Re: [Vo]:JL-naudin replicates current Steorn Orbo (Dec) demo
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Esa Ruoho wrote: a friend helped translate this, off we go Excellent, many thanks for the xlation Recall that the magnetic field on the outside of a toroidal coil is null and simulates that of a coil of infinite length.* Wrong. wrongwrongwrong. The bfield outside an AIR CORE toroid is null. If you use a ferrous core, then that rule no longer holds. However, if you use very low hysterisis material (not steel,) and keep the core well below saturation, then the core might approach the behavior of an air-core toroid. But it's not guaranteed. There is no direct interaction between the magnetic field of the torus with the magnetic field of the rotor's magnets. Of course there is. The torus is attracting the magnets. That's a very strong interaction. If they could keep the core far away from saturation, then the core might self-shield, so the coil would not couple to the moving magnets. But that doesn't appear to be what they're doing. The magnetic field of the toroidal coil serves only to temporarily depolarize the magnetization of the ferrite core.* All in all, this sounds like yet another FE machine which supposedly works IN THEORY, and so everyone gets excited. To find the error, build a working closed-loop version (by working I mean closed-loop self-acting, no batteries added to confuse the issue.) When they replace the lithium battery with a relatively small supercapacitor, THAT's the time to get excited. Or not ...since first we'd have to trust that the whole thing isn't just a simple hoax. *Continuing: we have a non-reciprocating and asymmetric system. There is no counter electromotive force (Back-EMF) on the toroidal coils of the stator produced by the rotation of the rotor. If the magnets bring the core anywhere near saturation, then there will be a strong mechanical interaction between cores and moving magnets. Possibly the changing fields will average to a zero induced voltage in the toroid coil, but that doesn't remove the need for the battery to do magnetic work on the core by cycling its operating point along the BH curve. Add a big mechanical load to the rotor, then measure the average power supply wattage (or just power it with a supercapacitor to make things easy.) The Newman Fallacy: a big spinning rotor to impress everyone, and a chemical battery having unknown lifetime in that particular application. SO SIMPLE to add a water pump or whatever known load, and use a supercap. The current necessary for the temporary depolarization of the magnetic domains of the ferrite is independent of the mechanical coupling produced on the shaft of the motor. Ah, that might be the source of the mistake. If normally the core is being slightly heated by hysterisis (by moving it's operating point around the BH curve,) and if the moving magnets end up reducing this heating yet also simultaneously being mechanically driven forward ...it would look like a relative violation of energy conservation. In reality some of the usual energy lost as core heat is getting diverted to run the motor. But this illusion would be broken if anyone bothered to try designing a closed-loop system. The battery would gradually run down. (To fool yourself just use a lithium cell which takes months to run down. Or to cut through your self-delusion, use a supercapacitor and watch the voltage slowly drop.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty chem washington edu Research Engineer billbamascicom UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Re: [Vo]:JL-naudin replicates current Steorn Orbo (Dec) demo
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Terry, Look at test 3 at the bottom of this page http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/index.htm No induction and no back emf if the motor is turned by hand faulty metering or is it truly new physics? Perhaps this was their initial discovery? If so, it explains a lot. Suppose some odd but conventional physics makes it look like a FE device for some measurements.Rather than trying to debunk their own ideas, some people might go forward with taking investors, even though everything was based on a weird artifact. Rather than focusing on some perhaps-unexpected measurement, just close the loop. Ditch the battery. Make a perpetual wheel. Close the loop. If it's real, then closing the loop should be easy. If it's an artifact which misleads FE-enthusiasts, then closing the loop will be impossible. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
RE: [Vo]:JL-naudin replicates current Steorn Orbo (Dec) demo
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: The current necessary for the temporary depolarization of the magnetic domains of the ferrite is independent of the mechanical coupling produced on the shaft of the motor. I wonder how much energy is consumed manifesting the temporary depolarization cycle. Bingo.What if that consumption is significant even when the rotor is not present? How circular is the BH curve for that material? I could imagine a situation where the core's nonlinearity is just right to create a weird artifact: the VI drive waveform remains about the same whether the moving magnets are present or not, and the magnets get driven forward, and if magnets are being moved, then the core doesn't suffer as much heat loss as it normally would. Remove the rotor, and drive VI curves don't change. But with the rotor gone, the wattage goes into core heating rather than doing work upon magnets. If true, then the rotor would APPEAR to extract zero energy from the drive circuit. The result might be to drive some FE enthusiasts crazy with dollar signs dancing before their eyes. Remember the Butterfly circuit on Keelynet, back around 1992? It demonstrated a vaguely similar phenomenon (adding a load did not result in increased drive wattage.) It was based on transistor switching and decaying RF standing waves trapped in long coax. But drive and load were completely decoupled, so if the load was removed, the drive wattage stayed the same, even though it all went into wire heating. Not FE, just a weird artifact. To cut through the illusion, just try to close the loop. The excess energy APPEARS enormous, so if it's impossible to close the loop, then something is bad wrong with your theory. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
It is very difficult to understand this experiment. There is so much left unsaid. As I understand it, the first phase loading with zero change in pressure and the second phase loading is marked when pressure begins to increase presuming that all DH flow is being absorbed in the first phase. I also assume they determined the loading ratios by the flow rates instead of weighing the loaded samples. Are we to assume that multiple runs were with new Pd? In other words, the six PZ runs used six PZ samples. Or were they progressive runs with two samples. sigh I guess you had to be there. Terry
[Vo]:U.S. wind power increases 7 GW nameplate in 2009
See: http://www.awea.org/blog/http://www.awea.org/blog/ The wind industry had a good year in 2009, adding at least 7,000 MW of capacity, despite the poor economy. It followed a spectacular 2008 (8,500 MW) and terrific 2007(5,200 MW). . . . Assuming 30% capacity factor that's 2.1 GW actual. Converting capacity factors and so on that comes to about 2.4 nukes. That's very substantial. The U.S. has ~100 nukes, most built between 1965 and 1975. The IAEA says there are 53 nukes under construction worldwide, with 47 GB capacity. Mainly in China. http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/ This source says nuke capacity factors worldwide are 83%. That's a lot lower than the U.S., which was around 90% to 95% last I checked. It varies a lot because some plants go 100% off line for months or years when they discover a big problem, or in response to the earthquake in Japan. That never happens with wind farms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Essentially that is what happens in a piston or Stirling engine, no? With the size of those error bars, it's difficult to say what is going on in some instances. But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura paper uploaded
I'm not sure I understand the conclusions of this paper. It appears that they found a very large heat of absorption of *either* H or D into Pd and Pd-Zr powders, but that by itself, while interesting, doesn't seem to lead anywhere, as you presumably have to give that heat back in order to get the H or D back out of the lattice. Right? Isn't that exactly analogous to the heat gain when dissolving certain salts? It's borrowed, not bought. Or did I misunderstand that? On the other hand, the last line of the conclusion seems like the payoff: The sample charged with D2 also showed significantly positive output energy in the second phase after the deuteride formation. That's in a discussion of the Pd-Zr results, and it presumably relates to the last two lines of table 1, in which we see that average output energy of the second phase of the experiments with PZ as being: (D) 4.8 +/- 3.0 kJ (H) -1.1 +/- 3.6 kJ That seems to imply that, if we assume the energy output is actually positive or zero, then for H they saw something between 0 and 2.6 kJ, and for D they saw something between 1.8 and 7.8 kJ. So, if there really was no difference between D and H (which is apparently not ruled out by the results), then the output must have been between 1.8 and 2.6 kJ. That's a bit less than half the energy produced in the first phase. On 12/19/2009 05:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: Kitamura, A., et al., /Anomalous effects in charging of Pd powders with high density hydrogen isotopes./ Phys. Lett. A, 2009. *273*(35): p. 3109-3112. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf Prof. Kitamura went to a lot of trouble to get permission from the publisher to allow a manuscript version of the paper at LENR-CANR.org. So let's give it up for the professor and everyone should read this paper. It's important. This plus Kidwell and Arata's own recent experiments make what I consider and iron-clad case that the Arata effect is real. This could well be the most important breakthrough since 1989 because it can be controlled and scaled up, so it may lead to practical devices. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:U.S. wind power increases 7 GW nameplate in 2009
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This source says nuke capacity factors worldwide are 83%. That's a lot lower than the U.S., which was around 90% to 95% last I checked. Most US plants are answerable to investors who can be a lot more vicious than the government. Terry
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? It is obviously non-nuclear in phase one. And since it is so rapidly energetic, why wait for phase two? Doh ! Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Since it cannot be reconciled with A-Z or with other findings, it is either an error ... or else it is the discovery of the decade (if it is not related to fractional hydrogen, since that would be an arguable explanation, were it not for the reversibility). Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Speaking of logical skepticism, the Dufour hypothesis would be the one to jump on. Or not. Others here on Vo - have mentioned or debated the fact that the gravity force must grow exponentially at close dimensions - IF - grand unification is accurate. I think it is accurate. Dufour puts some numbers to that hypothesis. He may be onto something. But here is an irony. We have often asked the rhetorical question: if the Casimir'force' is essentially negative, then how can it produce a net energy gain? And now, with pico-gravity in the picture, we seems to have a tantalizing clue, in a reversed solution, so to speak. That being that the Casimir itself is NOT the active force of interest, but instead the Casimir is the energy sink for picogravity. Get it? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
I hope the Kitamura et al. run powders and some of each of the original materials are retained. The samples, especially the PZ samples, should be analyzed by someone (preferably multiple organizations) in a mass spectrometer for heavy transmutations. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On 12/28/2009 11:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Essentially that is what happens in a piston or Stirling engine, no? With the size of those error bars, it's difficult to say what is going on in some instances. But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Speaking of error bars, I see what may be a nit and I have a question about it... In table 1, they give the average loading of D into PdZr as 1.1 +/- 0.0. That appears to mean 1.1 D per Pd with a zero sized error bar -- the result is exact. Is that a correct reading? I find that puzzling because the process they describe for measuring loading doesn't seem likely to lead to an exact value. They say (p. 4, first paragraph): After the gas is introduced, pressure does not begin to rise for a while. During this phase (the first phase) the Pd powder absorbs almost all of the D2 (H2) gas atoms as they flow in, and heat is released as a result of adsorption and formation of deuterides (hydrides). After about 30 minutes, the powder almost stops absorbing gas; the gas pressure begins to rise, and the heat release from deuteride (hydride) formation subsides. This is the beginning of the 2nd phase, and the gas flow rate in the 1st phase is evaluated from the rate of the pressure increase. From the flow rate multiplied by the duration of the 1st phase, loading is estimated ... This description was for loading determination during the runs using Pd powder; they don't repeat the description for the other runs but one would tend to assume it would be about the same. So what we seem to have is this: They time phase during which pressure doesn't rise, then they measure the rate of pressure rise once the Pd gas absorption slows down, and they use that measured pressure rise, along with the duration of the constant-pressure phase, to *estimate* the amount of gas injected into the container. Using that, plus the weight of the Pd, they arrive at an estimated value for the loading. Is that how other folks understood this? How can this approach lead to a zero sized error bar? Surely there is a good bit of wiggle room in a number of the steps in forming the estimate, or so it appears to me. Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Terry
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? It is obviously non-nuclear in phase one. And since it is so rapidly energetic, as a practical matter, why wait for phase two? Doh ! Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Since it cannot be reconciled with A-Z or with other findings, it is either an error ... or else it is the discovery of the decade (if it is not related to fractional hydrogen, since that would be an arguable explanation, were it not for the reversibility). Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Speaking of logical skepticism, the Dufour hypothesis would be the one to jump on. Or not. Others here on Vo - have mentioned or debated the fact that the gravity force must grow exponentially at close dimensions - IF - grand unification is accurate. I think it is accurate. Dufour puts some numbers to that hypothesis. He may be onto something. But here is an irony. We have often asked the rhetorical question: if the Casimir 'force' is essentially negative, then how can it produce a net energy gain? And now, with pico-gravity in the picture, we seems to have a tantalizing clue, in a reversed solution, so to speak. That being that the Casimir itself is NOT the active force of interest, but instead the Casimir is the energy sink for picogravity. Get it? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Is that how other folks understood this? Roger that. I think maybe for all the non-zero error bars, they were out of the room and had to estimate when the pressure started rising. ;-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That being that the Casimir itself is NOT the active force of interest, but instead the Casimir is the energy sink for picogravity. Get it? Yeah, like, There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks. Terry
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence So what we seem to have is this: They time phase during which pressure doesn't rise, then they measure the rate of pressure rise once the Pd gas absorption slows down, and they use that measured pressure rise, along with the duration of the constant-pressure phase, to *estimate* the amount of gas injected into the container. Using that, plus the weight of the Pd, they arrive at an estimated value for the loading. Is that how other folks understood this? Yes and no. It is in seeming conflict with the charts at the end. BTW - and this is jumping ahead, since the results are in doubt and need to be carefully replicated ... but ... If there were some kind of useable loading gain that could be exploited; then apparently it would need to be engineered in a way that the cycling of active material is in a narrow range ... one which goes from almost completely loaded to fully loaded - and this happened at a rapid rate. Let's say you could go from a H/Pd ratio of 1.1 down to 1.05 and back, ad infinitum - and furthermore that there would be continuous excess heat in that small gap - due to some force like Casimir or picogravity. In general, we would still label this as ZPE pumping since we can probably define the zero point field in such a way that all of these putative forces and sources are covered. And a major point of the recent A-Z results is that there is that order of magnitude gain (10x) in moving from the Pd-zirconia material to the Nickel alloy. Catch-22 Arata does not show the gain with hydrogen like Kitamura does. Jones
[Vo]:Steorn/Sean McCarthy comment on JLN Labs replication
(from overunity.com - from peswiki) The following is from Peswiki about the JLN replication: Feedback from Steorn On December 28, 2009 1:39 AM Mountain, Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn wrote: Thanks for that - however I must urge some caution here, what Jean-Louis will find is that all of his electrical input is being output as heat and that the work done by the rotor is free. However this does not mean that simply putting in a generator will enable him to close the loop. The reason is that the design of the 'active' coils is very important so that the input uses minimum current to cause the effect in question - the production of heat is a current^2 relationship. Unless this fact is considered in the design of the input, then while the system may be more than 100% efficient, the work done by the rotor will be less than the energy input into the system, and so a closed loop system will not be possible. Our next sequence of experiments will address these issues. We are quite happy to discuss this in more detail with Jean if he has further interest in replication (two of our engineers are French, so they should be able to communicate well).
[Vo]:Dark-Energy Einstein-Rosen/Cern-NDR path ID.prjct-
* The latest Project's update * * *The Cern/International NDR-Pathway-Identification project plots 'naturally occuring' Einstein-Rosen transtemporal/transdimensional pathways though Dark-Energy Trans-Space* This is the Holy Grail of contemporary String/Membrane theorists. The NDR-ID. project is the cutting edge medium for the diverse theories to find their legitimate expression in by consolidating their efforts in this hard technology application. From Cern-Hadron, with global collaboration is emerging the 'International NDR-pathway Identification Project. 'NDR' is acronymistic for Navigation of Dimesional-Rift Einstein-Rosen pathways that the 'String/Membrane' theory indicates are common and naturally occurring throughout the multi-spectrum levels of DarkEnergy Trans-Space. The NDR accessing technology is centering upon the super-conductive capacity of Hyper-Cold-Superconductors to access the Navigatable DR-Einstein-Rosen pathways through transdimensional-transtemporal DarkEnergy Trans-Space. The Trans-Spacial DarkEnergy Super-Membrane cross permeates and acts as the very 'All-Conjoining Super-Carrier-Wave' through all possible spectrum-variations and Energy Plateau Whole-Dimensions ubiquitously. And thus Trans-Space naturally occuring Einstein-Rosen pathways will allow us to chart access vectors through where-ever/when-ever DarkEnergy Trans-Space accesses with is 'Virtually-Limitless.' Thusly we can hard-copy/chart the 'real' vector-pathways which will thereby give us a clearer picture as to the String-Membrane DarkEnergy Aexo-Trans-Space structure(s). This burgeoning new approach to Einstein-Rosen opens the doors to connecting trans-resonant adjacent Universii so that we may ascertain whether there is truly extant said 'parallel universes' /or 'adjacent-bubble universii.' The theory that we are neighbors to various quasi-parallel multi-variational universes that actually directly mirror to some degree our own will is the grand quest for us to prove or disprove. It makes great Sci-Fi movies but we will be able to find out if it is indeed a fact; at least more-or-less. Intitial Einstein-Rosen NDR pathway forays have been focused on Trans-Space access to our own immediate planetary transtemporal venue(our own history). The early indicators are that the energy-fabric of historic occurrance is indeed of such a 'super-tenacious weave/energy-harmonic-matrix' that historic events are all but impossible to effect in any significant way. The analogy is that you may throw even a large stone into a large river; but the ripples of that stone within a strongly-established 'current-flow-pathway' change virtually 'nothing' relative to the ultimate course of the river itself. Historic-temporal-event-flow is just such a river that are ultimately governed by the 'super-currents' of DarkEnergy Aexo-Trans-Space that likely act as a the Ultimate-Carrier-Wave that ties all Spectrums Dimensions Universii together as on contiguous 'Whole-Cloth' Super-Membrane. And thusly the various 'String' within the 'Whole-Cloth' act like the 'connective-tissue' such as the contiguous membrane that connects the internal-organelle(s)-bio-symbiotic system with a cell; or also like unto the contiguous connective-support tissue with the body of any organic creature. When we open the NDR-Einstein-Rosen data-port-pathway-tunnel we are making a true high-energy connection to another position at specific space-time vector-coordinates(initially to our 'past'). We are utilizing Trans-Space accessing super-conductive Hyper-Cold technology which is forming the NDR-ER-path as a High-Density focused Electro-Gravitational tunnel. At the other end this has a tendency to have a profound 'real' energetic effect which can be dangerous to molecular integrity in the target connection zone. Allegorically, this is akin being in the pathway of such as high-density micro-waves, for instance, and can also be physically disruptive therefore dangerous, /or be marginally deliterious. The ideal is to 'fine-tune' the technology so that this effect is minimalized to the 'recoverable' level from the experience. Again; this would be like making such adjustments which would tend to minimalize the deliterious effects of 'weightlessness' on our space-exploration craft etc. The NDR-ER-pathway project is actually joining the esoteric-science of 'EM-Field of Living-Consciousness Psi-Projection' to establish the Data-Port-Connection to the other end of the energetic Electro-Mag-Grav-NDR-ER-bridge once established. The initial-field connection actually establishes living individuals initially as the 'bridging/navigational mechanism. Remote-viewing research has established the their very bio-organic physical-energy-psyche energy matrix maintains a residual transtemporal energy connection to the 'past' which can be
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On 12/28/2009 02:11 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence So what we seem to have is this: They time phase during which pressure doesn't rise, then they measure the rate of pressure rise once the Pd gas absorption slows down, and they use that measured pressure rise, along with the duration of the constant-pressure phase, to *estimate* the amount of gas injected into the container. Using that, plus the weight of the Pd, they arrive at an estimated value for the loading. Is that how other folks understood this? Yes and no. It is in seeming conflict with the charts at the end. BTW - and this is jumping ahead, since the results are in doubt and need to be carefully replicated ... but ... If there were some kind of useable loading gain that could be exploited; then apparently it would need to be engineered in a way that the cycling of active material is in a narrow range ... one which goes from almost completely loaded to fully loaded - and this happened at a rapid rate. Let's say you could go from a H/Pd ratio of 1.1 down to 1.05 and back, ad infinitum - and furthermore that there would be continuous excess heat in that small gap - due to some force like Casimir or picogravity. But why do you think there would be less energy needed to unload the Pd than it released during loading? Nothing in these results suggests that. Certainly if picogravity is at the bottom of it, you're dealing with a conservative force, and what comes out must go back in if you're return to your starting conditions. Casimir is going to behave conservatively too in situations where all you're doing is letting things smash together and then yanking them apart again.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn/Sean McCarthy comment on JLN Labs replication
On 12/28/2009 02:25 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote: (from overunity.com http://overunity.com - from peswiki) The following is from Peswiki about the JLN replication: Feedback from Steorn On December 28, 2009 1:39 AM Mountain, Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn wrote: Thanks for that - however I must urge some caution here, what Jean-Louis will find is that all of his electrical input is being output as heat and that the work done by the rotor is free. However this does not mean that simply putting in a generator will enable him to close the loop. The reason is that the design of the 'active' coils is very important so that the input uses minimum current to cause the effect in question - the production of heat is a current^2 relationship. Unless this fact is considered in the design of the input, then while the system may be more than 100% efficient, the work done by the rotor will be less than the energy input into the system, and so a closed loop system will not be possible. IOW if you're putting in 100 watts of energy, getting out 100 watts of heat, and doing 10 watts of mechanical work, you are at 110% of unity but you sure can't close the loop. The trouble is, Sean has claimed that the system is actually at 300% of unity, which implies that for 100 watts in, he's getting out 100 watts of heat *and* 200 watts of mechanical energy (i.e., twice as much mechanical energy out as total energy in). The above statement doesn't seem to jibe with this. In fact this sounds a lot like their claims that a very very low friction bearing is needed in order to show the effect, which also doesn't fit with the claim that they're getting out 300% of what they're putting in. Does anyone have any idea where their 3x unity claim came from? (I mean, it comes from Sean on video, of course; the question is, rather, where that number was before Sean said it.) From where I'm sitting it looks like Sean just pulled it out of the air, since there are no measurements to back it up and some of his other statements seem to contradict it. Our next sequence of experiments will address these issues. We are quite happy to discuss this in more detail with Jean if he has further interest in replication (two of our engineers are French, so they should be able to communicate well).
[Vo]:OT: Change Metal Surface to Reflct any Color (Not plating or Paint)
Not energy related but very cool physics. http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3106
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence But why do you think there would be less energy needed to unload the Pd than it released during loading? Nothing in these results suggests that. First off - the level of heat released itself is anomalous. 2 eV is clearly much higher than expected. That fact (if accurate) gives hope that the underlying process for providing it, is asymmetrical. Actually, I see a glimmer of that non-conservative suggestion in the other data as well, but obviously it is only an interpretation. Look again at Table I with an appreciation that the unloading itself could provide excess energy via gas expansion, instead of requiring it. The negative energy data - going from phase 1 to phase 2 with hydrogen, are clearly ambiguous in the details. But the fact it exists at all could be an implication that manipulation of pressure (and heat via Boyles' Law) is providing a reversible trigger for the anomalous gain, as Arata suggests. Going beyond that: to a reversible and asymmetrical trigger, is a stretch for you, but to me it is not ruled out. Certainly if picogravity is at the bottom of it, you're dealing with a conservative force, and what comes out must go back in if you're return to your starting conditions. That would depend on such details as to whether the Casimir negative energy gap could provide a proper 'sink' or energy dump, and whether in the process, a range of distance near the critical Casimir dimensions (around 2 nm) could be cycled by the sink, so that we get the fabled ZPE pump with energy from another dimension being harnessed. Check out the Dufour paper. I am not saying it is right. In fact it is new to me. It might have merit, especially if all of the natural forces are indeed becoming unified at a smaller geometry. We are starting to see this in many nano phenomena and we are knocking on the door of pico. Basically, it goes back to this - if the heat from loading is indeed anomalous - that fact alone may indicate an asymmetry, since excess heat in and of itself implies new physics. New physics will not necessarily conform to old laws in the way you are assuming. Yes, this would be grasping at straws without Kitamura's published results. Let's hope they can be confirmed by others. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Steorn/Sean McCarthy comment on JLN Labs replication
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: From where I'm sitting it looks like Sean just pulled it out of the air, since there are no measurements to back it up and some of his other statements seem to contradict it. IMO, a darker, smellier place. Terry
[Vo]:Little help with UFO sighting?
Saw an orange fire colored UFO last night just after nightfall. The path was that of an object flying in a curved path at high altitude (a u-turn, basically), definitely not a satellite, and a bit brighter than a good space station sighting. Even through 8x binoculars it appeared as a point source. The time of day, the sighting angle, and the variable characteristics of the light over the two minutes or so the object was visible suggests it was reflected light from the setting sun on the lower surface of a solid object, but given that the sky was almost completely dark at my location at that point, my guess is that its altitude could have been above the atmosphere. I've seen conventional aircraft reflecting sunset's light after local sunset, and though the appearance was similar, in those cases it was much closer to sunset and sky was still quite light. Once it gets dark, I think such reflections tend to be in satellite territory. Anyway, since I can find the sight angle because of its passage near identifiable stars, the time, and my location on that date, it should be possible to calculate the earth's shadow line from the setting sun and see where my sight line crosses it. That would tell me if it was just an airplane at very high altitude, or something maneuvering up a bit higher than conventional aircraft can reach. Anybody have an idea how I would go about that (umbra?) line? Thanks, - Rick
RE: [Vo]:OT: Change Metal Surface to Reflct any Color (Not plating or Paint)
From: Ron Wormus Not energy related but very cool physics. http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3106 Kewel! Thanks Ron, It would not surprise me in the slightest if a variation of this developing form of laser nanotechnology ends up being exploited in a manner that enhances some form of cold fusion process. Stated more turgidly: It remains my suspicion that future research into the construction of nano-topology surfaces of various metals may eventually end up playing a crucial role in the commercial development of viable energy extraction techniques. Serendipity! I use the term cold fusion loosely here. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:17:23 -0800 Stephen A. Lawrence very correctly said [snip] But why do you think there would be less energy needed to unload the Pd than it released during loading? Nothing in these results suggests that. Certainly if picogravity is at the bottom of it, you're dealing with a conservative force, and what comes out must go back in if you're return to your starting conditions. Casimir is going to behave conservatively too in situations where all you're doing is letting things smash together and then yanking them apart again. [end snip] Yes! The force is conservative unless you perform a chemical reaction while the atoms are in the depleted zone. Without taking sides about whether the orbitals are fractional , pancaked, relativistic or whatever I think we will all agree they are in some way different than atoms outside of a Casimir cavity. If these orbitals form into a compound or molecule their orbitals become locked into a specific mode or orientation that is NOT appropriate for the isotropic field outside the cavity. As the bonded atoms diffuse away from the specific depletion level where they bonded the gradient of the depletion field changes in opposition to the molecular bond - I suspect that the bond is broken by this opposition and that a hydrino will never be seen outside of the cavity but it may be strong enough to maintain a weak hydrino or FH outside the cavity. See animation http://www.byzipp.com/finished1.swf the atoms once decelerated by the cavity can oscillate between monatomic and diatomic until they escape the depletion field - the normally chaotic vacuum fluctuations are able to donate energy in a non chaotic manner thanks to the energy sink of the cavity. The favored molecular bond becomes our rectifier when formed by altered atoms that find themselves no longer able to unaltered because the bond is holding them in the altered state despite the restoration of the ZPF when the molecule diffuse away from the particular gradient of depletion (1/(2-137) at which it formed.
Re: [Vo]:Little help with UFO sighting?
On 12/28/2009 06:09 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Saw an orange fire colored UFO last night just after nightfall. The path was that of an object flying in a curved path at high altitude (a u-turn, basically), definitely not a satellite, and a bit brighter than a good space station sighting. Even through 8x binoculars it appeared as a point source. The time of day, the sighting angle, and the variable characteristics of the light over the two minutes or so the object was visible suggests it was reflected light from the setting sun on the lower surface of a solid object, but given that the sky was almost completely dark at my location at that point, my guess is that its altitude could have been above the atmosphere. I’ve seen conventional aircraft reflecting sunset’s light after local sunset, and though the appearance was similar, in those cases it was much closer to sunset and sky was still quite light. Once it gets dark, I think such reflections tend to be in satellite territory. Anyway, since I can find the sight angle because of its passage near identifiable stars, the time, and my location on that date, it should be possible to calculate the earth’s shadow line from the setting sun and see where my sight line crosses it. That would tell me if it was just an airplane at very high altitude, or something maneuvering up a bit higher than conventional aircraft can reach. Anybody have an idea how I would go about that (umbra?) line? Finding the exact time of sunset at your location should be possible by using Google or an astronomy program, such as Starry Night (or you may already know it). What you need, of course, is the elapsed time from sunset to the time of the sighting; I assume you know the time of the sighting so knowing sunset time gives you this. Call that elapsed time Ts. Now at this point it starts to get messy. To start, you need the distance from the sunset line in radians, which we'll call Ds (for Distance from Sunset). On a world without seasons, or at the equinox, you could find that distance just by taking Ds = 2 pi Ts/24 (assuming Ts is in hours) Now this is *NOT* the great circle angular distance from the terminator; rather, it's the angle along a parallel (a latitude line). Note, however, that the parallels intersect the terminator at a right angle (at the equinox). Unfortunately we're not at the equinox, we're at the solstice, and you need to throw in a correction. I *think* the correction term for any date near 21 December is going to be very close to cos(23.5 degrees), and we'll actually have Ds = cos(23.5 deg) * 2 pi Ts/24 This is probably not exact but it should be pretty close. With that in hand, you can find the surface distance from the shadow line by taking the radius of the latitude circle at your location and multiplying by Ds. If Re is the radius of the Earth, then the radius of the latitude circle at your location should be something like Rl = Re * cos(Latitude) and so the surface distance from the shadow line, which we'll call Df (for Flat Distance), should have been Df = Re * cos(Latitude) * cos(23.5 deg) * 2 pi Ts/24 That should be pretty close unless you're very far north. Now what we want isn't actually the flat distance, nor is it the angular distance along a parallel; it's the great circle angular distance, and that should be Dc = Df/Re Finally, what you want is the altitude of a sunbeam at your location. If the Sun's light traveled in a straight line, then that would be Altitude = (Re / cos(Dc)) - Re = Re * (1/cos(Dc) - 1) Last, there is one more correction which I haven't any idea how to make, which is for the fact that sunlight bends traveling through the air. It bends down as it hits the atmosphere, and it bends down again as it streams up from its point of contact at the terminator. The former affects the time of sunset, and the latter results in the sunlight going over at a /lower/ altitude than you might expect just after the sun has set. What I wrote *may* give you enough to go on to get some approximate numbers out, if you plug in the appropriate times and locations for the sighting. But you'd want to check them, or get someone who knows what they're talking about to look over what I said and see if it really makes sense. Thanks, - Rick
