date:20110526

Excuse me for writing this here- Joshua Cude's hostility against CF and
especially the E-cat could be used in a positive way. Joshua, please tell
what would be a *PERFECT EXPERIMENT-* absolutely convincing for you- setup,
instruments, measurements everything- telling it works or NOT? Thank you in
advance.
Peter

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:25 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Thu, 26 May 2011 05:03:48 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >> If even one of them is correct about the calorimetry, tritium, helium
> and
> >other evidence, then the effect is real after all.
> >
> >
> >Now, that's just ridiculous. Of course, many -- even most, possibly even
> all
> >-- of the individual measurements could be right, but if some are wrong,
> or
> >if the interpretations are wrong, or if some are caused by artifacts, then
> >the effect is not the real.
>
> If some of the measurements are correct, but the reason is not CF, then can
> you
> provide an alternate explanation?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:OT: (Wisconsin Politics) - Wisconsin judge strikes down collective bargaining restrictions

2011-05-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/26/wisconsin.collective.bargaining/index
.html?hpt=T2

Next stop: the Wisconsin Supreme Court, assuming they will take the case.
(Most likely they will.)

FYI: The You Tube link supplied below was actual footage I took on the
evening of March 9 when Wisconsin republican senators had just a few hours
earlier rammed their collective bargaining bill through the legislative
process (via a haistly conveened meeting) without giving the required 24
hour notice. It was mainly through Twitter and Facebook communications that
this haistly conveened meeting was revealed to the general public. As a
result I witnessed concerned citizens running up State Street making a
direct beeline to the State Capital as fast as they could in order to
register their outrage. What follows is, IMO, historic footage taken on
March 9, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJBbdVJ9G0U

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

2011-05-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Axel, Robin,

Thank you, both of you, for humoring me.

I was aware of the March 29 report. I had already downloaded it. I was also
aware of Figure 6 showing the evolution of temperature changes over time.
However, having Axel specifically point out the kink that is recorded at
around 60 C was informative for me. This seems to suggest that something
interesting may begin to happen around 60 C though, as Robin points out, the
actual temperature of the reactor core is presumed to be higher than 60 C.
Indeed, I would assume the reactor core temperature would have to be a lot
higher. How much higher is of course open to speculation.

This leads me to speculate that a presumed sustained Rossi chain reaction
may occur within the neighborhood of 100 C to 200 C, considering what little
information we have to go on at the moment. ;-)

...datasheet subject to change upon further notice.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:"An equal and perpendicular reaction!" EM Oscillation

2011-05-26 Thread Mauro Lacy

On 05/26/2011 01:33 PM, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:

I realize that this is routinely trivialized, rationalized away and ignored;
nonetheless, those who do so are merely dancing around the real question here!
"Why are em fields perpendicular (when one is inducing the other, purely
speaking?)"

Are they really doing that? Or that is just an abstract construct,
introduced to try to give some foundation/explanation for the
conservative nature of the field?

This is a fascinating question, especially because these two fields are perhaps the only
things in nature wherein a force in one direction causes an "An equal and
perpendicular reaction!"

Well, the idea I propose is that a perpendicular field manifests only when an
interaction happens. That is, the magnetic field
does not exist "inside" the wave, it's just a manifestation of the wave. The
same with the electric field.
Magnetic and electric fields are just modes of expression of the wave, so, the
explanation for their direction must
be seek in their interactions with matter and other waves, not in the waves
themselves.

The other mystery about all of this is that this question probably holds the secret to the
underlying nature of a photon: why does this oscillating em field traverse space at the speed of
light, and without the dispersion of individual photons. Even if you hold that the waveform
travels ahead of the "particle aspect" of the photon, this is just a superpositional
state of possible outcomes, but all of those outcomes still result in a single "particle
aspect" traversing one path, and arriving as one particle.

It seems there are a number of concepts going on:
- perpendicular magnetic vs. electrical waves
- perpendicular radiative component vs. acceleration vector of an
electrostatic charge
- potential energy vs. kinetic energy waves
- matter waves (?)
- wavefunctions

Shouldn't we try to pinpoint what's the relation between these concepts, if
they are indeed related?

By the way, Frank Z., can you explain how can you talk about "the potential
energy of an
electromagnetic wave", and say that it's equal to mc², when an electromagnetic
wave
is massless? Are you saying that its potential energy is zero?

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 26 May 2011 18:55:32 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>*Initial running to reach vaporization. *The temperatures of the inlet water
>and the outlet water were monitored and recorded every 2 seconds. The heater
>was connected at 10:25 and the boiling point was reached at 10:42. The
>detailed temperature-time relation is shown in figure 6. The inlet water
>temperature was 17.3 °C and increased slightly to 17.6 °C during this
>initial running. The outlet water temperature increased from 20 °C at 10:27
>to 60 °C at 10:36. This means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 minutes
>which is essentially due to the electric heater. *It is worth noting that at
>this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the
>heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water
>from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If
>no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not
>exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster
>after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the
>temperature-time relation. (Figure 6). 
[snip]
Note that a water temperature of 60 C doesn't mean that that is also the
temperature at which the actual reaction is taking place. A thermal gradient in
the device (necessary for heat flow), implies that the actual temperature was
higher, but how much higher depends on exactly where the reaction was taking
place and what the thermal resistance was between source and water.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:New Stremmenos Paper on JNP -- sustaining mode

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 26 May 2011 03:53:45 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Stremmenos Paper does not take about 4H + Ni60, The paper takes about a
>single neutral hydrogen atom H + Ni58. Rossi says the same thing.

And both may be wrong.

>
>
>
>we adopt the hypothesis of trapping a neutral temporary atom, or a mini
>atom, of hydrogen (with a diameter less than *10-14 m*) which transforms
>the *Ni**58* nucleus into *Cu**59* (copper/59, short lived isotope*).


This may be the wrong hypothesis.

