian-physics-lab-found-a-fifth-force-of-nature-1.19957
>>
>>
>>
>> Of  course if ordinary neutrons hold on to ordinary electrons, albeit
>> weakly, that could explain more than a few mysteries.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal

2016-05-21 Thread John


On 21/05/2016 11:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Once again people have claimed you can release 1 MW with no ill 
effects in a small facility, without industrial scale ventilation. 
People should apply some common sense metrics!


Rossi says the facility is 6,500 sq. feet. Conventional heating calls 
for no more than 20 BTU/sq. ft. in Florida. That's 130,000 BTU. 1 MW 
is 3,412,142 BTU/h. So that is 26 times more heat than normal heating 
would supply. More to the point, it would not be thermostatically 
controlled. It would be turned on continuously. If you turned on 26 
times more room heating furnaces than normal, and left them on at full 
blast, obviously the room would soon be too hot for a person to 
survive in.
Your assumption that all the power used by the customer's plant must end 
up in heat in the room is not valid.  A quick search of J.M Products 
Corp indicates that they are in the chemicals business - wholesale and 
_manufacturing_.  I am not a chemist but I would guess that there are 
plenty of endothermic chemical reactions that would absorb heat energy 
to change one set of chemicals into another.  Much the same as a hectare 
of crop absorbs radiant heat from the sun to change water and CO2 into 
stored energy which is then trucked away to market.


My guess is that some process they are using to manufacture useful 
chemicals not only converts heat energy into chemical energy (which then 
exits the building by truck), but that this process also contains some 
confidential know-how that the company does not want their competitors 
to find out about.  So this would be a perfectly good reason why they 
would rather not have smart people getting a good look at exactly what 
goes on in their chemical manufacturing process and so wrote that 
condition into the contract.  After all it _really should be possible_ 
to accurately determine energy transfer by measuring temperature and 
flow rate at the single inlet (specially since Rossi discounts the lack 
of heat in the return pipe).


Also the amount of heating or cooling that an area needs depends 
entirely on the temperature in neighboring volumes and heat leak rate to 
or from those volumes.  Thus in a large-area multi-story building the 
central zones _always need cooling_ even when outside air is cold and 
the perimeter zones need strong heating to cope with the heat loss 
through the outside walls.  While it may be valid in very simple cases 
to estimate heating or cooling requirement from _floor area_, in general 
this must be useless because for a factory which runs 24/7 hardly any of 
the heat is lost through the floor (once it reaches equilibrium), but 
rather through the walls and ceiling - which must depend heavily on 
their level of insulation and whether neighboring volumes are 
temperature controlled or not.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

2016-05-19 Thread John Berry

The only way to steal IP from a patent (other than producing and selling in
secret) is to make changes, possibly ones that give you a superior
technology that is not protected by their patent that you then patent.
'
Patents are about giving IP freely, but protecting the rights.

Thinking about it, patents might become useless with advances in 3D
printing, where a consumer can make a file, share the file (because it is
not the thing itself) so others with no effort can print up the invention.

But as we reach a robotopia we are again going to have to find different
ways of distributing things.

John


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for
>> the low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers
>> what was necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That
>> is all the patent identified.
>>
>
> I did not realize that. However, my point still stands. Assuming the 1 MW
> gadget works --
>
> If he gets a patent later for it, that will protect him. Neither I.H. nor
> any other company will be able to "steal" the technology. They will have it
> for free, but they will not be able to sell it. That is how patents work.
>
> If he cannot patent the 1 MW reactor for some reason, he will have no
> protection at all. Something this important cannot be protected with trade
> secrets. It will be reverse engineered.
>
> However, this is mere fantasy. Or alternative history. In fact, the 1 MW
> gadget does not work, so there is no intellectual property, and a patent
> would be meaningless. A patent for an invention that does not work is void.
>
>
>
>> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what
>> is grating to IH . . .
>>
>
> No, what is grating to IH is that they paid $11 million for something that
> does not work. At all. As they said, they could not substantiate it.
>
>
>
>> The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant
>> they produced to go above a COP of around 6.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. The plant was made by Rossi. It never went above 1. It
> is well below 1 in the fluid because of losses from the reactor.
>
> I have not heard that the I.H. engineering team ever made a plant. Perhaps
> they did; I have only a little inside information. However, in their press
> releases the only thing they discuss is the reactor made by Rossi. All my
> comments about calorimetry pertain only to Rossi's device. I have no
> knowledge of any other machine.
>
>
>
>> It would seem they want to be trained further to improve their PHOSITA.
>>
>
> This has nothing to do with the ability or inability of the I.H. team to
> replicate. The only issue is that Rossi is unable to make his machine
> produce excess heat. He was given a year to do it, but he failed.
>
> At least, that is what I.H. claims, and what my analysis shows. Rossi, of
> course, claims that it does work. You will have to see the data before you
> can take sides.
>
>
>>
>
>> I do not blame them for that want, but.
>>
>
> There is no such want. You misunderstand. What you think happened here *did
> not* happen.
>
>
>
>> However, IMHO Rossi does not have any obligation to do that training.
>>
>
> As I said, training is not the issue. I.H. has never mentioned it. Perhaps
> Rossi did; I don't follow his blog, but I.H. is not contesting this. The
> issue is, he cannot make his machine produce excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

Including the energy contained in electric, gravitational and magnetic
potential energy?

Including chemical and nuclear energy?

All energy is motion of the vacuum?   In what sense can these types of
energy be motion of the vacuum?

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In reply to  John Berry's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:28:55 +1300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Maybe energy can be created or destroyed in a net manner by some
> alteration of the vacuum?
>
> All energy comprises vacuum in motion. In order to destroy it, you have to
> remove the local motion from the universe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

That gives his claim far more credit in my eyes.

Gravitational anomalies (and others) occurring with free energy is common
enough.
And indicates there is something real behind it.

John

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Robin,
>
> "My comment is that I think it's powered by a resonant connection with
> the cyclotron radiation of the protons of the Van Allen belts. IOW Tesla's
> "wheelwork of nature", but that implies a limited amount of
> energy available world wide."
>
> Mr. Yildiz had mentioned a gravitational anomaly when the motor run at
> excessive speed. I would not enter to details but if it is correct, the
> phenomenon would be even more strange. May flying machines of scifi movies
> would emerge in time.
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

It is easy to establish how much energy is in a magnetic field.

Just see how much energy would need to be used up to establish such a
magnetic field with a superconductor coil.

Even a superconductor coil requires a voltage to establish a current due to
the impedance involved.
As such there is a very real amount of energy invested in and recovered
from a magnetic field as it collapses inducing a voltage in a coil.

