RE: [Vo]:UFO's over the US Capitol
-Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 5:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:UFO's over the US Capitol Flimed in 1952 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6426240870588647115 I wonder what the flashing spike on the right side, background is? [DonW] There is one on the left side also, somewhat hidden by the trees. Looks like Flag Poles on the roof of the Whitehouse, they are floodlit at night.
Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed fusion hypothesis)
wouldn't the ball ultimately loose energy to the lattice as it squirts out? Harry On 2/10/2007 8:38 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > Mmmm... more like a tennis ball in a tight lattice of basketballs pressed > against each other, with the elastic constrictions of the lattice (the > passages between the interstitial sites and ultimately towards the surface) > smaller than the ball. The ball, pushed from behind by other balls, squirts > out. > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed > fusion hypothesis) > > > Is a balloon expelling gas a suitable analogue? > > Harry > > On 30/9/2007 3:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> Yes, much better, thank you. Elastic constriction expulsion. All that is >> needed now is to translate this to eV :-) >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer >> catalyzed >> fusion hypothesis) >> >> >> If, as you say below, the deuteron is 'expelled' then wouldn't it be more >> consistent to say 'expulsion' instead of 'propulsion'? >> >> Harry >> >> >> On 30/9/2007 1:16 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: >> >>> I guess you mean venturi in relation with the flow restriction. >>> >>> Following Harry's remark in the spin thread, how about "elastic constriction >>> propulsion"? >>> >>> Seriously, anyone got an idea of how much energy this can put into the >>> expelled deuteron or how it could be calculated? >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> P.S. Tsss, "Could it get us to Uranus", can't get over this one Terry :-) >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: >>> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:39 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer >>> catalyzed >>> fusion hypothesis) >>> >>> >>> Ha! "sphincter propulsion" Luv it... >>> >>> ... don't think anyone has evoked that exact wording before, but lest >>> the skeptics out there latch-onto to something derogatory like >>> "toilet-fizzix", can we just call it "venturi propulsion" or something a >>> little less organic? >>> >>> Jones >>> >>> Michel Jullian wrote: (#CF = DIESECF Desorbing-Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed Fusion, # being "dièse" in French) As I suggested to someone in a private message a few weeks ago, I think the desorbing deuteron must have more energy than that due to its free fall in the electron layer's electric field, in the form of a "sphincter contraction" like expulsion energy (sorry for the gruesome image). This would be due to the elastic nature of the Pd crystal which could be expected to re-contract locally with the participation of a large number of surface Pd atoms after the deuteron's passage. This kinetic energy could be a welcome complement to the electron layer's screening effect. This complementary effect could explain why CF occurs with Pd and D, with Ni (tighter lattice) and H (protium), but not (or less) e.g. with Pd and H, because the smaller protium would flow "too easily" (with less sphincter propulsion) out of the relatively roomy Pd lattice. Hope this makes some sense. Do let me know anyone if this sphincter aspect of hydrogen nuclei expulsion has been evoked before and/or quantified. Michel P.S. Of course the whole hypothesis, which I have presented in essentially classical terms (my apologies to "real" theoreticians for that), will have to be translated to quantum physics language and quantified before it can be considered a proper theory. This will be done IF --big if-- it is confirmed experimentally, there being obviously little point in theorizing further if it is proved wrong. >> >
Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed fusion hypothesis)
Jones wrote.. These images are clear proof to me, although others may not agree, of an implosion, not an explosion. There is a conical vortex, a deep horn-like cavity and tunnel - NOT the typical crater of an explosion.Because the bulk of the force in a real explosion is at the locus, which rapidly diminishes on expansion - the result is the crater (bowl cavity) appearance - NOT the horn-and-tunnel (which looks like the negative of a tornado vortex) - huge difference. This indicates that the main energy-release component of the LENR or other supra-chemical reaction is *spin* or angular momentum, and not spherical expansion. Howdy Jones, A deep horn-like cavity describes what we sometimes see in the segmental parabolic cavities of our induction feeders that feed chlorine gas under vacuum. We used to attribute the pitting to " cavitation" . These strange "pits"could be accepted if the material were hastelloy or titanium subjected to cavitation but UHMW polyethelene should not pit. Only in certain locations in the USA do we experience this problem. Speaking of location... The Pacific Lumber Company bankrupcy case is now in the hands of a Texas bankrupcy judge in Corpus Christi, Texas. Ah So ! Texas.. where no man's life nor property is safe while the Texas legislature is in session... or a Texas bankrupcy judge sits at bench..over a case involving the Redwood forests of California. Poor ole Charles Hurwitz and his Maxxam Group( owns Pacific Lumber) make you wanna cry listening to his tale of how fate has done him wrong again. All started with his savings and loan deal gone sour back in the 1980's and his hoss race track in Houston that got bailed out by the city. Nickname him "otherguy" cuz it's always some other guy that's at fault.. In the case of the redwood forests.. he claims the enviromentalists caused the bankrupcy. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed fusion hypothesis)
One observation about an important underlying assumption in Michel's hypothesis, and that of Horace, which may be false. Please have a close look at the famous SEM (scanning electron microscope) image on the cover of Rothwell's translation of Mizuno (or any SEM image of the active zone in LENR, such as those of Ken Shoulders). These images are clear proof to me, although others may not agree, of an implosion, not an explosion. There is a conical vortex, a deep horn-like cavity and tunnel - NOT the typical crater of an explosion. Actual "explosions" never seem to happen in visual documentation of LENR, as these images demonstrate; or at least there is no SEM image of any crater AFAIK. Because the bulk of the force in a real explosion is at the locus, which rapidly diminishes on expansion - the result is the crater (bowl cavity) appearance - NOT the horn-and-tunnel (which looks like the negative of a tornado vortex) - huge difference. This indicates that the main energy-release component of the LENR or other supra-chemical reaction is *spin* or angular momentum, and not spherical expansion. Unfortunately, I could not find a large jpg image of the Mizuno cover SEM on Google, but Amazon has a small image. BTW - on a curious but related note: Dufour is now claiming that the impetus or driving force for LENR is micro-gravity. That is, at sub-angstrom dimensions, the force of gravity is massively increased. The result is similar of perhaps the same as Frank Grimer's beta-aether. http://www.gravitation.org/APPLICATION_FOR_GODE_PRIZE-J.DUFOUR.pdf Jones
[Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed fusion hypothesis)
Mmmm... more like a tennis ball in a tight lattice of basketballs pressed against each other, with the elastic constrictions of the lattice (the passages between the interstitial sites and ultimately towards the surface) smaller than the ball. The ball, pushed from behind by other balls, squirts out. Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed fusion hypothesis) Is a balloon expelling gas a suitable analogue? Harry On 30/9/2007 3:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > Yes, much better, thank you. Elastic constriction expulsion. All that is > needed now is to translate this to eV :-) > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer catalyzed > fusion hypothesis) > > > If, as you say below, the deuteron is 'expelled' then wouldn't it be more > consistent to say 'expulsion' instead of 'propulsion'? > > Harry > > > On 30/9/2007 1:16 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> I guess you mean venturi in relation with the flow restriction. >> >> Following Harry's remark in the spin thread, how about "elastic constriction >> propulsion"? >> >> Seriously, anyone got an idea of how much energy this can put into the >> expelled deuteron or how it could be calculated? >> >> Michel >> >> P.S. Tsss, "Could it get us to Uranus", can't get over this one Terry :-) >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: #CF hypothesis (was Re: surface electron layer >> catalyzed >> fusion hypothesis) >> >> >> Ha! "sphincter propulsion" Luv it... >> >> ... don't think anyone has evoked that exact wording before, but lest >> the skeptics out there latch-onto to something derogatory like >> "toilet-fizzix", can we just call it "venturi propulsion" or something a >> little less organic? >> >> Jones >> >> Michel Jullian wrote: >>> (#CF = DIESECF Desorbing-Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed Fusion, >>> # >>> being "dièse" in French) >>> >>> As I suggested to someone in a private message a few weeks ago, I think the >>> desorbing deuteron must have more energy than that due to its free fall in >>> the electron layer's electric field, in the form of a "sphincter >>> contraction" >>> like expulsion energy (sorry for the gruesome image). This would be due to >>> the elastic nature of the Pd crystal which could be expected to re-contract >>> locally with the participation of a large number of surface Pd atoms after >>> the deuteron's passage. This kinetic energy could be a welcome complement to >>> the electron layer's screening effect. >>> >>> This complementary effect could explain why CF occurs with Pd and D, with Ni >>> (tighter lattice) and H (protium), but not (or less) e.g. with Pd and H, >>> because the smaller protium would flow "too easily" (with less sphincter >>> propulsion) out of the relatively roomy Pd lattice. >>> >>> Hope this makes some sense. Do let me know anyone if this sphincter aspect >>> of >>> hydrogen nuclei expulsion has been evoked before and/or quantified. >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> P.S. Of course the whole hypothesis, which I have presented in essentially >>> classical terms (my apologies to "real" theoreticians for that), will have >>> to >>> be translated to quantum physics language and quantified before it can be >>> considered a proper theory. This will be done IF --big if-- it is confirmed >>> experimentally, there being obviously little point in theorizing further if >>> it is proved wrong. >
[VO]:Mainstream getting on LENR bandwagon
BlankHowdy Vorts, If appearance is everything then we are beginning to witness a renewed interest in LENR both at the university and government levels ( some consider them the same). What do you sense is the single most important reason for this renewed interest? Was it the SPAWARS reports ? Richard <>
