Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested at all in Rossi's technology. Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly in the most valuable electric energy. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going forward. [/snip] Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH22FH1 as I suggest occurs in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? Regards Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and Fleischman D-Pt reaction. Even though Larsen Windom theory is invalid, their attempt to describe cold fusion using a single causative
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? Hydrino energy is hyperchemistry see e.g. my paper http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html Different levels. The first principle of the world is infinite interestingness see my blog Ego Out, you cannot dictate to Nature what to do and how. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested at all in Rossi's technology. Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly in the most valuable electric energy. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going forward. [/snip] Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH22FH1 as I suggest occurs in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? Regards Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. In the same
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
There are claims (from multiple unrelated sources) of matter which 'stops existing' and yet the energy from that is not what you might assume. (not explosive in the least) Not to say that a matter antimatter reaction would not be as powerful as imagined, but I don't think that conventional science has the big picture. So to assume that the experience of one condition involving nuclear reactions will be the same as different conditions might be wholly incorrect, for instance there is evidence that life can cause transmutation of matter. And yet this is not under the same set of conditions as that in an Nuclear Reactor/Weapon and the chicken fed Potassium is not radioactive and does not explode when it makes Calcium. 'Scientists' know the 'normal rules' of the game, but what about when the rules of the game are changed, suppose for example that it were possible to the energy of the vacuum in some way, would things still act as expected? Consider that light can be made to slow down and stop if some exotic experiments are to be believed, even the weirdness found and admitted by conventional Physicists shows that under unusual conditions we don't know much. So what if it is causing Transmutation and yet getting it's energy from somewhere else, Chickens do (If you believe Kervran). Now I'm not saying I believe this is the case, really I view that this device is largely mostly. But you might want to avoid too quickly applying conventional assumptions to devices that don't make conventional sense. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: My definition of a nuclear reaction states that if transmutation is found then it must be nuclear. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:28 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: What if it works and the energy source isn't Nuclear? Or possibly that it in Nuclear but it is an entirely different to what we know? IMO that it is anomalous and makes no sense makes it more likely to be real. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The multi-H reaction could be producing vast amounts of nickel because of its magic number. But no one can really tell how much nickel participates in the reaction including Rossi. Regards. Axil On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 13 May 2011 18:49:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] I believe that the Ni-H theory that Rossi advertizes is invalid and I hold that fusion of multi H is occurring. There is no reason why this would result in Copper, but it would make sense for it to result in Nickel, but perhaps not to the exclusion of all else. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A brief discussion on Permanent Magnet Motor configurations
The aether that was debunked a century ago, or a different one? Sent from my iPhone. On May 13, 2011, at 21:53, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: Well, explain how it is to be tested and we'll give it a shot. T My opinion is that the conservation of energy is generally accurate and than magnets and most conditions tend to be conservative. However this is all dependent on the state of the underlying medium of matter and energy, if you change this medium the rules can change and energy can appear to be created or destroyed, whether it is actually created or liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy (ZPE if you will) is only of philosophical concern. The process as I understand it consists of creating a flux source, a motor, buzzer or choke are all fine choices provided they are unshielded and the magnetic circuit is open or leaky. Then you have pickup coils (diodes and bulbs may also do some pickup), these are coupled only most loosely to this primary flux generating circuit, the pickup circuit can't be too directly connected to the flux source if you want to loop it. Isolation can be achieved with an isolation transformer, capacitors but other options have been used. (the pickup circuit is rarely ever grounded) To reach OU power you need to engage the aether, this increases the energy induced into the pickup circuit. There are many ways to engage the aether but it is hard to know what will prove to be sufficient. I would strongly recommend replication of Romero's Muller Generator, firstly because he was almost certainly genuine. (if you want evidence of this there are good arguments to be made including details) This type of setup stands a very good chance of working. The details have been provided and I can provide many suggestions on stimulating the aether (vacuum, ZPE) if it does not initially work. Replications should make use of the multi strand insulated wire (as that is one means to engauge the aether) and be as close as practical to Muller's specifications. Tuning of the distance was something he did a lot of to get it to self run. Alternately a study in the energy induced in a pickup circuit could be undertaken without need to get into attempt to self run or even produce OU, just showing increased energy being induced. Are you interested in replicating this one?