I doubt there is enough to turn a motor with a load for very long, but of
course that depends on the load and how many magnets and how strongly they
are magnetized.

There should be a calculator for establishing the energy in a magnetic
field floating around the internet somewhere.

John

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield wrote:
>
> "With known science the only way it could work is by using up the
> potential energy of the permanent magnets"
>
> I think the energy related to permanent magnets are overstated. A NdFeB
> magnet can be demagnetized easily by heating without a spectacular energy
> outcome. From entropic view this process could be even endothermic, the
> energy stored in magnet could be negative.
>
> We may ask such a question in physics stackexchange.
>
> I expect a detailed report from TU/e soon which contain power and energy
> figures.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

Can anyone really argue though that the conservation of energy is not
merely a general observation and a philosophical concept.

It is fine to say "I can't see how it could be done" given the assumption
that there is symmetry in the underlying mechanics of simultaneous creation
of one energy and the destruction of another which is generally called
transfer of energy.

But that is not the same as it being actually IMPOSSIBLE to create or
destroy energy!

It's just an idea. A presumption.
Much like the observation that entropy increases over time is known to only
be generally true, but false in special circumstances (low power LED's can
gain energy from the vacuum).

Maybe energy can be created or destroyed in a net manner by some alteration
of the vacuum?

Sure, you don't have to believe that this is possible, but can anyone
genuinely say they know absoluetly enough about the universe to say it
isn't?

How could you know it is not possible?

If god existed, could he both known everything and know that he knows
everything?
How would he know that there was something that was outside of his
knowledge except for mere arrogance?

So unless any of you somehow known more that an otherwise omnisciently god
is, then you don't really know if energy can be created or destroyed.

All you have is observation and theory/philosophy/religion (whatever you
want to call it) to inform you.

We don't know how everything we know about works, and we have no ability to
speak of that which is outside our knowledge.

Some things are logically impossible (continual compression beyond random
data), but creation/destruction of energy is not one of them.

John

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In reply to  H Ucar's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:34:25 +0200:
> Hi Hamdi,
> [snip]
> >I did not expected that this issue would be totally ignored here. So
> reciprocally, don't blame acedemic community for their own ignorances.
>
> My comment is that I think it's powered by a resonant connection with the
> cyclotron radiation of the protons of the Van Allen belts.
> IOW Tesla's "wheelwork of nature", but that implies a limited amount of
> energy
> available world wide.
>
> An alternative might be enhanced radioactive decay of long lived
> radioisotopes
> in the magnets, where the decay is triggered by changing magnetic fields,
> as
> magnets move relative to one another.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

I think the word "Trumps" is one that people might find a bit disconcerting
at this juncture.

Unless by "trumping" you mean to attract racists and incite violence.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with
> polylacticacid PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the
> worlds PLA plastic needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a
> small fraction of the sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just
> take care of the ocean pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we
> can make the planet great again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2016 1:59 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by
> scientists
>
>
>
> By the way, here is some other news about plastics that has been widely
> reported in Japan. This is good news for once.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bacteria-able-to-eat-plastic-bottles-discovered-by-scientists-a6927636.html
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?

2016-03-06 Thread John Berry

deterministic risks.
>>
>>
>>
>> reference also to many myth propagated by scaremongers.
>>
>> I don't expect to convince as the propaganda is too strong to be opposed
>> by data.
>>
>>
>>
>> A phenomenon we observe in LENR domain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-03-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Rossi is complaining about a 'failure to thrive' condition such as losing
>> weight without reason. We might consider that a primary symptom of chronic
>> radiation exposure is unexplained weight loss.
>>
>> Andrea Rossi
>> March 3, 2016 at 9:07 PM
>> Jed Orwell:
>> I continue to lose weight and we do not understand why. I am going to
>> make a lot of “scopies” you name one, I scope it, but I feel well and work
>> my 12 hours per day on my E-Cats; today another important loophole with the
>> E-Cat X.
>> Anyway: yes, I am ready to pass to my Team all the skills necessary to
>> make without me, just in case. But I never in my life worked as well as I
>> am doing during these days. Obviously, the faster we go, the better. Until
>> the horse is good, better ride him.
>> F9.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>>
>> LENR could be producing a form of stealth radiation; radiation that
>> damages structure and tissue but does not produce a reading on a radiation
>> meter.
>>
>> John Fisher has detected 1.5 MeV alpha particles radiating from a central
>> point of causation. Yet a gamma is not detected that should be there when
>> that alpha particle hits the CR-39.
>>
>> It is well known in many LENR experiments that helium is detected without
>> the generation of gamma radiation. This implies that alpha particles are
>> produced without the generation of the gammas that usually accompany the
>> alphas.
>>
>> How could this be possible, that alpha radiation can exist without the
>> detection of gamma radiation? It could be that a general state of multi
>> particle entanglement between the alpha particles and their center of
>> causation... let us call that cause an exotic neutral particle (ENP)...
>> transfers all gamma radiation through a quantum mechanical pathway to the
>> ENP.
>>
>> However, the damage that the alpha particle produces through kinetic
>> impact still occurs. Also, there is evidence that the ENP and float in the
>> air. If this is in fact true, this particle can be taken into the body
>> where it can catalyze nuclear reactions in tissue... and here too the gamma
>> radiation is hidden.
>>
>> This possibility entered my mind when Mark LeClair claimed that he and
>> his research partner were sickened and entered the hospital after a
>> experiment with a cavitation based LENR system. Could LeClair have taken
>> into his body a large number of these ENPs.
>>
>> It is important to understand how ENPs work if they exist to protect the
>> thousands of replicators that will be getting into the science of LENR.
>>
>> Like Marie Curie, Rossi might have sacrificed his health to the unknown
>> dangers that one must face in the LENR science.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

More:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1231307/women-rape-men-a-lot-more-than-you-think-study/

And despite what you say, a woman slapping a man is often seen as funny.

A man slapping a woman is judged far more harshly.

Back to the subject of work.

I am not saying that men having the dangerous jobs began with feminism.

Rather the fact that men have continued to be seen as more disposable is in
large part because of the focus of the rights women have, with a
simultaneous subjugation of men.

And I do believe if the situation was reversed, there would have been a lot
more done about it.

Of course I do accept improvements have been made.
Still, plenty of extremely dangerous jobs exist for men, I live in a
logging town.
Now that is up there with atlantic fishing in a small boat danger wise.

