Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model

[hellokevin]

 Here’s my theory.    
On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons 
moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential 
capacitor.  The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to 
say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest.  When the charge 
differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated.  This spark is what 
creates the Nuclear Active Environment.  But it is not due to plasma physics, 
it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode & cathode 
of a capacitor.  In the  below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force 
was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a 
microscopic level).  
 
Asymmetric
Capacitor
Thruster
http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf
  An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive 
force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The study [3] also focused 
on ACT thrust in high vacuum (10−5 to 10−7 Torr) and reports small (on the 
order of 10 nN) thrust in vacuum under pulsed DC voltage conditions. 
Furthermore, the study [3] reports observation of thrust when a piezoelectric 
dielectric material such as lead titanate or lead zirconate (high relative 
dielectric constants of k = 1750) was used between the ACT electrodes. The 
thrust was apparently produced by slow pulsing spark-­‐initiated breakdown of 
the dielectric. The magnitude of the propulsive force increases with the 
intensity of sparking across the dielectric. The study [3] recommended further 
exploration of sparking across dielectrics as a source of propulsive forces in 
ACTs. Unfortunately, no such follow-­‐up study was conducted. 
I believe this Asymmetric Capacitor force has been previously described as the 
Poynting Vector.  I think it is enhanced by the advent of a spark across the 
electrodes.    But I might be mistaken.  
 
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft01.htm
During a charging process of a flat capacitor, the Poynting vector ( S=ExH ) 
comes from outside the capacitor towards the wire connections, parallel to the 
surface of the armatures inside the dielectric medium. There is an energy flow 
directly proportional to ExB. This energy is not provided by the wires but 
comes from the surrounding space around the capacitor. ( ref: "The Feynman 
Lectures on Physics : Electromagnetism vol2, Chap: 27-5, fig 27-3" by 
Addison-Wesley Publishing company. )
 
So, this Poynting Asymmetrical Capacitor Vector generates a unidirectional 
force.  Any protons within its path would be propelled into a nearby Hydrogen 
atom which is trapped inside a Palladium matrix.  This force is enough to 
overcome the Coulomb Barrier.  
 
A couple of guesses: 
1)  There would have to be hundreds of thousands of these sparks every 
second, constantly spitting matter or protons or electrons in one direction 
similar to a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) particle accelerator, where only 1 in 100k 
particles actually collides with a nucleus of a hydrogen atom and fuses.  
2)  This force is proportional to the distance between electrodes, so the 
effect would happen closer to the small vertex of the crack rather than the 
large ends of the crack.  
3)  The transfer of energy of fused atoms is mostly heat because the 
collision is unidirectional, and the gamma rays that are emitted only come out 
in certain geometrical probabilities, and most of those probabilities are 
directly in line with host atoms on the palladium (or nickel) matrix.  I look 
at it similar to a pellet gun hitting balloons -- most of the time the air 
escapes the balloon in almost the same regions each time.  These reactions only 
occur one atom at a time, so the geometrically restricted release of gamma rays 
is similarly restricted.  The released energy is absorbed by the matrix one 
atom-release at a time.  
 

[Vo]:[Vo] Casimir Effect: Egyptian Teenager Invents New Space Propulsion System

[hellokevin]

 
 







Egyptian Teenager Invents New Space Propulsion System Based On Quantum Physics
 

Gizmodo ^ | May 29, 2012 |  

 
Precocious young physicist Aisha Mustafa just patented a new system that could 
propel spacecrafts to the final frontier without using a drop of fuel. 
In short her system taps one of the odder facets of quantum theory, which 
posits that space isn't really a vacuum. It's really filled with particles and 
anti-particles that exist for infinitesimally small periods of time before 
destroying each other. Mustafa thinks she can harness them to create 
propulsion, resulting in space craft that need little-to-no fuel to maneuver 
around in space. Fast Company reports: 
Mustafa invented a way of tapping this quantum effect via what's known as the 
dynamic Casimir effect. This uses a "moving mirror" cavity, where two very 
reflective very flat plates are held close together, and then moved slightly to 
interact with the quantum particle sea. It's horribly technical, but the end 
result is that Mustafa's use of shaped silicon plates similar to those used in 
solar power cells results in a net force being delivered. A force, of course, 
means a push or a pull and in space this equates to a drive or engine. 
Propulsion in space is incredibly easy to achieve because there aren't any 
particles to get in the way, but until now we've been completely reliant on 
engines to do the work. Engines create propulsion by burning chemical 
fuels—these fuels are heavy and expensive, making some of the crazy exploration 
we'd like to do impossible. Mustafa's system could let the laws physics do the 
heavy-lifting instead. 
Of course, Mustafa needs to work on the design much more and figure out how to 
get funding for the ambitious adventure. We hope some organization with deep 
pockets steps up because the science is remarkable.

[Vo]:Could the ECat be a CVD reactor?

[Jojo Jaro]

Hey Gang,

I've been reading a lot about Carbon Nanotubes and its significance as a 
possible NAE, and something hit me.

Could the original ECat have been a CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition) reactor?  
The similarity are numerous:  A cylindrical reactor, a presurrized H2 envelope, 
some nickel powder and possibly some carbon powder as the "catalyst".

The reactor would be heated and the carbon would sublimate and deposit onto 
Nickel powder and grow as Carbon nanotubes.  Nickel has been a common seed 
material for the growth of Single Walled NanoTubes (SWNT).  A quick jolt of RF 
energy would then give the nanotubes a stir and cause the start of the LENR 
reaction.

Eventually, Rossi found out that an Arc Discharge reactor is better for CNT 
creation so he changed his design from a CVD reactor to a flat-plate arc 
discharge reactor.

The recent news from Rossi that the amount of Nickel being used in his reactor 
is now down to 1.5 grams seems to be consistent with the hypothesis that Nickel 
is a seed material for CNT growth rather than as the reactants involved in a 
Fusion reaction.  1.5 grams seems to little to be reactants in the fusion 
reaction.

What do you guys think?  Am I way off here?


Jojo

RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)

[Jones Beene]

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/64106-missing-neutrons-may-be-visiting-parallel-universe

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h68g501352t57011/fulltext.pdf

 

Same story on missing neutrons with graph and the full text site - showing the 
apparent region of interest with a cluster at about .1 Gauss. Of course, 
extending this finding (which could be wrong to begin with) to virtual neutrons 
is a leap. Yet that is what we do here- try to extend the ‘cutting edge’ … 
while avoiding the ‘bleeding edge’… This time there the reference paper is 
extremely suspect, in itself.

 

Anyway, that small triangle in the graph could be important in the context of 
“nano-magnetism” and the fact that the trigger temperature for Ni-H seems to 
relate to the Curie temperature of nickel. It also tends to show visually how 
difficult hitting the parameter for disappearance would be. The magnetic field 
in question is actually LESS than the Earth's magnetic field at its surface 
which is about .4 Gauss in most places. A typical refrigerator magnet is 50 
Gauss so we have to ask – are they really that accurate with this?

 

We can imagine that the ‘sweet spot’ – which relates to cryogenic neutrons 
would be much harder to duplicate at 350C. Anyway, on the plus side - I could 
download the paper today from Springer for free, which is unusual since they 
(especially) usually charge a significant fee for carrying out the garbage.

 

Jones

 

… perhaps ALL reactions with hydrogen loaded metal result in a mix of the two 
temperature anomalies, hot and cold - even the ones that are massively gainful 
in heat… Those with heat, such as Rossi claims, could be at a ratio of 90/10 
(hot/cold). Perhaps Ahern titanium samples gave 47/53 and it appeared to be 
cooling, but it was only net cooling with significant heat also….If the 
“missing neutron” or “missing hydrino” ends up providing a huge loss of 
mass-energy to the reaction, then that loss covers up a lot of excess heat 
prior to the disappearance.

 

This can possibly explain why LERN is generally unreliable – a natural tendency 
to produce a balance of excess heat and excess cooling - and it requires some 
unknown intervention to shift the balance. The intervention appears to be a 
magnetic field at only about a tenth of a gauss.

 

[Vo]: Interesting Extension of Nucleon Stability Theory

[David Roberson]

I have been making observations and generating theories concerning nucleon 
stability conditions that present themselves with the addition of a proton or 
neutron to an existing stable element and have an interesting new discovery to 
report.  It consists of an extension to the empirical data described earlier.
My theory concerns nucleon behavior and I happened to consider an interesting 
extension.  The number zero is a valid number of nucleons that is considered 
stable so I started at that condition and added either a neutron or proton as 
in the previous postings.  And, as before one of the additions results in a 
stable configuration and the other does not.  A single proton is the well known 
and understood hydrogen nucleus.  A single neutron, which is the other result, 
should not be stable according to the rule I discovered and in fact is not.  
Not only that, but the neutron decays by beta decay into the first case which 
is a proton as in all of the other nucleons that I analyzed.  The beta decay 
results in the release of a neutrino as in all the other cases along with the 
proton and electron.
This latest observation adds support to my earlier conclusion that there can be 
no adjacent non radioactive elements with a particular nucleon count.  The 
finite binding energy difference between equal count nucleon combinations seems 
to always drive a single beta decay event in the direction which maximizes the 
binding energy.  This leads to local minimums so that another non adjacent 
element of the same nucleon count can be stable.  My review of a nuclide table 
demonstrates two such local minimums are common.   I did not note any 
situations where more than two equal nucleon count elements were stable, but 
the tendency to reach stability is evident by the decay times which are related 
to the binding energy differences.
I have not noted any strong hints of binding energy quantization effects since 
there are no observed adjacent stable elements of the same nucleon count to 
suggest this.
Dave 

RE: [Vo]:Could the ECat be a CVD reactor?