>
>
>
>The same process(single neutral hydrogen) must be capable of producing all
>those light elements. The devil is in the details.

You are demanding that a particular result be obtained while adhering to
restrictions that you impose. It's like asking someone to box with their hands
tied behind their back.
[snip]
>> >I say that it is impossible (unthinkable  it just cannot be) to create
>> >light elements from the fission of nickel or copper.

What you should have said that it is impossible if only a single Hydrogen is
involved in the reaction.


>> [snip]
>> What's impossible about:
>>
>> 4H + Ni60 => 2 S32 + 16.7 MeV ?
>>
>> (Note that while fissioning Ni costs energy, that is more than compensated
>> for
>> by the excess mass of the free protons.)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

FYI

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.

*Initial running to reach vaporization. *The temperatures of the inlet water
and the outlet water were monitored and recorded every 2 seconds. The heater
was connected at 10:25 and the boiling point was reached at 10:42. The
detailed temperature-time relation is shown in figure 6. The inlet water
temperature was 17.3 °C and increased slightly to 17.6 °C during this
initial running. The outlet water temperature increased from 20 °C at 10:27
to 60 °C at 10:36. This means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 minutes
which is essentially due to the electric heater. *It is worth noting that at
this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the
heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water
from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If
no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not
exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster
after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the
temperature-time relation. (Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached
at 10:40. The time taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes*.
The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water
is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the
valve letting out steam from the chimney. This means that from this point in
time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered to the heating and vaporization, and
4.69 – 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have to come from the energy produced in the
internal nickel-hydrogen container.

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is an aspect to Rossi's e-cat thermal generation process that
> remains fuzzy to me. It's my understanding that Rossi has to push the
> temperature of his e-Cat cores up into the neighborhood of 500C via an
> external heating process before the mysterious Rossi thermal reaction
> takes over.
>
> That said, what I'm not clear on is:
>
> To get any useful (internal) energy out of Rossi's e-cats wouldn't the
> internal temperature of the core have to then increase to something
> significantly higher than the initial 500 C, like say perhaps 700 C,
> in order to effectively extract the difference between the continuous
> amount of input energy being consumed (Input heat) versus the actual
> amount of heat being generated internally (output heat)?
>
> Perhaps I've misunderstood a fundamental aspect concerning how excess
> energy is supposed to be extracted from Rossi's e-cats. Is it rather
> the situation where once 500 C is reached (by external means) and the
> reaction is initiated external heating can be reduced significantly
> because the internal reaction then becomes self-generating AT 500 C or
> possibly at lower temperatures as well? If that is the case, how far
> down can the core temperature be reduced before the mysterious
> self-generation reaction process is quenched?
>
> I hope I have been clear enough on these points.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

2011-05-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Robin:

...

> What makes you think it has to be 400 C to start?

Nothing would tickle me more to learn that the "initialization" temperature
is less than that 400 C. But then, maybe it needs to be greater than 400 C.
I dunno! My initial starting point was loosely based on previous literature
that I thought seemed to indicate that 400 C was what the starting
temperature that needed to be reached before the reaction was initiated. I
would be more than happy to revise my guestimate based on more accurate
information.

> (I have no idea what it needs to be, and as long as the actual mechanism
> remains unknown, I think it's anybody's guess.)

Indeed. Didn't meant to imply otherwise. But why should that impede a little
bit of healthy speculation. ;-)

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it

In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Thu, 26 May 2011 05:03:48 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>> If even one of them is correct about the calorimetry, tritium, helium and
>other evidence, then the effect is real after all.
>
>
>Now, that's just ridiculous. Of course, many -- even most, possibly even all
>-- of the individual measurements could be right, but if some are wrong, or
>if the interpretations are wrong, or if some are caused by artifacts, then
>the effect is not the real.

If some of the measurements are correct, but the reason is not CF, then can you
provide an alternate explanation?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Thu, 26 May 2011
14:48:52 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>From Axel
>
>> If you need an exact number, the start temperature is not
>> that high.  In the Sweden test, the water temperature was
>> pushed up to 60C by the external heater before the reaction
>> became gainful. 
>>
>> The internal heater was also in action. So my guess is that
>> the temperature of the hydrogen envelope was above 100C but
>> hot much above it.
>
>Axel,
>
>So far you are you are the only individual within the Vort Collective who
>has come close to answering what I thought was a very simple question. You
>offered up a speculated lower limit temperature value! Thank you for your
>input! :-)
>
>To clarify, this thread was not trying to elicit discussion pertaining to
>what kinds of theoretical mechanisms might be involved in generating Rossi's
>e-Cat heat. I was simply trying to get a ball-park thermal range for which
>the Rossi "chain" reaction is speculated to operate within. I'm puzzled that
>few on this list seem capable of (or perhaps willing to) answer this
>question.
>
>In my original question I asked: If the Rossi reaction can be sustained
>below 400 C, by how much below 400 C. Axel, you mention (according to the
>Sweden tests) the reaction might be sustainable as low as 60 - 100 C. That
>sounds incredibly low to me! Anybody disagree? Just wondering.
>
>Can anyone offer up reasons as to why in order to initiate the Rossi
>reaction the temperature has to at first be increased (via external means)
>up to around 400 C. But then, once the reaction has been initiated,
>sustainable thermal temperature values can then be reduced significantly -
>possibly down to 60 C - 100 C. The physics behind such a significant
>reduction in temperature values where the Rossi reaction is alleged to
>remain sustainable strikes me as being somewhat hard to believe.

What makes you think it has to be 400 C to start?

(I have no idea what it needs to be, and as long as the actual mechanism remains
unknown, I think it's anybody's guess.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Can Atmospheric Heating Predict Future Earthquakes?

2011-05-26 Thread Jed Rothwell

Speaking of predicting earthquakes, here is an astounding article:

"Trial set for Italian seismologists charged with manslaughter over failed
quake warning"

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90049752?Trial%20set%20for%20Italian%20seismologists%20charged%20with%20manslaughter%20over%20failed%20quake%20warning

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Can Atmospheric Heating Predict Future Earthquakes?