John

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's pretty rapid growth in Feminism.
>
> It is a strange backwards label.
>
> The movement has been how women can and should become more masculine.
>
> Masculinism could be a movement where guys wear dresses, lippy and put on
> bra's and have doors opened for them at that rate.
>
> Perhaps feminism (or some variations of it) should be called "Masculinism
> for women".
>
> But now we are sooo far off topic.
>
> The stats do support that men are victims of spousal abuse almost as much
> as women:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
>
> Sure, I don't deny that on average a violent man can do more harm in a
> physical altercation with a woman than the woman can do.
> But that speaks more to the degree of injury, not the abuse in the first
> place.
>
> Here women are 40% of rapists:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5414518
>
> Those figures are from the US, but I once found UK numbers that were
> similar.
>
> I don't deny that this is surprising, hard to believe and difficult to
> take seriously.
> But sometimes we only get half the story.
>
> Society only hears what it has an appetite to listen to.
>
> The best kept secrets are the ones that keep themselves.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Recently it occurred to me that Google Ngram could be used gauge societal
>> attitudes about men and women over time.   This Google Ngram graphs the
>> usage of the words "feminist", "feminine" and "masculine" from 1700 to 2008
>> as they are used in English books.
>>
>>
>> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=feminism%2Cfeminine%2Cmasculine_start=1700_end=2008=15=3=_url=t1%3B%2Cfeminism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfeminine%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmasculine%3B%2Cc0
>>
>> Notice the cross over around 1836 for "feminine" and "masculine" and how
>> the usage of "feminist" begins to rise sharply around 1970.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
>>> always had safer jobs than men.
>>>
>>> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>>>
>>> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
>>> And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
>>> despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
>>> closer to parity that we could conceive.
>>>
>>> Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
>>> And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
>>> even-handed manner.
>>>
>>> Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.
>>>
>>> But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
>>> Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.
>>>
>>> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>>>
>>> There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
>>> that's the problem.
>>>
>>> Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the
>>> perpetrators and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
>>> Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
>>> biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.
>>>
>>> And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw.

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

That's pretty rapid growth in Feminism.

It is a strange backwards label.

The movement has been how women can and should become more masculine.

Masculinism could be a movement where guys wear dresses, lippy and put on
bra's and have doors opened for them at that rate.

Perhaps feminism (or some variations of it) should be called "Masculinism
for women".

But now we are sooo far off topic.

The stats do support that men are victims of spousal abuse almost as much
as women:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Sure, I don't deny that on average a violent man can do more harm in a
physical altercation with a woman than the woman can do.
But that speaks more to the degree of injury, not the abuse in the first
place.

Here women are 40% of rapists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5414518

Those figures are from the US, but I once found UK numbers that were
similar.

I don't deny that this is surprising, hard to believe and difficult to take
seriously.
But sometimes we only get half the story.

Society only hears what it has an appetite to listen to.

The best kept secrets are the ones that keep themselves.

John


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Recently it occurred to me that Google Ngram could be used gauge societal
> attitudes about men and women over time.   This Google Ngram graphs the
> usage of the words "feminist", "feminine" and "masculine" from 1700 to 2008
> as they are used in English books.
>
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=feminism%2Cfeminine%2Cmasculine_start=1700_end=2008=15=3=_url=t1%3B%2Cfeminism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfeminine%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmasculine%3B%2Cc0
>
> Notice the cross over around 1836 for "feminine" and "masculine" and how
> the usage of "feminist" begins to rise sharply around 1970.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
>> always had safer jobs than men.
>>
>> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>>
>> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
>> And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
>> despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
>> closer to parity that we could conceive.
>>
>> Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
>> And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
>> even-handed manner.
>>
>> Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.
>>
>> But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
>> Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.
>>
>> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>>
>> There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
>> that's the problem.
>>
>> Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the
>> perpetrators and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
>> Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
>> biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.
>>
>> And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the
>>>> same but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
>>>> massive push to make these jobs safer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read history,
>>> for goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy equipment,
>>> factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than they used to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men
>>> do nowadays. For that matter, children working in factories and mines were
>>> killed so often that some British mines had a rubber-stamp form to fill in
>>> the names and pay off the parents. A rubber-stamp!
>>>
>>> Look up "19th century child labor" images on Google, and you will see
>>> things like this of both boys and girls doing dangerous heavy labor in
>>> mines and elsewhere:
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
always had safer jobs than men.

But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.

There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
closer to parity that we could conceive.

Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
even-handed manner.

Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.

But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.

A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?

There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
that's the problem.

Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the perpetrators
and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.

And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.

John

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the
>> same but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
>> massive push to make these jobs safer.
>>
>
> There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read history,
> for goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy equipment,
> factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than they used to
> be.
>
> Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men do
> nowadays. For that matter, children working in factories and mines were
> killed so often that some British mines had a rubber-stamp form to fill in
> the names and pay off the parents. A rubber-stamp!
>
> Look up "19th century child labor" images on Google, and you will see
> things like this of both boys and girls doing dangerous heavy labor in
> mines and elsewhere:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood#/media/File:Coaltub.png
>
> Obviously, in Europe and the U.S. it was traditional for men to do
> dangerous jobs. The tradition lives on because, as I said, you have to grow
> up doing these things or you are likely to be killed. No one can just walk
> up and start working in a farm or on construction. You will cut your arm
> off with a power tool.
>
> In countries where women traditionally did some kinds of dangerous work in
> some industries, such as Japan, the fatality rate was worse than men.
>
> Even today, women in U.S. industry suffer a great deal, although they are
> no longer in as much danger of being killed. In Georgia and South Carolina,
> most chicken processing plants are staffed mainly by women. Their lives are
> not at risk, but they suffer horribly from repetitive stress syndrome. They
> are poor because these jobs don't pay a living wage. Many are illegal
> immigrants. So nothing is done about this problem. Also, Members of
> Congress and state government elected officials are on record saying that
> repetitive stress syndrome does not exist, and these women are malingering
> and trying to get free money. I expect such elected officials have never
> worked a day in their life at any manual job in a factory, farm or kitchen.
> I wish I could subject them to a month working in these places -- or I wish
> I could subject their wives and daughters to that. You would see new laws
> and improvements overnight!
>
> Again, it will be a better world when robots do that sort of work. The
> only problem is that people will go from having inadequate jobs that do not
> pay a living wage to having no jobs at all.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the same
but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
massive push to make these jobs safer.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
> If the experiments go well, I would not mind if a number of present-day
>> welfare programs, such as food stamps and workers' comp, were gradually
>> consolidated into it.
>>
>
> That should have been "unemployment compensation," not "workers' comp."
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Article: Chiral magnetic effect generates quantum current

2016-02-08 Thread John Berry

Ok, wow!

So I have for about 20 years been collecting evidence of parallel electric
and magnetic fields creating an anomalous voltage (they don't say voltage,
but mention extracting energy from Dirac sea and a powerful increase in
conductivity).
I have been working with chiral effects for about 5 years, this paper is
perfectly echoing my work.

I can give you a decent size list of experiments with electric current
generating an anomalous preferred direction when current flows along a
magnetic field like this.