[Cy Cle]

Jojo Jaro,Axil Axil wrote: "A better way to get carbon into the act is to use a hydrocarbon gas  instead of vaporizing bulk carbon and hydrogen. Vaporizing bulk carbon  is not easy from a practical point of view. In an easier way, without any oxygen in the reactor’s envelop  (important), under the action of a spark plug discharge plasma at  60,000C, the hydrocarbon gas would decompose into hydrogen and some  sort of carbon dust. This dust may form as carbon nanotubes(a one dimensional  superconductive cluster) which would store electrons from the plasma  produced by the spark plug. This long thin tube would be superconductive and concentrate negative  charge like a capacitor. These nanowires would be electrostatically  attracted to the nickel powder, they would attach themselves  electrostatically head on to the nickel powder, and their accumulated  negative charge at their sharp tip would reduce the coulomb barrier  where their sharp tips contacted the nickel powder. This is not the way Rossi’s reaction works, but I think that it is a  better way. Rossi’s secret sauce is heat activated to accumulate  charge; but the carbon nanotubes accumulate charge in proportion to  the discharge rate of the spark plug. If you want to increase heat output on a nanotube based system, just  increase the spark plug firing rate. Control of heat output is a  simple process with an advantage of simplicity over what Rossi has  been struggling with over more than a year. Cheers: Axil"Putting a money bet on that theory. Will support any one wanting to build a reactor incorporating this concept.Physicist  

Re: [Vo]:Could the ECat be a CVD reactor?

[Jojo Jaro]

I am building a reactor based on this concept.  

What bet are you talking about?  Since I am building a reactor based on this 
theory, will you provide me money to build one?

The total cost of my entire system is less than US$1,000.  Send me US$1,000 and 
I can proceed.  (Actually, I have the money and am proceeding, but if you are 
willing to give me money, I'll take it.  But there is another more critical 
need that I have if you are willing to help, if you live in the U.S.)


Jojo


BTW, I have considered Axil's concepts below and I believe it will create very 
little Carbon Nanotubes.  The creation of CNT will require a fairly static 
atmosphere envelope to allow the ionized carbon atoms to condense onto existing 
seed material - which may be a nickel atom.  If the reactor environment is 
turbulent, the ionized carbon atoms will not condense onto the substrate to 
grow a CNT.  What you get for sparking in a hydrocarbon gas is lots of Hydrogen 
and lots of CH4 and lots of unstructured carbon soot.  Too solve this problem, 
I have modified my reactor design to have a static environment during the first 
phase - the CNT creation phase.  Then a turbulent environment to distribute the 
CNTs to the nickel reactants for the LENR reaction.  







  - Original Message - 
  From: Cy Cle 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:36 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Could the ECat be a CVD reactor?


Jojo Jaro,Axil Axil wrote:"A better way to get carbon into the act is to 
use a hydrocarbon gas instead of vaporizing bulk carbon and hydrogen. 
Vaporizing bulk carbon is not easy from a practical point of view. In an easier 
way, without any oxygen in the reactor’s envelop (important), under the action 
of a spark plug discharge plasma at 60,000C, the hydrocarbon gas would 
decompose into hydrogen and some sort of carbon dust. This dust may form as 
carbon nanotubes(a one dimensional superconductive cluster) which would store 
electrons from the plasma produced by the spark plug. This long thin tube would 
be superconductive and concentrate negative charge like a capacitor. These 
nanowires would be electrostatically attracted to the nickel powder, they would 
attach themselves electrostatically head on to the nickel powder, and their 
accumulated negative charge at their sharp tip would reduce the coulomb barrier 
where their sharp tips contacted the nickel powder. This is not the way Rossi’s 
reaction works, but I think that it is a better way. Rossi’s secret sauce is 
heat activated to accumulate charge; but the carbon nanotubes accumulate charge 
in proportion to the discharge rate of the spark plug. If you want to increase 
heat output on a nanotube based system, just increase the spark plug firing 
rate. Control of heat output is a simple process with an advantage of 
simplicity over what Rossi has been struggling with over more than a year. 
Cheers: Axil"Putting a money bet on that theory. Will support any one wanting 
to build a reactor incorporating this concept.Physicist

[Vo]:Ionic liquid improves speed, efficiency of hydrogen-producing catalyst

[John Steck]

"The results also provide molecular details into how the catalytic material 
converts electrical energy into the chemical bonds between hydrogen atoms. This 
information will help the researchers build better catalysts, ones that are 
both fast and efficient, and made with the common metal nickel instead of 
expensive platinum."
 
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/06/Energy-Ionic-Liquid-Improve-Speed-Efficiency-Of-Hydrogen-Producing-Catalyst/?et_cid=2701454&et_rid=54733007&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rdmag.com%2fNews%2f2012%2f06%2fEnergy-Ionic-Liquid-Improve-Speed-Efficiency-Of-Hydrogen-Producing-Catalyst%2f
 
-john

___ 
John Steck
   BUSINESS CRITICAL NPD SERVICES
   White Space, Go-To-Market, Next Generation
   Lancaster PA / Chicago IL  

Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> It is easy to go over the top with dramatization on this one.
>
> This scenario does not need to involve parallel universes (in the SciFi
> sense) nor anything theological. In fact, Dirac's "reciprocal space" works
> fine - as the "repository" for deep hydrinos, and with no other fictional
> "baggage" so to speak.

It is related to theology (or at least quasi-theology) since most
physicists have faith in CoE.
If they didn't they wouldn't bother to imagine neutrinos and parrallel
universes.

Harry

> BTW - for those who do not grasp what actually happened in the EPRI reports,
> here is a short synopsis of Ahern's experiments. First, there is a well
> insulated reactor with numerous RTDs for accurate temperature measurement.
> The reactor is filled with pressurized hydrogen and various sample
> nanopowders - including an inert control powder. There is a resistance
> heater, drawing in the tens of watts. The current is kept absolutely
> constant to the heater, so that there is no variation on P-in during the
> run.
>
> With the 'control', you will find from datalogging that a specific rate of
> thermal transfer occurs between the outer RTD, where the heater is located
> and the inner. Hydrogen under pressure is a good conductor of heat so this
> is normally only a few degrees. For example, in the control setup (no active
> powder) one might see 350C on the outside and 340C on the inside. The
> difference is minimal and never varies.
>
> OK - when one switches from the control to active nanopowder, things get
> interesting and if there is excess energy from the interaction of hydrogen
> with the powder, there will be an "inversion", so that the inner RTD becomes
> hotter - often much hotter than the outer. That happens with nano-nickel,
> and the resulting temperature can be close to 100 degrees inverted. This is
> NOT calorimetry, but there are implications to be firmed up on further
> experimentation.
>
> The interesting part (for this thread) is that with Titanium nanopowder,
> instead of a temperature inversion indicating gain, you get an anomalous
> "sink." For instance, instead of an expected 10 degree drop (out-to-in) the
> spread can be much higher, an order of magnitude perhaps, indicating "active
> cooling".
>
> Any round numbers above are for illustration purposes only; but the results
> are shocking and significant in both anomalies - heat and cooling. And guess
> what, the cooling anomaly could be almost as important as the heating, in
> terms of new physics.
>
> EVEN IF THERE IS NO PATH TO COMERCIALIZATION - for an active cooling
> anomaly, it could be important if it points the way to an accurate
> understanding of the heat. That is where this is going.
>
> I haven’t heard a better explanation for active nano-cooling than the
> disappearance of matter from one spatial dimension into "reciprocal space."
> This space may not be a true dimension, but a fractal instead. "Fractal" is
> being used in the original way to mean a fractional dimension. Plus, the
> matter which is lost may not be a neutron, per se, but instead a
> maximum-redundant hydrino.
>
> Essentially, what I think happens with nano-titanium cooling is that the
> nanoparticles - which are a strong Mills' catalyst - collapse to the full
> redundancy in one continuous step - where there is both heat release on
> shrinkage, followed immediately by massive heat loss. on the atomic level,
> when the hydrino essentially disappears into reciprocal space. The net
> result is active cooling. Why it only happens with titanium needs to be
> answered. Perhaps it is a momentum effect of some kind.
>
> E=mc^2 works both ways, apparently - and when mass "disappears" - in a
> dimensional sense, so does the corresponding energy it contained. This is
> seen as heat removal from a hot reactor. The active species does not have to
> be 'mirror matter' as in the original article - but if that helps in
> appreciating the view through Alice's 'looking glass' - good! ... it is kind
> of catchy, so let's keep it.
>
> Jones
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
>
> The mystery of the eternal is now nothing more than CoE.
>
>> Good find - and the implications are a bit convoluted. The curious thing
> is
>> that mirror matter neutrons (or deep hydrinos) will explain anomalous heat
>> loss quite nicely.
>>
>> As you may remember, Ahern reported that some of his Arata-style samples
>> demonstrated anomalous heat LOSS (more of the samples show gain than loss,
>> and only a few showed nothing).
>>
>> This paper, in fact - could explain anomalous heat loss better than
> anything
>> I have seen thus far.
>>
>> BTW the all of the nanopowder samples which showed thermal loss were made
> of
>> nano-titanium embedded in zirconia. All of the nickel and palladium
> samples
>> showed gain.
>>
>> Jones
>
>
>>> Neutrons escaping to a parallel world?
>
>
>>> In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researcher

[Vo]:Nanoparticles - Handle with care

[pagnucco]

Since some readers on this list are experimenters, I thought I would
post the following news release:

Scientists establish link between autoimmune diseases and nanoparticles
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120612/Scientists-establish-link-between-autoimmune-diseases-and-nanoparticles.aspx

There have been several other studies demonstrating the possible dangers
of casual handling of nanopowders.  Caution is in order.

Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Harvey Norris]

What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont 
match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning

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

--- On Sun, 6/17/12, David Roberson  wrote:

From: David Roberson 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 8:15 PM


Mark, you ask the tough questions.  When I consider the possibility of a new 
energy form I have to think of the historic past.  We are notoriously incapable 
of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is 
unknown and accepted as true.  Anything our senses can not detect on demand 
generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'.  
This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the 
scientific community.


 


There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare 
occasions that have not been explained.  The UFO observations suggest some very 
strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise.  A 
strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects.


 


I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open 
mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as 
far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise.  There are 
some very strange things still going on in our research results.  The unknown 
variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative 
folks like us.


 


Dave








-Original Message-

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm

Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...






#yiv1787374310 #yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 
td{color:black;} _filtered #yiv1787374310 {font-family:"Cambria 
Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1787374310 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 
p.yiv1787374310MsoNormal, #yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882  
li.yiv1787374310MsoNormal, #yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882  
div.yiv1787374310MsoNormal  
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"serif";}#yiv1787374310
 #yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 a:link, 
#yiv1787374310 #yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882  
span.yiv1787374310MsoHyperlink  
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
 a:visited, #yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882  
span.yiv1787374310MsoHyperlinkFollowed  
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 
span.yiv1787374310EmailStyle17  
{font-family:"sans-serif";color:windowtext;}#yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 
.yiv1787374310MsoChpDefault  {} _filtered #yiv1787374310 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1787374310 
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 
div.yiv1787374310WordSection1  {}




I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… 


What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy 
yet to be discovered? 


0=No F*in Way


1=slight chance


2=reasonable chance


3=very good chance


4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy


 


I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school 
at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a 
wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of 
the chemists and physicists.  Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ 
topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually.  


 


One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way 
they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college 
text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out 
loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section verbatim, but 
the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase 
which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with… especially, the first and 
second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase is, 


  “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” 


 


Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, 
phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’ minds… it makes 
a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research.  And I 
will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact… we know 
about and 

Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Robert Lynn]

Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy)

On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris  wrote:

> What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols
> dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
>
> Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
>
> --- On *Sun, 6/17/12, David Roberson * wrote:
>
>
> From: David Roberson 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 8:15 PM
>
>
> Mark, you ask the tough questions.  When I consider the possibility of a
> new energy form I have to think of the historic past.  We are notoriously
> incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed
> phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true.  Anything our senses can not
> detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it
> when I see it'.  This is true until these new things are well published and
> accepted within the scientific community.
>
> There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare
> occasions that have not been explained.  The UFO observations suggest some
> very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues
> arise.  A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these
> subjects.
>
> I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my
> open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain
> LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise.
> There are some very strange things still going on in our research results.
> The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting
> to creative folks like us.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
>
>  I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question…
> What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of
> energy yet to be discovered?
> 0=No F*in Way
> 1=slight chance
> 2=reasonable chance
> 3=very good chance
> 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy
>
> I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad
> school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute…
> it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat
> with a few of the chemists and physicists.  Often our conversations drifted
> to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility,
> actually.
>
> One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the
> way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a
> college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and
> read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section
> verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a
> qualifying phrase which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with…
> especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase
> is,
>   “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” 
>
> Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all
> important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’
> minds… it makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into
> actual research.  And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all
> important fact… we know about and can easily measure various kinds of
> energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL
> forms of energy.  Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that
> such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a
> scientist in my mind.  The good scientists are always very careful with the
> wording they use, and ‘always’ and ‘never’ and ‘impossible’ are seldom if
> ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like ‘very unlikely’, or
> ‘highly improbable’.  Those are the minds that were taught proper
> thermodynamics…  improperly taught science slowly results in scientific
> dogma.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)

[Jones Beene]

One more post on this intriguing subject of “disappearing hydrinos” leading to 
anomalous cooling, before passing the pliers to Terry. 

 

We have already mentioned that Dirac’s “reciprocal space” provides an 
alternative venue for this modality, if it really exists – with a lot more 
credibility and less baggage that “parallel universes” … but that also brings 
up other fractal spatial possibilities. 

 

There is a paper on ArXiv – “Huge Casimir effect at finite temperature in 
electromagnetic Rindler space”. Here is the story on a blog:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/proposed-metamaterial-structure-to-test.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf

 

Anyway – there are several novel connection between fractals, anomalous energy 
gain or loss - and active geometry which is not exactly 3-space, all of which 
keep popping up in the literature from time to time (not unlike quantum foam). 
The message is that particular geometry can somehow alter spacetime - and it is 
more than the actual spatial dimensions in nm, but also the layout and the 
(magnetic) field. 

 

These have a common thread in that there is a known dynamic Casimir effect 
(DCE) which can supply excess energy, due to spatial constraints and relativity 
(i.e. altered spacetime). Consider also: ‘Minkowski Space’ is related to 
‘Rindler Space’ and also to ‘De Sitter Space.’ It is possible that all three of 
these terms relate to a unique fractal of space-time (using ‘fractal’ in the 
original sense of a fractional dimension) which becomes accessible at the 
Forster radius of 2-12 nm. 

 

This is NOT normal 3-space, nor is it 2-space but somewhere in between. Almost 
a wormhole, so to speak. Look at the image here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacetime

 

in the context of this article 

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf

 

This all fits together in a way that is not easy to verbalize, but seems to 
involve 

1)Double vortex in spacetime

2)Vortex flipping and self-oscillation

3)Spatial geometry that relates to the Forster radius (FRET) 2-12 nm

4)Exaggerated vibrational modes

5)Anomaly is not always a gain in temperature – sometimes a loss.

 

The problem is that this analysis is an early attempt to merge 
mathematical-space with real space.

 

But what is “real space”, anyway?

 

Jones

 

 

-

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h68g501352t57011/fulltext.pdf

 

Same story on missing neutrons with graph and the full text site - showing the 
apparent region of interest with a cluster at about .1 Gauss. Of course, 
extending this finding (which could be wrong to begin with) to virtual neutrons 
is a leap. Yet that is what we do here- try to extend the ‘cutting edge’ … 
while avoiding the ‘bleeding edge’… This time there the reference paper is 
extremely suspect, in itself.

 

Anyway, that small triangle in the graph could be important in the context of 
“nano-magnetism” and the fact that the trigger temperature for Ni-H seems to 
relate to the Curie temperature of nickel. It also tends to show visually how 
difficult hitting the parameter for disappearance would be. The magnetic field 
in question is actually LESS than the Earth's magnetic field at its surface 
which is about .4 Gauss in most places. A typical refrigerator magnet is 50 
Gauss so we have to ask – are they really that accurate with this?

 

We can imagine that the ‘sweet spot’ – which relates to cryogenic neutrons 
would be much harder to duplicate at 350C. Anyway, on the plus side - I could 
download the paper today from Springer for free, which is unusual since they 
(especially) usually charge a significant fee for carrying out the garbage.

 

Jones

 

… perhaps ALL reactions with hydrogen loaded metal result in a mix of the two 
temperature anomalies, hot and cold - even the ones that are massively gainful 
in heat… Those with heat, such as Rossi claims, could be at a ratio of 90/10 
(hot/cold). Perhaps Ahern titanium samples gave 47/53 and it appeared to be 
cooling, but it was only net cooling with significant heat also….If the 
“missing neutron” or “missing hydrino” ends up providing a huge loss of 
mass-energy to the reaction, then that loss covers up a lot of excess heat 
prior to the disappearance.