Re: [Vo]:Beene and Blanton: Self-Runnier vs. 1 MW plant : Duel to the Death!
Where was this suspicious pre-demo mentioned? Sent from my iPhone. On May 13, 2011, at 22:48, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No disagreement to speak of - not to mention in a couple of months I might be arguing Terry's position and he might have mine. But the truth will out, and therefore let me state a present concern more succinctly. First, rent the movie Boiler Room if you have not seen it... for the entertainment value alone. Second, there is evidence that an interim pre-demo will take place in 8-10 weeks in Xanthi, Greece - invitation only - which will coincide with a founders stock offering. This will be a fully staged and produced media event featuring a working factory making E-Cats ... and with a quite few of them in apparent operation - but do not touch anything, or ask too many questions, even if you hear extravagant claims. Since it is not the 'official' demo, nor the official IPO, there will be no skeptical criticism, and in the end no more facts will be known than now. The set-up of a good pump and dump is to get a percentage of shares out to well-connected investors and other brokers - who provide constant pumping action 'on the street' since they have priority for more. These touts and pundits will be televised in the media, praising the technology and begging for more stock. Feeding frenzy ensues. Good reason to hire a stockbroker, instead of a technologist or real manager, to head your company. I have heard that it is possible for a startup to obtain authorization to issue 100 billion shares with no prior record of a real product - but that could be only in Calgary or BC :) None of this is a huge problem if you have a rock-solid product to offer with nothing to hide ... hmmm ... kinda like the Ballard fuel cell ? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Ah Finally! Ladies and Gentlemen! Time for this evening's main attraction! I hate to disappoint the audience; but, there will be no fight here. I understand Jones' opinion, respect his opinion and will defend to the death his right to express it. But, opinions are like rectums, we all have them and they all stink. Until the truth outs, it's all speculum. T
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
The plans incase you have not found the other thread: http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/romerouk/selfrunning_free_energy_device_muller_motor_generator_romerouk_version1_1.pdf On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: the designer now says: it was all a fake...someone came to visit...the device has probably been destroyed... http://pesn.com/2011/05/11/9501823_Romeros_Self-Sustaining_Muller_Dynamo_Drama The same old story. Harry *From:* John Berry aethe...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sun, May 8, 2011 8:13:28 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4
Re: [Vo]:A brief discussion on Permanent Magnet Motor configurations
A different one. (Mostly Entrained by the earth) On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote: The aether that was debunked a century ago, or a different one? Sent from my iPhone. On May 13, 2011, at 21:53, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: Well, explain how it is to be tested and we'll give it a shot. T My opinion is that the conservation of energy is generally accurate and than magnets and most conditions tend to be conservative. However this is all dependent on the state of the underlying medium of matter and energy, if you change this medium the rules can change and energy can appear to be created or destroyed, whether it is actually created or liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy (ZPE if you will) is only of philosophical concern. The process as I understand it consists of creating a flux source, a motor, buzzer or choke are all fine choices provided they are unshielded and the magnetic circuit is open or leaky. Then you have pickup coils (diodes and bulbs may also do some pickup), these are coupled only most loosely to this primary flux generating circuit, the pickup circuit can't be too directly connected to the flux source if you want to loop it. Isolation can be achieved with an isolation transformer, capacitors but other options have been used. (the pickup circuit is rarely ever grounded) To reach OU power you need to engage the aether, this increases the energy induced into the pickup circuit. There are many ways to engage the aether but it is hard to know what will prove to be sufficient. I would strongly recommend replication of Romero's Muller Generator, firstly because he was almost certainly genuine. (if you want evidence of this there are good arguments to be made including details) This type of setup stands a very good chance of working. The details have been provided and I can provide many suggestions on stimulating the aether (vacuum, ZPE) if it does not initially work. Replications should make use of the multi strand insulated wire (as that is one means to engauge the aether) and be as close as practical to Muller's specifications. Tuning of the distance was something he did a lot of to get it to self run. Alternately a study in the energy induced in a pickup circuit could be undertaken without need to get into attempt to self run or even produce OU, just showing increased energy being induced. Are you interested in replicating this one?