2011-05-26 Thread John Berry

Seems to give some support to the claims that HAARP is being used to create
earthquakes.
Certainly it is interesting that these atmospheric anomalies have only been
reported with the recent earthquake spate.

Of course maybe this is valid as an indication of an imminent natural
earthquake, but maybe it is an indication HAARP is about to be used.

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Rock_nj  wrote:

> While many branches of scientific inquiry have made incredible strides over
> the past century, earthquake prediction science has been woefully slow to
> make advancements that could lead to accurate scientific forewarning of
> pending earthquakes.  Reports of unusual pre-earthquake atmospheric
> phenomena have led inquisitive scientists to initiate research into
> atmospheric conditions in areas that are prone to experience earthquakes.
> The initial results of these atmospheric investigations in earthquake zones
> have provided enough positive data to warrant further research that could
> eventually led to accurate earthquake prediction methods.
>
> More at:
> http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-Atmospheric-Heating-Predict-Future-Earthquakes?done
>

[Vo]:More Alternator Records for Claims of Time Distortion

2011-05-26 Thread Harvey Norris

I was looking through my DVD  taping collection and found this one relevant to 
todays posting.
http://youtu.be/NsOM_BOz-Y8
Adding an resonant  inductor load in space to correct excessive phase angle 
found over 180 degrees.

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

[Vo]:Can Atmospheric Heating Predict Future Earthquakes?

2011-05-26 Thread Rock_nj

While many branches of scientific inquiry have made incredible strides over
the past century, earthquake prediction science has been woefully slow to
make advancements that could lead to accurate scientific forewarning of
pending earthquakes.  Reports of unusual pre-earthquake atmospheric
phenomena have led inquisitive scientists to initiate research into
atmospheric conditions in areas that are prone to experience earthquakes.
The initial results of these atmospheric investigations in earthquake zones
have provided enough positive data to warrant further research that could
eventually led to accurate earthquake prediction methods.

More at:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-Atmospheric-Heating-Predict-Future-Earthquakes?done

[Vo]:Yahoo Q&A Best Answer.

2011-05-26 Thread Harvey Norris

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110519181732AAeyuIL
What are some uses of attracting the polarity of water?

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

RE: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

2011-05-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Axel

> If you need an exact number, the start temperature is not
> that high.  In the Sweden test, the water temperature was
> pushed up to 60C by the external heater before the reaction
> became gainful. 
>
> The internal heater was also in action. So my guess is that
> the temperature of the hydrogen envelope was above 100C but
> hot much above it.

Axel,

So far you are you are the only individual within the Vort Collective who
has come close to answering what I thought was a very simple question. You
offered up a speculated lower limit temperature value! Thank you for your
input! :-)

To clarify, this thread was not trying to elicit discussion pertaining to
what kinds of theoretical mechanisms might be involved in generating Rossi's
e-Cat heat. I was simply trying to get a ball-park thermal range for which
the Rossi "chain" reaction is speculated to operate within. I'm puzzled that
few on this list seem capable of (or perhaps willing to) answer this
question.

In my original question I asked: If the Rossi reaction can be sustained
below 400 C, by how much below 400 C. Axel, you mention (according to the
Sweden tests) the reaction might be sustainable as low as 60 - 100 C. That
sounds incredibly low to me! Anybody disagree? Just wondering.

Can anyone offer up reasons as to why in order to initiate the Rossi
reaction the temperature has to at first be increased (via external means)
up to around 400 C. But then, once the reaction has been initiated,
sustainable thermal temperature values can then be reduced significantly -
possibly down to 60 C - 100 C. The physics behind such a significant
reduction in temperature values where the Rossi reaction is alleged to
remain sustainable strikes me as being somewhat hard to believe.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:3D Ekit Renderings

Some interesting speculation on what's inside the Ekits:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/SpeculativeRenderingsRossiEnergyCatalyzer20111.shtml

T

[Vo]:Something fron nothing

Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting
Circuit





http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/observation-of-dynamical-casimir-effect.html

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread Harvey Norris

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Mark Iverson  wrote:

From: Mark Iverson 
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 8:34 PM

John:

Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what 
you're proposing...

What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment 
present in all elementary particles 
where electrical currents don't even 
come into play?

Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... 
this is the basis upon which NMR works!!!

There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, 
they generate a magnetic field..
Found a spot here to make comment. A permanent magnet probably has by theory 
cohered axis of unpaired electron spins in one direction. Similarly the 
ferromagnetic field pole faces of a car alternator will have a collection of 
random directions of unpaired electron spins,(it is not magnetized); but during 
the process of macroscopic spin some of those random  electron spins in 3D 
space will be tilted by application of gyroscopic principles, with the net 
result that many spins in one orientation will occur and the ferromagnetic 
material appears to be magnetized to a weaker degree then what can ordinarily 
achieved when the associated field windings are employed to make the second 
primary influence of obtaining a rotating electromagnet as the primary input of 
an alternator. In the following video a neon requiring over 500 volts for 
ignition is obtained from rotation of an unmagnetized field.
http://youtu.be/FAc3jQziicc
Video Records from 10/21/10;  Again unbeknowst to me, at this point in 
time I was unaware that the 9 coil system providing 3 phases of resonant
 voltage rise, was in fact mistuned. I only discovered this later when 
attempting to film the reactance test. It is in this mistuned state that
 apparently because of the mutual induction wiring inherent in the 666 
configuration, one of the three interphasal voltages will be literally 
in excess of 180 degrees phase angle difference in time, whereby the 
resultant voltage is greater then the summation of its component 
voltages which is certainly a paradox.  Because of this imbalance, two 
of the phases will gain more resonant voltage rise seemingly at the 
expense of the remaining phase 2. Irregardless of the fact that the 
system is mistuned, these four videos investigate the addition of not 
only three high induction coil resonances to the three interphasal 
voltage rises, but also a fourth one connected in a one wire manner from
 the third resonance. The sequence can be properly termed a magnifier 
principle as it can be demonstrated that the free vibration established 
on the fourth coil in the unloaded state is greater than the source of 
its vibrations. When the neon is added as a load between the third and 
fourth reaction vibrations, where the fourth vibration is presumably 
made both by the loose magnetic coupling with the dual adjacent 70 lb 
larger coil of 68.5 H; which in turn has its water capacity enclosed in 
the core volume of the 60.5 H coil using a plexiglass capacity for its 
resonance. It is this reaction vibration connected by one wire means 
that then in turn is reduced below the source of its vibrations after 
powering the neon load between them.  All of these effects are made from
 rotational magnetism alone where the field of the alternator is not yet
 enpowered.  In the video the water capacity value used for the third 
vibration on the 68.5 H coil is diminished by raising its central 
electrode out of the dielectric but paradoxically its resonance is not 
disabled. The sequence of coil placements as interphasal loadings is 
covered in further videos.