 

This can possibly explain why LERN is generally unreliable – a natural tendency 
to produce a balance of excess heat and excess cooling - and it requires some 
unknown intervention to shift the balance. The intervention appears to be a 
magnetic field at only about a tenth of a gauss.

 

Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Harry Veeder]

ha!
Harry

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Lynn <
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy)
>
> On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris  wrote:
>
>> What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols
>> dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!

[John Steck]

Votex is simply a reflection of the members who inhabit it and the things 
important to them that drive their individual intellect.  CF has always been a 
common denominator, but never the sole topic or focus nor should it be.  
Innovation is the successful combination of seemingly unrelated / impossible 
things.  As trivial as some topics seem, they all contain something of worth.  
'Vortex-B' never became popular because of that.  The prefixes '[Vo]' and 'OT' 
were hotly debated when proposed and eventually added to allow basic filtering 
of the Vortex-L stream.  The tools are there if you wish to use them.  If you 
choose not to, I don't think the rest of the membership should have to 
acquiesce.  Speaking from experience... take a break every couple of years and 
unsubscribe for a while.  Helps keeps things in perspective.
 
"We do what we do, because of who we are. If we did otherwise, we would not be 
ourselves.” - Neil Gainman, The Sandman: Book of Dreams
 
-john
 
 






From: eric.wal...@gmail.com



The archives make it clear that there's been a fairly random assortment of 
postings going back to 1995.  Some of the people in this thread have been on 
this list since 1995.  We should defer to their preferences here.  In addition, 
we should not be afraid of having our beliefs respectfully challenged; we 
should actively seek this out.



  

Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Harvey Norris]

Well pardon me, that seems obvious, but I dont think I saw those words anywhere 
in the original post. I wish that folks using abbreviations could do that for 
the ones they use.

--- On Mon, 6/18/12, Harry Veeder  wrote:

From: Harry Veeder 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012, 12:29 PM

ha!Harry

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Lynn  
wrote:

Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy)


On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris  wrote:


What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont 
match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning



 

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles - Handle with care

[Terry Blanton]

But in the case of buckministerfullerene:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/fullerene-c60-administration-doubles-rat-lifespan-with-no-toxicity

T

Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)

[Terry Blanton]

TRATEOTU:

The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe
on the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.
To explain — since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some
way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in
theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation — every sun,
every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and
social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.
The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in
order to annoy his wife.
Trin Tragula — for that was his name — was a dreamer, a thinker, a
speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount
of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics
of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy
cake.
"Have some sense of proportion!" she would say, sometimes as often as
thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex — just to show her.
And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from
a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so
that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of
creation and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain;
but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively
that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the
one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.



Maybe Marko Rodin has it right:

http://lifeforcegenie.com/unified-science-of-everything/vortex-based-mathematics.html

T

Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

This subject thread (which is mostly "on topic") and for which Mark is
guilty of instigating, got me to thinking...



For centuries a plethora of meticulously crafted scientific physics
experiments seem to confirm over and over the fact that we live in a closed
system. This has resulted in an almost sacred collection of laws supported
by the scientific establishment. Those laws state we cannot create or
destroy what currently exists. Granted, what exists can be transformed from
one state to another... but what we currently inherited (presumably from
the Big Bang) is all that was bequeathed to us - forever and ever.



It would appear that Nature, the Grand Designer that She is, put a lot of
thought into assembling such a design. After all, if the CoE of the
universe were less than one, existence would have come to a screeching halt
billions of years go in one gigantic freezing crunch. Game over! What'l we
do now!  OTOH, if the CoE of the universe were greater than one, the
existence of everything would constantly be in a state of explosion. Again,
Game over. What'l we do now! Science tends to be conservative. As such,
it's not surprising that science seems to prefer keeping CoE of the
universe pegged at a safe and mostly harmless value of one.



But now, the scourge of Dark Energy has entered the picture. What a problem
child she is! Suddenly the universe appears to be blowing up, albeit in
extreme slow motion.



What IS this Dark Energy? Is it possibly sneaking in from somewhere else -
outside the boundaries of our universe? Perhaps we'll eventually stumble
across another component, a component not yet discovered that takes it all
back. If so, will it re-balance the equation?



Will Dr. Mills' audacious CQM theory, with its oscillating universe
template, eventually come to the rescue?



In the end maybe the only recourse we will have left will be to continue
taking a closer look at the endless riddles Mother Nature seems to throw in
our direction. Whoever implied that the Universe doesn't have a sense of
humor should have his head examined.



Again, I'm procrastinating. Back to work...



Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrinoWorks.com 

www.zazzle.com/orionwork

[Vo]:neutrons leaking to parallel mirror universe? Rich Murray 2012.06.18

[Rich Murray]

neutrons leaking to parallel mirror universe? Rich Murray 2012.06.18

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html

Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? June 15, 2012

In a paper recently published in European Physical Journal C,
researchers hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain
the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally.

The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various
scientific contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable
dark matter candidates.

Theoretical physicists Zurab Berezhiani and Fabrizio Nesti from the
University of l'Aquila, Italy, reanalysed the experimental data
obtained by the research group of Anatoly Serebrov at the Institut
Laue-Langevin, France.

It showed that the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to
depend on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied.

This anomaly could not be explained by known physics.

Berezhiani believes it could be interpreted in the light of a
hypothetical parallel world consisting of mirror particles.

Each neutron would have the ability to transition into its invisible
mirror twin, and back, oscillating from one world to the other.

The probability of such a transition happening was predicted to be
sensitive to the presence of magnetic fields, and could therefore be
detected experimentally.

This neutron-mirror-neutron oscillation could occur within a timescale
of a few seconds, according to the paper.

The possibility of such a fast disappearance of neutrons -- much
faster than the ten-minute long neutron decay -- albeit surprising,
could not be excluded by existing experimental and astrophysical
limits.

This interpretation is subject to the condition that the earth
possesses a mirror magnetic field on the order of 0.1 Gauss.

Such a field could be induced by mirror particles floating around in
the galaxy as dark matter.

Hypothetically, the earth could capture the mirror matter via some
feeble interactions between ordinary particles and those from parallel
worlds.

More information: Z. Berezhiani, F. Nesti,
Magnetic anomaly in UCN trapping: signal for neutron oscillations to
parallel world?
(2012),  European Physical Journal C 72: 1974,
DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1974-5

RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

To Terry (master of the one-liner) Blanton,
   R U feeling ill, or just totally bored?
:-)
-mark

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 

TRATEOTU:

The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on
the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.
To explain — since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way
affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory
possible to extrapolate the whole of creation — every sun, every planet,
their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from,
say, one small piece of fairy cake.
The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order
to annoy his wife.
Trin Tragula — for that was his name — was a dreamer, a thinker, a
speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of
time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of
safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.
"Have some sense of proportion!" she would say, sometimes as often as
thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex — just to show her.
And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a
piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that
when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation
and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to
his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is
going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot
afford to have is a sense of proportion.



Maybe Marko Rodin has it right:

http://lifeforcegenie.com/unified-science-of-everything/vortex-based-mathema
tics.html

T

Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:
> To Terry (master of the one-liner) Blanton,
>   R U feeling ill, or just totally bored?

Both, actually, mentally.

The quote is from Douglas Adams.

Rodin invented the Rodin coil.

And I didn't even mention Walter Russell and his vortex theories.  So,
I will now:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Walter_Russell

T

RE: [Vo]:neutrons leaking to parallel mirror universe?

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

To quote the article...

"It showed that the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend
on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied.  This anomaly
could not be explained by known physics."

Or could it be that it cannot be explained by known physics because QM is
incomplete?  And so they resort to the bizarre (parallel-universes) tenets
of an incomplete theory... sounds like thin ice to me.

-mark

-Original Message-
From: Rich Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:29 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com; Rich Murray
Subject: [Vo]:neutrons leaking to parallel mirror universe? Rich Murray
2012.06.18

neutrons leaking to parallel mirror universe? Rich Murray 2012.06.18

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html

Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? June 15, 2012

In a paper recently published in European Physical Journal C, researchers
hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss
of neutrons observed experimentally.

The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various scientific
contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable dark matter
candidates.

Theoretical physicists Zurab Berezhiani and Fabrizio Nesti from the
University of l'Aquila, Italy, reanalysed the experimental data obtained by
the research group of Anatoly Serebrov at the Institut Laue-Langevin,
France.

It showed that the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend
on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied.

This anomaly could not be explained by known physics.

Berezhiani believes it could be interpreted in the light of a hypothetical
parallel world consisting of mirror particles.

Each neutron would have the ability to transition into its invisible mirror
twin, and back, oscillating from one world to the other.

The probability of such a transition happening was predicted to be sensitive
to the presence of magnetic fields, and could therefore be detected
experimentally.

This neutron-mirror-neutron oscillation could occur within a timescale of a
few seconds, according to the paper.

The possibility of such a fast disappearance of neutrons -- much faster than
the ten-minute long neutron decay -- albeit surprising, could not be
excluded by existing experimental and astrophysical limits.

This interpretation is subject to the condition that the earth possesses a
mirror magnetic field on the order of 0.1 Gauss.

Such a field could be induced by mirror particles floating around in the
galaxy as dark matter.

Hypothetically, the earth could capture the mirror matter via some feeble
interactions between ordinary particles and those from parallel worlds.

More information: Z. Berezhiani, F. Nesti, Magnetic anomaly in UCN trapping:
signal for neutron oscillations to parallel world?
(2012),  European Physical Journal C 72: 1974, DOI
10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1974-5

Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Harry Veeder]

I don't think concept of entanglement is required. Here is what I mean
by "complete".
An entity is complete when its presence *can* be detected (not that it
must detected).

Unlike other particles Neutrinos do not scatter, as far I know. A
particle  which can be scattered can be detected without destruction,
so it is complete without destruction. If Neutrinos are more than just
mathematical fictions, but cannot be scattered, then they remain
incomplete until they are detroyed during an interaction.

Harry


On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
> That is an interesting comment Harry.  Are you suggesting that the neutrino
> is entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the
> decay?

>The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange
> as it would require the end receptor to change with distance and thus time.
> Is the release of a neutrino significantly different than the release of a
> gamma ray regarding energy escape from a nucleus?
>
> Please explain what you mean by the statement that they remain incomplete
> until they interact.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 12:48 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
>
> With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility
> rather than a necessity.
> Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of
> their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during
> a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain
> incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is
>>> impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my
>>> mind.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about the "not a scientist" part, but I personally have no
>> profound attachment to CoE.  :)  Assume that CoE is understood today as:
>>
>>     Eout - Ein = 0
>>
>> What if, instead, it were really:
>>
>>     Eout - Ein = k
>>
>> for very small k, or, more interestingly,
>>
>>     Eout - Ein = f(t)
>>
>> for f(t) ~ 0 at this time.
>>
>> Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on,
>> so
>> I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system.
>>  Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic
>> radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the
>> books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud.
>>
>> My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR
>> reaction
>> involving titanium could be endothermic.  It's probably not all that
>> difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics
>> was getting in the way.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[David Roberson]

I have been following the discussion about nuclear cooling and I think I see 
another direct way it can be achieved if the W&L process is real.  I have my 
doubts as to whether or not that is true, but if it is then I think the 
following might occur.
 We first start with a system that includes a proton, electron and a Beryllium 
9 atom.  We use a W&L process to make a neutron which takes 781.915 keV.  Of 
course it requires a lot of metal to actually have a W&L process perform, but I 
have broken it into the least parts to make the cooling process stand out.
Now, this low momentum neutron can find its way into the nucleus of the Be9 
atom freely and binds there.  At this point we have an unstable isotope 
Beryllium 10 which eventually beta decays (1.51 * 10 ^6 years) into Boron 10 
which is stable.  The electron emitted by the decay carries 202.63 keV while an 
electron antineutrino escapes with 353.43 KeV of energy.  The escaping neutrino 
carries off a significant amount of the energy and would be extremely difficult 
to capture and return to the system.
The final tally is that we put 781.915 keV + 353.43 keV = 1135.385 keV into the 
system but appear to only see 202.63 keV of heating energy returned.  It is 
interesting to note that the neutron energy is held tightly within the Be9 
nucleus until the decay occurs so heat is immediately absorbed from the test.  
This process would definitely do a great job of cooling that far exceeds 
chemical methods if a better subject metal is chosen.
I chose this simple case for demonstration purposes and I realize that a 
million years is a long time, but the effect should be real for other metals 
with shorter time constants.  In this particular example it appears 
advantageous for the neutron to be held by the nuclei for a long period before 
the decay.
Perhaps a test of the W&L type of process can be constructed by choosing the 
appropriate metal to use for the test and then measure the cooling.  The test 
would be capable of determining whether or not the neutrons were formed by that 
process.  If no neutrons are formed, then the entire theory would be suspect.
What do you guys think?
Dave

[Vo]:Updating Calendar and Timeline in Production

[Ruby]

I am collecting Special Dates in cold fusion history for an updated 
time-stream Calendar and Timeline.
Researching dates, assembling dates and inputting data to a calendar is 
in production and will be completed over the next several weeks, project 
to be completed in July.


With the cooperation of Christy Frazier, I'm using Eugene Mallove's 
10-Year Anniversary time-line published in Infinite Energy Volume 4, 
Issue 24 1999 and Hal Fox's chronology published in Cold Fusion Impact 
in the Enhanced Energy Age as a base of material.


In order to document your top historic moments, can you respond to:

What is the biggest cold fusion/LANR/LENR condensed matter nuclear 
science moment in your career?
For instance, experimentalists, what day did you realize you've 
re-created the FPE and/or detected a nuclear product.

For researchers, writers, and entrepreneurs, what day did you begin?
What is the event impacted you the most with respect to the new field of 
condensed matter nuclear science? (and if possible, what was the date?)


I am also including moments in early history, like Democritus 450BC 
describing atomic view.
Let me know if there is a deep history moment that you feel had impact 
the development fusion-power in a solid.


Are any other other chronologies published?

It is amazing that I can use this digital network to ask the entire 
global community of people - about an only two-decades old revolutionary 
science!


For the broadest possible profile, your participation is greatly 
appreciated.  All viewpoints welcome for complete documentation.

Ruby
Reply directly to r...@coldfusionnow.org .
Thank-you!

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Chemical Engineer]

Maybe when everything cools off is when time will stop...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9337990/Not-enough-hours-in-the-day-Scientists-predict-time-will-stop-completely.html


On Monday, June 18, 2012, David Roberson wrote:

> I have been following the discussion about nuclear cooling and I think I
> see another direct way it can be achieved if the W&L process is real.  I
> have my doubts as to whether or not that is true, but if it is then I think
> the following might occur.
>  We first start with a system that includes a proton, electron and a
> Beryllium 9 atom.  We use a W&L process to make a neutron which takes
> 781.915 keV.  Of course it requires a lot of metal to actually have a W&L
> process perform, but I have broken it into the least parts to make the
> cooling process stand out.
> Now, this low momentum neutron can find its way into the nucleus of the
> Be9 atom freely and binds there.  At this point we have an unstable
> isotope Beryllium 10 which eventually beta decays (1.51 * 10 ^6 years) into
> Boron 10 which is stable.  The electron emitted by the decay carries
> 202.63 keV while an electron antineutrino escapes with 353.43 KeV of energy.
> The escaping neutrino carries off a significant amount of the energy and
> would be extremely difficult to capture and return to the system.
> The final tally is that we put 781.915 keV + 353.43 keV = 1135.385 keV
> into the system but appear to only see 202.63 keV of heating energy
> returned.  It is interesting to note that the neutron energy is held
> tightly within the Be9 nucleus until the decay occurs so heat is
> immediately absorbed from the test.  This process would definitely do a
> great job of cooling that far exceeds chemical methods if a better subject
> metal is chosen.
> I chose this simple case for demonstration purposes and I realize that a
> million years is a long time, but the effect should be real for other
> metals with shorter time constants.  In this particular example it
> appears advantageous for the neutron to be held by the nuclei for a long
> period before the decay.
> Perhaps a test of the W&L type of process can be constructed by choosing
> the appropriate metal to use for the test and then measure the cooling.  The
> test would be capable of determining whether or not the neutrons were
> formed by that process.  If no neutrons are formed, then the entire
> theory would be suspect.
> What do you guys think?
> Dave
>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[pagnucco]

David,

I don't think your test will work.

The 782 keV figure assumes no additional energy is lost in producing
neutrons.  Second, you have to assume you can get the process to work in
Be.

The cooling effect (albeit totally infinitesimal) should occur if you use
a stream of super-cooled neutrons.  But, why couldn't you just look for
9Be to 10Be conversion directly which should happen quickly?

David Roberson wrote:
>
> I have been following the discussion about nuclear cooling and I think I
> see another direct way it can be achieved if the W&L process is real.  I
> have my doubts as to whether or not that is true, but if it is then I
> think the following might occur.
>  We first start with a system that includes a proton, electron and a
> Beryllium 9 atom.  We use a W&L process to make a neutron which takes
> 781.915 keV.  Of course it requires a lot of metal to actually have a W&L
> process perform, but I have broken it into the least parts to make the
> cooling process stand out.
> Now, this low momentum neutron can find its way into the nucleus of the
> Be9 atom freely and binds there.  At this point we have an unstable
> isotope Beryllium 10 which eventually beta decays (1.51 * 10 ^6 years)
> into Boron 10 which is stable.  The electron emitted by the decay carries
> 202.63 keV while an electron antineutrino escapes with 353.43 KeV of
> energy.  The escaping neutrino carries off a significant amount of the
> energy and would be extremely difficult to capture and return to the
> system.
> The final tally is that we put 781.915 keV + 353.43 keV = 1135.385 keV
> into the system but appear to only see 202.63 keV of heating energy
> returned.  It is interesting to note that the neutron energy is held
> tightly within the Be9 nucleus until the decay occurs so heat is
> immediately absorbed from the test.  This process would definitely do a
> great job of cooling that far exceeds chemical methods if a better subject
> metal is chosen.
> I chose this simple case for demonstration purposes and I realize that a
> million years is a long time, but the effect should be real for other
> metals with shorter time constants.  In this particular example it appears
> advantageous for the neutron to be held by the nuclei for a long period
> before the decay.
> Perhaps a test of the W&L type of process can be constructed by choosing
> the appropriate metal to use for the test and then measure the cooling.
> The test would be capable of determining whether or not the neutrons were
> formed by that process.  If no neutrons are formed, then the entire theory
> would be suspect.
> What do you guys think?
> Dave
>

[Vo]:FYI: Ionic liquid improves speed and efficiency of hydrogen-producing catalyst

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

FYI for the day:

 

"Ionic liquid improves speed and efficiency of hydrogen-producing catalyst"

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-ionic-liquid-efficiency-hydrogen-producing-cata
lyst.html

 

"This information will help the researchers build better catalysts, ones
that are both fast and efficient, and made with the common metal nickel
instead of expensive platinum.  The work explores a type of dissolvable
nickel-based catalyst."

 

"The researchers mixed the catalyst, the [acidic] ionic liquid, and a drop
of water. The catalyst, with the help of the ionic liquid and an electrical
current, produced hydrogen molecules, stuffing some of the electrons coming
in from the current into the hydrogen's chemical bonds, as expected.   As
they continued to add more water, they expected the catalyst to speed up
briefly then slow down, as the slow catalyst in their previous solvent did.
But that's not what they saw.  

 

"The catalyst lights up like a rocket when you start adding water," said
Roberts.

 

The rate continued to increase as they added more and more water. With the
largest amount of water they tested, the catalyst produced up to 53,000
hydrogen molecules per second, almost as fast as their fast and inefficient
version.  Importantly, the speedy catalyst stayed just as efficient when it
was cranking out hydrogen as when it produced the gas more slowly."

 

 

[Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis

[Terry Blanton]

Take that, Fermi:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576511003304

T

Re: [Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis

[Jed Rothwell]

See: A. C. Clarke, "Childhood's End."

- Jed

[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Yet another air crash here at my office

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/four-people-injured-when-1459897.html

This happens maybe twice a year. No one killed this time, but the last two
times they were.

I did not notice a thing this time. It was at the other end of the
airfield. The aircraft was totaled.

Other crashes I recall recently have been at the shopping mall, the golf
course, Rt. 85, and in the driveway of a friend's house (a two engine
aircraft with no survivors). I have to say, it makes me a little nervous
when an airplane passes over our house with the engine misfiring, low
enough that I can see the passengers. It is a little like living at the
peak of Mt. Everest, except they clean up the bodies right away.

It is fun when the Goodyear blimp passes over.

Scheduled aviation is the safest form of travel. General aviation (small,
unscheduled airplanes) is roughly 10 times more dangerous that automobiles,
per passenger mile. It will never be safe enough for ordinary use until
airplanes are completely robotic with hands-off operation. I predict that
something like a manually operated Moller Skycar will never succeed.

See the chapter in my book about aviation.

See:

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes

[Axil Axil]

Why was so much iron found in the ash (10 %) from Rossi’s reaction? It
could be derived from a need to fabricate carbon nanotubes as part of the
Rossi reaction as documented in the following article.

http://news.rice.edu/2012/06/15/nanotubes-seek-perfection-from-the-start/

*In nanotube growth, errors are not an option*

Important excerpts of interest for E-Cat reactor builders are as follows.

1 - The researchers found that very transition happens best when carbon
nanotubes are grown at temperatures around 930 kelvins (1,214 degrees
Fahrenheit). That is the optimum for healing with an iron catalyst, which
the researchers found has the lowest energy barrier and reaction energy
among the three common catalysts considered, including nickel and cobalt.

2 - The researchers also determined through simulations that the slower the
growth, the longer a perfect nanotube could be. A nanotube growing about 1
micrometer a second at 700 kelvins could potentially reach the meter
milestone, they found.

3 - The work at Rice University was initially supported by the National
Science Foundation and at a later stage by an Office of Naval Research
grant.

Why would the Navy be lately interested in nanotube fabrication?  Is it to
help Rossi in his design process?



Cheers:Axil

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes

[Jojo Jaro]

Interesting Axil, but this goes back to my original question.

930K is CVD reactor temps.  So, was the Original Rossi ECat a CVD reactor?

If so, what could possibly have prompted Rossi to redesign his ECat into a 
FatCat.  Would a Spark Discharge reactor work better than a CVD based reactor? 
As far as CNT creation goes.  Maybe not, but it seems a Arc Discharge reactor 
would work better with the LENR reaction itself.

I think I know the answer but I would like to hear your thoughts.

I'm speculating that the recent Rossi announcement that he has achieved 600C 
operation is related to this.  930K ideal temps is close to 600C.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:48 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes


  Why was so much iron found in the ash (10 %) from Rossi’s reaction? It could 
be derived from a need to fabricate carbon nanotubes as part of the Rossi 
reaction as documented in the following article.

  http://news.rice.edu/2012/06/15/nanotubes-seek-perfection-from-the-start/

  In nanotube growth, errors are not an option

  Important excerpts of interest for E-Cat reactor builders are as follows.

  1 - The researchers found that very transition happens best when carbon 
nanotubes are grown at temperatures around 930 kelvins (1,214 degrees 
Fahrenheit). That is the optimum for healing with an iron catalyst, which the 
researchers found has the lowest energy barrier and reaction energy among the 
three common catalysts considered, including nickel and cobalt.

  2 - The researchers also determined through simulations that the slower the 
growth, the longer a perfect nanotube could be. A nanotube growing about 1 
micrometer a second at 700 kelvins could potentially reach the meter milestone, 
they found.

  3 - The work at Rice University was initially supported by the National 
Science Foundation and at a later stage by an Office of Naval Research grant.

  Why would the Navy be lately interested in nanotube fabrication?  Is it to 
help Rossi in his design process?



  Cheers:Axil

Re: [Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> See: A. C. Clarke, "Childhood's End."

You once asked ACC (for me) what was his inspiration for CE and he
said to read 3010.  I have, but, do not still find the answer.  CE was
one of my favorite works by ACC.  I always sort of equated him with
Chris Tinsley in a way.  I miss them both.

T

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Yet another air crash here at my office

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/four-people-injured-when-1459897.html
>
> This happens maybe twice a year. No one killed this time, but the last two
> times they were.
>
> I did not notice a thing this time. It was at the other end of the airfield.
> The aircraft was totaled.

I often lunch at the 57th Fighter Squadron and enjoy sitting on the
patio watching TOs and Landings.  A good friend lost his parents in
the same area as the accident when they overshot the runway during an
IFR landing.

Do you ever visit the Downwind?  They used to have the best burgers.
I wonder if they do still.

T

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Yet another air crash here at my office

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> Do you ever visit the Downwind?  They used to have the best burgers.
> I wonder if they do still.
>

I haven't been there in a while but it looks the same as ever. The owner is
Greek so you should go for the Greek specials on Friday.

That is a WWII officer's club, with the ambiance & bar intact.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes

[Axil Axil]

There was a BIG change in Rossi’s design when he when from 100 grams of
powder to 1 gram. I don’t remember if the ash he submitted for assay was
produced by a reactor from the 100 grams design or the 1 gram design.

Rossi now says that his reactor is operating in a stable mode. 40 days of
stable operation must by necessity require a major redesign.  I can’t see
this stability happening if Rossi still is using heat based thermionic
charge generation. He must have changed his secret sauce when he when to
the Frequency generator.

DGT probably still uses a heat based system and suffers from instability.

A Spark Discharge reactor is appropriate in a system where the carbon tubes
form on metal powder that is stationary because the EMF does not cause the
powder to move around.

A Radio frequency generator sets up oscillating EMF which causes the powder
to jump around and become suspend in the hydrogen.

This turbulent powder movement might cause the tubes to break apart. The
RFG based system is more complicated.

Rossi says he now uses a RFG. But this may not be the best way to build
tubes. I am no expert here …yet.

Iron will produce heat when stimulated by a RFG. But Chan says he uses a
Nichrome heater now instead of iron.

Rossi may use Spark Discharge to build the tubes at startup and RFG to
charge them up and get them to fly around?

Chan says he only uses RFG and his new design does not use iron, only
nickel and 5% carbon powder by weight at 200C at startup.

Jojo…What do you think?

Cheers:  Axil




On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Interesting Axil, but this goes back to my original question.
>
> 930K is CVD reactor temps.  So, was the Original Rossi ECat a CVD reactor?
>
> If so, what could possibly have prompted Rossi to redesign his ECat into a
> FatCat.  Would a Spark Discharge reactor work better than a CVD based
> reactor? As far as CNT creation goes.  Maybe not, but it seems a Arc
> Discharge reactor would work better with the LENR reaction itself.
>
> I think I know the answer but I would like to hear your thoughts.
>
> I'm speculating that the recent Rossi announcement that he has achieved
> 600C operation is related to this.  930K ideal temps is close to 600C.
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:48 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes
>
> Why was so much iron found in the ash (10 %) from Rossi’s reaction? It
> could be derived from a need to fabricate carbon nanotubes as part of the
> Rossi reaction as documented in the following article.
>
> http://news.rice.edu/2012/06/15/nanotubes-seek-perfection-from-the-start/
>
> *In nanotube growth, errors are not an option*
>
> Important excerpts of interest for E-Cat reactor builders are as follows.
>
> 1 - The researchers found that very transition happens best when carbon
> nanotubes are grown at temperatures around 930 kelvins (1,214 degrees
> Fahrenheit). That is the optimum for healing with an iron catalyst, which
> the researchers found has the lowest energy barrier and reaction energy
> among the three common catalysts considered, including nickel and cobalt.
>
> 2 - The researchers also determined through simulations that the slower
> the growth, the longer a perfect nanotube could be. A nanotube growing
> about 1 micrometer a second at 700 kelvins could potentially reach the
> meter milestone, they found.
>
> 3 - The work at Rice University was initially supported by the National
> Science Foundation and at a later stage by an Office of Naval Research
> grant.
>
> Why would the Navy be lately interested in nanotube fabrication?  Is it to
> help Rossi in his design process?
>
>
>
> Cheers:Axil
>
>

[Vo]:Larmor Compensation &The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Wm. Scott Smith]

As far as I know, I am inventing the term  Larmor Compensation. Larmor 
Radiation occurs whenever a charged particle is accelerated.A so-call "orbital" 
electron accelerates and completely decelerates in two directions every single 
time it completes some sort of loop around an atomic nucleus; therefore, it 
must be continuously supplied with new energy, presumably at the expense of the 
ever-forming and ever-reforming electromagnetic flux of the Quantum Vacuum. 
I am actually pursuing a US patent on an entirely new class of devices that 
would exploit this very-real fact of nature. 
Please contact me if you would like to be involved with the project.
Scott
Wm. Scott Smith


> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:49:44 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
> From: hveeder...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> The apparent lack of anti-matter in the universe is also conundrum
> from the standpoint of CoE.
> 
> harry
> 
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is
> >> impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about the "not a scientist" part, but I personally have no
> > profound attachment to CoE.  :)  Assume that CoE is understood today as:
> >
> > Eout - Ein = 0
> >
> > What if, instead, it were really:
> >
> > Eout - Ein = k
> >
> > for very small k, or, more interestingly,
> >
> > Eout - Ein = f(t)
> >
> > for f(t) ~ 0 at this time.
> >
> > Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so
> > I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system.
> >  Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic
> > radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the
> > books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud.
> >
> > My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction
> > involving titanium could be endothermic.  It's probably not all that
> > difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics
> > was getting in the way.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:Larmor Compensation &The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Wm. Scott Smith  wrote:
> As far as I know, I am inventing the term  Larmor Compensation. Larmor
> Radiation occurs whenever a charged particle is accelerated.
> A so-call "orbital" electron accelerates and completely decelerates in two
> directions every single time it completes some sort of loop around an atomic
> nucleus; therefore, it must be continuously supplied with new energy,
> presumably at the expense of the ever-forming and ever-reforming
> electromagnetic flux of the Quantum Vacuum.

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf

T

Re: [Vo]:Larmor Compensation &The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Terry Blanton]

Hey, you're in good company.  Who ya gonna call?

T

[Vo]:Re: [FRIAM] neutrons leaking to parallel mirror universe? Rich Murray2012.06.18

[Rich Murray]

What intrigues me is that very cold neutrons switching spontaneously
out of our realm in seconds via low intensity mirror realm magnetic
fields is a scheme that sounds similar to the Widom-Larson conjecture
in recent years:

strong electric currents creating momentary neutral associations
between protons and electrons, on the surfaces of solids, with zero
overall charge and very low speed, on surfaces where the
proton-electron association can act like a neutron, moving so close to
the atomic nucleus as to enable the strong force to grab the proton,
which emits a positron that combines with the electron, making an
escaping gamma and releasing nuclear energy -- leaving the nucleus
with an added unit of mass, enough in many nuclei like Cu to produce
short-lived radioactives that give off gammas and electrons one by one
via known decay chains, resulting in a stable element with higher
proton numbers...

search Google for Widom-Larson weak interaction transmutation decay chains...

eternal exponential expansion of science is an empirical law that,
given the actual single, fully and intimately unified, creative, fey
fractal hyperinfinity beyond-within all subjective and objective
realms, will forever display unpredictable phenomena on all scales --
just as observed since 1660...  heh, heh...
"Murray's Law"...

[Vo]:Boyer Compensation? &The missing half of the Law of CoE...

[Wm. Scott Smith]

Thanks for the great paper--I thought I had read all of Hal's papers, but 
missed this one!
I wasn't trying to take credit for the idea. I just didn't know what to call 
the phenomenon.  I think Larmor Compensation is as good as any, though perhaps 
Hal would argue that it should be Boyer ZPE Compensation. 
The point I am making is this, the consequences of accelerating an electron in 
one direction are not undone by the consequences of then accelerating it in the 
opposite direction. Energy is emitted by the electron both times and is 
replaced by the quantum vacuum both times. My proposed device will exploit this 
fact to achieve a practical harvesting of ZPE.
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:28:18 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Larmor Compensation &The missing half of the Law of CoE...
> From: hohlr...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Wm. Scott Smith  wrote:
> > As far as I know, I am inventing the term  Larmor Compensation. Larmor
> > Radiation occurs whenever a charged particle is accelerated.
> > A so-call "orbital" electron accelerates and completely decelerates in two
> > directions every single time it completes some sort of loop around an atomic
> > nucleus; therefore, it must be continuously supplied with new energy,
> > presumably at the expense of the ever-forming and ever-reforming
> > electromagnetic flux of the Quantum Vacuum.
> 
> http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf
> 
> T
> 
  

[Vo]:The transcension hypothesis: Sufficiently advanced civilizations invariably leave our universe, John M. Smart: Rich Murray 2012.06.18

[Rich Murray]

uh,  see A Course in Miracles (Jesus), Time, Space and Knowledge
(Tarthang Tulku, Rinpoche), The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth
Book (Jane Roberts)...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576511003304

Acta Astronautica
Volume 78, September -- October 2012, Pages 55-68
Searching for Life Signatures

The transcension hypothesis: Sufficiently advanced civilizations
invariably leave our universe, and implications for METI and SETI * **
John M. Smart a, b, c, d, , ,
a Acceleration Studies Foundation, 216 Mountain View Ave, Mountain
View, CA 94041, USA
b Evo Devo Universe Research Community, USA
c Emerging Technologies, University of Advancing Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA
d ECCO (Evol, Complexity & Cognition) Group, Center Leo Apostel, Free
U. of Brussels, Belgium
Received 12 March 2011. Revised 2 November 2011. Accepted 4 November
2011. Available online 16 December 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.11.006, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Permissions & Reprints
View full text
Purchase $31.50

Abstract

The emerging science of evolutionary developmental (“evo devo”)
biology can aid us in thinking about our universe as both an
evolutionary system, where most processes are unpredictable and
creative, and a developmental system, where a special few processes
are predictable and constrained to produce far-future-specific
emergent order, just as we see in the common developmental processes
in two stars of an identical population type, or in two genetically
identical twins in biology.

The transcension hypothesis proposes that a universal process of
evolutionary development guides all sufficiently advanced
civilizations into what may be called "inner space," a computationally
optimal domain of increasingly dense, productive, miniaturized, and
efficient scales of space, time, energy, and matter, and eventually,
to a black-hole-like destination.

Transcension as a developmental destiny might also contribute to the
solution to the Fermi paradox, the question of why we have not seen
evidence of or received beacons from intelligent civilizations.

A few potential evolutionary, developmental, and information theoretic
reasons, mechanisms, and models for constrained transcension of
advanced intelligence are briefly considered.

In particular, we introduce arguments that black holes may be a
developmental destiny and standard attractor for all higher
intelligence, as they appear to some to be ideal computing, learning,
forward time travel, energy harvesting, civilization merger, natural
selection, and universe replication devices.

In the transcension hypothesis, simpler civilizations that succeed in
resisting transcension by staying in outer (normal) space would be
developmental failures, which are statistically very rare late in the
life cycle of any biological developing system.

If transcension is a developmental process, we may expect brief
broadcasts or subtle forms of galactic engineering to occur in small
portions of a few galaxies, the handiwork of young and immature
civilizations, but constrained transcension should be by far the norm
for all mature civilizations.

The transcension hypothesis has significant and testable implications
for our current and future METI and SETI agendas.

If all universal intelligence eventually transcends to black-hole-like
environments, after which some form of merger and selection occurs,
and if two-way messaging (a send–receive cycle) is severely limited by
the great distances between neighboring and rapidly transcending
civilizations, then sending one-way METI or probes prior to
transcension becomes the only real communication option.

But one-way messaging or probes may provably reduce the evolutionary
diversity in all civilizations receiving the message, as they would
then arrive at their local transcensions in a much more homogenous
fashion.

If true, an ethical injunction against one-way messaging or probes
might emerge in the morality and sustainability systems of all
sufficiently advanced civilizations, an argument known as the Zoo
hypothesis in Fermi paradox literature, if all higher intelligences
are subject to an evolutionary attractor to maximize their local
diversity, and a developmental attractor to merge and advance
universal intelligence.

In any such environment, the evolutionary value of sending any
interstellar message or probe may simply not be worth the cost, if
transcension is an inevitable, accelerative, and testable
developmental process, one that eventually will be discovered and
quantitatively described by future physics.

Fortunately, transcension processes may be measurable today even
without good physical theory, and radio and optical SETI may each
provide empirical tests.

If transcension is a universal developmental constraint, then without
exception all early and low-power electromagnetic leakage signals
(radar, radio, television), and later, optical evidence of the
exoplanets and their atmospheres should reliably cease 

Re: [Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

Take that, Fermi:
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576511003304
>
> T
>

Assume that the odds that there are sentient beings on other planets is
nonzero, and that, further, this proposition understates things for a
universe where we have every reason to believe that the number of planetary
systems is large.  A problem to be explained, then, is that we have not
detected any sign of such beings.  If they survive and advance
technologically, one can presume that they will eventually discover
electromagnetic radiation and its ability to carry information.  If they
had something analogous to television and radio stations for an extended
period of time, wouldn't we pick up the signal at some point?  If they made
use of anything comparable to what we presently have, it should be
straightforward to infer from such a signal that it is not background noise.

So perhaps we have one of the following: (1) there are no sentient beings
on other planets (this contradicts our hypothesis); or (2) all other
sentient groups did not advance to the point of controlling EM radiation
(unlikely, given the numbers we're talking about); or (3) such groups
quickly move to a mode of communication that is difficult for us to pick up
on with our present technology.  Perhaps they're using quantum cryptography
with an enormously large key strength.  With sufficiently advanced
encryption, we could mistake the signal for white noise.

Possibility (3) could be for reasons unrelated to us; i.e., the other
civilizations simply like the domestic privacy such technology affords.  Or
it could be for evolutionary reasons, as the article suggests; but even
then, the alien civilizations could have made the evolutionarily dubious
choice of sending out a probe over an extended period before they came to
their senses, as we earthlings already have.  Or there could be something
along the lines of Star Trek's prime directive -- don't interfere with the
development of alien societies, with a possible corollary of not permitting
them to detect you until they're sufficiently advanced.

So to detect alien civilizations in our third scenario, we will either need
to crack the ciphers once we get quantum computers rolling or we will need
to happen upon the brief period of time (200 years, say) before which they
figured out how to super-encrypt things.  Even if we assume a large number
of alien civilizations, their number will be vanishingly small compared to
the surrounding cosmos, so that window of 200 years or so will be a very
fleeting thing to attempt to pick up on, and presumably, given the relative
weakness of the signal, you will need to point the radio telescope in
exactly the right direction.  (Here I am going beyond my knowledge of radio
telescopes.)  One moral of this story is that we need not conclude anything
about the existence of alien civilizations on the basis of the SETI results.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes

[Jojo Jaro]

Axil, IMHO, the following is my analysis:

1.  I think we can be certain that the major redesign had something to do with 
being able to deliver sparks more efficiently.  A pressure vessel made of 2 
parallel plates makes abosolutely no sense for a pressure vessel from a 
mechanical or structural point of view.  A vessel that is wide and broad and 
thin makes a poor pressure vessel because it is more difficult to prevent leaks 
and to fortify it properly for pressure operation.  Hence the resulting vessel 
would have to be sturdier than necessary making it more expensive.  Hence, 
makes no sense from a structural point of view.  There's a reason why almost 
pressure vessels we use in the industry are cylindrical in shape, ie. propane 
tanks, gas tanks, oxygen tanks, and all sorts of pressure tanks.  Roosi's 
redesign to a FatCat was prompted by something else.  To me, it was the need to 
deliver sparks.  I can't think of anything else.

2.  The redesign to a FatCat must have obliviated the need for an RF.  Why?  
for the simple reason that the FatCat is now made of steel, as opposed to the 
original ECat being made of copper.  We all know RF energy will NOT penetrate a 
vessel made of steel.  Hence, there must be no RF involved in the FatCat. I see 
no possible way the RF coil could be inside the reactor.  The operating temps 
inside would quickly disintegrate the insulating cover of any magnet wire wound 
into a coil to deliver sufficient RF energy.  An RF antenna that is not shaped 
into a coil is not likely to be able to deliver much RF energy of consequence.

3.  I do not believe any RF applied could break up the CNTs.  I can not see a 
situation where enough RF energy with enough frequency could be delivered 
against the CNTs to break it up.  The tensile and Flexural stength of CNTs is 
beyond what an RF antenna of whatever kind can deliver.  At the move we can 
deliver a few watts of RF, (notwithstanding #2) so there does not appear to be 
enough power to break CNTs apart.





Here's my understanding of what really goes on inside the FatCat (my 
understanding comes mostly from what you have posted.)

1.  I believe the FatCat is a combination CVD reactor and Arc Discharge reactor 
in one.  The process starts with a reactor that is loaded with a few grams of 
Nickel powder (as seed material for CNT growth.)  and carbon/graphite powder; 
all at nanometer sizes.  Rossi does not vaccuum his reactor so there would be 
oxygen in there. 

2.  H2 is loaded at the required pressure.

3.  The reactor is heated to the CVD operating temp of around 600C (Remember, 
this is now a steel pressure vessel, It does not have the original ECat's temp 
limitation.  It can be operated at much higher temps.)

4.  As the carbon is heated, it would react with the oxygen inside and form CO. 
 Hence all the oxygen would be taken up into CO and would not pose an explosion 
hazard when sparks are introduced.  The rest of the carbon sublimates and 
starts to form CNTs on the Nickel seed material.  At this point, the CNTs are 
simply sitting quietly on the bottom of the reactor.

5.  After a while, when suficient CNTs have formed, Rossi removes the heating 
and starts applying sparks.  Since the reactor plate would be perfectly 
parallel, the sparks would be distributed all across the entire area not just 
in one place.  Visualize lightning all over the landscape.  This lightning 
would stir up the CNTs at the bottom and spread them out and suspend them in 
the H2 envelope.   Subsequent sparks would charge them with enormous charge.  
This would provide the necessary charge screening for any H+ ions that may come 
near these CNTs.  With sufficient charge screening, the H+ ions fuses and 
viola, Fusion.  The liberated heat can now be harvested.  Heat that is not 
harvested would serve to further ionize any other H2 molecule and further 
create CNTs on the remaining nickel seed material.  Because the CNT NAE is now 
dynamically created, Rossi now does not have quiescience problems like he did 
initially when his NAE was based on cracks on the Nickel tubules.

6.  This mechanism allows Rossi to control the reaction rate by applying 
varying rates of sparks.  Ongoing creation of CNTs can be controlled by 
modulating the reactor temps around 600C.   (I could not figure out why the 
operating temps was 600C, why not 700C or 900C, Until I realized that the 
reactor was a CVD reactor.)



I've got to go.  I'll elaborate on my reasons in subsequent posts.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:09 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes


  There was a BIG change in Rossi’s design when he when from 100 grams of 
powder to 1 gram. I don’t remember if the ash he submitted for assay was 
produced by a reactor from the 100 grams design or the 1 gram design.

  Rossi now says that his reactor is operating in a stable mode. 40 days of 
stable op

Re: [Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

Perhaps they're using quantum cryptography with an enormously large key
> strength.  With sufficiently advanced encryption, we could mistake the
> signal for white noise.
>

Just to elaborate -- you would need to do more than simply encrypt the
contents of the signal to achieve some kind of cloaking, since the way we
transmit radio these days lends itself to detection in various ways, even
if the contents cannot be decrypted.  You could look for sharp peaks of
intensity across the radio spectrum, for example, and figure out that there
are other people using radios.  In order to have cloaking, you would need
to get rid of all obvious trace of a signal, perhaps along these lines:

   - Take a large sample of the background noise across the full range of
   the human-safe EMF spectrum detected in the vicinity of the antenna.
   - Encrypt your message with very strong encryption.
   - Using the background as the carrier signal, introduce small bits of
   your message here and there, amplifying and attenuating the background just
   a tiny bit across the full range of frequencies.
   - Use incredibly massive redundancy to ensure that the encrypted signal
   survives errors in transmission so that it can be successfully decrypted.

Eric