Jones, The more obvious cross connection is to the paper by Naudts describing the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen. IMHO it is this linkage between inertial frames that is providing a soft anchor into the ether upon which we can either push, as in the EM drive, or be pushed as in Mills and Rossi. This all comes down to what Puthoff coined as vacuum engineering and in the passive mode we need the geometry to be spot on in the nano range to force virtual particles to bend space time in order to fit between the suppression geometry [and carry any hydrogen atoms present in the cavity along for the ride] but in the EM drive we are using rf energy to create an imbalance / break in the isotropy that isn’t exactly in balance with “equal and opposite reaction” as defined by physics… I think Shawyers focus on relativistic effects based on vacuum engineering is spot on – It allows for trigonometric manipulation of the standard equal and opposite formula with another inertial frame that is under contraction from our 3d perspective and his hi Q pursuit must correlate in some way to percentage of C for a relativistic space craft. IMHO this tech like Mills and Rossi is achieved via negative acceleration where we the stationary observers appear to be approaching high % C relative to the suppressed – “warped” region these devices create. I have mentioned before the correlation between Mill’s skeletal catalyst and nano powders used by other researchers essentially being inverse embodiments resulting in the same sort nano geometry [ok Rossi claims micro scale but with interleaving hairs that pack together to form smaller geometries].
I hope the EM drive is validated soon because I believe this relativistic theory is behind both his success and the anomaly Mill’s and Rossi are pursuing but it will take validation to spur other researchers to look seriously at this relativistic connection and the part it plays in LENR. IMHO this is the only known way to tap ZPE since it must cancel out in 3D, is to set the stage via vacuum engineering to accomplish a goal [heat something up or push against something], between different inertial frames – at the macro scale it would be impossible to push something to near C while still linked to something in a near stationary inertial frame but at the nano scale where the goal is to do the opposite [suppress virtual particles] the linkage is free in that we are opposing nature by using Casimir geometry to force a breach creating a steady Casimir force that links the frames..similarily I suggest the RF field in the EM drive provides this same linkage while the geometry somehow leads to the suppression. I know that anomalous spontaneous emission of gas in a microwave cavity is a documented reality and would suspect that Shawyer has a lot of room to grow beside just tweaking his Q point. My interpretation of the Mills paper has led me to posit a relativistic Casimir effect where the larger particles still occur between the plates but undergo Lorentzian contraction from our perspective. Fran _____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