This video in itself seems to open a can of worms. I had noticed in the making 
of these alternator resonant circuits several peculiarities. For example 
identical values of measured capacity may be constructed, one a plexiglass flat 
plate capacity and the other the mentioned axial water capacity. Now when that 
required capacity is tested for resonance by adding a equally opposite 
inductive reactance,( the high induction coils) each C value gives different 
performance as q factor voltage rise. It was noticed that for induction ending 
circuits where the coil is used as an air core secondary that the flat plate 
capacity was inferior to the axial one, but if wafers of styrofoam were placed 
atop the capacity, this increased its performance. How can this be when that 
dielectric is not in the area between the plates? In the video Mr. Kitical is 
able to take the circuit out of resonance by sitting on the top plate of a 
plexiglass capacity, but when I go in there
 and start altering the C value by removing the rod of the cylindrical water 
capacity, no results are seen until the rod is entirely removed? Here are some  
repetitive componen

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Frank,
The math exceeds my skill set but I agree matter is real from a 
WSM or standing wave perspective and I even understand your posit that SR pops 
out of varying this phase angle. My only comment is regarding the semantic 
issues that always accompany this topic. One could argue that the phase angle 
ALWAYS remains precisely 90 degrees in the frame of the local observer or the 
frame of the observed and the phase of which you speak is by definition a 
relative measure  between the different  frames of the observer and observed - 
unable to exist in a local measurement between objects in the same frame.
Regards
Fran

From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields 
perpendicular?


They are not.  If you vary the phase angle all of Special Relativity pops out.

http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf


Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:"An equal and perpendicular reaction!" EM Oscillation

2011-05-26 Thread Wm. Scott Smith


I realize that this is routinely trivialized, rationalized away and ignored; 
nonetheless, those who do so are merely dancing around the real question here! 
"Why are em fields perpendicular (when one is inducing the other, purely 
speaking?)" This is a fascinating question, especially because these two fields 
are perhaps the only things in nature wherein a force in one direction causes 
an "An equal and perpendicular reaction!" 
The other mystery about all of this is that this question probably holds the 
secret to the underlying nature of a photon: why does this oscillating em field 
traverse space at the speed of light, and without the dispersion of individual 
photons.  Even if you hold that the waveform travels ahead of the "particle 
aspect" of the photon, this is just a superpositional state of possible 
outcomes, but all of those outcomes still result in a single "particle aspect" 
traversing one path, and arriving as one particle.
Scott

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"

I do not have any data coming from Defkalion, e.g. re cycling, is the unit
automated as my gas (methane) home heater? Last summer the entire block
building - 40 two room flats, 10 stores was insulated with polystyrene
blocks
20 cm thick- this winter the heating bill has halved. I will try to buy an
E-cat- have to convince my wife...

I hope many E-cats had been already tested during this winter?

Peter

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In the home heating unit that the Greeks are building, that unit cycles an
> enormous number of times to heat a home.
>
>
>
> How cycling affects the life of the fuel is the first and most important
> test to be run on the E-Cat home heating product.
>
>
>
> If they can sell a home heating product, they should be easily able to
> build  an alternative solar heat source.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> How many 1 MW E-cat groups? The solar plant has 110 MW.
>> For the time given we have no idea how many times can you stop and restart
>> the E-cats with no negative effects on the performance. For example if you
>> get thermal peaks anytime you start up the devices- there are chances that
>> some active sites (or an amount of the mystery catalyst)
>> will be destroyed, desactivated...only practical long time will show...If
>> Rossi had a patent, now a great experimental program would be going fast on
>>  a great scale- they are so many parameters! DevelopmentI hope this is
>> done...
>> Just one- batch to batch reproducibility of active Ni/catalyst, how many
>> sources of core material??
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://blogs.forbes.com/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A group of 1 megawatt thermal E-Cats could reduce the cost of this plant
>>> by producing heat at night when the sun is down.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The size of the molten salt buffer tanks could be reduced and the service
>>> life of the E-Cats could be extended by the use of solar heat during the
>>> day. When the sun is out, the E-Cats could be shut down to conserve nickel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I were Rossi, I would go after this type job.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>>
 not a bad idea if the salts are sufficiently stable,some problems of
 safety both with nitrates and (!) cyanides/
 Perhaps on internal circuit. well closed a amd an outer with water.
 The problem of contacting a very hot surface remains for molten salts
 too.
 Peter


 On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>  As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and
> potassium nitrate or a combination of the two.
>
>
>
> It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure
> heat exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher
>> temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used 
>> in a
>> process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely
>> expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide
>> plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface 
>> and
>> this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion?
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>>
>>>  At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote:
>>>
>>> *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core
>>> can be converted in electric energy in an economical way?
>>>
>>> I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon ---
>>> it only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 
>>> bar.
>>> Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??)
>>> -- times the 6x factor is barely over unity.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm probably too conservative there.  40% ?   60% ?
>>> (Way out of my expertise, anyway.)
>>>
>>> But the working fluid doesn't have to be water.
>>> I'm not sure that a
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine would get
>>> approval for domestic use, though 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>


 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com


>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"

In the home heating unit that the Greeks are building, that unit cycles an
enormous number of times to heat a home.