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300: Hi, [snip] Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested at all in Rossi's technology. Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. This is only a rough average attained so far, not the theoretical maximum which is about 10 times burning (255 keV / atom). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 02:02:27 -0400: Hi, [snip] How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should. It wouldn't explain anything not involving Hydrogen. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 10:00:17 +0300: Hi, [snip] Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? Because very small Hydrogen atom can get closer to the nucleus of another atom, thus reducing the separation distance between nuclei and vastly increasing the likelihood of tunneling. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
please source, Robin! Thanks- I was referring to the practical results Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300: Hi, [snip] Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested at all in Rossi's technology. Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. This is only a rough average attained so far, not the theoretical maximum which is about 10 times burning (255 keV / atom). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again practical data not limits of theory peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 10:00:17 +0300: Hi, [snip] Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? Because very small Hydrogen atom can get closer to the nucleus of another atom, thus reducing the separation distance between nuclei and vastly increasing the likelihood of tunneling. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]: A new definition for chemical element?
Peter, I like you paper and even the term orbitalities despite my conviction that these orbitals are locally unchanged and only appear smaller because as Naudts posits the hydrino is relativistic. That doesn't make anything you said wrong just understated, My interpretation for orbitality would be chemical reactions between elements in different inertial frames that exist inside a skeletal catalyst with a tapestry of different Casimir geometries. IMHO atomic gases can reshape to different orbitality freely based on local geometry while ionic and molecular compounds keep the atoms at a specific orbitality in opposition to local geometry which provides opportunity for chemical reaction between gas atoms of different orbitality. I agree with your statement [snip] The elements of the periodic table have reactivities and other properties determined by their orbitality. Surprisingly, it now appears that at least one element-it happens that it is the simplest and most abundant in the universe-has many kinds of orbitalities, one for each fractional quantum state, that function as different elements. [/snip] and think we will find other gases that behave in a similar form [nitrino?]. If Mill's would make available some of these novel hydride compounds for testing we could finally prove the existence of these states of matter but I don't think the gas state alone can preserve for long the orbitality outside of the local Casimir geometry that spawned it. I don't reject the possibility of novel nuclear reactions occurring or probabilities of reactions being increased as a result of this novel chemistry and potential for energy extraction. I believe the further apart the orbitalities in a reaction the more novel these reactions can become. Regards Fran A new definition for chemical element? Any field of science needs high degrees of standardization, appropriate and specific language, order, and clarity. Therefore, definitions of the basics are necessary. However, Nature is extremely complex, and reality has so many facets that unequivocal, comprehensive, scientifically sustainable definitions are rarely possible. On the contrary, there appears to be a Heisenberg-type relationship between the importance and the definability of concepts. Fundamental ones, such as space, time, matter, and energy, cannot be actually defined; and essential human features such as knowledge, intelligence, and creativity, each has several incomplete definitions. In chemistry, acidity, basicity, electronegativity, aromaticity, and so forth are useful but fuzzy concepts. Definitions of terms like these can limit and sometimes even mutilate the integrity of these concepts. The great Polish author of aphorisms, S. J. Lec, has remarked, Definition and finis [death] have the same Latin root ( http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa 1). Richness of a concept is sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Obsolete definitions can hamper creativity and progress in a field of research. A chemical element is currently defined as a type of matter composed of atoms that all have exactly the same positive charge of their nuclei, that is, the same atomic number ( http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa 2). This definition works and is perfectly justified, but it is a physical definition. Chemistry is about reactivity, bonds, structures, and