[Vo]:test for greek letters

[H Veeder]

This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into
this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.

The characters come from this site

http://greek.typeit.org/


θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

Harry

[Vo]:Fiery black hole debate creates cosmological Wild West

[Axil Axil]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129552.400-fiery-black-hole-debate-creates-cosmological-wild-west.html#.UwA-EM6YbyQ


Last week famed physicist Stephen Hawking caused an uproar with his
assertion that black holes do not
exist-
at least not as we've defined them for the past 40 years. Rather than
letting nothing, not even light, escape their grasp, Hawking says that this
"point of no return" is a fallacy, and black holes will sometimes let
trapped light back out.

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

The best I can theorize, as I have shown on my blog is that there is dark
matter(collapsed hydrogen) stringing around the equatorial jet streams
(originating from the solar wind) and overhead in the jet streams,
triggering low pressure "weather" events and decaying all of the time and
releasing gravitational radiation to the Earth.  Somehow the pulsed
microwaves are "energizing" this dark/vacuum, possibly causing it to kink
up and break off (through string interactions) and these smaller loops or
branched strings (low pressure troughs) of vacuum energy are then
accelerating into the Earth around the towers, triggering pressure/seismic
events as well as an increase in mesovortex events and even sinkholes
around the towers as my statistics are showing.  If this is happening it
would also possibly trigger an increase in weakly ionizing background
radiation in the local surroundings around the towers which is ionizing the
dissolved oxygen in the waterways around the towers triggering hypoxia and
oxidative stress.

That is the only way I can tie it all together.  This is only theory, but I
have good statistics on an increase in hypoxia, algae blooms/red tide
around the radar towers in Florida over two years with strong indications
in other States.

I make my income from engineering, I am doing my research for fun so I am
not looking for grant money, you guys have been a great help in trying to
understand what is happening at the atomic/subatomic level

Stewart


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the
> atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with
> the underground water.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is possible... and worth pursuing, especially if grant money is
> available... but microwaves would not penetrate very far into the earth, and
> shale is deep. There are three different ecosystems which need to be
> analyzed.
>
>
>
> Surprised you did not mention dark matter, and the Mills identification of
> this species with fractional hydrogen, which he claims is produced in the
> solar corona. It is carried to earth in the solar wind.
>
>
>
> If RF radiation from Doppler radar is involved somehow, and it seems to be
> more than coincidental, based on limited data - then RF could interact with
> the atmosphere to nucleate more of the dark-matter arriving from the solar
> corona into rain, which then percolates with water down to the shale layer.
> This could alter the normal random distribution of f/H.
>
>
>
> This process would take several years - but there does seem to be several
> years of lag time.
>
>
>
> Have you compared areas with 1) Radar and no shale deposits against 2)
> areas with both shale and radar and areas with 3) shale only ?
>
>
>
> If there was enough data to compare all three, you might make a
> statistical case.
>
>
>
> Of course, that could require a staff of researchers to put this kind of
> data together.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[pagnucco]

Jones,

I should have added that the magnetic vector potential is not only small
for chaotic plasmas, but also for expanding or converging spherical
charged plasma shells.  It will only be large in intense, linear flows.

-- LP

> Jones,
>
> You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector
> potential.
>
> Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of
> the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small.
>
> Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or
> ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential.
>
> -- LP
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>> BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from "spherical convergence" of ion
>> vectors.
>>
>> The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic.
>>
>> Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of
>> 4
>> due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at
>> far
>> lower voltage potential than colliding beams.
>>
>> Polywell borrowed the idea
>>
>> http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[pagnucco]

Jones,

You refer to something worth noting, but not the magnetic vector potential.

Ideally in a fusor, the particles converge to a point in the center of
the fusor, but the magnetic field momentum at the center is quite small.

Energy is borrowed from outer convergent spherical shells of electrons or
ions, but that is a scalar coulomb effect - not magnetic vector potential.

-- LP


Jones Beene wrote:
> BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from "spherical convergence" of ion
> vectors.
>
> The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic.
>
> Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4
> due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at
> far
> lower voltage potential than colliding beams.
>
> Polywell borrowed the idea
>
> http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Jones Beene]

BTW the Farnsworth Fusor benefits from "spherical convergence" of ion
vectors.

The vectors are self-focused and not chaotic. 

Farnsworth/ Hirsch found the fusion threshold is lowered by a factor of 4
due to spherical convergence, allowing substantial neutron production at far
lower voltage potential than colliding beams.

Polywell borrowed the idea

http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Polywell%20Ion%20Focus%20Concept.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Jones Beene]

 

From: ChemE Stewart 

 

I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the
atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with
the underground water.

 

 

This is possible. and worth pursuing, especially if grant money is
available. but microwaves would not penetrate very far into the earth, and
shale is deep. There are three different ecosystems which need to be
analyzed.

 

Surprised you did not mention dark matter, and the Mills identification of
this species with fractional hydrogen, which he claims is produced in the
solar corona. It is carried to earth in the solar wind.

 

If RF radiation from Doppler radar is involved somehow, and it seems to be
more than coincidental, based on limited data - then RF could interact with
the atmosphere to nucleate more of the dark-matter arriving from the solar
corona into rain, which then percolates with water down to the shale layer.
This could alter the normal random distribution of f/H.

 

This process would take several years - but there does seem to be several
years of lag time.

 

Have you compared areas with 1) Radar and no shale deposits against 2) areas
with both shale and radar and areas with 3) shale only ?

 

If there was enough data to compare all three, you might make a statistical
case. 

 

Of course, that could require a staff of researchers to put this kind of
data together.