Also the equal left and right handed Charity!  Yes I have found that too.
And then it goes on to talk about massless particles that are like
electrons!

This just sounds like an echo chamber of my own work.

John (call me paranoid, but article below in case it disappears or gets
modified)


Scientists at the U.S Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National
Laboratory and Stony Brook University have discovered a new way to generate
very low-resistance electric current in a new class of materials. The
discovery, which relies on the separation of right- and left-"handed"
particles, points to a range of potential applications in energy, quantum
computing, and medical imaging, and possibly even a new mechanism for
inducing superconductivity—the ability of some materials to carry current
with no energy loss.

The material the scientists worked with, zirconium pentatelluride, has a
surprising trait: When placed in parallel electric and magnetic fields, it
responds with an imbalance in the number of right- and left-handed
particles—a chiral imbalance. That imbalance pushes oppositely charged
particles in opposite directions to create a powerful electric current.

This "chiral magnetic effect" had long been predicted theoretically, but
never observed definitively in a materials science laboratory at the time
this work was done.

In fact, when physicists in Brookhaven's Condensed Matter Physics &
Materials Science Department (CMP) first measured the significant drop
in electrical resistance, and the accompanying dramatic increase in
conductivity, they were quite surprised. "We didn't know this large
magnitude of 'negative magnetoresistance' was possible," said Qiang Li, a
physicist and head of the advanced energy materials group in the department
and a co-author on a paper describing these results just published in the
journal *Nature Physics*. But after teaming up with Dmitri Kharzeev, the
head of the RIKEN-BNL theory group at Brookhaven and a professor at Stony
Brook, the scientists had an explanation.

Kharzeev had explored similar behavior of subatomic particles in the
magnetic fields created in collisions at the Lab's Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility where nuclear
physicists explore the fundamental building blocks of matter. He suggested
that in both the RHIC collisions and zirconium pentatelluride, the
separation of charges could be triggered by a chiral imbalance.

To test the idea, they compared their measurements with the mathematical
predictions of how powerful the increase in conductivity should be with
increasing magnetic field <http://phys.org/tags/magnetic+field/> strength.

"We looked at the data and we said, 'Gee, that's it!' We tested six
different samples and confirmed that no matter how you do it, it's there as
long as the magnetic field is parallel to the electrical current. That's
the smoking gun," Li said.

*Going Chiral*

Right- or left-handed chirality is determined by whether a particle's spin
is aligned with or against its direction of motion. In order for chirality
to be definitively established, particles have to behave as if they are
nearly massless and able to move as such in all three spatial directions.

While free-flowing nearly massless particles are commonly found in the
quark-gluon plasma created at RHIC, this was not expected to occur in
condensed matter. However, in some recently discovered materials, including
"Dirac semimetals"—named for the physicist who wrote the equations to
describe fast-moving electrons—nearly massless "quasiparticle" versions of
electrons (and positively charged "holes") propagate through the crystal in
this free manner.

Some aspects of this phenomenon, namely the linear dependence of the
particles' energy on their momentum, can be directly measured and
visualized using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES).

"On first sight, zirconium pentatelluride did not even look like a 3D
material," said Brookhaven physicist Tonica Valla, who performed the
measurements with collaborators at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and at Brookhaven's National
Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS, https://www.bnl.gov/ps/nsls/about-NSLS.asp)—two
additional DOE Office of Science User Facilities. "It is layered, similar
to graphite, so a quasi-2D electronic structur

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

2016-01-26 Thread John Berry

Here is a good video that shows he slot antenna effect and how some cheap
aluminum tape can fix it up for a massive improvement in shielding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3S2KDuVxaU

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It only has a 1 year guarantee.  So, perpetual charging is not
> guaranteed.  Seems like that if you were going to make the claim that it
> NEVER needs charging, then you should at least offer a 10 year guarantee so
> as to make it better than the best lithium battery.  Reality is that even
> if the electret is a perpetual source, the internal lithium battery charge
> buffer will not be.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esa J. Ruoho  wrote:
>>
>> "Never charge battery".
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?

2016-01-08 Thread John Berry

Jones, I appreciate the recap.

But while I appreciate that there may be breakthroughs and perhaps this one
goes above the level my post considered...

I was talking about conventional nuclear weapons that are declassified.
Not black projects, not experimental research.

Now you do make a good point, but I'm not sure we really know what Holmlid
is doing currently, especially me since this is outside my area of active
interest really.

I am not sure if can be considered settled sciences well known to create a
suitcase H-bomb with conventional nuclear yield.
Are you sure it can be?
If so that is scary!

John

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> You still are not on the right page, John.
>
> I think this is because you are unaware of Leif Holmlid’s work, and how
> that work fits into the big picture of World politics. Holmlid is showing
> complete mass conversion of nucleons into energy, which is a step above
> nuclear fusion. He has been publishing this in peer reviewed journals for
> a decade but AFAIK, none of his important experiments are independently
> replicated, at least not in the USA.
>
> I will try to be more specific on the details. Going back to the original
> premise, if we can believe both Professor Holmlid and North Korea – then
> what we are facing is precarious situation for World Peace which could be
> worse than imagined by experts. The points to consider and combine are:
>
> 1)  Holmlid has presented a technique to make an ultra-dense from of
> deuterium (UDD) which has a nucleon separation of 2.3 picometers.
>
> 2)  This material has been shown to be much easier to fuse than
> normal deuterium. In fact, Holmlid can fuse UDD and even cause complete
> nucleon disintegration, using only a milliwatt laser for triggering.
>
> 3)  NK has been involved in LENR since about 2001, according to an
> earlier press release. They certainly are capable of doing sophisticated 
> research
> in nuclear physics and can be assumed to have read Holmlid’s papers.
>
> 4)  NK has this week tested what they call a compact “hydrogen bomb”
> but the yield is in the range of few kilotons – far less than a fission
> triggered fusion type of H-bomb and less than a boosted design.
>
> 5)  This combination of salient facts, if true, leads to only a few c
> onclusions about what is really going on behind the scenes.
>
> 6)  One conclusion, which may be unlikely but which cannot be
> ignored, is that NK has managed to make enough of the Holmlid deuterium
> (UDD), or even UDDT, to weaponized.
>
> 7)  The great risk of open-research on the internet is that an exotic
> material such as UDD, which can be easily converted into energy, can be 
> produced
> and disintegrated without a fission trigger by a Rogue Nation or
> well-funded terrorist group.
>
> 8)  For instance, if you do the numbers to extrapolate from Holmlid’s
> tests to the 5 kiloton explosion which did happen this week – then it is
> possible that a few grams of UDD could produce that kind of result if
> fully disintegrated into muons. The ratio for comparative energy of UDD
> to TNT is about one billion to one. The NK could even have used laser
> triggering.
>
>
> For a sardonic laugh, imagine 1,000 laser-pointers surrounding a tiny fuel
> pellet like mini version of NIF.
>
>
> *From:* John Berry
>
> Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion
> instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission
> efficiency.
>
> Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything
> declassified or any known physics within reason.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?