How cycling affects the life of the fuel is the first and most important
test to be run on the E-Cat home heating product.



If they can sell a home heating product, they should be easily able to build
 an alternative solar heat source.




On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> How many 1 MW E-cat groups? The solar plant has 110 MW.
> For the time given we have no idea how many times can you stop and restart
> the E-cats with no negative effects on the performance. For example if you
> get thermal peaks anytime you start up the devices- there are chances that
> some active sites (or an amount of the mystery catalyst)
> will be destroyed, desactivated...only practical long time will show...If
> Rossi had a patent, now a great experimental program would be going fast on
>  a great scale- they are so many parameters! DevelopmentI hope this is
> done...
> Just one- batch to batch reproducibility of active Ni/catalyst, how many
> sources of core material??
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://blogs.forbes.com/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/
>>
>>
>>
>> A group of 1 megawatt thermal E-Cats could reduce the cost of this plant
>> by producing heat at night when the sun is down.
>>
>>
>>
>> The size of the molten salt buffer tanks could be reduced and the service
>> life of the E-Cats could be extended by the use of solar heat during the
>> day. When the sun is out, the E-Cats could be shut down to conserve nickel.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I were Rossi, I would go after this type job.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>
>>> not a bad idea if the salts are sufficiently stable,some problems of
>>> safety both with nitrates and (!) cyanides/
>>> Perhaps on internal circuit. well closed a amd an outer with water.
>>> The problem of contacting a very hot surface remains for molten salts
>>> too.
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
  As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and
 potassium nitrate or a combination of the two.



 It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure
 heat exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes.




 On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

> Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher
> temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used in 
> a
> process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely
> expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide
> plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface and
> this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion?
> Peter.
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
>>  At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core can
>> be converted in electric energy in an economical way?
>>
>> I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon ---
>> it only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 
>> bar.
>> Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??)
>> -- times the 6x factor is barely over unity.
>>
>>
>> I'm probably too conservative there.  40% ?   60% ?
>> (Way out of my expertise, anyway.)
>>
>> But the working fluid doesn't have to be water.
>> I'm not sure that a
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine would get
>> approval for domestic use, though 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"

How many 1 MW E-cat groups? The solar plant has 110 MW.
For the time given we have no idea how many times can you stop and restart
the E-cats with no negative effects on the performance. For example if you
get thermal peaks anytime you start up the devices- there are chances that
some active sites (or an amount of the mystery catalyst)
will be destroyed, desactivated...only practical long time will show...If
Rossi had a patent, now a great experimental program would be going fast on
 a great scale- they are so many parameters! DevelopmentI hope this is
done...
Just one- batch to batch reproducibility of active Ni/catalyst, how many
sources of core material??

Peter

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant
>
>
>
>
> http://blogs.forbes.com/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/
>
>
>
> A group of 1 megawatt thermal E-Cats could reduce the cost of this plant by
> producing heat at night when the sun is down.
>
>
>
> The size of the molten salt buffer tanks could be reduced and the service
> life of the E-Cats could be extended by the use of solar heat during the
> day. When the sun is out, the E-Cats could be shut down to conserve nickel.
>
>
>
> If I were Rossi, I would go after this type job.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> not a bad idea if the salts are sufficiently stable,some problems of
>> safety both with nitrates and (!) cyanides/
>> Perhaps on internal circuit. well closed a amd an outer with water.
>> The problem of contacting a very hot surface remains for molten salts too.
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>  As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and
>>> potassium nitrate or a combination of the two.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure
>>> heat exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>>
 Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher
 temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used in a
 process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely
 expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide
 plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface and
 this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion?
 Peter.


 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>  At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote:
>
> *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core can
> be converted in electric energy in an economical way?
>
> I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon --- it
> only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 bar.
> Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??) --
> times the 6x factor is barely over unity.
>
>
> I'm probably too conservative there.  40% ?   60% ?
> (Way out of my expertise, anyway.)
>
> But the working fluid doesn't have to be water.
> I'm not sure that a
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine would get approval
> for domestic use, though 
>



 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com


>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:I want to make solar powered singing bird houses

2011-05-26 Thread fznidarsic

Thanks Terry, I was search for sound chip, sound circuit, singing bird,


Its "sound module"


thanks





-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 6:56 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I want to make solar powered singing bird houses


Frank, meet Google:

http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=toy%20greeting%20card%20sound%20modules

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/sound-module-for-toys.html

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM,   wrote:
>
> Where can I get the singing devices that are commonly used in stuffed toys.
> any ideas?
> Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"

Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant

http://blogs.forbes.com/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/

A group of 1 megawatt thermal E-Cats could reduce the cost of this plant by
producing heat at night when the sun is down.

The size of the molten salt buffer tanks could be reduced and the service
life of the E-Cats could be extended by the use of solar heat during the
day. When the sun is out, the E-Cats could be shut down to conserve nickel.

If I were Rossi, I would go after this type job.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> not a bad idea if the salts are sufficiently stable,some problems of safety
> both with nitrates and (!) cyanides/
> Perhaps on internal circuit. well closed a amd an outer with water.
> The problem of contacting a very hot surface remains for molten salts too.
> Peter
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>  As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and
>> potassium nitrate or a combination of the two.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure
>> heat exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>
>>> Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher
>>> temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used in a
>>> process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely
>>> expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide
>>> plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface and
>>> this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion?
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>>>
  At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote:

 *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core can
 be converted in electric energy in an economical way?

 I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon --- it
 only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 bar.
 Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??) --
 times the 6x factor is barely over unity.

 I'm probably too conservative there.  40% ?   60% ?
 (Way out of my expertise, anyway.)

 But the working fluid doesn't have to be water.
 I'm not sure that a 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbinewould get approval for 
 domestic use, though 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

If you need an exact number, the start temperature is not that high.  In the
Sweden test, the water temperature was pushed up to 60C by the external
heater before the reaction became gainful.



The internal heater was also in action. So my guess is that the temperature
of the hydrogen envelope was above 100C but hot much above it.




On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Axel, Robin, ... and others.
>
> So far, everyone has danced around offering any conjecture pertaining to my
> original question.
>
> The crux of my original question was:
>
> When a "chain" reaction is initiated what are the speculated temperature
> ranges, both the high AND LOW VALUES?
>
> Plenty of discussion has been offered up as to the upper limit, which
> presumably must be the melting point of nickel.
>
> But so far no one has discussed and/or offered any speculation as to the
> lower temperature limit. IOW, how "cool" can the chain reaction be kept
> more-or-less sustainable?
>
> Thanks again, in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread Charles Hope


On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>  The language of physics is math. 
> 

This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer 
that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically.

Re: [Vo]:I want to make solar powered singing bird houses

Frank, meet Google:

http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=toy%20greeting%20card%20sound%20modules

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/sound-module-for-toys.html

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM,   wrote:
>
> Where can I get the singing devices that are commonly used in stuffed toys.
> any ideas?
> Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:The New RAV4 EV

A 2001 RAV4 EV owner drives the new 2012 RAV4 EV:

http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/rav4-ev-heart-tesla

Note that the 2001 model used NiMH battery technology.

T

[Vo]:I want to make solar powered singing bird houses

2011-05-26 Thread fznidarsic


Where can I get the singing devices that are commonly used in stuffed toys.



any ideas?


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> But so far no one has discussed and/or offered any speculation as to the
> lower temperature limit. IOW, how "cool" can the chain reaction be kept
> more-or-less sustainable?

I think the control of the reaction is a bit more complex.  Since the
pressure in the sealed reactor is very much a function of temperature
both must be considered.  The temperature affects how the H moves
within the Ni confinement and the pressure determines the density of
the H in the Ni cells.  If it is truly proton capture as speculated by
the inventor, then probability of penetration of the barrier is a very
complex function of geometry, temperature and pressure.

Even the observers could have an effect since quantum events are likely.

The complexity of stable control of the reaction at the MW level is
probably beyond the capabilities of the single engineer.  I think he
is finding this to be true and this is why he is reducing the gain of
his reactor.  The first thing I learned in complex linear systems with
feedback is that there are likely to be far more unstable states than
stable ones.

T

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread fznidarsic


They are not.  If you vary the phase angle all of Special Relativity pops out.


http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf




Frank Znidarsic

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

2011-05-26 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Steven,
I may be in a minority but I am convinced this is the same reaction as 
Mill's, Moller and Langmuir which requires changing states between h1 and h2 
but since I am also convinced the Rydberg and hydrinos states are what Naudts 
proposed as being "relativistic" or in this case "equivalently relativistic" 
due to lack of spatial motion the definition of temperature needed to 
disassociate said h2 becomes blurred. That is to say the normal thermal energy 
needed to disassociate appears discounted from our perspective - not only 
because the nano geometry reduces energy density [opposite of increased density 
due to a dense mass or spatial velocity] but more because of the rapid changes 
in this density which I posit are the basis of catalytic action and provide an 
energy discount toward disassociation.
Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

Axel, Robin, ... and others.

So far, everyone has danced around offering any conjecture pertaining to my
original question.

The crux of my original question was:

When a "chain" reaction is initiated what are the speculated temperature
ranges, both the high AND LOW VALUES?

Plenty of discussion has been offered up as to the upper limit, which
presumably must be the melting point of nickel.

But so far no one has discussed and/or offered any speculation as to the
lower temperature limit. IOW, how "cool" can the chain reaction be kept
more-or-less sustainable?

Thanks again, in advance.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it

2011-05-26 Thread Roarty, Francis X

On Thu, 26 May 2011 03:05:02 Joshua wrote
[snip] To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing
measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken.
Every last one of them.[/snip]

Josh,
are you implying that that all the claims of heat anomalies are also 
mistakes or just the interpretations?
Fran

RE: [Vo]:A question about how e-Cats manage to self-sustain

2011-05-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Axel, Robin, ... and others.

So far, everyone has danced around offering any conjecture pertaining to my
original question.

The crux of my original question was:

When a "chain" reaction is initiated what are the speculated temperature
ranges, both the high AND LOW VALUES?

Plenty of discussion has been offered up as to the upper limit, which
presumably must be the melting point of nickel.

But so far no one has discussed and/or offered any speculation as to the
lower temperature limit. IOW, how "cool" can the chain reaction be kept
more-or-less sustainable?

Thanks again, in advance.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread Mauro Lacy


On 05/26/2011 05:09 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

   

Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and
 

is supposed to reflect physical reality.  My question was about the physical
world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect
sort of explanation.


Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it
provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative
explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life,
the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and
uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep
asking, as a child does, "but why?". Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why
general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental
observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what
we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special
relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those
two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em
wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is
math.
   


Thanks for your detailed explanation. I suppose it's as good as it can 
be, based on classical existing theory, and without using math.
Can you provide some reference for the above derivation, namely, the 
derivation of Maxwell's laws from Coulomb's law and special relativity?


I was thinking last night about  the radiative component that appears 
when an electrostatic charge is accelerated. That radiative component 
is  proportional and perpendicular to the acceleration vector. Do you 
think that it can be related to the perpendicular nature of the magnetic 
field, or it has nothing to do at all?

...


Now, if you want to know why Coulomb's law, and why relativity, you're on
your own.
   