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

OK, I agree, here are a couple more articles

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oklahoma-Scientist-to-Test-if-Fracking-Causes-Earthquakes.html

The parts I keyed on in addition to the locations clustered around areas
with multiple dopplers, is that many people say they sound more like sonic
booms.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/14/is-fracking-causing-earthquakes/

And as quakes increase in frequency, residents of
Oklahoma
 and 
Texas
are
taking notice. More noticeable than the shaking, for many, is the noise
these quakes make: a loud boom, like artillery fire.

I wonder if it is a combination of both, microwaves interacting with the
atmosphere/water vapor and or a discharge into the Earth interacting with
the underground water.


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> Aha. With those states, you have to think that fracking is involved to
> some extent- so the only real question is if the fracking is exacerbated by
> the RF.
>
>
>
> ROTFL. I see that the "Does not seem to be a direct link" comment comes
> from renowned seismic expert.. cough, cough... one Barbara Schneider,
> Certified Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, and Feng Shui Consultant, and a
> regular contributor to San Jose Psychic Examiner.
>
>
>
> ... doubt if we should be trusting Babs' insight on this issue, Feng Shui
> notwithstanding
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas
>
>
>
> The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had
> >3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009
>
>
>
> Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a
> direct link but it may have some impact
>
>
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[pagnucco]

Eric,

This is a direct consequence of the formula for computing the magnetic
vector potential.  When all particles flow in a narrow channel, in the
same direction, all of their (vector) contributions to the potential are
nearly parallel and are additive.

When they move in random directions, the vector potential is a sum of
random vectors, so destructive interference greatly attenuates it.

Toy examples of a four particle fusor  vs. an arc might look like -

 |
 |  <
 V  <
 ---> <---
 ^
 |
 |
The fusor will only produce relatively small magnetic vector fields.

Yes, I think your diagram does convey a correct concept for a plasma arc
impacting an +ion rich surface.  The impacting electrons will acquire
extra energy from the momentum store in the magnetic field.

-- LP

Eric Walker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:
>
> This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
>> Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
>> random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.
>>
>
> Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?
>
> I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR,
> where
> such an effect might be relevant:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png
>
> (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the
> left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the
> recess in the surface of the metal grain.)
>
> Eric
>

[Vo]:RAR engine progress photos

[a.ashfield]

They're moving right along with the second machine.
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2021%20eng.JPG

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Jones Beene]

 

Aha. With those states, you have to think that fracking is involved to some
extent- so the only real question is if the fracking is exacerbated by the
RF. 

 

ROTFL. I see that the "Does not seem to be a direct link" comment comes from
renowned seismic expert.. cough, cough. one Barbara Schneider, Certified
Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, and Feng Shui Consultant, and a regular
contributor to San Jose Psychic Examiner. 

 

. doubt if we should be trusting Babs' insight on this issue, Feng Shui
notwithstanding

 

 

From: ChemE Stewart 

 

Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas

 

The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had
>3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009

 

Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct
link but it may have some impact

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-norm
al-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking

 

 

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[Daniel Rocha]

You see, that means you are sending information to the past! You are
strengthening something that hasn't arrived yet!


2014-02-15 19:30 GMT-02:00 :

> In reply to  Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an
> >infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what
> >happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at
> c.
>
> ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided
> that it
> doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply
> the
> energy required to interpret the signal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

I posted the earthquake chart on my blog:

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/15/expanded-quantum-capabilities/

and I posted my statistics a month ago.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/12/26/boom-bang-shake-quake/

I also believe p-Values are only a tool and do not identify cause, they
just imply a relationship, which I was seeing visually.

Oklahoma City is Home to the National Weather Research Center and along
with the air force base has ~ 9 overlapping microwave radars within a
50-100 mile radius (range on dopplers is approx. 150 miles)

I have developed a very bad feeling a microwave radars over the past 6
months, especially when 3 or 4 are overlapped.

Stewart




On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas
>
> The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had
> >3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009
>
> Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a
> direct link but it may have some impact
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  What three states?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm thinking there could another factor not in evidence ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the
>> installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs
>> might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50
>> mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10?
>> My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which
>> does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx
>> 30 radar locations
>>
>>
>>
>> · Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band)
>>
>> oWavelength: 5.44 cm
>>
>> oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs
>>
>> oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step
>>
>> · *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) *
>>
>> · 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish
>>
>> oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points
>>
>> oGain: 50 dBi
>>
>> oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way
>>
>> oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB
>>
>> · Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max)
>>
>> · Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm
>>
>> oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km
>>
>> oNoise Figure: 3 dB
>>
>> · Simultaneous dual-polarization
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:
>>
>> I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly
>> the Graneau/Papp systems.   Even low voltage systems may see localised very
>> high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are
>> flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then
>> separated.
>> Nigel
>>
>> On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>   On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
>> Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
>> random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR,
>> where such an effect might be relevant:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png
>>
>>
>>
>> (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the
>> left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the
>> recess in the surface of the metal grain.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

My bet is on the speed being c.
>

This sounds most consistent with current expectations of the two
possibilities.  Here is another section from Wikipedia that seems to argue
against the conclusion of the earlier-mentioned experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Apparent_FTL_propagation_of_static_field_effects

This same page gives examples of some rates that are observed that are
faster than light, including closing speeds (the rate at which two bodies
close in on one another) and phase and group velocities.

The propagation of an electrostatic field along an entrainment of charged
particles gives more the sense of the propagation of a phase or group than
of a particle itself, whose velocity is limited by *c.*

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas

The area of North Texas, Oklahoma, So. Kansas and Western Arkansas has had
>3000 seismic events which jumped in 2009

Fracking has been going on for years and there does not seem to be a direct
link but it may have some impact

http://www.examiner.com/article/oklahoma-s-4-yr-long-quake-swarm-is-not-normal-and-it-ain-t-freakin-fracking




On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  What three states?
>
>
>
> I'm thinking there could another factor not in evidence ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the
> installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs
> might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50
> mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10?
> My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which
> does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx
> 30 radar locations
>
>
>
> · Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band)
>
> oWavelength: 5.44 cm
>
> oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs
>
> oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step
>
> · *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) *
>
> · 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish
>
> oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points
>
> oGain: 50 dBi
>
> oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way
>
> oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB
>
> · Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max)
>
> · Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm
>
> oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km
>
> oNoise Figure: 3 dB
>
> · Simultaneous dual-polarization
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:
>
> I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly
> the Graneau/Papp systems.   Even low voltage systems may see localised very
> high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are
> flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then
> separated.
> Nigel
>
> On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>   On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:
>
>
>
> This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
> Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
> random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.
>
>
>
> Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?
>
>
>
> I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR,
> where such an effect might be relevant:
>
>
>
> http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png
>
>
>
> (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the
> left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the
> recess in the surface of the metal grain.)
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Jones Beene]

What three states?

 

I’m thinking there could another factor not in evidence … 

 

 

 

 

From: ChemE Stewart 

 

Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the
installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs
might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50
mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10?
My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which does
not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx 30
radar locations

 

* Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band)

oWavelength: 5.44 cm

oPulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs

oPulse Repetition Frequency: 300–2000 Hz, 1 Hz step

* 1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) 

* 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish

oHigh angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points

oGain: 50 dBi

oSidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way

oCross-Pol: Better than -30 dB

* Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max)

* Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm

oRadar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km

oNoise Figure: 3 dB

* Simultaneous dual-polarization

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly the
Graneau/Papp systems.   Even low voltage systems may see localised very high
voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are
flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then
separated.
Nigel 

On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:

 

This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.

 

Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?

 

I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where
such an effect might be relevant:

 

http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png

 

(Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the left
hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the recess in
the surface of the metal grain.)

 

Eric

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[David Roberson]

My bet is on the speed being c.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 4:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly



On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM,   wrote:


...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it
doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the
energy required to interpret the signal.




What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the 
rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

Any open minded guys here have any thoughts/ideas/theories on how the
installation of a Doppler microwave weather radar with the following specs
might trigger a ten-fold increase in seismic events/sonic booms within a 50
mile radius of the tower for the past 3 years compared to the previous 10?
My p-Value stats over two years data says there is a correlation (which
does not prove causation) - I looked at 3 states of seismic data and approx
30 radar locations


   - Operating frequency: 5510 MHz (C-band)
  - Wavelength: 5.44 cm
  - Pulse Length: 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 µs
  - Pulse Repetition Frequency: 300-2000 Hz, 1 Hz step
   - *1 MW Peak Power (magnetron with solid-state modulator) *
   - 8.5-meter Andrew precision C-band dish
  - High angular resolution: 0.45 degrees @ -3 dB points
  - Gain: 50 dBi
  - Sidelobe Level: Better than -26 dB one-way
  - Cross-Pol: Better than -30 dB
   - Rotation rate: 6-25 deg/s under typical scanning (30 deg/s max)
   - Minimum Detectable Signal: -112 dBm
  - Radar Sensitivity: -15 dBZ at 50 km
  - Noise Figure: 3 dB
   - Simultaneous dual-polarization







On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

>  I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly
> the Graneau/Papp systems.   Even low voltage systems may see localised very
> high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when currents are
> flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact and are then
> separated.
> Nigel
> On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>  On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:
>
> This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
>> Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
>> random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.
>>
>
>  Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?
>
>  I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR,
> where such an effect might be relevant:
>
>  http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png
>
>  (Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the
> left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the
> recess in the surface of the metal grain.)
>
>  Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


>  Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it
>> would be crazy, especially in commercial apps.
>>
>
> That makes sense.  I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents
> and LEDs.  LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them.  CFLs
> make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.
>

Yes, they have made great progress in recent years improving the spectrum
of LEDs. I bought one the other day marked "Daylight." It is uncanny how
white it is. I do not think they will improve CFLs. I think that technology
is on its way out, to be replaced with LEDs.


Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium
> vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a
> good day, uses this for their street lamps.
>

I hate, hate, HATE those things!

I should join the International Dark-Sky Society.

http://www.darksky.org/

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

I'm guessing they're efficient because their near monochromatic output is near 
the peak
sensitivity of the human eye, so the comparison should be done with yellow LEDs.

Hoyt

-Original Message-
From: AlanG [mailto:a...@magicsound.us]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

Sodium vapor lamps are apparently the most efficient light source commercially 
available, which is why they're widely used in street lighting. At 200 
lumens/watt, they are about twice as efficient as typical LED lamps, and have 
about half the service life. Their construction uses borosilcate glass with a 
vacuum thermal insulation envelope. Sound familiar?  A discarded bulb might 
make a good core for a Celani cell.

AlanG

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp

On 2/15/2014 12:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium
> vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on
> a good day, uses this for their street lamps.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Nigel Dyer]

I also think it may be relevant to certain classes of LENR, particularly 
the Graneau/Papp systems.   Even low voltage systems may see localised 
very high voltage differences as a result of back-emf effects when 
currents are flowing between two surfaces that are initially in contact 
and are then separated.

Nigel
On 15/02/2014 21:54, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, > wrote:


This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation
due to
random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.


Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?

I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, 
where such an effect might be relevant:


http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png

(Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at 
the left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get 
to the recess in the surface of the metal grain.)


Eric

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an
> >infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what
> >happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at
> c.
>
> ...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided
> that it
> doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply
> the
> energy required to interpret the signal.
>
>

nice.

harry

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:

This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
> Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
> random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.
>

Is this a confirmed effect, or one that has been hypothesized?

I'm reminded of my drawing of what I think might be going on in LENR, where
such an effect might be relevant:

http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png

(Also relevant in this model would be the accumulation of charge at the
left hand side, due to the blocking of the protons once they get to the
recess in the surface of the metal grain.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM,  wrote:

...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that
> it
> doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply
> the
> energy required to interpret the signal.
>

What is your sense of the plausibility of this line of reasoning, i.e., the
rigid propagation of electric fields in charged currents?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the
> gamma rays & excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be
> done at a Techshop.  Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a
> company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP.
>

When the MFMP says they are ready to claim they've sufficient signal to
noise and sufficient replicability, they will be in a position to submit
that experimental protocol to a judging board along with funds to support
replication by those skilled in the art as agreed by the judging board and
MFMP.

The question is whether it is worthwhile attempting to raise money for the
prize prior to MFMP claiming they have achieved said replicability.

For the reasons Randy Wuller gives, we can't expect the X-Prize foundation
to support such a prize, so it will probably have to be a kickstarter
campaign.

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[mixent]

In reply to  Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:21:30 -0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an
>infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what
>happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c.

...so FTL communication via electric field should be possible provided that it
doesn't rely upon energy transfer. IOW the receiver itself needs to supply the
energy required to interpret the signal. 

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the
> gamma rays & excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be
> done at a Techshop.  Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a
> company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP.
>

MFMP is not yet ready to say they have, indeed, seen gamma rays & excess
heat
:

We feel we are close, but despite repeated signs of upto 12.5% excess heat
and recently signs of gamma, we are sticking to our principle, that of not
moving on to worldwide distribution until we have an incontrovertible,
repeatable experiment to share. When the gamma spectra solution is fully
realised and the mass flow calorimeter experiment ready, we have a good
shot of addressing all outstanding criticism. The nominal excess may not be
glamorous, but if certain, we will be very satisfied. We thank you.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

>CFLs make my
> eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.  I'm going to guess this
> is because they are only lighting up small portions of the spectrum of
> visible light, but this is just a guess.

I think it is because many people perceive the 120 hz flicker in the
ionized gas as zero current flows.  You don't see this in
incandescents because the filament is not as responsive.

> I'm reminded of Neil Young's
> explanation for why he thought that CDs didn't sound as good as records --
> something along the lines of being able to hear the skips in the binary
> encoding of the CD as the laser was passing over.

I had a professor who ranted against solid state audio amplifiers.  He
claimed they made the music sound muddy passing through a solid and
could not compete with the crystal clear music passing through a
vacuum.

Actually there is an explanation for vinyl sounding different.  There
is a phase smearing which occurs in the differentiation of the needle
motion which is not present in PCM encoding of audio signals.  People
explain it as vinyl sounding "warmer".

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[AlanG]

Sodium vapor lamps are apparently the most efficient light source 
commercially available, which is why they're widely used in street 
lighting. At 200 lumens/watt, they are about twice as efficient as 
typical LED lamps, and have about half the service life. Their 
construction uses borosilcate glass with a vacuum thermal insulation 
envelope. Sound familiar?  A discarded bulb might make a good core for a 
Celani cell.


AlanG

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp

On 2/15/2014 12:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium 
vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on 
a good day, uses this for their street lamps.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it
>> would be crazy, especially in commercial apps.
>>
>
> That makes sense.  I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents
> and LEDs.  LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them.  CFLs
> make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.  I'm going to
> guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the
> spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess.
>


On a romantic scale I would place the incandescent bulb above LEDs and
CFLs, but below candles.

Harry

RE: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

But if you could sense the field ( e.g. capacitor plate ), you could send
information at infinite speed -- what's  wrong with that analysis?

 

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:22 PM
To: John Milstone
Subject: Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

 

Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an
infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what
happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c.

 

2014-02-15 13:04 GMT-02:00 :

I produced something like that from my model.  My model taken to the extreme
states that electrons are rigid.  One of my theorems is,  "Electrons do not
bounce."  They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest
energy state.  This is the root cause of Fermi statistics.   

 

The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction.
They interact through a process of elastic failure.   Elastic failure is a
classical property.  Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process
of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg.

Impedance matched systems do not bounce.  Electrons propagate through
channels of matching impedance.  The quantification of the velocity of the
process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition.

 

That's what I got out of cold fusion.

 

Frank Z

 

 





 

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Incandescent lights was RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

In cold climates, they make nice localized heaters, and will probably cost less 
than what your electric furnace would have cost to run,

so the efforts to ban them is misguided.  ( They're also used in other heating 
applications and as nice load resistors for electrical

testing.)



Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona  (where we don't need much heat, so I'm replacing 
everything with LEDs.)



P.S. I toured the Boeing Everett Washington 747 plant years ago, and they told 
us that they didn't need any air heaters,

the lamps (metal halide lamps in that case ) and equipment were enough to heat 
that 100 acre building.







From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal



On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:



Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be 
crazy, especially in commercial apps.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[Daniel Rocha]

Indeed, in the Coulomb gauge, the electrical field propagates with an
infinite speed. This is known for over a century. But this ignores what
happens magnetic field. In the end, the propagation of energy happens at c.


2014-02-15 13:04 GMT-02:00 :

> I produced something like that from my model.  My model taken to the
> extreme states that electrons are rigid.  One of my theorems is,
>  "Electrons do not bounce."  They cannot bounce their energy away and all
> wind up in the lowest energy state.  This is the root cause of Fermi
> statistics.
>
>  The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this
> interaction.  They interact through a process of elastic failure.   Elastic
> failure is a classical property.  Electrons don't bounce and interact
> through a process of elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg.
> Impedance matched systems do not bounce.  Electrons propagate through
> channels of matching impedance.  The quantification of the velocity of the
> process (1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition.
>
>  That's what I got out of cold fusion.
>
>  Frank Z
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it
> would be crazy, especially in commercial apps.
>

That makes sense.  I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents
and LEDs.  LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them.  CFLs
make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.  I'm going to
guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the
spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess.  I'm reminded of Neil
Young's explanation for why he thought that CDs didn't sound as good as
records -- something along the lines of being able to hear the skips in the
binary encoding of the CD as the laser was passing over.  He was no doubt
mistaken on that point.

Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium
vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a
good day, uses this for their street lamps.  This is what it looks like at
night there:

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2013/1101/20131101__streetlights~1_300.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/HPS-lamps.jpg

What these images don't adequately convey is the strain on your eyes that
you feel when you're there at night.  If the members of the city council
there are normal people, it is hard to envision the decision making process
that led to those lights being installed.  I suspect the members are all
accountants.

 An expert described the advantages of CFL over incandescent by saying:
> "this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."
>

If that's the case, then I would much prefer LEDs.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[pagnucco]

Nigel,

The collision of two oppositely charged particles can be far more
energetic when they collide within a current than in isolation.  How much
more depends on the current strength/density and particles' location.

The particles borrow field momentum from the magnetic vector
potential(A) the current collectively creates.  For example, see -

'(Section 21–3) Two kinds of momentum'
The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. III Ch. 21
http://www.feynmanlectures.info/docroot/III_21.html

If the two particles collide with nearly the same momentum (in the lab
frame), suddenly they see an almost immediate drop in the magnetic
vector potential which generates an additional huge electric field(E)
gradient propelling the particles into each other, i.e., see Feynman's

  (Equation 21-16) E = -dA/dt

As Feynman notes:
 "That electric field is enormous if the flux is changing rapidly, and
  it gives a force on the particle. The force is the charge times the
  electric field, and so during the build up of the flux the particle
  obtains a total impulse (that is, a change in mv) equal to −qA. In
  other words, if you suddenly turn on a vector potential at a charge,
  this charge immediately picks up an mv-momentum equal to −qA."

If you are interested in how the vector potential stores momentum, sse-
  "Thoughts on the Magnetic Vector Potential"
  http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/thoughts.pdf

The extra energy picked up by light particles like electrons and positrons
will be far higher than by much heavier protons and nuclei.

(Another different approach to calculating the extra energy is via
 the Darwin Hamiltonian/Lagrangian.)

This effect is not very significant in chaotic plasmas, such as in a
Farnworth fusor device since there is too much field cancellation due to
random motion.  It can be very large for plasma arc filaments, though.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Nigel Dyer (Sat, 15 Feb 2014) wrote:
> I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles
> moving towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating
> magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of
> an additional attraction alongside the column force. electric and
> magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference.
>
> I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of showing this

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Jones Beene]

Dyslexic correction of previous post: "In contrast, Ne-10
does not keep boron from having an isotope at 10." This should be "In
contrast, B-10 does not keep neon from having an isotope at 20."  

And yes, there are other reasons why helium has special
stability in the periodic table, so this is not a particularly strong
metaphor - but it does suggest that there are indeed forbidden isotopes at a
few specific atomic mass levels - which are in effect "reserved" by other
elements, such as in the case of He-4 which keeps Be-8 from stability.

If there were not an LENR connection, this would be the end
of the story but there is more. For instance wrt the Rossi effect, 100% of
cobalt is amu 59 which seems to be "reserved" by cobalt (element 27).

IOW - this isotopic level - amu 59 - belongs to cobalt, even
though Co is to the left of nickel in the PT, which is element 28... and
nickel's main isotope is Ni-58 - which is one of the few instances in nature
where a lighter amu element follows a heaver one (as the main isotope). 

Notably, Ni-59 decay is gammaless. However, this is not the
nickel Mossbauer isotope which is Ni-61. 
Nickel seems so commonplace, at first ... so few-cents-worth
- yet this element has 7 unusually strong physical anomalies, which could
relate to LENR and in comparison with other metals is an oddball. 
The 7 anomalies. It is ferromagnetic, has a Mossbauer
isotope, has the heaviest stable isotope (as a % of the most common isotope
Ni-58 vs Ni-64), is lower amu than the next lower mass z (the most common
isotope is lower amu than Co), has the highest innate stability (Ni-62 has
highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide 8.7945 MeV), has an
unstable isotope with gammaless decay - and has two adjoining Rydberg levels
in electron orbitals. Wow. Could this all be coincidental?

What's in a name? The German word "nickel" came from "Old
Nick" which was a name for the devil; and the reasons for that historic
association are arcane ... but in the modern day context of LENR, where the
devil is in the details - let's just say nickel may be our Maxwell's demon.
The unification of good and evil, no less?


<>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of
> magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970.
>
>
>
>
>
> We spend much more now so this is not comparable and disproves your former
> assertion ...
>

It is comparable. You are missing the point. The unit cost of energy falls
but overall consumption will increase. The total amount spent may also
increase, although I doubt that individual consumption will cost more.
Society as a whole may spend more when you include things like massive
desalination projects.



>  and you still do not have a grasp of the time issue, wrt energy and IP
> and trade secrets etc. LENR will not happen quickly and it will cost
> slightly more for many years, due to the novelty if nothing else.
>

It may not take many years. That is hard to say. It is in the interests of
Rossi and other IP holders to bring out cold fusion as quickly as possible,
and to lower the cost as rapidly as possible. For two reasons: patents do
not last long; and with a product of this nature you earn more selling many
units at a low cost than you do selling a few at a high cost.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> First, the light will know to turn itself off, and second, there won't be
> a particular need to turn it off.  I'll get my beloved regular old
> lightbulbs back and will say goodbye to compact fluorescents forever.
>

Probably not. Compact fluorescent (CFL) are cheaper per unit cost than
incandescent lights. The initial sale price is higher, but the cost is
cheaper over the life of the bulb because they last so long. LED lights are
rated to last 20 years, and some come with lifetime guarantees, meaning as
long as you own it, they will replace it. The lifetimes are 50,000 hours
for an LED and 1,200 hours for an incandescent. The LED cost is $36 versus
$1.25, so it is marginally cheaper over a lifetime. CFL cost $4 and last
10,000 hours so they are much cheaper. See:

http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html

For commercial, office or industrial applications, CFL and LED lights are
far cheaper for another reason. They are replaced much less often.
Replacing one usually calls for a maintenance person to bring a ladder and
spend several minutes replacing the bulb and disrupting operations. That
ends up costing more than the bulb.

Obviously, with the cost of today's electricity both CFL and LED lights
save a tremendous amount of money for energy. Per 50,000 hours of
illumination, taking into account the unit cost of the bulbs, they cost
about $88 versus $353 for incandescent lights. Using incandescent lights is
economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in
commercial apps.

An expert described the advantages of CFL over incandescent by saying:
"this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[ChemE Stewart]

Jones,

Thanks for the lead in, here is some more weird thoughts/doppler stuff I
have been blogging.

I think gravity is a type of quantum vacuum entanglement that decays space
between all of these vacuum branes in the universe (like our Sun's core and
the Earth core).  Vacuum is streaming between branes (in our solar wind),
decaying our 3 dimensions as well as itself is decaying through hawking
radiation (full spectrum, very weak). It pops back out as protons in the
solar wind as it decays, creating water vapor wherever it encounters
oxygen, like in our atmosphere:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-solar-space-source-laboratory.html

I think the Earth core and possible the Sun are massive 6-D torroidal
vacuum cores. It is responsible for our weakly ionizing radiation
background on Earth, which increases during storms.  The weather unfolding
along jet streams is really the inflation phase of this vacuum decaying
from high energies to low energy "clouds" in our atmosphere, creating more
water vapor.  It pulls a vacuum in our gaseous atmosphere, creating low
pressure disturbances.

That is the reason Doppler Radar is able to detect the "weather"  due to
the vacuum in our atmosphere, which forms strings and particles and is
bending it and lensing it.  Which is unfortunate for us humans because I
think we are all getting "vacuum formed"  and this stuff is redirecting and
attenuating doppler microwave radiation back to Earth around the radar
towers, creating chronic hypoxic conditions in waterways(ionizing dissolved
oxygen from the water) killing fish and triggering algae blooms and in
bloodstreams creating chronic hypoxic conditions in biology triggering an
increase in autism, alzheimers and some cancers. Our Earth brane and human
brains are becoming hypoxic in areas around radar towers. I have statistics
on both now.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/08/sending-out-an-sos/

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/14/never-hire-me-to-do-research/

Also, after plotting sinkholes nightly for a year, yes I am a geek, I have
concluded the atmosphere is triggering many of them through a local
increase in ionizing vacuum energy discharge (protons act like an
acid-proton donor) during storms and such, which is increased around the
overlappng doppler radar towers.  The eight corvettes that just plummeted
into a sinkhole in Kentucky happened to be in an atrium with a glass
ceiling directly above where the sinkhole opened and within 50 miles of 3
or 4 high powered radars. I think metal conducts this stuff (think st.
elmos fire) but that it penetrates through most organic stuff.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/15/little-red-corvette/

I have also concluded many of the mirages that humans see over water,
including magnified ships over the ocean are actually gravitational lensing
and string lensing, which is also bending the doppler EMR at the same time.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/13/milwaukeemiragemiraclesay-5-times-fast/

In other words guys, we reside in a vacuum with a little bit of air and
water vapor surrounding us.  We reside on the crust from a LENR decaying
Earth core brane, which suffers chronic indigestion, else we would all be
sucked in.

Best I can figure and yes it/I am strange.

Stewart




On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* John Berry
>
>
>
> It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with
> electric fields.
>
> Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained
> this way.
>
>
>
> Since Stewart is stuck in the ice, he may be delayed with his Doppler
> radar metaphor. So here is another slant on it. Since gravity already
> produces its own Doppler shift (we call it redshift), it would be an
> interesting exercise to look at this possibility in extra dimensions... that
> is of gravity itself being the 4-space relic of a 3-space electric field -
> which is of course, another way to look at electrogravity.
>
>
>
> The Doppler shift is the frequency shift caused by relative motion, but
> the gravitational version - which is redshift - does not involve apparent
> motion in 3-space, but it does if you consider to the effect as being over
> billions of years. IOW the relative motion is in hidden in spacetime.
> Because clocks in a strong gravitational field tick slower - the effect is
> similar to light leaving the surface of a strong field which will gradually
> have its frequency extended so that the signal (light spectra) arrives at a
> longer wavelength.
>
>
>
> You can also think of gravitational redshift on light as photons losing
> energy as they work their out of the strong gravitational field but it is
> no different than if it was a strong electric field, other than that time
> must be considered. For whatever reason, the Finn's seem to mull over these
> things more than most of us (probably the long winters)
>
> http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO18PDF/NR18JAA.PDF
>
>
>
> Phil did not see his shadow so let'

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Nigel,
> You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge "sees" a changing
> electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric
> field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates
> a force.
>
> However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your
> criticism has brought clarity to my intuition:
>
> Charge is a relative to motion.
>
>
> Harry
>
>

More fully,

Charge consists of a basic charge and  through the relative motion other
charges the basic charge can increase or decrease.


harry

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[H Veeder]

Nigel,
You are correct. I failed to remember that each charge "sees" a changing
electric field due to the motion of the other charge, and if the electric
field is changing this generates a changing magnetic field which generates
a force.

However, my excursion into velocity dependent coulomb forces and your
criticism has brought clarity to my intuition:

Charge is a relative to motion.


Harry




On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

>  I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving
> towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating magnetic
> fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of an
> additional attraction alongside the column force.  electric and magnetic
> fields differ only in their frame of reference.
>
> I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of  showing this,
> including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way of
> modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term for the
> colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with but under a
> different guise?
>
> Nigel
>
> On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote:
>
> He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent
> version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make
> use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of
> recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was
> only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a
> perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard
> Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.)
>
>  He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there
> still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his
> theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm
>
>  Harry
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with
>> electric fields.
>>
>>  Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained
>> this way.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>> James Bowery and other vortex members,
>>>
>>> Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
>>> He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
>>>
>>> In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when
>>> the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart.
>>> The reverse is true for opposite charges.
>>>
>>>  The revised law:
>>>
>>>  F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
>>>
>>>  He goes into more detail here:
>>> http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
>>>
>>>  This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and
>>> wonderful ideas in his free on-line book.
>>>
>>> http://www.alternativephysics.org/
>>>
>>> -
>>> * I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was
>>> nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Vo]:The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Jones Beene]

The possibility of an "inverse (or reverse) Mossbauer effect" comes up from
time to time in LENR. The key concepts are "recoilless nuclear resonance"
and FRET, which is type of superradiant fluorescence. We have discussed FRET
for many years on vortex, since it is strongly correlated to nanoscale
geometry and that was even before we knew about SPP (surface plasmon
polaritons). In effect, FRET connects SPP to LENR via an Inverted Mossbauer
Effect. 

Heck, you can impress friends and confuse enemies with this mantra
SPP+FRET=LENR 
(If it were possible to squeeze those letters onto a vanity plate, it would
be worth it).

This is a complex hypothesis going back to the shock wave of P&F, and which
has some relevance to the broader subject of "gammaless" emission. The first
time I heard of it was circa 1990 in an article by Scott Chubb. Another name
associated with this niche is Kozima, who labeled lithium to beryllium as a
GLR (or gammaless reaction) like an Inverted Mossbauer Effect.

Of keen interest in bringing all of this up now, 24 years later, is that
Ni-61 and K-40, both of which are assumed to be involved in the Rossi effect
- are Mossbauer isotopes. And they are more accurately called gammaless
(GLR) than was beryllium.

To backtrack: Chubb apparently got the idea from Cockcroft and Walton's
experiments in the early 1930s which was the first reported accelerator
driven nuclear reaction, and it involved Lithium bombarded with protons. The
reaction proceeds via "excited Be-8." Two alphas are seen in the ash and
with far less peak photon radiation than expected. However, lots of x-rays
are seen, since the alphas are hot, as well as the protons. To the modern
day cynic, trying to understand the Rossi effect - this 80+ year old
experiment is actually better proof against the idea of a gammaless reaction
- than for it.

Of note. In modern usage there is no consensus for a definition
distinguishing X-rays and gamma rays. The older and common practice in
physics is to distinguish between the two types of radiation based on their
source: X-rays being emitted by electrons and gamma being emitted by the
nucleus. This definition has several problems, since many times the method
of generation is not known, and hard x-rays can be stronger than many
gammas. In science - one should never be required to define an important
parameter based on its source - when only its geometry (or energy content)
is overriding.

Therefore the modern alternative is to distinguish X-rays from gamma
radiation on the basis of wavelength or energy, but in terms of GLR - we are
most interested in detectability. The limit of detectability with a thick
reactor is generally low keV, and that depends on the Boltzmann tail of the
energy distribution, since low keV from a coherent source will not penetrate
thick stainless. 

A useful value for LENR is to define "gammaless" as radiation lower than 4
keV. If it is in that range it will never be a problem to shield cheaply -
and will not be a negative feature that makes LENR subject to regulation by
the NRC.

Anyway, moving on - beryllium is a light metal which "should have" an
isotope with amu of 8 but it does not. Thus the extremely strong gamma of
normal fusion into helium seems to be somehow avoided if Be-8 is formed
(since it is another anomaly itself) but if we want to connect that to
deuterium and no lithium - this involves a four body reaction with the
energy carried away by two alphas and no strong gamma. Elements which are
higher and lower in mass than beryllium have 1:1 ratios of protons and
neutrons but not beryllium - and this is due to the remarkable stability and
other properties of helium-4, which in effect "forbids" Be-8. In contrast,
Ne-10 does not keep boron from having an isotope at 10.

Bottom line is that in describing Pd-D, "excited Be-8" became somewhat of a
metaphor for GLR ... but that connection was a mistake IMO since this
reaction is far from gammaless (in the sense of detectability) such as in
the Rossi effect. Massive bremsstrahlung radiation is  seen with "excited
Be-8" and it makes a poor metaphor.