2016-01-08 Thread John Berry

Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion
instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission
efficiency.

Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything
declassified or any known physics within reason.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Wiki has entries which answers most of your questions
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
>
>
>
> Boosted fission is different from the H-bomb in a number of ways, and an
> improvement over fission alone, therefore we can surmise:
>
>
>
> 1)  Since the yield of the recent  NK test was about the same as
> their prior fission test, then it is probably not boosted.
>
> 2)  Since the yield is way too low to be fission-triggered fusion
> (H-bomb) we can eliminate that and all other high yield choices
>
> 3)  Add the fact that it is compact, means that there is the prospect
> of a novel design of some type.
>
> 4)  Given the features of UDD, assuming Holmlid is correct, then
> there are options which could include Cohen’s claim of a ballotechnic
> driven fusion device (no fission trigger) which was largely debunked
>
>
>
> *From:* John Berry
>
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by 'boosted fission' but my understanding is that
> ALL Fusion bombs are either Fission-Fusion or Fission-Fusion-Fission.
>
>
>
> We don't publically have the technical ability to create mass fusion
> without fission first, if we did hot fusion power would be a reality.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> a.ashfield wrote:
>
>
> My secondhand understanding is that many of the weapons the media call
> H-bombs are really boosted fission weapons with a shell of uranium.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?

2016-01-07 Thread John Berry

Not sure what you mean by 'boosted fission' but my understanding is that
ALL Fusion bombs are either Fission-Fusion or Fission-Fusion-Fission.

We don't publically have the technical ability to create mass fusion
without fission first, if we did hot fusion power would be a reality.

John

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Jones,
> My secondhand understanding is that many of the weapons the media call
> H-bombs are really boosted fission weapons with a shell of uranium.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new images RAR Energia gravity motor

2015-12-18 Thread John Berry

If it works..

And that's a big IF, I do suspect it is possible to get energy out of
asymmetric inertial transformation.

There is quite a bit of strong evidence that motion rectifiers do work
(dean drive etc), and this is the other side of the same coil, that the
acceleration profile with which something is accelerated can lead to a
decoupling of inertia so to speak.

So maybe if something is lifted slowly, but falls quickly.

The EM drive might be just a photonic version of a dean drive, but the RAR
engine might be playing with the asymmetry in a slightly different way.

Asymmetry is how you mess with matter's coupling to the aether, how you
stop the mathematical predicted results that conserve energy and momentum.

John

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:01 AM, MJ <feli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Last year RAR stated they have a working small model before designing
> the big ones.
>
> Mark Jordan
>
>
>
> On 18-Dec-15 13:24, a.ashfield wrote:
>
>> Jones,
>> "Hmmm... anyone got a clue about what the small gadget is - which is
>> mounted to the bottom rail, just to the right of the main weight - and is
>> moved slightly one every revolution by an elbow of one of the cranks?"
>>
>> I'm guessing that it is intended to capture the momentum somehow. Just
>> how is not clear.
>>
>> What is intriguing is that someone bright enough to have accumulated
>> enough money to make these two gigantic machines, would not have the sense
>> to try it on a small model first and then build just one machine not two,
>> without being very confident that it worked.
>>
>> RAREnergia wrote that it did work.
>> "Final pieces and weights of our motor moved by the power of gravity can
>> be assembled in many positions, forming different but similar forms. We
>> tested the final part, in several assembling models. The motor worked
>> perfectly in all models, varying between bigger and minor power or torch
>> (torque?). We choose (chose?) one of the models to conclude the assembling
>> of the equipment and we posted more pictures."
>>
>> But if it works, why have we not seen a video of it and why not a press
>> conference to show the world that what we learned at school was wrong?  RAR
>> must know if it works.  I was expecting no further news indefinitely so
>> that they are back is a surprise.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:new images RAR Energia gravity motor

2015-12-16 Thread John Berry

Sheesh, that monstrosity is only meant to generate 30KW.

So even IF it works perfectly, it is a terrible sounding investment!

I can kinda understand that they might be having trouble with it even IF
they are right about the concept, there are so many moving parts in that
thing it would be easy to lose a decade trying to get it to all work
together smoothly, with low enough friction etc...

And it is hard to believe in an impossible sounding, unclear complex
design...

John

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:21 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> RAR Energia have published some clearer images of the mechanism at the end
> of their web page.   The design has some modifications but it is still not
> clear (to me) how it is supposed to work.  It seems they have not given up.
> http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field

2015-12-15 Thread John Berry

hmmm I wonder...

If spin is a spin of the electrons field, then maybe electrons are like
earth moon, and for each revolution around the center, they revolve once so
as to always show the same side to the nucleus.

This way each orbit would produce one revolution. And it would mean spin
only happens in orbit, but not be the orbit (which apparently doesn't add
up from what I've read).

Does this make sense?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:51 PM,  wrote:
>
> If free electrons had a spin magnetic moment, then I would expect this to
>> also
>> happen for cyclotron radiation.
>>
>> If it does, then I'm obviously wrong about electron intrinsic spin.
>>
>
> It would be interesting to know about whether there's line splitting in
> cyclotron radiation.
>
> If the electron does not have intrinsic spin, we would need to rethink
> Fermi statistics and electron degeneracy pressure.
>
> Following a link in an answer to the physics.SE question that was posed
> yesterday, I found this interesting article that says that the "intrinsic"
> spin of the electron is not magical in the way it is sometimes described
> and instead corresponds to actual angular momentum in the EM field of the
> electron:
>
> http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/phys3mm3/notes/whatisspin.pdf
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field

I tend not to agree with the belief of the author, but he has some good
points

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/ElectronBeamMagneticField.pdf


Currently there are two explanations. One surely must be wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field

Robin, for what its worth I think you are probably right.

A free electron having a magnetic moment makes no sense to me.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>
>
> Where does the photon get its angular momentum, when it and its twin
> appear from positron-electron enillalation?
>
> I am not familiar with what line splitting the cyclotron frequency is.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:43 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic
> field
>
>
> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:29:26 -0800:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
>> IMO free electrons have no magnetic moment, because they have no "spin",
>> which
>>
> is not an intrinsic property of the electron, but rather a direct
>> consequence of
>> being bound to an atom.
>>
>> Now I would say that is a departure from conventional thinking.
>>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>> Can you further explain this conclusion?  I would guess that you would say
>> that an electron has no intrinsic angular momentum as well as photons
>> having
>> none.
>>
>
> No, I think photons do have angular momentum, though I don't think
> electrons do.
> But it's just a hunch. One of the things that makes me think this is the
> fact
> when a free electron circles in a magnetic field, you get cyclotron
> radiation,
> but I would expect line splitting of the cyclotron frequency if free
> electrons
> also had an intrinsic magnetic moment.
>
>
>> Bob Cook
>>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field

Robin, the question and perhaps some of the following comments made here
lend evidence to you being correct.


