date:20140128

I kinda agree, we are in a cosmic wash, rinse and repeat cycle with the
vacuum. The 95% and 5% going back and forth between each other. I think
the CMB is because the whole damn place, including our 3 dimensions of
space are decaying all of the time, which sorta sucks for us.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:15 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

July 27, 2010

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the
universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and
no end.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with,
the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is
scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the
Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it's hard to find
alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely
compelling.

That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the
National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative
new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass
are related in new kind of relativity.

Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be
converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the
geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor
between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a
relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the
gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be
constant.

So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and
space and vice versa as it contracts.

This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of
expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot
exist in this cosmos.

It's easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic
model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists.

That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of
expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in
the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they
accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the
observations that astronomers have made on Earth.

This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu's universe.

That's in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on
the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was
discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying
contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work.

The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a
dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate.
For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the
energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate.

But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation
of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world's cosmologists have
conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics
in an attempt to square this circle.

That paints Shu's ideas in a slightly different perspective. There's no
need to abandon conservation of energy to make his theory work.

That's not to say Shu's theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest
problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic
microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the
the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they
say, is the echo of the Big bang.

How it might arise in Shu's cosmology isn't yet clear but I imagine he's
working on it.

Even if he finds a way, there will need to be some uncomfortable
rethinking before his ideas can gain traction. His approach may well
explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation
of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the
constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential
phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space
and time.

Rightly or wrongly, that's a trade off that many will find hard. Let's
hope Shu sticks to his guns, if only for the sake of good old-fashioned
debate

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang

Re: [Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR

2014-01-28 Thread Bob Higgins

Dave,

See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency

The R_BCS, which is the surface resistance, goes as f^2.

We looked at making cellular combiner cavities out of superconductors at
the time of the early years of the HTC superconductors.  It turned out that
there was a business case for a Type 1 superconductor combiner, but the HTC
devices were not as good.

Bob




On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Bob,

 I was unaware of the fact that superconductors only work at DC.   I knew
 they were used in microwave cavities so I assumed that the effect was more
 broadband than you are suggesting.  What is the theory that leads to them
 loosing their capabilities as frequency is increased?

 Dave

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-28 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Harry,
I think we are on the same page but in different languages. 
Agreed the electron remains bound to the proton and from my relativistic 
perspective is locally even unaware of it's fractional state BUT becoming 
localized thru measurement I take to include producing anomalous heat .. which 
is where I have been going with the suppression tapestry  inside the catalyst 
/ lattice that equates to a form of Maxwellian demon as the method of 
measurement.. In previous exchanges with Jones I have been convinced this only 
occurs when the change in fractional states is forced to occur asymmetrically 
instead of simply morphing back and forth between different fractional states.. 
many methods for this are possible as indicated by all the theories being 
posited here on Vortex but I am also convinced the initial bootstrapping energy 
source is actually ZPE and this self assembled form of demon that occurs within 
the tapestry.. I think the anomalous heat is because fractional hydrogen 
molecules are opposed while moving between regions - they have to borrow energy 
from random motion to disassociate and reform at the new fractional value 
dictated by the new local geometry they are moving into before reforming and 
releasing the energy back to the system.. if the heat of the molecule was 
already near disassociation and the discount substantial enough this can break 
the rule of COE releasing more energy than we supply thermally. I why COE says 
you can't get energy from the scale of HUT but IMHO the quantum effects of 
Casimir geometry create an overlooked caveat to this rule. [this caveat neatly 
hidden by natures quick tendency to self destruct these geometries in a manner 
similar to pyrophoricity.
Fran

From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

Francis,

After doing some more reading I realize that since the orbit of the electron is 
a probability distribution according to QM it doesn't matter how spread out the 
probability distribution becomes, the electron will remain bound to the proton. 
However, if the electron were to become localized (through an act of 
measurement) where it is expected to escape according to classical theory, will 
it escape?

I did learn that for some potential wells there are no bound states. For 
instance at the bottom of this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_potential_well
it says that a spherical potential well which is either too small or too 
shallow cannot have any bound states.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
Harry,
This is why I keep pushing the suppressed environment as key to the riddle - 
it isn't the spatial acceleration of the electron or atom but rather the region 
of space time that they are migrating thru - the Casimir geometry forms a 
gravity warp where virtual particle pairs are excluded - meaning the region is 
equivalent to being at the top of a gravity well relative to us outside the 
cavity and therefore it is us outside the well that appear to exist in slow 
time just as we would see the paradox twin to exist approaching an event 
horizon.. the same sort of equivalent acceleration is occurring inside the 
lattice where Casimir geometry forms but it is negative which begs the question 
where does mass grow larger.. since the negatively accelerated atom is 
equivalent to the stationary observer and we outside the cavity are equivalent 
to the relativistic twin maybe the mass is added to the quantum geometry of the 
lattice that is actually causing the suppression?
Fran

From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.commailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

A hydrogen atom H is an atom because the motion of the electron is bound to the 
proton. If the electron's motion were not bound by the proton, the electron and 
proton would not form an atom since the electron's motion would allow it to 
escape the potential well of the proton.
In a classical mechanical system the orbital radius of a bound electron can be 
arbitrarily large as long as the kinetic energy of the electron can be 
arbitrarily small. In a quantum mechanical system if an electron has an 
arbitrarily small kinetic energy then the uncertainty in its position becomes 
arbitrarily large and that would increase the probability that the electron 
could escape the potential well of the proton by tunneling beyond it. Or is 
it impossible for a bound electron to free itself?