Maye "we" can attempt that later :-)

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it

2011-05-26 Thread Joshua Cude

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Cude>> I will assert that tools do not make a carpenter, and that my views
boil down to an assertion that cold fusion researchers are bad carpenters.

Rothwell> For this to be the case, they would all have to be incompetent.
Every last of them.

To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing
measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken.
Every last one of them.

> If even one of them is correct about the calorimetry, tritium, helium and
other evidence, then the effect is real after all.

Now, that's just ridiculous. Of course, many -- even most, possibly even all
-- of the individual measurements could be right, but if some are wrong, or
if the interpretations are wrong, or if some are caused by artifacts, then
the effect is not the real.

Would you say the same thing about polywater? "If even one of the scientists
had been correct about viscosity or the boiling point or the freezing point,
then the effect was real after all." Surely, most of their measurements were
right; they were just caused by artifacts, and the effect turned out not the
real, in spite of many correct measurements.

You find it so hard to believe that a few hundred cold fusion researchers
can all be wrong, but if cold fusion is real, then far far more researchers
would have to be wrong.

> But there are also many hundreds of world-class experts […] I realize that
you think these people have made mistakes, and they are inept, but you are
wrong.

World class experts do make mistakes. There were world-class experts
involved with polywater and N-rays. The planet vulcan was predicted by a
world-class expert to explain the precession of mercury's orbit. He went to
his grave believing the many amateurs, and several eminent astronomers, who
claimed to have observed it consistent with his predictions. Einstein proved
that they were all wrong. Every one of them.

> Let's look at just one example of the kind people we are talking about.
See:

> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf

> Look at p. 13.3, the CV of Roland A. Jalbert:

> *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection […]

Jalbert? According to the web of science, he has published less than a dozen
papers. And except for the proceedings you cite, I didn't see any papers on
cold fusion. His name doesn't appear at all in the bibliography on your
site.

Have you looked at the CV of someone like Steve Koonin. Why would I trust
Jalbert over Koonin, and countless other experts in nuclear science who
don't believe that Jalbert's measurements provide evidence for cold fusion?

And in any case, whether or not his particular tritium measurements are
right or wrong, they do not explain the observed heat in CF experiments.

Moreover, the fact that he didn't jump headlong into the field suggests to
me that he did not have a lot of confidence in cold fusion either.

> You apparently believe that you know more about tritium than Jalbert
does.

What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who know
as much about tritium as your Jalbert, don't believe the measurements, or at
least don't believe they come from cold fusion. And judging from the scatter
in the tritium data by orders of magnitude (more than 10^10 if I remember),
from the fact that the highest values came from BARC within weeks of the
press conference (for what is supposed to be a very difficult experiment),
that they have gotten smaller over the years, and don't come close to
accounting for the measured heat, it is reasonable to conclude that they do
not provide enough evidence to suggest nuclear reactions at room temperature
in benchtop experiments create measurable heat.

>If you sincerely, actually think that you know how to measure tritium
better than these people, and every single one of them has made a stupid
mistake, even when they measured it at 10E18 times background, then I
suggest you are suffering from an extreme case of egomania.

But I don't believe that, and it's not necessary to believe that to be
skeptical. I know less about climate physics than Richard Lindzen does, and
I'm pretty sure you do too. And yet, both of us reject his skepticism of
AGW, in favor of the much larger consensus.

I could say that your certainty of cold fusion means you are claiming to
know more about nuclear physics than all the skeptics, and suggest that you
are suffering from egomania. But that's a pointless argument.

For me, if the claims were real, claims like 100 W out with zero in, or
energy density a million times that of gasoline,  would be very easy to
demonstrate, and yet no one seems to be able to demonstrate it.

> I am certain you are wrong, and these people are right.

Of course you are, but your certainty is not really persuasive. A few weeks
ago you were certain steam could not be heated above 100C unless it was
under pressure. You ignored perfectly good arguments that

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"

not a bad idea if the salts are sufficiently stable,some problems of safety
both with nitrates and (!) cyanides/
Perhaps on internal circuit. well closed a amd an outer with water.
The problem of contacting a very hot surface remains for molten salts too.
Peter

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and
> potassium nitrate or a combination of the two.
>
>
>
> It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure
> heat exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher
>> temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used in a
>> process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely
>> expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide
>> plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface and
>> this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion?
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>>
>>>  At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote:
>>>
>>> *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core can be
>>> converted in electric energy in an economical way?
>>>
>>> I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon --- it
>>> only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 bar.
>>> Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??) --
>>> times the 6x factor is barely over unity.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm probably too conservative there.  40% ?   60% ?
>>> (Way out of my expertise, anyway.)
>>>
>>> But the working fluid doesn't have to be water.
>>> I'm not sure that a 
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbinewould get approval for 
>>> domestic use, though 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread Joshua Cude

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

> Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and
is supposed to reflect physical reality.  My question was about the physical
world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect
sort of explanation.

Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it
provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative
explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life,
the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and
uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep
asking, as a child does, "but why?". Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why
general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental
observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what
we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special
relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those
two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em
wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is
math.

> The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or
even cavemen, or even life on this planet!

Obviously. I certainly didn't say anything different. I said Maxwell's
equations were developed from laboratory experiments, and they predict that
the fields in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular. (Not that E and B
field are always perpendicular, because they aren't.)

> I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is
more fundamental, the experiment (physical reality, facts) or model
(theory).

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I was not suggesting that reality
was a consequence of theory. But when you ask why something is so, without
specifying what can be taken as understood, then it is a little difficult to
answer.

For example, one can ask why are planetary orbits elliptical. And another
might answer because of the inverse-square law of gravity, and proceed to
prove the connection mathematically. Some questioners, who are satisfied
with Newton's law as fundamental, might be happy with the explanation.
Others, like you, might object that that is putting theory before reality:
"Sure, I know that, but I want a qualitative explanation for why Newton's
law exists." That's a very different question, and asking about elliptical
orbits is perhaps not the most direct way to get at fundamental origin of
gravity.

> JC has shown a great ability to regurgitate what he has read in his
textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this simple question seems
to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical
reality and the mathematical models that attempt to explain what is
observed.

First, if this is a simple question, what is your answer?

Second, I regret that I gave the impression that Maxwell's equations are
anything but a mathematical description of what we observe. They were
developed using certain observations, but then they were used to predict (or
explain) other observable phenomena, like the perpendicular nature of the
fields in waves. As I said before, the perpendicular nature *in waves* was
not known or observed before Maxwell. And fields are not necessarily
perpendicular; only induced fields are.

Coming back to the elliptical orbits, they were in fact observed and known
before Newton, and expressed empirically in Kepler's laws. Before Newton, if
someone asked why elliptical, one could cite Kepler's laws, but in this
case, the law does little more than state what is observed: orbits are
elliptical, so it would really be case of begging the question. There was a
mad race to find a more fundamental reason for Kepler's laws, and Newton won
that race. More fundamental explanations for gravity would take centuries.

As for your question, I started with the superficial answer. Electromagnetic
fields can sustain themselves in the absence of sources because of
reciprocal induction (changing E induces B, changing B induces E), and in
laboratory experiments induction is observed to  produce perpendicular
fields.

But I also went further and said that the existence of those laws of
induction stems from Coulomb's inverse-square law and special relativity,
but I made no attempt to connect them. And I also made no attempt to explain
why Coulomb's law, or why relativity.

Evidently, what you wanted was the reason for the laws of induction, for
Faraday's law, and for the generalized form of Ampere's law.

So let me try a little gedanken experiment that gives some sense of the
perpendicular nature of the fields from Coulomb's law and relativity. It
kind of explains the origin of magnetism, but is not a perfect explanation
for induction. That would be more difficult.

Consider two positive charges moving parallel in the laboratory. In the
reference frame

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"

As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and potassium
nitrate or a combination of the two.



It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure heat
exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes.




On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher
> temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used in a
> process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely
> expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide
> plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface and
> this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion?
> Peter.
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>
>>  At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core can be
>> converted in electric energy in an economical way?
>>
>> I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon --- it
>> only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 bar.
>> Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??) --
>> times the 6x factor is barely over unity.
>>
>>
>> I'm probably too conservative there.  40% ?   60% ?
>> (Way out of my expertise, anyway.)
>>
>> But the working fluid doesn't have to be water.
>> I'm not sure that a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbinewould 
>> get approval for domestic use, though 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

2011-05-26 Thread Joshua Cude

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM,  wrote:

>>Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and

>magnetism experiments.

>...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was
already

evident.

Not really. Electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory do not need to be
perpendicular. The question was about em waves, and why they are
perpendicular in waves. The reason was only partly evident pre-Maxwell in
Faraday's law which indicates that induced electric fields are perpendicular
to the changing magnetic field.

The understanding that electromagnetic waves are possible required Maxwell's
generalization of Ampere's law (his displacement current) which postulated
that a changing electric field would also induce a perpendicular magnetic
field. This was not observed directly, but only postulated based on the
symmetry of the two fields and the ambiguity in Ampere's law as it stood.

With this addition, the back-and-forth induction between electric and
magnetic fields was recognized, and the displacement current was verified
only by the observation of electromagnetic waves.

So, the reason the fields in a wave are perpendicular is because the wave is
sustained by induced fields, and induced fields are perpendicular to the
inducing field.

Of course I know, and wrote in the first post, that this merely pushes the
question back to why are induced fields perpendicular. Why Faraday's law?
Faraday's law (and all of Maxwell's equations) exist because of Coulomb's
law and relativity, but unfortunately, the connection is not a simple one to
visualize. Then, why Coulomb's law and relativity…

>>The equations also require that the field are perpendicular.

> I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was

designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have
yielded

incorrect results).

Again, this is only partly true. The fields don't have to be perpendicular.
Only induced fields do, and a wave consists of induced fields, since they
can exist in the absence of sources. Since the question was specifically
about waves, the explanation comes from Faraday's and the generalized
Ampere's laws. If he wanted to know why induced fields must be
perpendicular, i.e. why those laws exist, he could have asked that.

> Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of
others

and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the

perpendicular aspect was already in that work.

And I said as much in the first post. You must have missed it, which is
understandable, since it was pretty dry, and perhaps not explicit enough.
Here's what I said, with a small clarification bracketed:

"Now, you can ask why induced fields are perpendicular, or what is the
reason for Faraday's law. Historically, of course, these laws [like
Faraday's law, discovered by others] (Maxwell's laws collectively) were
discovered empirically in the laboratory (except for Maxwell's displacement
current, which was his stroke of genius)."

But as I said above, Maxwell added a critical component, essential to
understanding electromagnetic waves, and therefore also why the fields are
perpendicular in a wave.

Re: [Vo]:New Stremmenos Paper on JNP -- sustaining mode

Stremmenos Paper does not take about 4H + Ni60, The paper takes about a
single neutral hydrogen atom H + Ni58. Rossi says the same thing.

we adopt the hypothesis of trapping a neutral temporary atom, or a mini
atom, of hydrogen (with a diameter less than *10ˆ-14 m*) which transforms
the *Ni**58* nucleus into *Cu**59* (copper/59, short lived isotope*).

The same process(single neutral hydrogen) must be capable of producing all
those light elements. The devil is in the details.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:14 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 21:33:26 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >I say that it is impossible (unthinkable – it just cannot be) to create
> >light elements from the fission of nickel or copper.
> [snip]
> What's impossible about:
>
> 4H + Ni60 => 2 S32 + 16.7 MeV ?
>
> (Note that while fissioning Ni costs energy, that is more than compensated
> for
> by the excess mass of the free protons.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:My essay "Buying the E-cat in the sack?"