On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:34 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Robin, for what its worth I think you are probably right.
>
> A free electron having a magnetic moment makes no sense to me.
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Where does the photon get its angular momentum, when it and its twin
>> appear from positron-electron enillalation?
>>
>> I am not familiar with what line splitting the cyclotron frequency is.
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:43 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic
>> field
>>
>>
>> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:29:26 -0800:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>>> IMO free electrons have no magnetic moment, because they have no "spin",
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is not an intrinsic property of the electron, but rather a direct
>>> consequence of
>>> being bound to an atom.<<<<
>>>
>>> Now I would say that is a departure from conventional thinking.
>>>
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>
>>> Can you further explain this conclusion?  I would guess that you would
>>> say
>>> that an electron has no intrinsic angular momentum as well as photons
>>> having
>>> none.
>>>
>>
>> No, I think photons do have angular momentum, though I don't think
>> electrons do.
>> But it's just a hunch. One of the things that makes me think this is the
>> fact
>> when a free electron circles in a magnetic field, you get cyclotron
>> radiation,
>> but I would expect line splitting of the cyclotron frequency if free
>> electrons
>> also had an intrinsic magnetic moment.
>>
>>
>>> Bob Cook
>>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field

Strange, I pasted the link, but then the email accidentally sent
prematurely without the link:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126986/where-does-the-electron-get-its-high-magnetic-moment-from

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:38 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Robin, the question and perhaps some of the following comments made here
> lend evidence to you being correct.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:34 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Robin, for what its worth I think you are probably right.
>>
>> A free electron having a magnetic moment makes no sense to me.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where does the photon get its angular momentum, when it and its twin
>>> appear from positron-electron enillalation?
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with what line splitting the cyclotron frequency is.
>>>
>>> Bob Cook
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com
>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:43 PM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic
>>> field
>>>
>>>
>>> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:29:26 -0800:
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> IMO free electrons have no magnetic moment, because they have no "spin",
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not an intrinsic property of the electron, but rather a direct
>>>> consequence of
>>>> being bound to an atom.<<<<
>>>>
>>>> Now I would say that is a departure from conventional thinking.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you further explain this conclusion?  I would guess that you would
>>>> say
>>>> that an electron has no intrinsic angular momentum as well as photons
>>>> having
>>>> none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I think photons do have angular momentum, though I don't think
>>> electrons do.
>>> But it's just a hunch. One of the things that makes me think this is the
>>> fact
>>> when a free electron circles in a magnetic field, you get cyclotron
>>> radiation,
>>> but I would expect line splitting of the cyclotron frequency if free
>>> electrons
>>> also had an intrinsic magnetic moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob Cook
>>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment

Bob, you seem to agree there is warming...

That CO2 is increasing, by humans...

I presume you agree that increased CO2 heats things up with the greenhouse
effect.

I presume you understand that oil pays a lot of people a lot of money to
make global warming look like some kind of conspiracy...

I can agree that CO2 and greenhouse gasses may not be the only cause of
global warming/climate change/disruption...

So do you think humans continue to make the situation worse?

How sure are you we shouldn't worry?
What if you are wrong, what is the cost?  Pretty high right?
What if I and those concerned about global warming are wrong, what's the
cost? Wouldn't being greener bring other benefits anyway?

John

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment on
> such topics.  I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag -
> just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's
> pet objective.  It is not that I don't believe the earth is warming - I
> do.  The reality is that the earth goes through cold and hot cycles.  Ice
> cores show a period of 100k-200k years between glaciations (peak cold).
> What happens in the middle between peak cold glaciations?  The answer is a
> peak hot earth.  We are only about 25k years from the last peak cold
> glaciation, and probably 25k-75k years from peak hot earth.  The earth is
> presently in a gradual heating portion of the cycle as we move toward the
> peak hot earth.  The false flag is the promotion that warming as being
> caused by man - the science is not good enough to say this with any
> reliability.  Yes, there is rise in CO2 and there is warming, but the earth
> would be warming even if there were no CO2 additions.  The question is only
> whether there is a small change in rate of warming caused by the CO2
> addition.  Cutting CO2 emissions drastically will likely have no
> significant effect on warming but may incur significant cost.  Wouldn't
> that money be better spent in elimination of world poverty?
>
> Having said that, I believe there is good reason to design out the use of
> fossil fuel burning: it is poisoning the air we breath.  It is particularly
> acute in the cities and worse in the industrial coal burning cities in
> China.  The average person does not realize that with every 20 gallons of
> gas they burn in their car, they are adding over 300 pounds of CO2 to the
> air.  Another side benefit is elimination of the fighting that has its
> roots in oil supply favoritism.
>
> The justification for LENR is clean air, and clearing the landscape from
> power distribution ugliness through distributed power generation without
> the scale, danger, and nuclear waste of the fission industry.  The third
> world will benefit from this readily because they don't have a grid to
> start with.  Availability of small, non-polluting power generation systems
> (particularly CHP) will help their rise from poverty via access to energy
> without the expense of a grid and without need for world controls on
> nuclear proliferation.  And what about solving the world's fresh water
> crisis?  This is a real opportunity: LENR powered desalinization.
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Calling all cold fusion flacks!
>>
>> I added a comment to this article at 10:15 (that's how you can find it).
>> I would appreciate up-votes to make it more visible:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/opinion/hope-from-paris.html
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment

Correction "I presume you understand that oil companies pay a lot of people
a lot of money to make global warming look like some kind of conspiracy".

I think there is room for the experts to be mistaken But when you look at
who believes in human caused global warming, the Oil companies internally
believe (and did early on), the insurance industry, the military believes
it is real.

At least the last 2 are taking actions on the presumption rising seas.