harry


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson 
dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
That is right Harry.  Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-)

Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values which is 
like the quantum theory as I

Re: [Vo]:A Question for Those Who Say the FP Effect is not fusion

2014-01-28 Thread Edmund Storms

Good point, Eric. The attitude and training of the physicist is not  
suited to explain cold fusion. The best training comes from chemistry.  
This training is best because most of the effects that influences CF  
involves a chemical structure. Physics only applies to the actual  
nuclear process, which occurs automatically once the critical chemical  
conditions are created.  In addition, chemical training is more  
focused on reality than is physics. As additional proof, all of the  
explanations provided by physicists are in basic conflict with basic  
knowledge and the behavior of LENR. They treat LENR as a game having  
no rules, which they feel free to supply based only on imagination and  
the latest fad in physics.


Ed Storms
On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com  
wrote:


It seems to me there would have to be a tremendous conspiracy of  
chance for such pattern to emerge. Doesn't mean it couldn't, it just  
means that if our opinions are gambles (which of course they are),  
I'll take my chances that this pattern represents more than just a  
mere flook.


You're being practical.  This is the attitude of an engineer.  The  
physicist might say junk in, junk out.  The suggestion is that you  
could be seeing a very alluring pattern that is an artifact of the  
poor procedures you used for measuring.  In a less-than-ironclad  
experiment, you will have not done everything possible to rule out  
systematic error, so your results cannot be built upon, even if  
they're suggestive.  Many people here did not have much of a problem  
with the approach that the Elforsk-sponsored team took to evaluate  
Rossi's latest public test, with the IR camera and so on.  Ericsson  
and Pomp had a big problem with their method, and it's probably  
largely due to their being physicists.  There's a cultural  
disconnect somewhere.  Engineers are practical folks, and physicists  
want apodictic knowledge.


Engineers will show the way in the case of cold fusion, and then  
physicists will try to explain things later on, after the fact.  In  
fact, one wonders whether it is wise to entrust the development of  
hot fusion to physicists.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Question for Those Who Say the FP Effect is not fusion

2014-01-28 Thread Jed Rothwell

Here is a succinct paper from Miles about helium:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

 

 

From: Ron Kita 

 

I can only read about 5% of Vortex LENR  posts but 

I saw this Feb 2013 website with a quote on  Dennis Bushnell

citing that a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz is needed to initate the

LENR reaction:

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a
-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane

 

 

Hi Ron,

 

Thanks for posting this. It confirms what we have been talking about in
related threads about the connection between intense THz and the SPP as the
active modality.

 

In the HotCat - it appears that Rossi has elegantly solved the problem of
how to get coherent radiation in this spectrum (where lasers are simply not
available) by using a monochromatic emitter of FIR (far infrared), and then
merely applying resistance heat to that emitter. Once the emitter comes up
to temperature, the energy needed to maintain it drops by a large factor -
thus providing control. That temperature is near the runaway temp- so added
control is needed.

 

Maybe I am giving Rossi more credit than he is due.

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR


a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz



Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion 
theory told of this in 1998,  Now add the size and get the velocity 1,094,000 
meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear 
Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago. 




http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/787504



Frank Znidarsic



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:44 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR



 
 

From:Ron Kita 


 

I can only read about 5% of Vortex LENR  postsbut 

I saw this Feb 2013 website with a quote on Dennis Bushnell

citing that a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz is needed toinitate the

LENR reaction:

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane

 

 
Hi Ron,
 
Thanks for posting this.It confirms what we have been talking about in related 
threads about theconnection between intense THz and the SPP as the active 
modality.
 
In the HotCat – it appearsthat Rossi has elegantly solved the problem of how to 
get coherent radiation inthis spectrum (where lasers are simply not available) 
by using a monochromaticemitter of FIR (far infrared), and then merely applying 
resistance heat to thatemitter. Once the emitter comes up to temperature, the 
energy needed to maintainit drops by a large factor – thus providing control. 
That temperature isnear the runaway temp- so added control is needed.
 
Maybe I am giving Rossimore credit than he is due.

Re: [Vo]:A Question for Those Who Say the FP Effect is not fusion

2014-01-28 Thread Alain Sepeda

You position match the position of Beaudettes.

as a watcher I noticed that modern mentalities, globally and in particular
in france (we have very academic education, even as top engineers), is more
like what Beaudette and You describe for Nuclear Physicists.
Maybe people having chemistry mind don't argue, but wait and see instead of
claiming you are wrong... maybe that is a bias.
What shocked me is discussing with well educated (PhD mostly, Msc eng are
more neutral, or agree with caution) is that it is hard for many people to
accept :
- that something can be real without a theory. some prefer bad theory to
justify their observations.
- that something that is hard to reproduce, and often fails anyway exists.
- that something useless, small, is real anyway
- that reproducing an experiment with a different measurement method, is
valuable reproduction and is cross check against artifact.
- that claiming it is a fraud or it is an artifact against something
without a theory is not scientific, unless you have evidences. At worst
you can wait for more evidence if it is not confirmed or if there is
possibilities of error or fraud...
- that accusing of bias, when observing a fact, someone for the simple fact
that he have previous admitted the reality of the same fact, is bad logic.

fascinating...


2014-01-28 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

 Good point, Eric. The attitude and training of the physicist is not suited
 to explain cold fusion. The best training comes from chemistry. This
 training is best because most of the effects that influences CF involves a
 chemical structure. Physics only applies to the actual nuclear process,
 which occurs automatically once the critical chemical conditions are
 created.  In addition, chemical training is more focused on reality than is
 physics. As additional proof, all of the explanations provided by
 physicists are in basic conflict with basic knowledge and the behavior of
 LENR. They treat LENR as a game having no rules, which they feel free to
 supply based only on imagination and the latest fad in physics.

 Ed Storms

 On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me there would have to be a tremendous conspiracy of chance
 for such pattern to emerge. Doesn't mean it couldn't, it just means that if
 our opinions are gambles (which of course they are), I'll take my chances
 that this pattern represents more than just a mere flook.


 You're being practical.  This is the attitude of an engineer.  The
 physicist might say junk in, junk out.  The suggestion is that you could
 be seeing a very alluring pattern that is an artifact of the poor
 procedures you used for measuring.  In a less-than-ironclad experiment, you
 will have not done everything possible to rule out systematic error, so
 your results cannot be built upon, even if they're suggestive.  Many people
 here did not have much of a problem with the approach that the
 Elforsk-sponsored team took to evaluate Rossi's latest public test, with
 the IR camera and so on.  Ericsson and Pomp had a big problem with their
 method, and it's probably largely due to their being physicists.  There's a
 cultural disconnect somewhere.  Engineers are practical folks, and
 physicists want apodictic knowledge.

 Engineers will show the way in the case of cold fusion, and then
 physicists will try to explain things later on, after the fact.  In fact,
 one wonders whether it is wise to entrust the development of hot fusion to
 physicists.

 Eric

RE: [Vo]:Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

 

From: ChemE Stewart 

 

I kinda agree, we are in a cosmic wash, rinse and repeat cycle with the
vacuum.  The 95% and 5% going back and forth between each other.  I think
the CMB is because the whole damn place, including our 3 dimensions of space
are decaying all of the time, which sorta sucks for us.

 

Hey Stewart - 

I won't start a new topic for this, because it is way off topic to begin
with.

But as the resident prophet of Cosmic Catastrophe, at least with your web
page, here is a new one which you might want to look into. (if you haven't
already covered it).

The Decline of the Maya. Many theories - none of them good.

http://www.history.com/topics/maya

Sometime around 850 A.D. the Maya were almost gone from a thriving
civilization, at its peak -and for no obvious reason other than severe
weather change. Was there a cosmic catastrophe to account for both?

Maybe. Here is one catastrophe which AFAIK has not been mentioned before wrt
the Maya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/774%E2%80%93775_carbon-14_spike

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-large-solar-proton-event-.html

Which appears to be something like a CME or corona mass ejection from the
Sun which happened in the years 774-775. We know that from ice cores and
tree rings. The date is not in question but the location of maximum effect
is not known.

There are brief mentions of something in the Northern Hemisphere- a large
red cross but this event could have hit Central America spot on - as the
prime target. It could have also partly have caused the Dark Ages in
Europe in a trickle-down effect. These things could happen every 1000 years
or so - and we could be overdue. It would wipe out the power grid. 

Anyone working outside in the winter of 774 would have received a medium
sized but fatal dose of gamma radiation when the CME hit, based on the large
spike seen in carbon-14 - a dose which would take years to kill by cancer.
Thus the decline of the Maya.

There is a NOVA documentary which got me thinking about CME. Scary.
Fortunately, we have an agency which monitors the sun, and can give us a few
hours of warning of a CME. Let's hope that agency is not defunded.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR





Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion 
theory told of this in 1998,  Now factor in the size and get the velocity 
1,094,000 
meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear 
Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago. 






What is the velocity 1,094,000 meters per second?  Its the velocity of sound in 
the nucleus.



What happens when you set this velocity = the velocity of light in the 
electronic structure.


Your get:


The energy levels of all of the atoms.
The intensity of spectral emission.
The enegy and the frequency of the photon
The S,P,D, and F orbits.
A possible unification of quantum physics and Spec Rel.
The deBroglie wave.


extrapolate and get:


The technology of antigravity
and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions.






Its all in my very cheep paperback,Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity






Frank Znidarsic








-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR



a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz



Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion 
theory told of this in 1998,  Now add the size and get the velocity 1,094,000 
meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear 
Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago. 




http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/787504



Frank Znidarsic



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:44 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR



 
 

From:Ron Kita 


 

I can only read about 5% of Vortex LENR  postsbut 

I saw this Feb 2013 website with a quote on Dennis Bushnell

citing that a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz is needed toinitate the

LENR reaction:

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane

 

 
Hi Ron,
 
Thanks for posting this.It confirms what we have been talking about in related 
threads about theconnection between intense THz and the SPP as the active 
modality.
 
In the HotCat – it appearsthat Rossi has elegantly solved the problem of how to 
get coherent radiation inthis spectrum (where lasers are simply not available) 
by using a monochromaticemitter of FIR (far infrared), and then merely applying 
resistance heat to thatemitter. Once the emitter comes up to temperature, the 
energy needed to maintainit drops by a large factor – thus providing control. 
That temperature isnear the runaway temp- so added control is needed.
 
Maybe I am giving Rossimore credit than he is due.

Re: [Vo]:Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

Yeah, I think A direct hit from X class CME's is our #1 threat. I think
much of the billion tons of matter contained within is collapsed/dark
matter/vacuum which can stay in our atmosphere for months, ionizing,
condensing and cooling.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2012/11/24/the-anthropic-principle-the-dark-ages-and-a-warning/

I think comets that come into the inner solar system also increase this
local vacuum energy.

I don't consider myself a doom and gloomer, just trying to understand how
this place works. A little vacuum is a good thing. Branes bring rain...

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

*From:* ChemE Stewart

Hey Stewart -

I won't start a new topic for this, because it is way off topic to begin
with.

But as the resident prophet of Cosmic Catastrophe, at least with your web
page, here is a new one which you might want to look into. (if you haven't
already covered it).

The Decline of the Maya. Many theories - none of them good.

http://www.history.com/topics/maya

Sometime around 850 A.D. the Maya were almost gone from a thriving
civilization, at its peak -and for no obvious reason other than severe
weather change. Was there a cosmic catastrophe to account for both?

Maybe. Here is one catastrophe which AFAIK has not been mentioned before
wrt the Maya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/774%E2%80%93775_carbon-14_spike

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-large-solar-proton-event-.html

Which appears to be something like a CME or corona mass ejection from the
Sun which happened in the years 774-775. We know that from ice cores and
tree rings. The date is not in question but the location of maximum effect
is not known.

There are brief mentions of something in the Northern Hemisphere- a large
red cross but this event could have hit Central America spot on - as the
prime target. It could have also partly have caused the Dark Ages in
Europe in a trickle-down effect. These things could happen every 1000 years
or so - and we could be overdue. It would wipe out the power grid.

Anyone working outside in the winter of 774 would have received a medium
sized but fatal dose of gamma radiation when the CME hit, based on the
large spike seen in carbon-14 - a dose which would take years to kill by
cancer. Thus the decline of the Maya.

There is a NOVA documentary which got me thinking about CME. Scary.
Fortunately, we have an agency which monitors the sun, and can give us a
few hours of warning of a CME. Let's hope that agency is not defunded.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

2014-01-28 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Frank..

 Re your extrapolation [snip] extrapolate and get:The technology of antigravity 
and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions. [/snip]



I not only agree but I think it is antigravity that will finally break the back 
of skepticism regarding LENR.. Like you I followed with interest the claims of 
Eugene Podkletnov and played with meisner effect in the environmental lab at 
work trying to use some liquid nitrogen and a bulk magnetic eraser to tickle 
the effect out of my very amateur experiment..  I think the effect in LENR will 
require motion to detect the gravitational effect but once a compact mobile 
method of LENR becomes available it will soon be discovered there are also 
anomalous inertial effects involved…like we see radioactive decay rate 
anomalies it is a temporal effect,  presently these reactors are large and 
stationary but I predict a portable reactor placed running on one side of a 
balance beam will significantly slow down the reaction to changes in weight on 
the opposite arm of the balance as opposed to changes in weight when the 
reactor is turned off. The gas becomes relativistic due to the casimir geometry 
and it will present additional opposition beyond 3d to the normal inertia of 
the bulk powder or catalyst. IMHO  this opposition will be 90 degrees from any 
spatial vector and simply slow the normal inertia like a flywheel but without a 
spatial bias.
Fran




From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR



Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion

theory told of this in 1998,  Now factor in the size and get the velocity 
1,094,000

meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear

Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago.









What is the velocity 1,094,000 meters per second?  Its the velocity of sound in 
the nucleus.





What happens when you set this velocity = the velocity of light in the 
electronic structure.



Your get:



The energy levels of all of the atoms.

The intensity of spectral emission.

The enegy and the frequency of the photon

The S,P,D, and F orbits.

A possible unification of quantum physics and Spec Rel.

The deBroglie wave.



extrapolate and get:



The technology of antigravity

and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions.







Its all in my very cheep paperback,Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity







Frank Znidarsic







-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.commailto:fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz

Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion 
theory told of this in 1998,  Now add the size and get the velocity 1,094,000 
meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear 
Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago.


http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/787504

Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:44 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR


From: Ron Kita

I can only read about 5% of Vortex LENR  posts but
I saw this Feb 2013 website with a quote on  Dennis Bushnell
citing that a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz is needed to initate the
LENR reaction:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane


Hi Ron,

Thanks for posting this. It confirms what we have been talking about in related 
threads about the connection between intense THz and the SPP as the active 
modality.

In the HotCat – it appears that Rossi has elegantly solved the problem of how 
to get coherent radiation in this spectrum (where lasers are simply not 
available) by using a monochromatic emitter of FIR (far infrared), and then 
merely applying resistance heat to that emitter. Once the emitter comes up to 
temperature, the energy needed to maintain it drops by a large factor – thus 
providing control. That temperature is near the runaway temp- so added control 
is needed.

Maybe I am giving Rossi more credit than he is due.

RE: [Vo]:new paper by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev


From: Peter Gluck 

I have the pleasure to inform you about this new paper of
Dr. Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev published in the on-line General Science Journal

Nickel-Hydrogen Cold Fusion by Intermediate Rydberg State of
Hydrogen: Selection of the Isotopes for Energy Optimization and Radioactive
Waste Minimization
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5281

Really bold ideas; enjoy! (it is downloadable)

Definitely worth studying, with some interesting angles - but an initial
comment is that like several other theories of LENR, which envision nuclear
changes in the range of 5 MeV due to proton addition to nickel - it
effectively overlooks (fails to adequately explain) the 800 pound gorilla in
the closet - which is the lack of gamma radiation (and/or radioactivity in
the ash). 

For instance, there is an assumption of a lead jacket. This was a feature of
an old design which was dropped. Otherwise the problem is glossed over as
gamma-to-heat. Gamma-to-heat with no leakage is a physical impossibility.
Period. If such were remotely possible we would have nuclear powered
aircraft today.

In fact the excellent study over many hours of operation (Bianchini) does
indeed show no gamma above ambient. Any theory which cannot account for this
is a no-show.

In conclusion - there is no doubt that if we believe anything about the
Rossi reactor of today based on demos - they produce no gamma radiation. The
HotCat, which is by far the most robust LENR reactor every documented - is
unshielded. No lead jacket, no gamma. There is no possibility of any prime
reaction - if that reaction is producing quanta over about 2 keV. 

The proton addition reaction, as it is known to nuclear science - is
dead-in-the-water as an explanation for the best results we have in the
field.





attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

2014-01-28 Thread Axil Axil

Terahertz stimulation is the photon frequency that produces the lowest
resistive loss in plasmonic energy concentration using metal nanoparticles.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Roarty, Francis X
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

Frank..

Re your extrapolation [snip] extrapolate and get:The technology of
antigravity and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions. [/snip]

I not only agree but I think it is antigravity that will finally break the
back of skepticism regarding LENR.. Like you I followed with interest the
claims of Eugene Podkletnov and played with meisner effect in the
environmental lab at work trying to use some liquid nitrogen and a bulk
magnetic eraser to tickle the effect out of my very amateur experiment.. I
think the effect in LENR will require motion to detect the gravitational
effect but once a compact mobile method of LENR becomes available it will
soon be discovered there are also anomalous inertial effects involved...like
we see radioactive decay rate anomalies it is a temporal effect, presently
these reactors are large and stationary but I predict a portable reactor
placed running on one side of a balance beam will significantly slow down
the reaction to changes in weight on the opposite arm of the balance as
opposed to changes in weight when the reactor is turned off. The gas
becomes relativistic due to the casimir geometry and it will present
additional opposition beyond 3d to the normal inertia of the bulk powder or
catalyst. IMHO this opposition will be 90 degrees from any spatial vector
and simply slow the normal inertia like a flywheel but without a spatial
bias. Fran

*From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:29 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation
for LENR

Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like. My Constants of the Motion

theory told of this in 1998, Now factor in the size and get the velocity
1,094,000

meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear

Society in 2000. That's a long time ago.

What is the velocity 1,094,000 meters per second? Its the velocity of sound
in the nucleus.

What happens when you set this velocity = the velocity of light in the
electronic structure.

Your get:

The energy levels of all of the atoms.

The intensity of spectral emission.

The enegy and the frequency of the photon

The S,P,D, and F orbits.

A possible unification of quantum physics and Spec Rel.

The deBroglie wave.

extrapolate and get:

The technology of antigravity

and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions.

Its all in my very cheep paperback,Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity

Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz

Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like. My Constants of the
Motion theory told of this in 1998, Now add the size and get the velocity
1,094,000 meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of
the American Nuclear Society in 2000. That's a long time ago.

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/787504

Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:44 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

*From:* Ron Kita

I can only read about 5% of Vortex LENR posts but

I saw this Feb 2013 website with a quote on Dennis Bushnell

citing that a rf stimulation of 5-30 THz is needed to initate the

LENR reaction:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane

Hi Ron,

Thanks for posting this. It confirms what we have been talking about in
related threads about the connection between intense THz and the SPP as the
active modality.

In the HotCat - it appears that Rossi has elegantly solved the problem of
how to get coherent radiation in this spectrum (where lasers are simply not
available) by using a monochromatic emitter of FIR (far infrared), and then
merely applying resistance heat to that emitter. Once the emitter comes up
to temperature, the energy needed to maintain it drops by a large factor -
thus providing control. That temperature is near the runaway temp- so added
control is needed.

Maybe I am giving Rossi more credit than he is due.

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

Thank you Fran.  Theories such as Storm's theory of cracks and Widdom Larson's 
theory are based on conventional thinking applied under an extreme condition.  
These theories consider only the static Coulombic force and the static strong 
nuclear force.  Even mills with his exotic hydrions considers only the static 
forces.  As in the battle between Kann and Kirk;  Kirk defeated Kann by his 
three dimensional thinking.  There is another force at work in the nucleus.  
They cannot account for the lack of high energy emissions.


I am an electric engineer.  The only thing I have ever done with the static 
electric field is to rub a balloon on my head and stick to to the wall. I have, 
however, worked extensively with the dynamic magnetic component of the 
electrical field.  This is second nature for an electrical engineer.   There is 
a dynamic magnetic component of the nuclear force.  Its called the spin orbit 
force.  Like the electro-magnetic force; it is not conserved and can increase 
without bound.  It tends to flip nucleons and induce a beta decay.  How do we 
make it stronger?  Vibrate a Bose condensate.  In my language,  The Constants 
of the Motion Tend Toward the Electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is 
Vibrated at a Dimensional Frequency of 1.094 megahertz meters.


The motion constants are related to motion.  Motion is carried by the magnetic 
components of the static force fields.  Why that speed?  When the velocity of 
nuclear cluster equals the velocity of sound in the nucleus and impedance 
matched condition emerges.  This is the condition of the quantum jump.  The 
quantum condition of the atom emerged from an analysis of this speed. An 
extrapolation produced low level nuclear reactions.  I believe that is a big 
story and that it goes way beyond cold fusion.  It has produced the quantum 
condition as a subset of the Newtonian mechanics and it shows how to 
classically control all of the natural forces.


The solutions are simple and require only the simple harmonic motion of 
advanced high school physics.


Frank



Frank Znidarsic



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 12:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR



Frank..
 Re your extrapolation [snip] extrapolate and get:The technology of antigravity 
and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions. [/snip] 
 
I not only agree but I think it is antigravity that will finally break the back 
of skepticism regarding LENR.. Like you I followed with interest the claims 
ofEugene Podkletnov and played with meisner effect in the environmental lab at 
work trying to use some liquid nitrogen and a bulk magnetic eraser to tickle 
the effect out of my very amateur experiment..  I think the effect in LENR will 
require motion to detect the gravitational effect but once a compact mobile 
method of LENR becomes available it will soon be discovered there are also 
anomalous inertial effects involved…like we see radioactive decay rate 
anomalies it is a temporal effect,  presently these reactors are large and 
stationary but I predict a portable reactor placed running on one side of a 
balance beam will significantly slow down the reaction to changes in weight on 
the opposite arm of the balance as opposed to changes in weight when the 
reactor is turned off. The gas becomes relativistic due to the casimir geometry 
and it will present additional opposition beyond 3d to the normal inertia of 
the bulk powder or catalyst. IMHO  this opposition will be 90 degrees from any 
spatial vector and simply slow the normal inertia like a flywheel but without a 
spatial bias.
Fran
 
 
 
From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR
 


 

Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion 
theory told of this in 1998,  Now factor in the size and get the velocity 
1,094,000 
meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear 
Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago. 



 



 
What is the velocity 1,094,000 meters per second?  Its the velocity of sound in 
the nucleus.



 
What happens when you set this velocity = the velocity of light in the 
electronic structure.



Your get:



The energy levels of all of the atoms.
The intensity of spectral emission.
The enegy and the frequency of the photon
The S,P,D, and F orbits.
A possible unification of quantum physics and Spec Rel.
The deBroglie wave.



extrapolate and get:



The technology of antigravity
and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions.









Its all in my very cheep paperback,Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity









Frank Znidarsic






 
 

-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent:

[Vo]:Blacklight

2014-01-28 Thread Craig

Does anyone have any contact, or information, from someone at the 
demonstration? If so, is there any news?


Craig

Fwd: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

I have had a different experience than a nuclear engineer.


When I was just out of high school I was building unlicensed radio 
transmitters.  I had an old radio with a tuning eye.  I had one transmitter 
that when I turned it all the radio's eye wrapped twice around.  I got scared 
and gave it up.  
Who knows how much power I was putting out from that large tube.  My did would 
be mad if I got arrested!


Skip ahead a few years and there I was in college sitting in Richard Bender's 
electronics class.  He was going over the air core transformer.  I was 
interested.  I had made these things for my radio transmitter.  Richard said, 
The inductance = the inductance of the primary + the inductance of the 
secondary + a third mutual inductance.  What where did this emergent inductance 
come from?  More magnetism that came from nothing.  I was upset, this would 
make the test harder.  Magnetism is not a conserved force.  Somethings it 
springs out of nowhere.  This is a general property of all of the magnetic 
forces.  Much later in life I realized that it was also a property of the 
nuclear magnetic spin orbit force.  The mutual nuclear magnetic force can be, 
under the right conditions be 10 exp 39 power greater than the normal spin 
orbit force.  The same property applies to the gravitomangetic force.  I 
started picking up on this after speaking with David Noever.


Nuclear physicists would say that the range of the spin orbit force is only 
that of the strong force.  In an electrical conductor the static electrical 
forces balance.  There is no static electrical force emerging from the 
conductor.  Yet there it is, on its own, a strong magnetic field.  The same 
applies to the spin orbit force.  It range is an affect of the construction of 
the conductor.  It this case its a proton conductor not an electron conductor.


Frank

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight

They were able to achieve 5 x funding target output. :)

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does anyone have any contact, or information, from someone at the
 demonstration? If so, is there any news?

 Craig

RE: [Vo]:Blacklight

Any News you get will only happen through BLP itself or by way of a preapproved 
journalist who got the News direct from BLP and had the story cleared.

All attendees were required to sign an NDA in which they agreed not to mention 
anything whatsoever about the proceedings to others, nor even to admit that 
they attended. It is almost Nazi-esque.

Mills will make a video and a News Release to suggest that the demo was a 
glowing success - when in fact it could have been closer to a joke, in terms of 
real science and accurate results. Dissent will not be permitted.

That last comment is of course an opinion, but at least there is no way than 
anyone knowledgeable can argue with it - or otherwise they will have violated 
the NDA :)

-Original Message-
From: Craig 

Does anyone have any contact, or information, from someone at the 
demonstration? If so, is there any news?

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight

2014-01-28 Thread MarkI-Zeropoint



SO the 'demo' was really a 'dog-n-pony' show for the investors.

A target output of 'x' was set by the investors, and BLP achieved 5x, so 
I guess that means they get the next round of financing!  Ahhh, life in 
a startup!


I hope the investors made sure that the dog and pony were real, and 
realtime...

;-)
-mark iverson

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:

 They were able to achieve 5 x funding target  output. :)

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Craig  cchayniepub...@gmail.com 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('cchayniepub...@gmail.com') 

wrote:
Does anyone have any contact, or information, from someone at the 
demonstration? If so, is there any news?


Craig

RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

2014-01-28 Thread Chris Zell

 What where did this emergent inductance come from?  More magnetism that came 
from nothing.  I was upset, this would make the test harder.  Magnetism is not 
a conserved force.  Somethings it springs out of nowhere.  This is a general 
property of all of the magnetic force s.

The above interests me but are there any specifics on this, especially 
published papers?

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight

2014-01-28 Thread Terry Blanton

Comments from some of those present:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/blacklight-power-jan-28th-demo-thread/

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight

2014-01-28 Thread MarkI-Zeropoint

the comments quickly degraded into a climate change debate, however, 
there was this one that kind of stuck out above the chatter...

--
O' dear have our poor scientists got it all wrong AGAIN.
Hot Fusion, billions spent = turns out to be rubbish.
Global warming, billions spent = turns out to be rubbish.
NASA, billions spent = turns out to be rubbish.

Cold Fusion, nothing spent = turns out to be World changing technology
--

For the most part, that pretty much sums it up.  However, scientists are 
still human and those who reach higher positions are also good at the 
politics, so they are not what I would call a 'true' scientist...


-mark iverson

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight

Wait till the people figure out they are also destroying all of nature with
microwave doppler radars.  Pretty f}%^^ up.  I say hang them all! :)

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 the comments quickly degraded into a climate change debate, however, there
 was this one that kind of stuck out above the chatter...
 --
 O' dear have our poor scientists got it all wrong AGAIN.
 Hot Fusion, billions spent = turns out to be rubbish.
 Global warming, billions spent = turns out to be rubbish.
 NASA, billions spent = turns out to be rubbish.

 Cold Fusion, nothing spent = turns out to be World changing technology
 --

 For the most part, that pretty much sums it up.  However, scientists are
 still human and those who reach higher positions are also good at the
 politics, so they are not what I would call a 'true' scientist...

 -mark iverson

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

I don't know if anyone is now interested in this.  Its old stuff.  If you watch 
Walter Lewin at MIT Academic Earth 
he says often the the magnetic force is non-conservative.


Energy and momentum are conserved in equations.  No one ever wrote an equation 
that conserves magnetic flux.  This just goes without saying.  I, however,  say 
it loudly in my published works.  The only things that are not conserved are 
inertial mass and magnetic flux.  They are related as magnetic fields carries 
the inertial mass of moving stuff.


Electrical engineers employ soft iron to increase the magnetic force. Soft iron 
increase the flux produced by a coil by a factor of about 10,000. I found the 
soft iron equivalent for the other forces.  Its a vibrating Bose condensate.


Frank







-Original Message-
From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 3:30 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR



 What where did this emergent inductance come from?  More magnetism that came 
from nothing.  I was upset, this would make the test harder.  Magnetism is not 
a conserved force.  Somethings it springs out of nowhere.  This is a general 
property of all of the magnetic force s.   
 
The above interests me but are there any specifics on this, especially 
published papers?

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

2014-01-28 Thread MarkI-Zeropoint



No one ever wrote an equation that conserves magnetic flux.

In order to determine if something is conserved when it can be 
transformed into different forms, you HAVE to be able to MEASURE how 
much of EACH different form is present...


It only APPEARS as if mag-flux is not conserved...

The mag-field is the physical manifestation of a polarization of the 
vacuum (ZPF or Zero Point Field), and we have no way to measure the 
local amount of vacuum, so you can't tell whether its conserved or not.


-mark

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

 I don't know if anyone is now interested in this.  Its old stuff.  If 
you watch Walter Lewin at MIT Academic Earth  he says often the the 
magnetic force is non-conservative.


Energy and momentum are conserved in equations.  No one ever wrote an 
equation that conserves magnetic flux.  This just goes without saying. 
I, however,  say it loudly in my published works.  The only things that 
are not conserved are inertial mass and magnetic flux.  They are related 
as magnetic fields carries the inertial mass of moving stuff.


Electrical engineers employ soft iron to increase the magnetic force. 
Soft iron increase the flux produced by a coil by a factor of about 
10,000. I found the soft iron equivalent for the other forces.  Its a 
vibrating Bose condensate.


Frank



-Original Message-
From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 3:30 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

 What where did this emergent inductance come from?  More magnetism 
that came from nothing.  I was upset, this would make the test harder. 
Magnetism is not a conserved force.  Somethings  it springs out of 
nowhere.  This is a general property of all of the magnetic force  s.