properties, all of which depend on the electrons that surround the nuclei and on specific electronic configurations. Chemical events happen with electrons. Quantum mechanics has just added to the complexity of chemistry but does not change anything. As long it is certain that any atomic number imposes one and only one electron configuration, the physical and chemical definitions are equivalent. Along the same line of thinking, it seems that the periodic table of the elements is definitive, and the short-lived synthetic elements cannot introduce new chemical data. However, even a single exception to the equivalence of the definitions could open new vistas to chemistry. Until recently, this seemed to be simply impossible. Hydrogen atoms with variable orbitalities It is well known that the simplest atom, hydrogen, has a fundamental ground state, and this is believed to be unique and indisputable. An American researcher, Randell Mills, has a different opinion. In 1986, he began to develop a general theory based on fundamental natural laws, and he has questioned quantum mechanics. It is far beyond the scope of this article to present this impressive intellectual construct. It has not yet been accepted by mainstream physicists, but it has been described in papers and supported by many kinds of experiments. Extensive information can be found on the Web site of Mills's company, BlackLight Power Inc. http://www.blacklightpower.com (Cranbury, NJ) ( http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa 3). Mills has predicted and demonstrated
[Vo]:Service Provider difficulties for the Vortex list
The Vortex list was down for a time from May 12 until May 13. The service provider, Eskimo North, has been having difficulties since 2009. While they may get through this, they are clearly overwhelmed and dependence on Eskimo North for anything is risky. I hope that Bill, here, has a backup of the list archive and of all subscribers, kept current, because it's not impossible that it could all disappear without notice. It is easy to set up an echo of the list, say on yahoogroups or googlegroups, if this has not already been done somewhere. The list owner's email address, sent out with the introduction to the list upon subscription, however, is an eskimo address. I hope Bill won't mind me suggesting that he use another email provider for contact. In 2000, as I recall, the outage was for days, and it was difficult to find out what was happening, since the same provider was used for the eskimo phone service. Under current conditions, eskimo is unable to respond to phone messages and service emails, there is a huge backlog, but there is a backup yahoogroups list that can be subscribed to: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EskimoNorthUsers Looks to me like our Bill is subscribed. The son of the owner, operating Eskimo under difficult conditions, in the absence of the owner, which absence may last for months or more, was able to communicate through the yahoogroups list.
Re: [Vo]: A new definition for chemical element?
Dear Fran, the paper has resulted from a bet with Randy- that I will be able to publish a pro-hydrino paper in a journal of the American Chemical Society. By the way this was the last issue of the journal and the paper is an opinion publication. For me it was first of all a diplomatic success. Cold Fusion had a long tortuous way to the industrial level and succeeded in the most surprising, unexpected and paradigm changing way. 2011 is also the year of hydrino energy. If it succeeds this will be a proof of the theory elaborated by Mills himself. Let's wait and see. The CIHT technology first. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:02 PM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Peter, I like you paper and even the term “orbitalities” despite my conviction that these orbitals are locally unchanged and only appear smaller because as Naudts posits the hydrino is relativistic. That doesn’t make anything you said wrong just understated, My interpretation for orbitality would be chemical reactions between elements in different inertial frames that exist inside a skeletal catalyst with a tapestry of different Casimir geometries. IMHO atomic gases can reshape to different “orbitality” freely based on local geometry while ionic and molecular compounds keep the atoms at a specific orbitality in opposition to local geometry which provides opportunity for chemical reaction between gas atoms of different orbitality. I agree with your statement [snip] The elements of the periodic table have reactivities and other properties determined by their orbitality. Surprisingly, it now appears that at least one element—it happens that it is the simplest and most abundant in the universe—has many kinds of orbitalities, one for each fractional quantum state, that function as different elements. [/snip] and think we will find other gases that behave in a similar form [nitrino?]. If Mill’s would make available some of these novel hydride compounds for testing we could finally prove the existence of these states of matter but I don’t think the gas state alone can preserve for long the orbitality outside of the local Casimir geometry that spawned it. I don’t reject the possibility of novel nuclear reactions occurring or probabilities of reactions being increased as a result of this novel chemistry and potential for energy extraction. I believe the further apart the orbitalities in a reaction the more novel these reactions can become. Regards Fran A new definition for “chemical element”? Any field of science needs high degrees of standardization, appropriate and specific language, order, and clarity. Therefore, definitions* *of the basics are necessary. However, Nature is extremely complex, and reality* *has so many facets that unequivocal, comprehensive,* *scientifically sustainable definitions are rarely possible. On the contrary, there appears to be a Heisenberg-type relationship between the importance and the definability of concepts. Fundamental ones, such as space, time, matter, and energy, cannot be actually defined; and essential human features such as knowledge, intelligence, and creativity, each has several incomplete definitions. In chemistry, acidity, basicity, electronegativity, aromaticity, and so forth are useful but “fuzzy” concepts. Definitions of terms like these can limit and sometimes even mutilate the integrity of these concepts. The great Polish author of aphorisms, S. J. Lec, has remarked, “Definition and finis [death] have the same Latin root” (*1*http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa). Richness of a concept is sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Obsolete definitions can hamper* *creativity and progress in a field of research. A chemical element is currently defined as “a type of matter composed of atoms that all have exactly the same positive charge of their nuclei”, that is, the same atomic number (*2*http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html#refa). This definition works and is perfectly justified, but it is a physical definition. Chemistry is about reactivity, bonds, structures, and properties, all of which depend on the electrons* *that* *surround the nuclei and on specific electronic configurations. Chemical events happen with electrons. Quantum mechanics has just added to the complexity of chemistry* *but does not change anything. As long it is certain* *that any atomic number imposes one and only one electron configuration, the physical and chemical definitions are equivalent. Along the same line of thinking, it seems that the periodic table of the elements is definitive, and the short-lived synthetic elements cannot introduce new chemical data. However, even a single* *exception to the equivalence of the definitions could open new vistas to chemistry. Until recently, this seemed to be simply impossible. *Hydrogen atoms with variable “orbitalities”** *It is well known that the
Re: [Vo]:Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant
On 05/14/2011 01:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote: A safer nuclear reactor should be meltdown proof, proliferation safe, passively air cooled, deployed underground with waste (stable in 1000 years) shipped off site for centralized underground storage.Such a reactor is possible to build. Of course. It will be costlier. In fact, the Chinese are developing this type of reactor today as their first homegrown reactor design. The US loves the light water reactor…and therein rests the problem with nuclear power worldwide. Probably because they are relatively simple, easier to build, and cheap. In the particular case of Fukushima, the reactors were designed to stand a maximum 7.5 M earthquake, and a tsunami of 5.7 meters. If all the issues mentioned above are considered, plus resistance to bigger earthquakes and tsunamis, the cost increases considerably. The risks were known. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Warnings_and_design_critique If the cost of conventional nuclear energy increases (and it will) as a consequence of all the security and safety considerations, that's good for renewables and alternative forms of energy, because they will be immediately more competitive. The same with oil. The end of cheap oil means that other forms of energy are immediately more attractive. Regards, Mauro
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Life is full of surprises. Sometimes even good ones. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Peter: Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly in the most valuable electric energy. Do you anticipate that Mills is about to release additional news updates? There hasn't been much out of BLP lately. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Fwd: Re: [KeelyNet_Interact] Free EM energy from the Vacuum
Interesting research! Original Message Here are just a couple of examples where anyone can obtain an abstract, but will be asked for their membership ID or for the full text -- many papers available so if interested enough buy them: 1. The Journal of Physical Chemistry http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/selected%20papers/Journal%20of%20Physical%20Chemistry%20B/110-16827.pdf 2. Nature http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v1/n3/abs/nphys151.html Here is a link to UC Davis where a related paper can be had for free: http://leopard.physics.ucdavis.edu/rts/p298/Schaller.pdf This 2005 paper is also an indication of how long work has been going on in the Klimov Team in the area of the generation of multiple excitons. Here is another free link to one of Klimov's presentations done back in 2006 from the Center for Nonlinear Studies: http://cnls.lanl.gov/External/showtalksummary.php?selection=466 This talk is a good summary of what they were excited about in 2006. Goes into some details with an example of the maxium theoretical possible number of photogenerated excitons from a photon energy of 7.8 energy gaps based on energy conservation being 7, and how their experiments then indicated they were sometimes generating 7. This would meant 90% of the photon energy produced multiple charges and only 10% was lost as heat. The point was made that in bulk materials this same photon energy level only produced 1 exciton -- 90% of the photon energy was lost as heat and only 10% produced a single exciton. Notice the comment that 7 was the maxium possible based on energy conservation -- no claim here of free energy. This period seems to be the time the free energy sites made the jump that since it had always been one photon in and one electron out in bulk material with Klimov's nano-crystals generating 7 electrons all you had to do was use one electron to create another photon, feed the photon back to the input, and use the continuous supply of 6 additional electrons to do useful work. The problem with this is the assumption that this one electron using only 1/7 of the output of the nano-crystal could be used to generate a new photon with the same wavelength -- photon energy varies with wavelength where shorter wave length equals more energy -- as the initial photon. Stated another way any photon generated would not have the photon energy of 7.8 energy gaps that the initial photon coming from an external source required to generated 7 electrons. The ScienceDailey site has a good free article on how the team went back through their process after others reported they were unable to duplicate the full expected results -- additional related articles here as well. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090210125531.htm The net of this 2009 article was on one hand they found they were counting some false positives -- so they actually were not generating 7 excitons as they thought in 2006, but on the other hand they were able to confirm without question that while the newly measured electron yields were lower that carrier multiplication was occurring and specifically the photon energy required to generate an extra electron in a nano-crystal was about half that required for a bulk material. I'll shut-up now after adding other researchers and processes have shown carrier multiplication and we should get excited about all of these efforts because someday they will help lead to super-efficient solar cells, but none of these researchers are claiming or expected to see free energy.
Re: [Vo]:Comet Coincidence?
On 05/13/2011 11:46 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 13 May 2011 21:55:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] I don't believe in them. I have seen this happen more than once in SOHO videos. A coronal mass ejection corresponds with a comet collision: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/13/stunning-video-comet-collides-sun/ T I agree, this is just too coincidental. The explanation is obvious. The corona is saturated with shrunken Hydrinos that can't fuse because they are all H rather than D. Then the comet introduces ordinary matter, and a powerful fusion reaction follows immediately. :) Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies. The electric field of the comet interacts with the electric field of the Sun, and a CME occurs. The electric interaction is also the reason for cometary tails, by the way. The level of denial the academic community is in regard to this, is simply astounding.
RE: [Vo]: Free EM energy from the Vacuum
How can this be described as free energy? Is it anything more than an efficient photocell…? From: MJ Interesting research! Here is a link to UC Davis where a related paper can be had for free: http://leopard.physics.ucdavis.edu/rts/p298/Schaller.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Space has no time dimention
On 04/26/2011 01:02 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:50 PM 4/25/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: FYI: Here's an article for all you theorists... Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html -Mark No problem ... progressing from one state to another is pretty much what Loop Quantum Gravity does. We already have a whole bunch of 'emergent' properties (heat ... and possibly gravity), so having time as 'emergent' isn't SUCH a big deal. It certainly isn't. But the point is that it clarifies a lot of things to see time in this way. Suddenly some magic properties of time, like time dilation, are simply explained as changes in velocity with respect to a preferred frame. Unfortunately it probably does away with one of my 'favorite' cosmologies, where we are twisting in a 4D+ space-time, so that individual dimensions can change from space-like to time-like. Space and time are probably both sides of the same coin: movement. Time can be understood as movement, or better said, rate of movement. Space in turn can be understood as movement: very specific forms of movement produce or develop space in physical terms. They lay out space, so to speak.
[Vo]:Another view on superrotation
Superrotation is shear flow on gas planets and stars and it requires an explanation since there appears to be no force or stress to drive them. Recently I came up with the following idea after having tried two others with limited success. Assume that gas or matter flowing along planets' or stars' rotation around its axis is less affected by viscous drag compared to flow going against the. This is because of differences in centrifugal acceleration between these two cases. Matter being less affected by gravity due to centripetal acceleration pushes less on the underlying matter and will have its viscous shear stress reduced. In a gas or other fluid with thermal motion there will be particles moving in any direction and they will be slowed down differently depending on direction of motion relative the rotational direction. How could this be quantitatively determined? If another more practical and smaller size example helps you to better imagine the physical situation you can think of a gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment. There should be high shear flow in that case as well and not as we are erroneously informed on various places on Internet that there is solid body rotation. Does anyone here think it is correct to lie about physics in order to stop understanding of it and thus prevent proliferation of technologies based on the effect? It is both impressive and disgusting that someone has been capable of keeping this kind of physics undeveloped for over a century. It would have been natural to see this combination of fluid mechanics and thermal physics to appear soon after the appearance of kinetic gas theory. Now with bin Ladin killed maybe physics can flourish a bit further. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Space has no time dimention
I have no problem with lack of a Time dimension but there must still remain at least one additional spatial dimension. The fact that we are confined into a 3 dimensional plane only makes the detection more difficult. What we refer to as future and past becomes blurred by gamma when an object is accelerated toward C or encounters Casimir geometry. Lorentz contraction and the size of time quantum vary such that the observer and the observed both see a portion of the other's space as time [making it contract and dilate]. The fact that all inertial frames remain unaware locally of any dilation or contraction indicate to me that all dimensions are equally spatial but that we are somehow confined like flatlanders on a chalk board. IMHO future and past are a single spatial dimension on either side of our plane always appearing 90 degrees displaced but gamma reveals that our plane rotates into this dimension thru relative measure between different inertial frames. Perhaps 2D flatlanders would experience 2 temporal axis, the one we share and the other being how flatlanders would perceive motion of their chalk board in our 3D world. Fran Mauro Lacy Sat, 14 May 2011 12:48:58 -0700 On 04/26/2011 01:02 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:50 PM 4/25/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: FYI: Here's an article for all you theorists... Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html -Mark No problem ... progressing from one state to another is pretty much what Loop Quantum Gravity does. We already have a whole bunch of 'emergent' properties (heat ... and possibly gravity), so having time as 'emergent' isn't SUCH a big deal. It certainly isn't. But the point is that it clarifies a lot of things to see time in this way. Suddenly some magic properties of time, like time dilation, are simply explained as changes in velocity with respect to a preferred frame. Unfortunately it probably does away with one of my 'favorite' cosmologies, where we are twisting in a 4D+ space-time, so that individual dimensions can change from space-like to time-like. Space and time are probably both sides of the same coin: movement. Time can be understood as movement, or better said, rate of movement. Space in turn can be understood as movement: very specific forms of movement produce or develop space in physical terms. They lay out space, so to speak.
RE: [Vo]:Space has no time dimention
I think a satisfying view of time is that the universe consists of Nothing But Motion, the physics of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System -- that is the primary constituent of the universe is a unit of motion which is space/time and it can support 3 dimensions of motion, so space and time are just aspects of motion and both are 3D. This model explains many things that conventional physics has no clue about and enables calculation of fundamental values from basic premises alone, such as planck's constant, lifetime of the neutron, melting points of elements etc. Only three values are needed to perform all calculations: c, the Rydberg frequency, and Avagadro's number. -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:48 PM ...Space and time are probably both sides of the same coin: movement. Time can be understood as movement, or better said, rate of movement. Space in turn can be understood as movement: very specific forms of movement produce or develop space in physical terms. They lay out space, so to speak. http://rstheory.org/video/dbl-1978 http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101 This profound article is the only paper I know of that explains what a magnetic field really is, and also contains a remarkable new look at dimensional analysis: The Dimensions of Motion Other Reciprocal System websites: Early RS website RS official website Dr. Bruce Peret's website LRC A new periodic chart: http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel/
RE: [Vo]:Another view on superrotation
David You wrote: If another more practical and smaller size example helps you to better imagine the physical situation you can think of a gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment. There should be high shear flow in that case as well and not as we are erroneously informed on various places on Internet that there is solid body rotation. Does anyone here think it is correct to lie about physics in order to stop understanding of it and thus prevent proliferation of technologies based on the effect? It is both impressive and disgusting that someone has been capable of keeping this kind of physics undeveloped for over a century. It would have been natural to see this combination of fluid mechanics and thermal physics to appear soon after the appearance of kinetic gas theory. Are you implying that the effect is substantial and can be exploited for gain? . or is your point merely that the authorities can go to absurd lengths to try to avoid the taint of proliferation.. Jones
[Vo]:On the Superrotation of Venus
Wiki has an paragraph on the Superrotation of Venus : Since the 1960s a puzzling phenomenon has been observed in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmosphere above the cloud base is seen to travel around the planet about 50 times faster than the rotation of the planet surface, or in only four to five Earth-days. Did you get that: 50 times faster than the rotation of the planet surface (and the atmosphere is very dense, so this property is much more meaningful;) The actual cause of this phenomenon continues to be debated in the literature... The atmosphere is about 96.5% carbon dioxide. Only about 20 ppm is water (which is where the hydrogen ends up). That is still billions of tons worth of Hydrogen. Some of the energy necessary for superrotation comes from solar energy, but it is not out of the question that some of the energy comes from LENR. The parameters are closer than you might think. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 13:27:20 +0300: Hi, [snip] not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again practical data not limits of theory [snip] Randy doesn't think Hydrinos can penetrate the electron shells of other atoms. I think he may be wrong, particularly for very small ones. Note also that if my variation on his model is correct, then my smallest Hydrinos are much smaller than his (about the size of an atomic nucleus). Furthermore there are also other possibilities, i.e. 1) The Hydrino may acquire an additional electron becoming Hydrinohydride, then it might displace an inner electron of another atom, analogous to a negative muon, except that it is much heavier, and would try to take up a closer orbit. 2) Hydrinos have a strong magnetic field, hence they may bind magnetically to bare nuclei of other atoms that have a magnetic moment. This would keep them in close proximity until such time as they tunneled into the other nucleus. 3) Hydrino molecules are also neutral entities, and these may also be able to pass through the electron shells of other atoms. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Comet Coincidence?
From Mauro: ... Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies. The electric field of the comet interacts with the electric field of the Sun, and a CME occurs. The electric interaction is also the reason for cometary tails, by the way. The level of denial the academic community is in regard to this, is simply astounding. Have you wondered if aspects of Miles Mathis' theories might have anything to do to describing comet tails? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself. This is science, not religion, so orthodoxia and heterodoxies can discuss freely and peacefully- based on experimental facts. I think it is both fair and interesting. On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:16 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 13:27:20 +0300: Hi, [snip] not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again practical data not limits of theory [snip] Randy doesn't think Hydrinos can penetrate the electron shells of other atoms. I think he may be wrong, particularly for very small ones. Note also that if my variation on his model is correct, then my smallest Hydrinos are much smaller than his (about the size of an atomic nucleus). Furthermore there are also other possibilities, i.e. 1) The Hydrino may acquire an additional electron becoming Hydrinohydride, then it might displace an inner electron of another atom, analogous to a negative muon, except that it is much heavier, and would try to take up a closer orbit. 2) Hydrinos have a strong magnetic field, hence they may bind magnetically to bare nuclei of other atoms that have a magnetic moment. This would keep them in close proximity until such time as they tunneled into the other nucleus. 3) Hydrino molecules are also neutral entities, and these may also be able to pass through the electron shells of other atoms. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
