Hi Fran!
I want to see if our understanding of the relativistic cavity thing is really the same. I'm not sure, but I think you or someone quoting you got me started thinking about the whole thing, but I never caught many details so maybe I have actually figured it out wrong or at least differently: Assuming a Lorentz-Invariant Flux inside the cavities requires us to accept that the same long wavelengths exist inside the cavity as outside but that some of their oscillation that can no longer take place on their 3-Di axes must be displaced onto their temporal axis with the result that processes inside the cavity appear to happen faster than the same processes, outside the cavities----a sort of inverse twin-astronaut thing where we are the slowly aging ones!----are we on the same page??? The Raney Nickel thing should be really easy to test. It is commercially available and quite inexpensive---the same thing with the Kr 81. I do think we may end up having to mix our own alloy closer to a 50/50 molar ratio instead of the standard 50/50 by weight (before leaching by Sodium Hydroxide. I really need to get to the bottom of this--besides, I need to have some custom alloys made up for my LPD experiment. Do you have any ideas how to get samples melted---I can supply materials, pre-weighed. The “repulsive” Casimir effect is a misnomer, If you read the articles carefully you will discover there is a medium used to cause this effect. The nanomaterial is still attracted but less so than the medium which gets between the sphere and the plate – quite literally “floating” it above the surface on a more attractive medium. I don’t recall the chemical used but the effect should really be called “less attractive” not repulsive. Yes, I am aware of many articles that are talking about media-based levitation. Nonetheless, there are other experiments out there where they just plain expect high-pressure inside completely enclosed cavities or cavities with no more than one open side. But I have been at a loss to understand where they are coming from . . . Logically, an accelerated time process means that more photons are striking the cavity interiors and more-often----from our temporal-process perspective. To me, this would just about wrap up the positive-pressure cavity issue---which is why I really want to do the Nuclear Catalysis thing---not to mention, it could lead to better ways to process nuclear waste. Further, if you listen to the "Roar of the Sea" in a small seashell (or any small cavity) there appears to be an amplification taking place of the molecular noise inside the cavity. This is not confined to the resonant frequency of the cavity---either. There is also the possibility that laser-style optical pumping would further raise the equilibrium pressure of these cavities. Beyond that, there is even the likelihood that resonant cavities could couple with the higher-frequency, far-more powerful shorter wavelengths of the Quantum-Flux, yet further increasing the equilibrium pressure of these cavities. Judging from your use of terms like “photon birth rate on one side of the plate vs the other” and other places where you have referred to vacuum fluctuations I take it you embrace both “camps” of Casimir theory. After much investigation I also concluded they are equivalent and even found references to other researchers that concluded that regardless of which is correct both models provide same results whether vacuum flux exist or not. Major goal is to get help producing the cavities for Z-PEC or the alloys for LPD, so I am not going out of my way to be any more non-conventional than I absolutely must. I am evenly divided on the Relativistic-Cavity thing. It is certainly true that Lorentizian Invariance and Relativistic mass-energy density constraints are all vital to understanding the Quantum-Flux. So it is not shocking to me that we might need to invoke Lorentzian Invariance to understand these cavities.---Seriously---we truly need to do the experiment---I have been sadly mistaken on many-many ingenious ideas that only had one little problem----they were wrong!!! Besides, even if my cavities provide thrust--we still won't know why, or how to improve them---until we do the Raney thing. You also noted the 20 nm scale of Rayney Nickel pores – actually a large percentage of them are between 5 and 10 nm where effects start getting quite dramatic. The interesting thing that has occurred since I first made this proposal is that Peng Chen at Cornell university discovered that catalytic action in nanotubes only occurs at the opening and defects in nanotubes using an atomic force microscope To me, this suggests simply that they emerge nearly instantaneously--almost as soon as they entered the cavity. So we see them bouncing off the opening, when in reality they sojourn there considerably long--from their standpoint. Have you seen the patents by Fabrizio Pinto et al. They have a scheme for reciprocating plates, one of which is metal and the other is a semiconductor that switches between conducting and insulating. (This is one of the Repulsive Scenarios with plates ---a conducting plate with an insulating plate.) They also have a process where they are trying to heat a gas by moving it through a nano-porous structure. I am not inclined to take any credit for the Relativistic Cavity Idea unless I have accidentally invented a different version of it. I just want to find out! Please keep helping me think through these issues, my thinking is far from locked-in on any of this--although I do feel a great deal more confidence about the LPD approach. Scott _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