On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:51 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob, you seem to agree there is warming...
>
> That CO2 is increasing, by humans...
>
> I presume you agree that increased CO2 heats things up with the greenhouse
> effect.
>
> I presume you understand that oil pays a lot of people a lot of money to
> make global warming look like some kind of conspiracy...
>
> I can agree that CO2 and greenhouse gasses may not be the only cause of
> global warming/climate change/disruption...
>
> So do you think humans continue to make the situation worse?
>
> How sure are you we shouldn't worry?
> What if you are wrong, what is the cost?  Pretty high right?
> What if I and those concerned about global warming are wrong, what's the
> cost? Wouldn't being greener bring other benefits anyway?
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment
>> on such topics.  I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag -
>> just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's
>> pet objective.  It is not that I don't believe the earth is warming - I
>> do.  The reality is that the earth goes through cold and hot cycles.  Ice
>> cores show a period of 100k-200k years between glaciations (peak cold).
>> What happens in the middle between peak cold glaciations?  The answer is a
>> peak hot earth.  We are only about 25k years from the last peak cold
>> glaciation, and probably 25k-75k years from peak hot earth.  The earth is
>> presently in a gradual heating portion of the cycle as we move toward the
>> peak hot earth.  The false flag is the promotion that warming as being
>> caused by man - the science is not good enough to say this with any
>> reliability.  Yes, there is rise in CO2 and there is warming, but the earth
>> would be warming even if there were no CO2 additions.  The question is only
>> whether there is a small change in rate of warming caused by the CO2
>> addition.  Cutting CO2 emissions drastically will likely have no
>> significant effect on warming but may incur significant cost.  Wouldn't
>> that money be better spent in elimination of world poverty?
>>
>> Having said that, I believe there is good reason to design out the use of
>> fossil fuel burning: it is poisoning the air we breath.  It is particularly
>> acute in the cities and worse in the industrial coal burning cities in
>> China.  The average person does not realize that with every 20 gallons of
>> gas they burn in their car, they are adding over 300 pounds of CO2 to the
>> air.  Another side benefit is elimination of the fighting that has its
>> roots in oil supply favoritism.
>>
>> The justification for LENR is clean air, and clearing the landscape from
>> power distribution ugliness through distributed power generation without
>> the scale, danger, and nuclear waste of the fission industry.  The third
>> world will benefit from this readily because they don't have a grid to
>> start with.  Availability of small, non-polluting power generation systems
>> (particularly CHP) will help their rise from poverty via access to energy
>> without the expense of a grid and without need for world controls on
>> nuclear proliferation.  And what about solving the world's fresh water
>> crisis?  This is a real opportunity: LENR powered desalinization.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Calling all cold fusion flacks!
>>>
>>> I added a comment to this article at 10:15 (that's how you can find it).
>>> I would appreciate up-votes to make it more visible:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/opinion/hope-from-paris.html
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electric Rocket-like Propulsion Patent Application by Banduric

2015-12-12 Thread John Berry

Very similar to my ideas.

This is the same line of thinking that can produce a conclusion of negative
impedance in a non-inductive coil with a high negative charge.

I had never studied the idea for propulsive forces.

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:05 AM, H Ucar  wrote:

> http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/specifications
>
>
> The website of Richard Banduric show a device producing 0.1 Newton thrust.
> The setup remind me rotating disc experiments of Vladimir Samokhvalov which
> were available on youtube.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electric Rocket-like Propulsion Patent Application by Banduric

2015-12-12 Thread John Berry

BTW, presuming things scale linearly with velocity (but it could be better)
if you ran his test setup at 100,000 RPM and 500KV which still would not be
the limit of plausible engineering you would have 500 Newtons of force.
That's 51kg of force, which would sound enough for antigravity, and a quick
trip to Mars.

John

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very similar to my ideas.
>
> This is the same line of thinking that can produce a conclusion of
> negative impedance in a non-inductive coil with a high negative charge.
>
> I had never studied the idea for propulsive forces.
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:05 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/specifications
>>
>>
>> The website of Richard Banduric show a device producing 0.1 Newton
>> thrust. The setup remind me rotating disc experiments
>> of Vladimir Samokhvalov which were available on youtube.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electric Rocket-like Propulsion Patent Application by Banduric

2015-12-12 Thread John Berry

Thinking about it, his test seems to me to be a verification of the aether.

Forgetting his magical coating as we don't know what that is or how or why
it works...

What he has is 2 oppositely charged disks, one rotating and one not.

If we take the view of a stationary aether, then the top disk is rotating
and producing a magnetic field that is seen in all reference frames.
The bottom disk is not rotating and is not seen to be creating a magnetic
field even from the point of view of the rotating disk.

This results in the bottom stationary disk both seeing a magnetic fields
from the above rotating disk, and an electric force from it due to
induction (or the type of Hooper's motional e-field or a homopolar
generator), but the other disk does not have an additional force working on
it as bottom disk is not producing a magnetic field in the first place.

I fail to see how this could be expected to produce a thrust as he claims
if all reference frames were equal.

A rotating charged disk creating a magnetic field is known, what I have
long wondered about is if rotating around a stationary charged disk brings
into existence a magnetic field only seen by the rotating reference frame,
now it seems clear this is not the case.

Interestingly the fluxliner might be explainable by this mechanism if the
central coil produces a drag (electromagnetic frame dragging) selectively
in the capacitor plates.  Still overall that seems unlikely to be the
explanation for that effect.

John

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:31 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, presuming things scale linearly with velocity (but it could be
> better) if you ran his test setup at 100,000 RPM and 500KV which still
> would not be the limit of plausible engineering you would have 500 Newtons
> of force.
> That's 51kg of force, which would sound enough for antigravity, and a
> quick trip to Mars.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Very similar to my ideas.
>>
>> This is the same line of thinking that can produce a conclusion of
>> negative impedance in a non-inductive coil with a high negative charge.
>>
>> I had never studied the idea for propulsive forces.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:05 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/specifications
>>>
>>>
>>> The website of Richard Banduric show a device producing 0.1 Newton
>>> thrust. The setup remind me rotating disc experiments
>>> of Vladimir Samokhvalov which were available on youtube.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Antigravity started at Vortex - Fluxliner

2015-12-09 Thread John Berry

Way back when multiple people apparently replicated the capwarp
successfully, reporting their results in Vort.

I recall one guy even made a capacitor using the pages of a book as the
dielectric and claimed results.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html

Well now there is a fascinating claim that a segmented circular capacitor
is at the heart of "alien reproduction vehicle" demoed at an exclusive
airshow in the 80's made by the US military contractors, much inline with
what Ben Rich, second director of Skunkworks has said, that we have built
the craft to go to the stars already.  And General Wesley Clark, the kind
of brass who might have attended an air show like the one in the following
video has said when he was running for president that his only faith based
initiative is that FTL travel is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8YsBiOw1c

This second video has more of McCandlish , and the second link points to a
part where an HV cap loses all weight, tried by a college student.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUVoWlSHkg4   especially from
https://youtu.be/SUVoWlSHkg4?t=2709

In an old Rex Research infolio I bought in the 90;'s, there was an account
of a science fare project by a Doyle (or Boyle?) who made an HV cap with
polystyrene insulation, and it lost weight, but unlike Brown's research, it
lost weight no mater which pole was up.

I also read about some of Brown's work where he distinguished between some
portion that was directional thrust, and another portion that was a
straight weight loss.

I can expand these correlations further but this is enough to show that
there is likely something to this.
While he magnitude of the effect seems to be dependent on the material used
as dielectric (ironically heavier is better) and the capacitor being
circular and perhaps segmented.


John

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

2015-11-13 Thread John Berry

So then, are the radius that electrons orbit at, points where the
'uncertainty' of their position becomes evenly distributed around the atom,
such that they exist in all those positions simultaneously?

Essentially a maximization and perfection of their uncertainty.

Also, if this is so, would it not suggest that "constantly" bumping things
into electrons or somehow collapsing their wavefunctions could say, make
they radiate? make hydrinos?

On a related tac, if you consider the mathematically predicted velocity of
electrons in copper, it's so slow that at really high frequencies (I think
a few hundred ghz is possible) that at such frequencies, the distance an
electron would move before turning around even at reasonable current
densities is based on a calculation I did, a 56th of the classical electron
diameter!

0.0063nm < 200ghz electron drift distance before reversal
0.1771029nm  wrote:

> Bob, this is an interesting derivation.  I suspect that it can be boiled
> down to what I have mentioned before which is that you can construct any
> three dimensional shape that you wish out of constant current loops.  Since
> each loop does not radiate, any number of them also do not radiate.  Also,
> they do not have to be circular.
>
> The key is to have a smooth distribution of charge flowing that does not
> allow the accumulation and distribution of the resulting electric field as
> a function of time.  Mills orbitals follow that rule according to the way I
> read his documentation.
>
> An infinite number of three dimensional shapes exist that do not radiate
> according to this simple criteria.  Unfortunately, it is extremely
> difficult to mathematically analyze complex structures of this type which
> leads to authors only finding a few out of an infinite number of
> possibilities.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Higgins 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2015 6:48 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.
>
> It actually took me a while to get a readable copy of this paper and I
> have cleaned up the better copy.  Here is where I keep it on my Google
> drive:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2TllPckVraXNmLTg/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Do you have a link address?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and
>>> radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper,
>>> "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum
>>> Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells
>>> of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

 It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
 dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
 was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
 Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
 New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
 According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
 should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
 spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
 a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
 does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
 condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
 around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
 alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
 violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
 satisfactory.

 See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist,
 pp.36-39, 28 July 1990.

 http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html

 Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
 problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
 were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
 in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
 for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
 electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
 as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
 gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
 exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
 the swing started to slow, it

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

2015-11-10 Thread John Berry

It still seems to happen, but yeah you're right, way less energetic.

But still an explosion: https://youtu.be/vRKK6pliejs?t=43

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:35 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I wonder if Rossi style LENR is based on a sub-critical level of this same
>> effect?
>>
>
> I do not think beta decay could account for much of what was seen in the
> Lugano test.  It could not explain the shift in the ratio of 6Li to 7Li,
> for example.  It might account for the heat.  I am currently exploring the
> possibility that alpha decay and alpha capture explain the isotope shifts
> (which may or may not be the primary source of heat).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

2015-11-10 Thread John Berry

Good question.  A cellphone app maybe?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 PM, jjam...@gmail.com 
wrote:

>
> Even there would be a conventional way to explain the explosion, it may be
> worth to check the presence of ionizing particles at this short moment.
> Could be an affordable instrument for that?
>
>
> H Ucar
>
>
> -- Original message--
>
> *From: *jjam...@gmail.com
>
> *Date: *Mon, Nov 9, 2015 16:08
>
> *To: *vortex-L@eskimo.com;
>
> *Cc: *
>
> *Subject:*Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes
>
>
> I exploded two button batteries by heating through soldering iron.
> Explosion is spectacular, maybe comparable to amno. When exploded the
> content is completely blow out and sticked as fine gray powder to suface of
> safety container. Soldering iron tip is also crooked. I dont the reaction
> that occurs but as the lithium appears prime element in LENR this can be
> focused that way.
>
>
> Why these tiny dead batteries explodes so violently?
>
>
>
> H Ucar
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

2015-11-10 Thread John Berry

Well this has to be testable.

And if Beta decay or some funky electric current of unclear origin, it must
be detectable and either way somehow useful.

And again which it is can be discovered.

This is very doable in a backyard manner.

What test would verify the presence of electrical energy (beta, or
otherwise?).

Hmmm, if Beta decay, can't beta radiation be converted directly into
electrical current in a current carrying wire?

John

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

And then try: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDlyg_9m7tk

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:24 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps because of this breakthrough?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:08 AM, jjam...@gmail.com <jjam...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I exploded two button batteries by heating through soldering iron.
>> Explosion is spectacular, maybe comparable to amno. When exploded the
>> content is completely blow out and sticked as fine gray powder to suface of
>> safety container. Soldering iron tip is also crooked. I dont the reaction
>> that occurs but as the lithium appears prime element in LENR this can be
>> focused that way.
>>
>>
>> Why these tiny dead batteries explodes so violently?
>>
>>
>>
>> H Ucar
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

Perhaps because of this breakthrough?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:08 AM, jjam...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I exploded two button batteries by heating through soldering iron.
> Explosion is spectacular, maybe comparable to amno. When exploded the
> content is completely blow out and sticked as fine gray powder to suface of
> safety container. Soldering iron tip is also crooked. I dont the reaction
> that occurs but as the lithium appears prime element in LENR this can be
> focused that way.
>
>
> Why these tiny dead batteries explodes so violently?
>
>
>
> H Ucar
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

Eric, if that's your theory, it should probably account for all the metals
doing this though.

Under the right circumstances Aluminium, Iron (or thermite) all the
alkaline metals at the very minimum explode with water or ice in the right
circumstances.

Consider too water arc explosions, it is likely the anomalously energetic
explosions are a result of melting electrodes.

John

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:24 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps because of this breakthrough?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
>>
>
> The narrator identifies the explosion that occurs as sodium is dropped in
> water as being due to a Coulomb explosion.  I was personally thinking of
> something different, perhaps related or perhaps not:
>
> e- + 22Na => e- + ν + 22Ne + 2843 keV
>
> Here we would have beta decay that is induced in a beta-unstable sodium
> isotope, so that it happens more quickly than it usually does.  Presumably
> this would be brought about by the change in electronic environment on the
> surface of the sodium mass as it is submerged.  As the beta-decay proceeds,
> high-energy electrons are ejected from the beta emitter into the
> surrounding water.  The colorful plasma that develops in some of the photos
> could be Cherenkov radiation.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes