RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPPJones-- Most definitions of work derive from F=MA. E=Ft. I did not learn that EM energy, photons were work. However, definitions change with time. In addition I was not taught that all energy was equivalent. This was a concept that Einstein suggested, as far as I know. It was not taught in physics classes in the 50’s and early 60’s to my knowledge. Neither was Dirac’s Sea discussed. The appearance of particles out of nothing was a mystery, as far as I remember.
That being said, I tend now to agree with the idea that there is a source of energy that is not real, but comes from the ZPE source—Dirac’s Sea or whatever you may want to call the source. With respect to the idea that all types of energy—potential energy or kinetic energy (mass in motion in a real space-time set of dimensions)—are equivalent colors my thoughts about LENR. Understanding how one type of potential energy is changed to another and/or kinetic energy of a mass is the real question. And the mechanism for connection of energy in Dirac’s Sea to the real world is another important question. As you and Fran are suggesting, it is the latter question that needs attention and is at the heart of explaining the various LENR phenomena. The former question is also important IMHO when it comes to converting spin energy to phonic vibrational energy. Given the relationship between spin and angular momentum of a particle, it seems that they both—spin and phonic energy—are a form of kinetic energy—in other words mass in motion in the real world. The small quanta associated with any system’s change of spin energy is a key axiom IMHO. It leads to the necessity for a coherent system in a resonance that allows these small quanta to be distributed within the coherent system with a change from from spin—angular momentum—energy to kinetic (phonic) energy. It may be that a “spinor” particle exchanges to the Dirac Sea. Bob Cook . From: Jones Beene Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP From: Roarty, Francis X Ø Perhaps vacuum energy cannot perform measurable work at our typical physical macro velocities relative to C … Well, it is pretty clear from the literature, starting in 2011 and continuing to recent papers - that the DCE the dynamical Casimir effect - can and does function to convert virtual photons into real photons. Even if we define the photon as massless, this is “work” by most definitions even if the base-level effect may not appear like mass is being moved. This distinction is mainly semantics, since excess energy from photons has a mass-equivalent. There are dozens of DCE papers, starting here. The point is the effect is proved in experiment and theory. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714 Beyond that, we have to extrapolate beyond a weak effect requiring a superconductor to a robust effect of the SPP in combination with DCE, requiring no superconductor (or HTSC). If SPP operates as the paper claims, to convert one real photon into two real photons (photon doubling) and DCE gives real photons from virtual photons, and the translucent ceramic stores photons, then we have set the stage of a “photon chain reaction.” Typically the term “photon chain reaction” turns up in descriptions of lasers. The glow-stick can be analogized to a semi-coherent type of IR laser where there is one predominant IR emission line and lots of secondary light which is not coherent. We could call it a superradiant laser. With any chain reaction, the output grows exponentially. Even if the incandescent light source is only 5% efficient initially (it is probably less), then net gain is still possible if there is sufficient doubling of photons due to the DCE/SPP mechanism. This MO of photon chain reaction - may sound preposterous to those who are invested in nuclear fusion as the source of gain in the glow-stick (assuming Parkhomov can be replicated)… but it is crystal clear from actual results that in fact, it is far more preposterous to suggest fusion as the main source of gain. There is little indicia of fusion whereas DCE is proved in both experiment and theory. Real fusion in a Parkhomov tube is not proved in either theory or experiment. However, transmutation of elements could be a side effect of harnessing vacuum energy even if no fusion happens. BTW – by most definitions of ZPE and its effect on electrons, especially Puthoff’s, it is clear that the Mills-effect, or fractional hydrogen, or UDD/UDH, or DDL, etc… these are ALL zero point effects - and the energy essentially comes from the same virtual photon conversion process as does DCE. Jones