This has been the preamble for moving onto the Rossi effect, as a possible
versions of an "inverted Mossbauer effect." For it to be a similar metaphor,
we must find the "key" or the forbidden element - which would be the "Be-8
of the Rossi effect". Is it Ni-59 ?

Several other posts will be needed. Stay tuned or set your spam filter
accordingly.

Jones



<>

RE: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Jones Beene]

 

From: John Berry 

 

It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric
fields.

Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this
way.

 

Since Stewart is stuck in the ice, he may be delayed with his Doppler radar
metaphor. So here is another slant on it. Since gravity already produces its
own Doppler shift (we call it redshift), it would be an interesting exercise
to look at this possibility in extra dimensions. that is of gravity itself
being the 4-space relic of a 3-space electric field - which is of course,
another way to look at electrogravity.

 

The Doppler shift is the frequency shift caused by relative motion, but the
gravitational version - which is redshift - does not involve apparent motion
in 3-space, but it does if you consider to the effect as being over billions
of years. IOW the relative motion is in hidden in spacetime. Because clocks
in a strong gravitational field tick slower - the effect is similar to light
leaving the surface of a strong field which will gradually have its
frequency extended so that the signal (light spectra) arrives at a longer
wavelength. 

 

You can also think of gravitational redshift on light as photons losing
energy as they work their out of the strong gravitational field but it is no
different than if it was a strong electric field, other than that time must
be considered. For whatever reason, the Finn's seem to mull over these
things more than most of us (probably the long winters)

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO18PDF/NR18JAA.PDF

 

Phil did not see his shadow so let's let the Finns sort it out.

Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly

[fznidarsic]

I produced something like that from my model.  My model taken to the extreme 
states that electrons are rigid.  One of my theorems is,  "Electrons do not 
bounce."  They cannot bounce their energy away and all wind up in the lowest 
energy state.  This is the root cause of Fermi statistics.  


The quantum behavior of the electron can be explained by this interaction.  
They interact through a process of elastic failure.   Elastic failure is a 
classical property.  Electrons don't bounce and interact through a process of 
elastic failure; sort of like a thrown egg.
Impedance matched systems do not bounce.  Electrons propagate through channels 
of matching impedance.  The quantification of the velocity of the process 
(1,094,000 meters per second) produced the quantum condition.


That's what I got out of cold fusion.


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[David Roberson]

Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that 
are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference.  
I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges 
approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and 
the magnetic force was achieved.  This implied that there would be precisely 
zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either 
together or apart at the speed of light.  This matches the special theory of 
relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the 
objects being viewed.

Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as 
accelerating towards or away from each other.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Nigel Dyer 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 3:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law


  
I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particlesmoving 
towards each other then can they not be thought of asgenerating magnetic 
fields, and that these magnetic fields wouldform the basis of an additional 
attraction alongside the columnforce.  electric and magnetic fields differ 
only in their frame ofreference.

I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of  showing this,
including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a betterway of 
modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocityterm for the 
colomb attraction not just something that we arefamiliar with but under a 
different guise?

Nigel


On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote:


  
He is certainly not the first person to formulate avelocity dependent 
version of Coulomb's law, but I think hisformulation is the first to 
make use of a distinction betweenthe velocity of approach and the 
velocity of recession. (If Ihave understood him correctly, it would 
mean if one was onlyinterested in the force on an electron orbiting a 
proton in aperfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by 
thestandard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of
approach or recession.) 
  

  
  
He tries to explain gravity using his theory but heconcedes that 
there still may be a significant portion ofgravity which is not 
explained by his theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm
  

  
  
Harry


  
  
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM,John Berry 
wrote:

  
It would make sense, a Doppler likeeffect is very 
reasonable with electric fields.
  


Now if this is so, it is very possible that  gravity could 
be explained this way.



  
  



On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at  7:09 PM, H Veeder 
  wrote:
  

James Bowery and other vortex  members,
  
  
Today I learned about the the work ofBernard 
Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version  
  of coulomb's law*

In his model the coloumb force between two  
  like charges increases when the charges are   
 moving together and decreases when they are
moving apart.
  
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
  

  
  
The revised law:
  

  
  
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1-v2)]/c}^3
  

  
  
He goes into more detail here:
  
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm

  
  
This is just a small fraction of hiswork. He has 
many bold and wonderful ideasin his free on-line 
book. 
  

http://www.alternativephysics.org/

-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex   
 sometime ago although it was nothing more  

Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law

[Nigel Dyer]

I may be being stupid here, but if you have two charged particles moving 
towards each other then can they not be thought of as generating 
magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields would form the basis of 
an additional attraction alongside the column force.  electric and 
magnetic fields differ only in their frame of reference.


I could well imagine that there are multiple ways of  showing this, 
including Burchells, and it may well be that this might be a better way 
of modelling it in some circumstances, but is his extra velocity term 
for the colomb attraction not just something that we are familiar with 
but under a different guise?


Nigel

On 15/02/2014 07:37, H Veeder wrote:
He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent 
version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to 
make use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the 
velocity of recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would 
mean if one was only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a 
proton in a perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by 
the standard Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of 
approach or recession.)


He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that 
there still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not 
explained by his theory. 
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm


Harry


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry > wrote:


It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with
electric fields.

Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be
explained this way.



On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

James Bowery and other vortex members,

Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*

In his model the coloumb force between two like charges
increases when the charges are moving together and decreases
when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.

The revised law:

F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3

He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm

This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold
and wonderful ideas in his free on-line book.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/

-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it
was nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like
charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html

Harry