The above interests me but are there any specifics on this, especially 
published papers?

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

2014-01-28 Thread David Roberson


I consider a magnetic field the consequence of a time changing electric field.  
The electromagnetic effects that we experience depend upon which observation 
frame we happen to occupy.  This is demonstrated by considering how a charged 
particle appears to a stationary or moving observer at some distant point in 3 
dimensional space.  One sees nothing but an electric field, the other records a 
combination of magnetic and electric fields.  Both are valid measurements.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR


No one ever wrote an equation that conserves magnetic flux.


In order to determine if something is conserved when it can be transformed into 
different forms, you HAVE to be able to MEASURE how much of EACH different form 
is present...


It only APPEARS as if mag-flux is not conserved...


The mag-field is the physical manifestation of a polarization of the vacuum 
(ZPF or Zero Point Field), and we have no way to measure the local amount of 
vacuum, so you can't tell whether its conserved or not.


-mark 



On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:


 I don't know if anyone is now interested in this.  Its old stuff.  If you 
watch Walter Lewin at MIT Academic Earth  he says often the the magnetic force 
is non-conservative. 


Energy and momentum are conserved in equations.  No one ever wrote an equation 
that conserves magnetic flux.  This just goes without saying.  I, however,  say 
it loudly in my published works.  The only things that are not conserved are 
inertial mass and magnetic flux.  They are related as magnetic fields carries 
the inertial mass of moving stuff. 



Electrical engineers employ soft iron to increase the magnetic force. Soft iron 
increase the flux produced by a coil by a factor of about 10,000. I found the 
soft iron equivalent for the other forces.  Its a vibrating Bose condensate. 



Frank 






-Original Message- 
From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com 
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 3:30 pm 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR 


 What where did this emergent inductance come from?  More magnetism that came 
from nothing.  I was upset, this would make the test harder.  Magnetism is not 
a conserved force.  Somethings  it springs out of nowhere.  This is a general 
property of all of the magnetic force  s.  
  
The above interests me but are there any specifics on this, especially 
published papers?

[Vo]:Factoid of the Day - Far infrared (FIR) is where it's happening

Despite the occasional textbook emphasis in cosmology on visible light,
gamma radiation, CMB (cosmic background radiation) and UV: all of those are
almost immaterial in the big picture, and it is the far-infrared spectrum
(which is essentially is the THz region) which is ... by far ... the most
important spectral radiation in the Universe.

The FIR accounts for about 98% of all the photons existing in the Universe !
A. W. Blain, et al Submillimeter galaxies, Physics Reports, vol. 369, pp.
111-176, 2002 and dozens of other similar references. Whoa! Even if most of
it is blackbody related.

Because of the high opacity of the Earth's atmosphere, there is no
accessibility to this FIR range from the ground, even with telescopes - and
observation is only by space borne instruments. That explains why we have
been somewhat ignorant of the surprising proportionality. The great majority
of cosmologists may not fully appreciate this extreme dis-proportionality,
given how little attention FIR receives. (same with dark matter).

Anyway, it's news to me: actually a paradigm shift... of Universal
proportions. Blain is a respected cosmologist at CalTech and he probably has
this correct, given the number of publication and lack of dissent, but still
... big surprise in its implications, and also for LENR !

Perhaps it will come as an additional surprise to mainstream physics when
LENR is also shown to be an artifact of this FIR spectrum. That is
speculation but projecting this factoid into future, it is even possible
that LENR could be a substantial contributor to the energy balance of the
Universe (in addition to blackbody radiation, which is most of FIR). That
would be in the gigantic gas clouds that dominate the mass of galaxies. It
is even possible that dark matter itself emits radiation ONLY in the FIR
(and dark matter could be 80% or more of the mass of the Universe). BTW -
the FIR is essentially dark when it is not intense and coherent. It is
technically not in the visible range without the intensity we see in say,
the HotCat.

In fact, given how little we know in 2014 about the Universe and the nature
of dark matter - it would not surprise me, at some future point in time, to
learn that the preponderance of energy from LENR surpasses all of the energy
from hot fusion in Stars, perhaps by a substantial margin. Huge paradigm
shift ... if that is the case, no?

You heard it first on Vortex :-)

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

2014-01-28 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:15 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the
universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and
no end.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with,
the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is
scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the
Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it’s hard to find
alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely
compelling.

Shu’s idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be
converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the
geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor
between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a
relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the
gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be
constant.

I really like where this is going. I think we have at least one resident
astrophysicist. It would be nice to have a sense of what to look out for
in order to falsify it as well as how out-there it seems to people
working in the field.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:new paper by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev

2014-01-28 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

In conclusion - there is no doubt that if we believe anything about the
 Rossi reactor of today based on demos - they produce no gamma radiation.
 The
 HotCat, which is by far the most robust LENR reactor every documented - is
 unshielded. No lead jacket, no gamma.


I followed you up to here.


 There is no possibility of any prime
 reaction - if that reaction is producing quanta over about 2 keV.


But this seems an unwarranted inference.

Eric

[Vo]:got a good review


He could not put the book down.  What would you expect, is it not a book about 
antigravity?




http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1YHIGP67NX9UO/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8sort_by=MostRecentReview




Frank Z

RE: [Vo]:new paper by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev