RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Frank roarty]

Good citation!

 

From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

 

This is what I described and illustrated from the frame of reference of the
train. 
Section C shows the railway ties closer together.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharin
g

 

Harry

 

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

There has been a continuous discussion on the list about the reality of SR
time dilation and length contraction.  Most of the commenters accept the
time dilation concept since it is relatively easy to measure.  Some among
the group point out the paradox that they perceive as existing, but for now
I want divert attention to evidence of length contraction that seems highly
relevant.

I found an article in Wikipedia about the free electron laser.  There is a
technique for generating very high energy tunable x rays which strongly
depends upon the length contraction due to electron velocities near light
speed.   The frequency and wavelength of the emitted radiation can be
directly calculated by using the Lorentz factor.  Read the article found at
the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser to see
how well the mathematics works.

The process uses an alternating series of magnets that are clearly spaced a
large distance apart when compared to the the emitted wavelength of the
synchronous radiation.  If you accept that the electrons are moving at very
nearly the speed of light, then the wavelength should be approximately equal
to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that distance is effectively
shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the electrons in motion.
The shortening factor directly enters into the determination of the
radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure of magnets is employed
to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz contraction.

Harry, this might help to explain the behavior of your train on the track
questions.  Think of the distance between the magnets as being similar to
the space between the rail ties.

Dave

 

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Edmund Storms]

Kevin, you might consider a different explanation besides censorship or trolls. 
The internet gives anyone including the insane a chance to say anything they 
want. A significant fraction of the population is, in fact and by measurement, 
insane. These people are ignored unless they harm someone.  In days past, they 
would make an insane comment in the bar or at the barbershop and be laughed 
into silence. Or if someone took pity, they would be listened to and then 
ignored. This is hard to do on the internet because the insane tend to support 
the insane. 

By insane, I mean people whose brains to not allow them to understand important 
aspects of this reality. Instead, they create a reality of their own. They 
believe this substitute reality with great conviction. They are sincere and 
apply logic and fact to support the substitute reality. The danger comes when 
normal people can not identify this substitute reality as being the workings of 
a flawed mind. This reality is not just a different variation of reality that 
we all debate because reality is not always clear. 

The insane make no effort to understand our reality.  They are so sure their 
reality is correct, they will attack any challenge with emotional intensity. 
This response is a basic characteristic of the insane. A person needs to 
respond to an insane person in a different way than with a normal person. Most 
people have no way to do this; becoming confused by the insane.  A discussion 
about the best response is too complicated to provide here. I'm only trying to 
suggest that these people need to be looked at through a different lens.

Ed Storms


On Mar 8, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> Vigilante Censorship
> 
> This is an excellent exchange showing such methodology in action.  Note the 
> crickets at the end of the thread.  Typical of those who have nothing useful 
> and honest to say.  
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2989565/posts?page=47#47 

RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Jones Beene]

When a large part of any argument is semantics - it usually requires only
one definitive and rock-solid example to prove a contention... unless there
is a valid alternative explanation.

From: David Roberson 

In the free electron laser ... the wavelength should be
approximately equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that
distance is effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the
electrons in motion.  The shortening factor directly enters into the
determination of the radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure of
magnets is employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz
contraction.

... is there an alternative explanation - other than LC?

If not, and if there is no valid alternative to Lorentz contraction then we
must face the unavoidable conclusion. It is as simple as that. This could be
a rare case of "either/or" where only one outcome is possible based on a
physical phenomenon.

In LENR this is why the appearance of tritium is so important for ultimate
proof of the phenomenon. Tritium is rock-solid proof of one type of LENR.
Unlike helium, which is rare but ubiquitous in air, tritium is completely
unexpected, and moreover: unambiguous to measure. There is no good
alternative explanation other than a low energy nuclear reaction. 

When tritium is seen, at least one type of LENR is proved. Period. When that
one type is proved, other types are easier to justify based on a solid
foundation. Since tritium has been seen for over twenty years in experiment,
critics and skeptics have been wrong for that long, but they still continue
to whine and interfere with progress.

The reason that this is brought up in cross-connection to the x-ray laser is
that Roarty has assembled a decent argument which implies free electron
motion in nanocavities which implies Lorentz contraction and x-rays. This is
based on the Casimir force and can be called DCE, or the dynamic Casimir
effect. This relates not to another kind of LENR per se, but to an energy
amplification mechanism which can be harnessed by LENR of any of the major
types.

For the record, some of the most intense radiation which has been documented
by Randell Mills is in the 10 nm soft x-ray spectrum. He has an alternative
explanation, but this exact spectrum is seen in the free-electron x-ray
laser. Now we have a good explanation for this radiation showing up in the
LENR experiments via LC - which does not require Mills' theory.

Given Mills has been incapable of building a working device for public
demonstration after 24 years and $100 million, and has reverted to modifying
a crude seam welder to amaze his fans and devotees - LOL - and given that
the free-electron x-ray laser has been in operation for some time - this is
not looking promising like a promising future for Mills and BLP. 

I'm just glad BLP did not go with an IPO many years ago, since I would have
invested back then and it would likely be belly up by now.

Jones



<>

Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force is 
measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent with 
observation or logic. 

First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to the ZPE. 
 Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed to produce 
an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy can be 
extracted. This assumption is based totally on mathematical theory without any 
observable evidence.  As you correctly note, many observations can be explained 
several different ways, with the correct explanation sometimes overwhelmed by 
the popular explanation. I suggest the Casimir effect falls into that class. I 
suggest the measured force is no more and no less than an unexpected chemical 
attraction between two surfaces. Can anyone provide a rational answer to this 
challenge?

Ed Storms
On Mar 9, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> When a large part of any argument is semantics - it usually requires only
> one definitive and rock-solid example to prove a contention... unless there
> is a valid alternative explanation.
> 
>   From: David Roberson 
>   
>   In the free electron laser ... the wavelength should be
> approximately equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that
> distance is effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the
> electrons in motion.  The shortening factor directly enters into the
> determination of the radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure of
> magnets is employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz
> contraction.
> 
> ... is there an alternative explanation - other than LC?
> 
> If not, and if there is no valid alternative to Lorentz contraction then we
> must face the unavoidable conclusion. It is as simple as that. This could be
> a rare case of "either/or" where only one outcome is possible based on a
> physical phenomenon.
> 
> In LENR this is why the appearance of tritium is so important for ultimate
> proof of the phenomenon. Tritium is rock-solid proof of one type of LENR.
> Unlike helium, which is rare but ubiquitous in air, tritium is completely
> unexpected, and moreover: unambiguous to measure. There is no good
> alternative explanation other than a low energy nuclear reaction. 
> 
> When tritium is seen, at least one type of LENR is proved. Period. When that
> one type is proved, other types are easier to justify based on a solid
> foundation. Since tritium has been seen for over twenty years in experiment,
> critics and skeptics have been wrong for that long, but they still continue
> to whine and interfere with progress.
> 
> The reason that this is brought up in cross-connection to the x-ray laser is
> that Roarty has assembled a decent argument which implies free electron
> motion in nanocavities which implies Lorentz contraction and x-rays. This is
> based on the Casimir force and can be called DCE, or the dynamic Casimir
> effect. This relates not to another kind of LENR per se, but to an energy
> amplification mechanism which can be harnessed by LENR of any of the major
> types.
> 
> For the record, some of the most intense radiation which has been documented
> by Randell Mills is in the 10 nm soft x-ray spectrum. He has an alternative
> explanation, but this exact spectrum is seen in the free-electron x-ray
> laser. Now we have a good explanation for this radiation showing up in the
> LENR experiments via LC - which does not require Mills' theory.
> 
> Given Mills has been incapable of building a working device for public
> demonstration after 24 years and $100 million, and has reverted to modifying
> a crude seam welder to amaze his fans and devotees - LOL - and given that
> the free-electron x-ray laser has been in operation for some time - this is
> not looking promising like a promising future for Mills and BLP. 
> 
> I'm just glad BLP did not go with an IPO many years ago, since I would have
> invested back then and it would likely be belly up by now.
> 
> Jones
>   
>   
>   
> 

RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force
is measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent
with observation or logic. 

Ed, most of physics does not agree with you on this point. Of course, a
force of some kind is real and measured at nano-geometry. Casimir predicted
this and it has been shown to be real in actual experiment and in
manufactured devices- which makes your basic "observation" premise false
from the start. There is no valid alternative explanation to a few of the
experimental findings. In general, it is pretty clear that those who reject
QM or do not understand QM very well, will reject a Casimir force despite
the overwhelming evidence in favor of it. 

It is true that the Casimir force was not measured to high precision until
the mid 1990s, but it has since been verified precisely and the theory is
essentially proved in practice. Moreover the Casimir force has become
important in computer technology, especially micro-mechanical structures
like hard disks heads. The terabyte hard drive would be impossible without
application of Casimir dynamics just as the CPU would be impossible without
QM electron tunneling. 

When you reject most of QM, you dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

> ES: First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to
the ZPE. Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed
to produce an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy
can be extracted. 

A glass lens is transparent to light yet it can be focused so that 90% of
the thermal energy of photons in sunlight can be applied to a few percent of
the corresponding surface area. Temperatures sufficient to melt steel are
possible. This is a decent analogy for the kind of imbalance which appears
at nano-geometry but with ZPE "focusing" instead of photons. In fact, the
term "virtual photons" is used with ZPE.

Jones

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
>
> This file is corrupted.  At least for me...
>

That's not good. Try again. I will upload a new copy.

This question is nebulous, even somewhat meaningless, because it is hard to
count experiments. When Bockris ran a 10 x 10 array of cathodes, was that 1
test or 100?

Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran
a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or
100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
That's all there is to it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 9, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms 
> 
> Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force
> is measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent
> with observation or logic. 
> 
> Ed, most of physics does not agree with you on this point. Of course, a
> force of some kind is real and measured at nano-geometry. Casimir predicted
> this and it has been shown to be real in actual experiment and in
> manufactured devices- which makes your basic "observation" premise false
> from the start. There is no valid alternative explanation to a few of the
> experimental findings. In general, it is pretty clear that those who reject
> QM or do not understand QM very well, will reject a Casimir force despite
> the overwhelming evidence in favor of it. 

Jones, I know this. I ask why the observed force is attributed to the ZPE when 
it could also be attributed to chemical attraction. Just because a collection 
of mathematical assumption can be made to fit does not prove the conclusion is 
real. 
> 
> It is true that the Casimir force was not measured to high precision until
> the mid 1990s, but it has since been verified precisely and the theory is
> essentially proved in practice. Moreover the Casimir force has become
> important in computer technology, especially micro-mechanical structures
> like hard disks heads. The terabyte hard drive would be impossible without
> application of Casimir dynamics just as the CPU would be impossible without
> QM electron tunneling. 

Of course QM is required. I'm not rejecting QM. I'm rejecting a particular 
application of QM. What would happen if this particular application turned out 
to be wrong? If so, the equations would be modified and a new application of QM 
would be created.  The issue only involves whether a ZPE has been detected 
using what is called the Casimir effect. If the Casimir effect were produced by 
chemical attraction, QM would not change. However, the way ZPE is explained by 
QM would change. 
> 
> When you reject most of QM, you dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
> 
>> ES: First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to
> the ZPE. Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed
> to produce an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy
> can be extracted. 
> 
> A glass lens is transparent to light yet it can be focused so that 90% of
> the thermal energy of photons in sunlight can be applied to a few percent of
> the corresponding surface area.

A lens works because it causes the photons to follow a controlled path as the 
material interacts with the photons. In the case of ZPE, the form of the energy 
does not interact with a material. If it did, a lens could be created so that 
ZPE could be focused and used as a ray of extreme intensity. That obviously is 
not possible. Therefore, your analogy does not apply.



> Temperatures sufficient to melt steel are
> possible. This is a decent analogy for the kind of imbalance which appears
> at nano-geometry but with ZPE "focusing" instead of photons. In fact, the
> term "virtual photons" is used with ZPE.

The term "virtual" means only that a condition has to be pretended to exist so 
that the math works. This is only a kludge to avoid correcting idea.

Ed Storms
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

> A lens works because it causes the photons to follow a controlled path as
the material interacts with the photons. 

ES: In the case of ZPE, the form of the energy does not interact with a
material. If it did, a lens could be created so that ZPE could be focused
and used as a ray of extreme intensity. That obviously is not possible.
Therefore, your analogy does not apply.

JB: Nothing could be further from the truth, to the extent that Puthoff is
the acknowledged expert on ZPE. Why do you not realize that a nanocavity of
a certain geometry IS THE LENS ?

According to Puthoff, ZPE not only interacts with matter at an intrinsic
level, but essentially is responsible for the very structure of matter. The
ground-state electron orbital is set and maintained by a dynamic equilibrium
in which collapse of the attractive state of negative electron and positive
nucleus is prevented by the presence of the zero-point energy.

If you doubt this, then your argument is with Hal Puthoff, as I accept
completely his viewpoint on this - from which flows the analogy above.

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

...

 

> Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
ran

> a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat

> repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,

> or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

> 

> The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other

> experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.

> That's all there is to it.

 

I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late
hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four
successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about
building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly
generate excess heat 100% of the time?

 

I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat
consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.

 

I'm also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major
impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past
quarter of a century.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes from 
the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence the LENR 
process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables were important. 
 I can now identify the important variables, but money is required to use 
equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the nano level. 

LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves. Unfortunately, 
the people who attempt to explain the effect have not identified the correct 
variables. As a result, people have been wondering aimlessly in the wilderness 
in search of the gold. A few people have found nuggets by chance, but the main 
ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close as anyone to finding the main ore 
body, but he is not telling where his gold outcrop is located. I'm trying to 
follow his trail.

Ed Storms


On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

> From Jed:
>  
> ...
>  
> > Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran
> > a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
> > repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,
> > or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.
> >
> > The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
> > experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
> > That's all there is to it.
>  
> I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late 
> hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four 
> successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about 
> building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly 
> generate excess heat 100% of the time?
>  
> I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat 
> consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.
>  
> I’m also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major 
> impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past 
> quarter of a century.
>  
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
>  

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late
> hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four
> successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about
> building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly
> generate excess heat 100% of the time?
>
Ed says no, but as a practical matter I think he did, and so did Cravens,
and Pons. That's what I said here:

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

I mean it works even though there is no theory, and even though it takes
months to find one good cathode. It isn't useful, but it works. I'll bet if
someone spends a year doing the procedures in this paper with another 92
cathodes, some will work.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

Needless to say, if the people from ELFORSK are right, Rossi is miles ahead
of this. Even though he has no theory as far as I know.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a 
working cathode but this does not make it 100%.  McKubre also had good success, 
but only as long as he used Pd from a particular source. Other people have had 
the same experience. The source and the treatment are both important but a 
person only has control over the treatment. 

Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a high 
probability for success but this Pd is not generally available. The Pd-B made 
by NRL is said to have high probability, but this material is also not 
generally available. Why the source is important is a matter of debate, with 
the argument being determined by theory. If we had a laboratory able to combine 
these ideas and apply them using modern equipment, we might find the solution. 

Ed Storms

Ed
On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:
> 
> I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late 
> hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four 
> successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about 
> building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly 
> generate excess heat 100% of the time?
> 
> Ed says no, but as a practical matter I think he did, and so did Cravens, and 
> Pons. That's what I said here:
> 
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
> 
> I mean it works even though there is no theory, and even though it takes 
> months to find one good cathode. It isn't useful, but it works. I'll bet if 
> someone spends a year doing the procedures in this paper with another 92 
> cathodes, some will work.
> 
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
> 
> Needless to say, if the people from ELFORSK are right, Rossi is miles ahead 
> of this. Even though he has no theory as far as I know.
> 
> - Jed
> 

[Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

 

Paper Ref:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

 

Abstract:

Momentum and spin represent fundamental dynamic properties of quantum
particles and fields. In particular, propagating optical waves (photons)
carry momentum and longitudinal spin determined by the wave vector and
circular polarization, respectively. Here we show that exactly the opposite
can be the case for evanescent optical waves. A single evanescent wave
possesses a spin component, which is independent of the polarization and is
orthogonal to the wave vector. Furthermore, such a wave carries a momentum
component, which is determined by the circular polarization and is also
orthogonal to the wave vector. We show that these extraordinary properties
reveal a fundamental Belinfante's spin momentum, known in field theory and
unobservable in propagating fields. We demonstrate that the transverse
momentum and spin push and twist a probe Mie particle in an evanescent
field. This allows the observation of 'impossible' properties of light and
of a fundamental field-theory quantity, which was previously considered as
'virtual'.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:

Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a
> working cathode but this does not make it 100%.
>

In other words, it is the pre-modern trial-and-error method of developing
technology. It is akin to how ancient people figured out how to make
Damascus steel, or stone cathedrals that do not fall down. Their methods
were not foolproof; some cathedrals did fall down.

This method takes far more time and effort than a modern scientific
approach. However, it does work. I think we can say that using your
methods, reproducibility is asymptotically approaching 100%. The real value
of this would be if someone were to use these methods to manufacture 50
working cells which were then used by researchers to find a theory. That
would put the research on a more scientific basis.



> Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a
> high probability for success but this Pd is not generally available.
>

If there were funding and Violante were cooperative, these cathodes could
be made widely available. That is another way forward.



> If we had a laboratory able to combine these ideas and apply them using
> modern equipment, we might find the solution.
>

That is what I have in mind. Not that actual working technology should be
developed using pre-modern trial-and-error techniques, but that these
techniques & materials might serve as a stepping stone to 21st century
style development.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Jones Beene]

To summarize: Is Lorentz contraction at the bottom of a dynamical Casimir
effect in LENR? 

There is no proof of that but it is a provocative question. Given the
analogy to the free-electron laser, and the presence of nickel which is
ferro magnetic we can now connect some dots... and AFAIK - this has never
been suggested before today as a complete package, along with SPP - so this
thread may have introduced something new into the mix. There are practical
implications.

Casimir amplification via DCE is all about nano-geometry, near-fields, and
free electrons in magnetic cavities (and possibly magnons). There is
probably no other reason that this geometry is useful in LENR other than as
an amplification mechanism for ZPE, applied to electrons. There could also
be a connection to two overlapping geometries - the particle size, which is
tens of microns, in which nanoparticles are arranged seems to be important.
Thus there could be a connection to SPP as well.

"Nano" was essentially absent from LENR as an essential parameter from 1989
until Arata and the Santoku nanopowders circa 2008, which powders were
improved by Ahern with the help of Ames Labs and most recently demo-ed by
Cravens. A brief history is found in Celani's CERN presentation page 14,15
and the grid which outlines nanoparticle gain in LENR. 

https://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/material/slides/3

Nanocavities of a Casimir predicted geometry, 2-12 nm, can be described as
an effective lens for ZPE which can sometimes produce a dynamical effect DCE
especially if they are held within a larger particle around 10-50 microns
which is resonant with IR photons of about the same wavelength. 

The Arata gain in small, but it is now validated by many, and it bears
repeating that a plausible power input for Arata type experiments is DCE.
Therefore, the significance of Arata's "no P-in" experiments to the larger
field, in which he achieved infinite COP with no apparent power input is the
real value of Nano and DCE, but it should not stop there. It is more complex
when SPP are added into the mix - but QM is never simple.

How can this geometry for gain (with no added power) not be important to
other experiments where external power is added? 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  if someone were to use these methods to manufacture 50 working cells
> which were then used by researchers to find a theory. That would put the
> research on a more scientific basis.
>

There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are they?

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are
> they?
>

Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike
Melich put it, "what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep."

F&P sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what
happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)

The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material
characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use
destructive testing in the end.

Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.

There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I
think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much
about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they
examine them to figure out why.

The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment
itself.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are
>> they?
>>
>
> Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike
> Melich put it, "what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep."
>
> F&P sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what
> happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)
>
> The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material
> characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use
> destructive testing in the end.
>
> Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.
>
> There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I
> think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much
> about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they
> examine them to figure out why.
>
> The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment
> itself.
>
> - Jed
>
>
The point being that even if someone did come up with "50 working cells" it
wouldn't be adequate "to find a theory".

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> The point being that even if someone did come up with "50 working cells"
> it wouldn't be adequate "to find a theory".
>

It would be necessary but perhaps not sufficient. I do not see how people
will come up with a theory without data, and without experiments. Testing
cells that do not produce heat is not much help.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help.
>

It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be
able to rule out various hypotheses.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created
with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help.
>>
>
> It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be
> able to rule out various hypotheses.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

Let me expand on my comment:

The economics of cold fusion research are constrained by the cost of
testing cathodes.  We know that the original experiments did not use
sophisticated techniques to produce the cathodes and the cathodes used a
very tiny amount of Pd.  The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in
getting the electrochemistry and the diagnostics right.  The diagnostics
can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect marginal signals --
but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is not
the marginal signals.  This has been true from that first laboratory
accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s.  So we
shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics.  We should,
instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the electrochemistry right
so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.

What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right?


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created
> with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help.
>>>
>>
>> It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be
>> able to rule out various hypotheses.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created
> with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%.
>

Reliability is far better than 0.01%! It have never been that low, for any
major researcher I know.

They are doing a lot better than that at SKINR. Unfortunately, the
reactions are usually small, and only small fraction of input power.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Alain Sepeda]

this presentation  at ICCF18 have  a part on their work about identifiying
crystallography condition
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/36833

they made a less detailed presentation for ICCF15

anyone with an honest brain understand that if you cannot replicate an
experiment for sure, it can be because of uncontrolled parameters...

I've always been shocked, amazed, fascinated, by the abilities of physicist
and their minions like scienceapologist, to ignore that evidence...
even when you explain  that evidence, it seems out of their capacity to
integrate that new idea...

maybe I'm too low in life scale, just an engineer who make so many
experiment and planned success, fail miserably, who made so many
deterministic programs behave like alien  stubborn life... I know perfect
reproduction is not human.
But I'm not a perfect nuclear physicist who saved the freedom with A
bomb... that must be the explanation. ;-)


I imagine no A-Bomb ever failed miserably ?


2014-03-09 19:34 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are
>> they?
>>
>
> Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike
> Melich put it, "what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep."
>
> F&P sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what
> happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)
>
> The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material
> characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use
> destructive testing in the end.
>
> Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.
>
> There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I
> think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much
> about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they
> examine them to figure out why.
>
> The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment
> itself.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in getting the electrochemistry
> and the diagnostics right.
>

You do have to be good at electrochemistry. A lot of the early
electrochemistry was like tuning a piano with a sledgehammer.



>   The diagnostics can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect
> marginal signals . . .
>

You mean the calorimetry. McKubre's calorimeter is expensive. Others are
not so much. It would be better if we could boost the signal. That is what
I have in mind with "50 cathodes."

I think the big expense is having to run 92 diagnostic tests over a year's
time just to find 4 good cathodes. That could be automated to reduce the
cost. Probably, Violante knows how to make 4 cathodes much less time with
less money than it took Storms to winnow out 4 from a large batch.



> -- but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is
> not the marginal signals.  This has been true from that first laboratory
> accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s.  So we
> shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics.
>

I am not bothered by the cost. The problem is, there is no money. If
someone threw $100 million at it, it would be well worth the money. Most
researchers cannot even get $10,000. Heck, they cannot even get permission
to hold a meeting in an empty classroom.



>  We should, instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the
> electrochemistry right so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.
>

I think the problem is materials rather than electrochemistry -- except, as
I said, you do have to be an electrochemist. Or you have to have one in
charge of the actual experiment.



> What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right?
>

The bottleneck is a complete lack of funding. Zero dollars. Any proposal
for funding made to academic science establishments is immediately shot
down. There is not the slightest chance the DoE or any university will fund
any cold fusion experiment, not even for $1,000. Unless the venture
capitalists fund the work, as they have for Rossi, there will be no
research.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

In addition to destructive analysis, the cell eventually dies. LENR has a 
limited life. In addition, once a cell works, finding out what can cause an 
increase or decrease is important, which eventually destroys the effect. The 
data is hen provided in papers, hundreds of which are now available. There is 
no longer any rational excuse for not accepting LENR as real.

Ed Storms
On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>  
> There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are they?
> 
> Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike 
> Melich put it, "what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep." 
> 
> F&P sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what 
> happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)
> 
> The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material 
> characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use destructive 
> testing in the end.
> 
> Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.
> 
> There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I 
> think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much 
> about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they 
> examine them to figure out why.
> 
> The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment 
> itself.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

A project with "complete lack of funding. Zero dollars" in the sense of
MFMP could make better progress if they would focus not on the calorimetry
or gamma-ray detection or tritium detection or mass-spectroscopy sufficient
to discriminate He from D2 (ALL of which are "diagnostics") -- but rather
on getting the electrochemistry right and then running a large number of
cathodes through.  If you want progress on the metallurgy, that's how you
do it, Jed.  You yourself pointed this out in your own call for "50 working
cathodes" so I don't know why you backpedal on that correct insight now.

Given your absolutist declaration about "complete lack of funding.  Zero
dollars" you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
valid no matter what they do but I disagree.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in getting the electrochemistry
>> and the diagnostics right.
>>
>
> You do have to be good at electrochemistry. A lot of the early
> electrochemistry was like tuning a piano with a sledgehammer.
>
>
>
>>   The diagnostics can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect
>> marginal signals . . .
>>
>
> You mean the calorimetry. McKubre's calorimeter is expensive. Others are
> not so much. It would be better if we could boost the signal. That is what
> I have in mind with "50 cathodes."
>
> I think the big expense is having to run 92 diagnostic tests over a year's
> time just to find 4 good cathodes. That could be automated to reduce the
> cost. Probably, Violante knows how to make 4 cathodes much less time with
> less money than it took Storms to winnow out 4 from a large batch.
>
>
>
>> -- but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is
>> not the marginal signals.  This has been true from that first laboratory
>> accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s.  So we
>> shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics.
>>
>
> I am not bothered by the cost. The problem is, there is no money. If
> someone threw $100 million at it, it would be well worth the money. Most
> researchers cannot even get $10,000. Heck, they cannot even get permission
> to hold a meeting in an empty classroom.
>
>
>
>>  We should, instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the
>> electrochemistry right so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.
>>
>
> I think the problem is materials rather than electrochemistry -- except,
> as I said, you do have to be an electrochemist. Or you have to have one in
> charge of the actual experiment.
>
>
>
>> What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right?
>>
>
> The bottleneck is a complete lack of funding. Zero dollars. Any proposal
> for funding made to academic science establishments is immediately shot
> down. There is not the slightest chance the DoE or any university will fund
> any cold fusion experiment, not even for $1,000. Unless the venture
> capitalists fund the work, as they have for Rossi, there will be no
> research.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> I imagine no A-Bomb ever failed miserably ?

Some:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Mark Jurich]

 Mark Iverson wrote:

 | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
 | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

 

 | Paper Ref:

| http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

 

FYI:

 

arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

(arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)

 

- Mark Jurich

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Alain Sepeda]

fascinating... (I suspected bomb could fail, as everything can fail
miserably)

So they even know what is lack of reproducibility...

why do they ignore it ?

dogmatism?


2014-03-09 21:25 GMT+01:00 Terry Blanton :

> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
> > I imagine no A-Bomb ever failed miserably ?
>
> Some:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)
>
>

RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Jones Beene]

These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in LENR
and to SPP. 

 

That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious to
everyone, here is an additional point. 

 

Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of
electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good
radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When
the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with
nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes
relevant to SPP.

 

On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we described
such spin for surface 

plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal field
component plays 

an important role in optical coupling processes. 

 

From: Mark Jurich 

 Mark Iverson wrote:

 

 | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

 | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

 

 | Paper Ref:

|
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

 

FYI:

 

arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

(arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)

 

- Mark Jurich

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Hi Ed,

 

Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that
that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at
the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting
reliably consistent reactions.

 

If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious.
Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example,
allow us to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an
appropriate nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means working with structures
as small as at the atomic scale. I know research labs have already proven we
can nudge individual atoms around on a surface, and even spell words. I get
the sense that demonstrated procedures of this nature are at present totally
impractical, and certainly not useful on an industrial scale. I have instead
wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser technology to
construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance the CF/LENR
effect - perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are currently being used
to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and DVDs. Using laser
technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example of a matured
technology. I've wondered if a similar "mature" technology might eventually
turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as well.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of
everything.

 

Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes
from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence
the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables
were important.  I can now identify the important variables, but money is
required to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the
nano level. 

 

LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves.
Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not
identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering
aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found
nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close
as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his gold
outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail.

 

Ed Storms

 

 

On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:





>From Jed:

 

...

 

> Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
ran

> a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat

> repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,

> or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

> 

> The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other

> experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.

> That's all there is to it.

 

I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late
hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four
successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about
building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly
generate excess heat 100% of the time?

 

I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat
consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.

 

I'm also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major
impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past
quarter of a century.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Bob Cook]

Jones etal--

I recently heard about a researcher at a Government Lab (PNNL) that had 
funding cut off when she discovered Tritium in a sono-luminescent 
experiment.  The lack of such curiosity in Govt Labs. and follow-up is, I 
suspect, wide spread.   However another person at PNNL who I have had 
contact with over the years, and who was what you might say, a skeptopath, 
spouting the no, not possible, rhetoric of the last 25 years, has recently 
be come silent as to the information I send out.  This person may be coming 
around to the reality of LENR, although in a non vocal manner.  However, his 
person may have thought it (LENR)  was real all along and was afraid to say 
so.


This whole experience indicates to me the problems with big money research 
with a non-scientific agenda as its guiding principle.


I recently stopped giving money to my al mamater because I found out about 
the University President's involvement with the MIT cover-up of the I-I 
work.


Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction



When a large part of any argument is semantics - it usually requires only
one definitive and rock-solid example to prove a contention... unless 
there

is a valid alternative explanation.

From: David Roberson

In the free electron laser ... the wavelength should be
approximately equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that
distance is effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by 
the

electrons in motion.  The shortening factor directly enters into the
determination of the radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure 
of

magnets is employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz
contraction.

... is there an alternative explanation - other than LC?

If not, and if there is no valid alternative to Lorentz contraction then 
we
must face the unavoidable conclusion. It is as simple as that. This could 
be

a rare case of "either/or" where only one outcome is possible based on a
physical phenomenon.

In LENR this is why the appearance of tritium is so important for ultimate
proof of the phenomenon. Tritium is rock-solid proof of one type of LENR.
Unlike helium, which is rare but ubiquitous in air, tritium is completely
unexpected, and moreover: unambiguous to measure. There is no good
alternative explanation other than a low energy nuclear reaction.

When tritium is seen, at least one type of LENR is proved. Period. When 
that

one type is proved, other types are easier to justify based on a solid
foundation. Since tritium has been seen for over twenty years in 
experiment,
critics and skeptics have been wrong for that long, but they still 
continue

to whine and interfere with progress.

The reason that this is brought up in cross-connection to the x-ray laser 
is

that Roarty has assembled a decent argument which implies free electron
motion in nanocavities which implies Lorentz contraction and x-rays. This 
is

based on the Casimir force and can be called DCE, or the dynamic Casimir
effect. This relates not to another kind of LENR per se, but to an energy
amplification mechanism which can be harnessed by LENR of any of the major
types.

For the record, some of the most intense radiation which has been 
documented
by Randell Mills is in the 10 nm soft x-ray spectrum. He has an 
alternative

explanation, but this exact spectrum is seen in the free-electron x-ray
laser. Now we have a good explanation for this radiation showing up in the
LENR experiments via LC - which does not require Mills' theory.

Given Mills has been incapable of building a working device for public
demonstration after 24 years and $100 million, and has reverted to 
modifying

a crude seam welder to amaze his fans and devotees - LOL - and given that
the free-electron x-ray laser has been in operation for some time - this 
is

not looking promising like a promising future for Mills and BLP.

I'm just glad BLP did not go with an IPO many years ago, since I would 
have

invested back then and it would likely be belly up by now.

Jones

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>  
> Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that 
> that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at 
> the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting 
> reliably consistent reactions.

That is where the action is, Steven. It is on the surface in nanosized sites. 
That location is in conflict with most explanations and is very hard to explore 
without suitable tools. 
>  
> If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious. Do 
> we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, allow us 
> to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
> nano-scale?

Yes, this could be done several different ways and has been suggested. However, 
the tools require money to use. 

> I realize nano-scale means working with structures as small as at the atomic 
> scale. I know research labs have already proven we can nudge individual atoms 
> around on a surface, and even spell words. I get the sense that demonstrated 
> procedures of this nature are at present totally impractical, and certainly 
> not useful on an industrial scale.

Once the type, size, and location of the NAE is identified, making it on an 
industrial scale would not be a problem. 

> I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser 
> technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance the 
> CF/LENR effect – perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are currently 
> being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and DVDs. Using 
> laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example of a matured 
> technology. I’ve wondered if a similar “mature” technology might eventually 
> turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as well.


Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would recommend.

Ed Storms
>  
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
>  
> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
> everything.
>  
> Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes 
> from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence 
> the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables were 
> important.  I can now identify the important variables, but money is required 
> to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the nano 
> level. 
>  
> LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves. 
> Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not 
> identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering 
> aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found 
> nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close 
> as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his gold 
> outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail.
>  
> Ed Storms
>  
>  
> On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
> 
> 
> From Jed:
>  
> ...
>  
> > Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran
> > a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
> > repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,
> > or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.
> > 
> > The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
> > experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
> > That's all there is to it.
>  
> I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late 
> hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four 
> successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about 
> building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly 
> generate excess heat 100% of the time?
>  
> I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat 
> consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.
>  
> I’m also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major 
> impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past 
> quarter of a century.
>  
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
>  
>  

Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[Bob Cook]

My last email should have said P-F in lieu of I-I in the last sentence.

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Cook" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction



Jones etal--

I recently heard about a researcher at a Government Lab (PNNL) that had 
funding cut off when she discovered Tritium in a sono-luminescent 
experiment.  The lack of such curiosity in Govt Labs. and follow-up is, I 
suspect, wide spread.   However another person at PNNL who I have had 
contact with over the years, and who was what you might say, a skeptopath, 
spouting the no, not possible, rhetoric of the last 25 years, has recently 
be come silent as to the information I send out.  This person may be 
coming around to the reality of LENR, although in a non vocal manner. 
However, his person may have thought it (LENR)  was real all along and was 
afraid to say so.


This whole experience indicates to me the problems with big money research 
with a non-scientific agenda as its guiding principle.


I recently stopped giving money to my al mamater because I found out about 
the University President's involvement with the MIT cover-up of the I-I 
work.


Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction



When a large part of any argument is semantics - it usually requires only
one definitive and rock-solid example to prove a contention... unless 
there

is a valid alternative explanation.

From: David Roberson

In the free electron laser ... the wavelength should be
approximately equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that
distance is effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by 
the

electrons in motion.  The shortening factor directly enters into the
determination of the radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure 
of

magnets is employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz
contraction.

... is there an alternative explanation - other than LC?

If not, and if there is no valid alternative to Lorentz contraction then 
we
must face the unavoidable conclusion. It is as simple as that. This could 
be

a rare case of "either/or" where only one outcome is possible based on a
physical phenomenon.

In LENR this is why the appearance of tritium is so important for 
ultimate

proof of the phenomenon. Tritium is rock-solid proof of one type of LENR.
Unlike helium, which is rare but ubiquitous in air, tritium is completely
unexpected, and moreover: unambiguous to measure. There is no good
alternative explanation other than a low energy nuclear reaction.

When tritium is seen, at least one type of LENR is proved. Period. When 
that

one type is proved, other types are easier to justify based on a solid
foundation. Since tritium has been seen for over twenty years in 
experiment,
critics and skeptics have been wrong for that long, but they still 
continue

to whine and interfere with progress.

The reason that this is brought up in cross-connection to the x-ray laser 
is

that Roarty has assembled a decent argument which implies free electron
motion in nanocavities which implies Lorentz contraction and x-rays. This 
is

based on the Casimir force and can be called DCE, or the dynamic Casimir
effect. This relates not to another kind of LENR per se, but to an energy
amplification mechanism which can be harnessed by LENR of any of the 
major

types.

For the record, some of the most intense radiation which has been 
documented
by Randell Mills is in the 10 nm soft x-ray spectrum. He has an 
alternative

explanation, but this exact spectrum is seen in the free-electron x-ray
laser. Now we have a good explanation for this radiation showing up in 
the

LENR experiments via LC - which does not require Mills' theory.

Given Mills has been incapable of building a working device for public
demonstration after 24 years and $100 million, and has reverted to 
modifying

a crude seam welder to amaze his fans and devotees - LOL - and given that
the free-electron x-ray laser has been in operation for some time - this 
is

not looking promising like a promising future for Mills and BLP.

I'm just glad BLP did not go with an IPO many years ago, since I would 
have

invested back then and it would likely be belly up by now.

Jones

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> Given your absolutist declaration about "complete lack of funding.  Zero
> dollars" you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
> valid no matter what they do but I disagree.
>

MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more
from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid.
They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
before and after. Without that they are flying blind.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> Given your absolutist declaration about "complete lack of funding.  Zero
>> dollars" you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
>> valid no matter what they do but I disagree.
>>
>
> MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more
> from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid.
> They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
> before and after. Without that they are flying blind.
>

Before and after _what_?

My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before the
horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific progress
-- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with adequate
electrochemistry, looking for effects of large enough amplitude that the
phenomenon is obvious to the most casual observer.

That's _what_.

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

I sed:

 

>> I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser

>> technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance

>> the CF/LENR effect - perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are

>> currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of 

>> CDs and DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS

>> is an example of a matured technology. I've wondered if a similar 

>>"mature" technology might eventually turn out to suit LENR 

>> objectives on a commercial scale as well.

 

>From Ed:

 

> Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would
recommend.

 

What is your recommendation, Ed? 

 

.or am I beginning to step into NDA ground.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Bob Cook]

Mark-

The first paper at  phys.org seems to describe an energy wave or something that 
is not light.  I wonder how they determined it was electromagnetic like a light 
wave we know about?  I wonder, if Maxwell's theory can address such an 
electromagnet phenomena?  The researchers seem to omit the basic parameter of 
spin  as being a basic parameter like energy, momentum and angular momentum.  
In other words some parameter that involves the Pauli Exclusion Principle of 
particles.

Bob


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Jurich 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 1:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


   Mark Iverson wrote:

   | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
   | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

   

   | Paper Ref:

  | http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

   

  FYI:

   

  arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

  (arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)

   

  - Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Bob Cook]

Mark--

The last paper you identify seems to answer my previous question about 
Maxwell,'s classical theory.  This last paper  is very interesting and involves 
spin effects I have not heard about.  Well worth reading.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Jurich 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 1:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


   Mark Iverson wrote:

   | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
   | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

   

   | Paper Ref:

  | http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

   

  FYI:

   

  arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

  (arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)

   

  - Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

the rabbit hole just became more crowded.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


  These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in LENR 
and to SPP. 

   

  That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious to 
everyone, here is an additional point. 

   

  Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of 
electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good radiator 
but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When the sphere is 
a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with nanometer geometry 
in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes relevant to SPP.

   

  On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we described such 
spin for surface 

  plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal field 
component plays 

  an important role in optical coupling processes. 

   

  From: Mark Jurich 

   Mark Iverson wrote:

   

   | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

   | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

   

   | Paper Ref:

  | http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

   

  FYI:

   

  arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

  (arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)

   

  - Mark Jurich

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Mark Jurich]

 Steven wrote:

  | Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, 
allow us to cut grooves
  | and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means
  | working with structures as small as at the atomic scale.
FYI (pardon my interjecting):
You may be interested in looking up, “Nanoimprint Lithography”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography
Photolithography (using Light/Photons) has severe limitations when reaching the 
nanoscale.  E-Beam
Lithography has High Resolution but very low Throughput, not to mention cost.  
Typically, a “master”
would be made using e-Beam and transferred to an appropriate material for 
nanoimprinting...
... Combining Nanoimprint Lithography with Ion Etching/Milling (and perhaps 
Sputtering), etc., could
allow one to achieve the desired Nanoscale Structures.  Whether Nanoscale 
Surface Structures are
needed is another question that needs addressing, but I believe Nanoimprinting 
(although not as
cheap as we’d all like, right now!) would be a good way to proceed.
... One may also get by with simple nanoindentation if large 
patterning/replication isn’t necessary.
Verification/Testing could be done by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 
possibly Contact AFM
(c-AFM).
- Mark Jurich
 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

> I sed:
>  
> >> I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser
> >> technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance
> >> the CF/LENR effect – perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are
> >> currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of
> >> CDs and DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS
> >> is an example of a matured technology. I’ve wondered if a similar
> >>“mature” technology might eventually turn out to suit LENR
> >> objectives on a commercial scale as well.
>  
> From Ed:
>  
> > Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would 
> > recommend.
>  
> What is your recommendation, Ed?
>  
> …or am I beginning to step into NDA ground.

Not so much NDA because much of the general approach is public knowledge. 
Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the effort, 
the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable for patent 
protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make money. 

Ed Storms
>  
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
>  

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jed:

You say that "he effect has been replicated hundreds of times."  Where can
a skeptic go to check on these replications?

As far as I can tell, when Ed ran 92 experiments and got 4 cathodes to
work, he replicated the PFAHE 4 times.  I recently saw some reference to 50
cathodes, which was about half the ones originally tested.  That would be
50 more times replicated, by 1 researcher.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
>>
>> This file is corrupted.  At least for me...
>>
>
> That's not good. Try again. I will upload a new copy.
>
> This question is nebulous, even somewhat meaningless, because it is hard
> to count experiments. When Bockris ran a 10 x 10 array of cathodes, was
> that 1 test or 100?
>
> Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
> ran a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
> repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or
> 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.
>
> The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
> experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
> That's all there is to it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
>> before and after. Without that they are flying blind.
>>
>
> Before and after _what_?
>

Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the
metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production.



> My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before
> the horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific
> progress -- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with
> adequate electrochemistry . . .
>

That would not be economical. Without diagnostics you would have no idea
why one sample worked and another did not. With diagnostics even in the
absence of theory you can identify the microscopic conditions that in
samples from before the run that correlated with success. You can look at a
sample and tell beforehand it is likely to work. What we need is lots of
equipment to look at samples rather than doing a blind search by testing
only. The Storms paper describes the kinds of procedures that are needed.
The thing to do is to automate them, speed them up, and do more of them on
a microscopic scale, because the microscopic scale is where the action is.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Jed, this may seem unconventional, but has a crowd-sourcing approach been 
considered?  

I know of at least one scientific program -- small, admittedly -- that is being 
crowd-funded. A LENR proposal would appeal more broadly, I think, and might be 
able to raise adequate research funding. 

A key might be to structure the proposal with phases, so that funding and 
program phases were coordinated, thus building investor confidence.

Cheers,
Lawry


On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>  
> Given your absolutist declaration about "complete lack of funding.  Zero 
> dollars" you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be 
> valid no matter what they do but I disagree. 
> 
> MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more 
> from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid. They 
> need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal before 
> and after. Without that they are flying blind.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months ago--about 
spin coupling is finally coming out.  I hope Ed takes note and decides to 
address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR..

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Cook 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


  Jones--

  the rabbit hole just became more crowded.

  Bob
- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in LENR 
and to SPP. 

 

That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious 
to everyone, here is an additional point. 

 

Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of 
electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good radiator 
but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When the sphere is 
a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with nanometer geometry 
in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes relevant to SPP.

 

On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we described 
such spin for surface 

plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal field 
component plays 

an important role in optical coupling processes. 

 

From: Mark Jurich 

 Mark Iverson wrote:

 

 | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

 | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

 

 | Paper Ref:

| 
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

 

FYI:

 

arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

(arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)

 

- Mark Jurich

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Higgins]

I can tell you from first hand experience that SEM analysis is MUCH harder
than it sounds.  I have had access to a good, but not great SEM for
analysis of my powders.  Features at the nanoscale simply were not
resolve-able with that SEM.  Perhaps with the world's finest SEM, you might
be able to get a picture of a nanosite and be able to resolve some useful
information from it, BUT, the smaller you look, the smaller the area you
get to search.  It is not like you know just where the LENR was taking
place unless something obvious happens at a macro-scale and then by that
time the NAE is not functional anymore.

You may have to do XRF imaging to look for spots where spurious
transmutations may have taken place and then search inside this.  This kind
of work will require a top notch SEM and operator to find a needle in the
haystack.

New instruments may need to be created to find and analyze the NAE.  All of
it comes back to $$ and time - but nothing like what has been spent on hot
fusion research.  In the mean time, there is always luck and intuition that
we can hope for.  In the worst case, we wait and buy one of Rossi's
products and take it apart!


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
>>> before and after. Without that they are flying blind.
>>>
>>
>> Before and after _what_?
>>
>
> Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the
> metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[James Bowery]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
>>> before and after. Without that they are flying blind.
>>>
>>
>> Before and after _what_?
>>
>
> Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the
> metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production.
>
>
>
>> My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before
>> the horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific
>> progress -- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with
>> adequate electrochemistry . . .
>>
>
> That would not be economical. Without diagnostics you would have no idea
> why one sample worked and another did not. With diagnostics even in the
> absence of theory you can identify the microscopic conditions that in
> samples from before the run that correlated with success. You can look at a
> sample and tell beforehand it is likely to work. What we need is lots of
> equipment to look at samples rather than doing a blind search by testing
> only. The Storms paper describes the kinds of procedures that are needed.
> The thing to do is to automate them, speed them up, and do more of them on
> a microscopic scale, because the microscopic scale is where the action is.
>

What's uneconomic is buying a bunch of diagnostic equipment and then not
having any cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the phenomenon.

The cart:  Diagnostic equipment.

The horse:  A supply of cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the
phenomenon.

[Vo]:LENR puzzles NASA

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-mystery-planet-forming-disks-magnetism.html

Mystery of planet-forming disks explained by magnetism

Researchers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to study developing
starshave had a hard time figuring out
why the stars give off more infrared
light  than expected. The
planet-forming disks that circle the young
starsare heated by starlight and
glow with infrared light, but Spitzer detected
additional infrared light coming from an unknown source.

 LENR in dust will produces both magnetism and additional infrared
radiation.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Cook]

It might be a good idea to have a Mass Spec machine that can analyze isotopic 
fractions more than a SEM which is hard to use on local nano systems that may 
have reacted.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 5:43 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.





  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

James Bowery  wrote:


They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the 
metal before and after. Without that they are flying blind.


  Before and after _what_?


Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the 
metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production. 



  My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before 
the horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific progress 
-- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with adequate 
electrochemistry . . .



That would not be economical. Without diagnostics you would have no idea 
why one sample worked and another did not. With diagnostics even in the absence 
of theory you can identify the microscopic conditions that in samples from 
before the run that correlated with success. You can look at a sample and tell 
beforehand it is likely to work. What we need is lots of equipment to look at 
samples rather than doing a blind search by testing only. The Storms paper 
describes the kinds of procedures that are needed. The thing to do is to 
automate them, speed them up, and do more of them on a microscopic scale, 
because the microscopic scale is where the action is.


  What's uneconomic is buying a bunch of diagnostic equipment and then not 
having any cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the phenomenon.


  The cart:  Diagnostic equipment.


  The horse:  A supply of cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the 
phenomenon. 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Cook]

Mark--



As Jones said a week or so ago about SPP, we are again meeting in Alice's 
rabbit hole.  

I thought engineering a system might work better than relying on chance to form 
the topology for LENR.  My blog 
>>Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:10 AM<< suggests a manufacturing idea not unlike 
>>yours.  I think we do have technology--it may be what Rossi is using. 

Check out the whole thread-- Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"-- on March 01 
2014 for issues related to topography , cracks etc.  Electronic chip making 
technology may also have some use. 

Such control of isolating LENR locations from the structural/thermal conduction 
part of the reactor would be desirable engineering feature for longer reactor 
life.

Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Jurich 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:20 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


   Steven wrote:

| Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for 
example, allow us to cut grooves
| and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means
| working with structures as small as at the atomic scale.
  FYI (pardon my interjecting):
  You may be interested in looking up, “Nanoimprint Lithography”:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography
  Photolithography (using Light/Photons) has severe limitations when reaching 
the nanoscale.  E-Beam
  Lithography has High Resolution but very low Throughput, not to mention cost. 
 Typically, a “master”
  would be made using e-Beam and transferred to an appropriate material for 
nanoimprinting...
  ... Combining Nanoimprint Lithography with Ion Etching/Milling (and perhaps 
Sputtering), etc., could
  allow one to achieve the desired Nanoscale Structures.  Whether Nanoscale 
Surface Structures are
  needed is another question that needs addressing, but I believe 
Nanoimprinting (although not as
  cheap as we’d all like, right now!) would be a good way to proceed.
  ... One may also get by with simple nanoindentation if large 
patterning/replication isn’t necessary.
  Verification/Testing could be done by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 
possibly Contact AFM
  (c-AFM).
  - Mark Jurich
   

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Bob stated:

“… we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.”

 

Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)

 

-Mark

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

 

Mark--

 

As Jones said a week or so ago about SPP, we are again meeting in Alice's 
rabbit hole.  

 

I thought engineering a system might work better than relying on chance to form 
the topology for LENR.  My blog 

>>Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:10 AM<< suggests a manufacturing idea not unlike 
>>yours.  I think we do have technology--it may be what Rossi is using. 

Check out the whole thread-- Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"-- on March 01 
2014 for issues related to topography , cracks etc.  Electronic chip making 
technology may also have some use. 

Such control of isolating LENR locations from the structural/thermal conduction 
part of the reactor would be desirable engineering feature for longer reactor 
life.

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: Mark Jurich   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

 

 Steven wrote:

 

  | Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, 
allow us to cut grooves

  | and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means

  | working with structures as small as at the atomic scale.

 

 

FYI (pardon my interjecting):

 

You may be interested in looking up, “Nanoimprint Lithography”:

 

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

 

Photolithography (using Light/Photons) has severe limitations when reaching the 
nanoscale.  E-Beam

Lithography 

has High 

Resolution but very low Throughput, not to mention cost.  Typically, a “master”

would be made using 

e-Beam and transferred to an appropriate material for nanoimprinting...

 

... Combining Nanoimprint Lithography with Ion Etching/Milling (and perhaps 
Sputtering), etc., could

allow one 

to 

achieve the desired 

Nanoscale Structures.  Whether Nanoscale Surface Structures are

needed is another 

question that needs 

addressing, but I believe Nanoimprinting (although not as

cheap as we’d all like, right 

now!) 

would be a good way to proceed.

 

... One may also get by with simple nanoindentation if large 
patterning/replication isn’t necessary.

 

Verification/Testing could be done by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 
possibly Contact AFM

(c-AFM).

 

- Mark Jurich

 

 

Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Axil, I don't get it.   Why not optimize this for power generation?  Find a
way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of
electricity.  Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in
terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just
'shifting a Tupperware container'

This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press
and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality
something is happening there.

My only question, is that is voltage being reported.  What was the excess
thermal heat?  Going to email them.

On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348
>
> LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
>

RE: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Did my master's thesis under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric physicist, and
expert in cloud microphysics.  One of Telford's areas of interest was cloud
electrification, which, at the time, was still not clearly explained.  My
thesis redesigned a novel airborne electric field measuring device which he
and Dr. Peter Wagner had developed.  One hypothesis about cloud
electrification had to do with the collision of droplets inside the cloud
causing a transfer of electrical charge, but that was only one of several
hypotheses.  When I read the article on the electrification of the powder, I
immediately thought that the mechanism could be related. 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

 


Axil, I don't get it.   Why not optimize this for power generation?  Find a
way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of
electricity.  Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in
terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just
'shifting a Tupperware container'

 

This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press
and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality
something is happening there.

 

My only question, is that is voltage being reported.  What was the excess
thermal heat?  Going to email them.


On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348

 

LENR has been talking about this for some time now.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

IMHO, LENR engineering must go in the other direction; toward the
production of randomness. Outside of the nano-hairs on the micro particles,
the engineering in the NiH reactor is an exercise in random particle
production.

As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active reaction is to
provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This requirement  comes
from nanoplasmonic doctrine.

A single sized particle does not work.

For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does
work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying
diameters.

The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding
power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles.

This is how Rossi's secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide
and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles.
Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population.

When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the
nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the
reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles.

The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage
transformer as power is fed to the smallest particles.

If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not be
productive. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction
will not be strong.

All nanoparticles of a certain size have a negative index of refraction as
regards to the long wavelengths of infrared light. Short wavelengths are
absorbed. It's a matter of geometry.

A mix of particles of various sizes is needed in a Ni/H reactor to form an
amalgam.

This may be why BIG particles are needed to absorb the infrared light and
that infrared energy once absorbed in the big particles is passed via
dipole motion to the smaller particles witch usually reflect that long
wavelength  light.






On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
>
>
> Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that
> that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at
> the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting
> reliably consistent reactions.
>
>
>
> If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious.
> Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example,
> allow us to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an
> appropriate nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means working with structures
> as small as at the atomic scale. I know research labs have already proven
> we can nudge individual atoms around on a surface, and even spell words. I
> get the sense that demonstrated procedures of this nature are at present
> totally impractical, and certainly not useful on an industrial scale. I
> have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser
> technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance
> the CF/LENR effect - perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are
> currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and
> DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example
> of a matured technology. I've wondered if a similar "mature" technology
> might eventually turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as
> well.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
>
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
>
>
>
> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
> of everything.
>
>
>
> Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes
> from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence
> the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables
> were important.  I can now identify the important variables, but money is
> required to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at
> the nano level.
>
>
>
> LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves.
> Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not
> identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering
> aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found
> nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close
> as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his
> gold outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail.
>
>
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> From Jed:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
> ran
>
> > a full cold fusion experime

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the
> effort, the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable
> for patent protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make
> money.
>

And the people providing a service by manufacturing high-quality modules
and selling them.

Eric

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

This blog may effect your prognosis to  come true faster.  That would be a boon 
to humanity..

FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:12 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:


Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the 
effort, the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable for 
patent protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make money. 


  And the people providing a service by manufacturing high-quality modules and 
selling them.


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[Axil Axil]

http://www.scienceinschool.org/2009/issue12/fireballs

I judge this to be important of the LENR scientist as follows:

These patterns proved that the fireballs were indeed full of particles with
an average radius of about 25 nm - i.e. they are nanoparticles. The data
also showed that* the particles varied widely in size (very important)* (as
is typical of aerosols) and that there were about 109 particles per cubic
centimetre. This makes the volume fraction of solid material (the ratio of
volume of solid to total volume of space) in the fireball around 10-7 or 10
-8. There was really only a very, very, small amount of matter in the
cloud. The analysis also suggested that the particles had quite a rough
surface: the scientists found the surface to have a fractal dimension of
2.6 (2.0 corresponds to a smooth 2D surface,


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

>
> Axil, I don't get it.   Why not optimize this for power generation?  Find
> a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of
> electricity.  Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in
> terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just
> 'shifting a Tupperware container'
>
> This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press
> and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality
> something is happening there.
>
> My only question, is that is voltage being reported.  What was the excess
> thermal heat?  Going to email them.
>
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348
>>
>> LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction

[H Veeder]

I thought about the same issues too. If the principles of special
relativity are applicable then according to the principles it should be
possible to explain the effect equally well in either frame of reference.
However, I don't think it is possible.

I am wondering if an amplitude change in the sinusoidal path of the
electrons instead of length contraction could be used to explain the
frequency shift of the x-rays.

harry

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:38 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> I do not have enough evidence to make more sense of this, but if the
> photon becomes an x-ray because of length contraction, 2 things occur to me.
>
> Firstly if the electron is not passing by enough magnets to gain the
> required frequency as far as the Lab frame is concerned, then even if the
> wavelength could seem to be shortened by length contraction (possibly not
> the SR version either) it still would not explain the frequency.  This is
> however a very complex issue.
>
> More clearly, if the electron is emitting a photon at high relativistic
> velocities, then there should be red/blue shifting depending on if the
> photon is detected ahead or behind in much the same way that a horn of a
> car changes pitch depending of if it is receding or approaching. (Doppler)
>
> The Doppler effect is funny actually, since it causes an optical illusion
> of making an approaching object look longer, yet raises frequency of the
> same, a wavelength could 'look' longer (if we could see wavelengths like
> objects) as it approaches but have a higher frequency.
>
> So if length contraction can explain this, Special Relativity's version
> would only be applicable in the electron frame since in the lab frame the
> electron is not moving fast enough and the magnets are too far apart, but
> clearly the x-ray detector isn't moving relativistically.
>
> If it was an x-ray in the Lab frame without the Doppler effect blue
> shifting, then it should be an even higher frequency in the electrons frame
> where time dilation and length contraction should make short wavelength and
> high frequency (of the lab frame) seem shorter and higher still.
>
> Of course that becomes circular reasoning where all motion (other than
> Doppler) should make a photon appear to be at a higher frequency, since
> this is non-nonsensical we end up with the conclusion that each photon has
> a lowest frequency which is when the observer inhabits the frame it was
> created in, which is fine, but then the photon has a preferred
> (discoverable) frame!
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 5:43 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> There has been a continuous discussion on the list about the reality of
>> SR time dilation and length contraction.  Most of the commenters accept the
>> time dilation concept since it is relatively easy to measure.  Some among
>> the group point out the paradox that they perceive as existing, but for now
>> I want divert attention to evidence of length contraction that seems highly
>> relevant.
>>
>> I found an article in Wikipedia about the free electron laser.  There is
>> a technique for generating very high energy tunable x rays which strongly
>> depends upon the length contraction due to electron velocities near light
>> speed.   The frequency and wavelength of the emitted radiation can be
>> directly calculated by using the Lorentz factor.  Read the article found at
>> the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser to
>> see how well the mathematics works.
>>
>> The process uses an alternating series of magnets that are clearly spaced
>> a large distance apart when compared to the the emitted wavelength of the
>> synchronous radiation.  If you accept that the electrons are moving at very
>> nearly the speed of light, then the wavelength should be approximately
>> equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that distance is
>> effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the electrons
>> in motion.  The shortening factor directly enters into the determination of
>> the radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure of magnets is
>> employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz contraction.
>>
>> Harry, this might help to explain the behavior of your train on the track
>> questions.  Think of the distance between the magnets as being similar to
>> the space between the rail ties.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Axil Axil]

Regarding Belinfante spin momentum.

Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a
result of its wave function and not motion of  forces within the electron.

Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum and
the wave nature of photons.

That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are related if
not identical.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Jones--
>
> It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months
> ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out.  I hope Ed takes note and
> decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR..
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Bob Cook 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
> evanescent light waves
>
> Jones--
>
> the rabbit hole just became more crowded.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
> evanescent light waves
>
>  These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in
> LENR and to SPP.
>
>
>
> That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious
> to everyone, here is an additional point.
>
>
>
> Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of
> electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good
> radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When
> the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with
> nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes
> relevant to SPP.
>
>
>
> On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we described
> such spin for surface
>
> plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal field
> component plays
>
> an important role in optical coupling processes...
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Jurich
>
>  Mark Iverson wrote:
>
>
>
>  | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves
>
>  | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html
>
>
>
>  | Paper Ref:
>
> |
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html
>
>
>
> FYI:
>
>
>
> arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf
>
> (arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)
>
>
>
> - Mark Jurich
>
>

Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks

[H Veeder]

If this has any bearing on hydrogen loaded metal lattices then the
equivalent of the flour crack might be a region which was formerly filled
with hydrogen but which suddenly became devoid of hydrogen. In other words,
instead of cracks in the lattice being important to excess heat,  it might
be the opening and closing of "cracks" in the distribution of hydrogen
which contribute to excess heat.

harry


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.scienceinschool.org/2009/issue12/fireballs
>
> I judge this to be important of the LENR scientist as follows:
>
> These patterns proved that the fireballs were indeed full of particles
> with an average radius of about 25 nm - i.e. they are nanoparticles. The
> data also showed that* the particles varied widely in size (very
> important)* (as is typical of aerosols) and that there were about 
> 109particles per cubic centimetre. This makes the volume fraction of solid
> material (the ratio of volume of solid to total volume of space) in the
> fireball around 10-7 or 10-8. There was really only a very, very, small
> amount of matter in the cloud. The analysis also suggested that the
> particles had quite a rough surface: the scientists found the surface to
> have a fractal dimension of 2.6 (2.0 corresponds to a smooth 2D surface,
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Axil, I don't get it.   Why not optimize this for power generation?  Find
>> a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of
>> electricity.  Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in
>> terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just
>> 'shifting a Tupperware container'
>>
>> This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press
>> and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality
>> something is happening there.
>>
>> My only question, is that is voltage being reported.  What was the excess
>> thermal heat?  Going to email them.
>>
>> On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348
>>>
>>> LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Axil Axil]

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf

 What is Spin? Am J. Phys. 54 (6) June
1986.
The abstract is:

According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or some other
particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete
physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog.
However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887
(1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular
momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the
electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a
circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitivelyl
appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic
moment are "internal" -- they are not associated with the internal structure
of the electron, but rather with the structure of the field. Furthermore, a
comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and
electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electrons is entirely
analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly
polarized wave.



On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Regarding Belinfante spin momentum.
>
> Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a
> result of its wave function and not motion of  forces within the electron.
>
> Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum and
> the wave nature of photons.
>
> That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are related
> if not identical.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>>  Jones--
>>
>> It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months
>> ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out.  I hope Ed takes note and
>> decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR..
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Bob Cook 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
>> evanescent light waves
>>
>> Jones--
>>
>> the rabbit hole just became more crowded.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jones Beene 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
>> evanescent light waves
>>
>>  These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in
>> LENR and to SPP.
>>
>>
>>
>> That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious
>> to everyone, here is an additional point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of
>> electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good
>> radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When
>> the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with
>> nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes
>> relevant to SPP.
>>
>>
>>
>> On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we described
>> such spin for surface
>>
>> plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal field
>> component plays
>>
>> an important role in optical coupling processes...
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mark Jurich
>>
>>  Mark Iverson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light
>> waves
>>
>>  |
>> http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html
>>
>>
>>
>>  | Paper Ref:
>>
>> |
>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI:
>>
>>
>>
>> arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf
>>
>> (arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Mark Jurich
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

If you believe anti-electrons and electrons are basically the same except 
having mirror symmetry in their wave functions, then when they come together to 
make two photons leaving in opposite direction with parallel and anti-parallel 
spin along the same axis, it does not take to much imagination to conclude 
photons and electrons are the same stuff.

Maybe this stuff is a potential energy field of another dimension(s) equal in 
some measure to the electron mass which dimension(s) collapses when the 
electron- positron annihilate each other. 
 
Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


  Regarding Belinfante spin momentum.


  Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a result 
of its wave function and not motion of  forces within the electron.


  Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum and 
the wave nature of photons.


  That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are related if 
not identical. 



  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Jones--

It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months 
ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out.  I hope Ed takes note and 
decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR..

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Cook 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


  Jones--

  the rabbit hole just became more crowded.

  Bob
- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in 
evanescent light waves


These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in 
LENR and to SPP. 



That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not 
obvious to everyone, here is an additional point. 



Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of 
electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good radiator 
but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When the sphere is 
a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with nanometer geometry 
in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes relevant to SPP.



On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we 
described such spin for surface 

plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary longitudinal 
field component plays 

an important role in optical coupling processes. 



From: Mark Jurich 

 Mark Iverson wrote:



 | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light 
waves

 | 
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html



 | Paper Ref:

| 
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html



FYI:



arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

(arXiv Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547)



- Mark Jurich

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[H Veeder]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Bob stated:
>
> "... we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole."
>
>
>
> Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!
>
> The Blue pill or the Red pill?
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
>


One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

Neo's apartment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

The red/blue pill scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Cook]

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.







  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Bob stated:

". we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole."



Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)



-Mark








  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references 
to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)


  Neo's apartment:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI



  The red/blue pill scene:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg



  Harry

[Vo]:Update on the Chain Fountain

[H Veeder]

The Chain Fountain, Explained (?)

<>

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/science/the-chain-fountain-explained.html

Link to abstract
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2163/20130689

If a chain is initially at rest in a beaker at a height h1 above the
ground, and the end of the chain is pulled over the rim of the beaker and
down towards the ground and then released, the chain will spontaneously
‘flow’ out of the beaker under gravity. Furthermore, the beads do not
simply drag over the edge of the beaker but form a fountain reaching a
height h2 above it. We show that the formation of a fountain requires that
the beads come into motion not only by being pulled upwards by the part of
the chain immediately above the pile, but also by being pushed upwards by
an anomalous reaction force from the pile of stationary chain. We propose
possible origins for this force, argue that its magnitude will be
proportional to the square of the chain velocity and predict and verify
experimentally thath2∝h1.

Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[H Veeder]

Bob,
Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take
the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe
whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in
Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
Harry


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Harry--
>
> I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.
> However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the
> red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from
> my pill box.  I typically don't eat blue things.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* H Veeder 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
> of everything.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>>  Bob stated:
>>
>> "... we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole."
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!
>>
>> The Blue pill or the Red pill?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>>
>
>
> One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some
> references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)
>
> Neo's apartment:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI
>
>  The red/blue pill scene:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Cook]

Harry

So be it.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


  Bob,
  Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
  "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the 
blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you 
want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you 
how deep the rabbit-hole goes."



  Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
  Harry



  On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory 
of everything.







  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Bob stated:

". we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole."



Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)



-Mark








  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some 
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)


  Neo's apartment:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI



  The red/blue pill scene:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg



  Harry

RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

"However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887
(1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular
momentum generated by a *circulating flow* of energy in the wave field of
the electron."

 

This is at least somewhat understandable if one considers the vacuum as a
near-frictionless fluid under extreme pressure. you cannot have 'flow'
without a pressure differential.

 

"the spin of the electrons is entirely analogous to the angular momentum
carried by a classical circularly polarized wave."

 

I commented on the importance of "coherence" in a posting several days ago.
well, coherence involves not only a frequency component, but a polarization
(or phase relationship) component.  The bulk matter, or 'chemistry' that Dr.
Storms has spent his life in, does NOT involve coherency. the laws that he
is intimately familiar with do not involve systems where significant groups
of atoms/electrons/SPP/???  are all coherently interacting. LENR will
require a new set of laws for these regions of coherent entities.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:08 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
evanescent light waves

 

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf

 

  
What is Spin? Am J. Phys. 54 (6) June 1986. The abstract is:

According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or some other
particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete
physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog.
However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6 887
(1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular
momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the
electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a
circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitivelyl
appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic
moment are "internal" - they are not associated with the internal structure
of the electron, but rather with the structure of the field. Furthermore, a
comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and
electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electrons is entirely
analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly
polarized wave.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Regarding Belinfante spin momentum.

 

Belinfante worked out that the spin of the electron was produced as a result
of its wave function and not motion of  forces within the electron.

 

Now the same considerations show that spin comes from angular momentum and
the wave nature of photons.

 

That leans support to the concept that electrons and photons are related if
not identical. 

 

 

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Jones--

 

It seems an answer to my original question for this blog--2 months
ago--about spin coupling is finally coming out.  I hope Ed takes note and
decides to address the basic parameter, spin, in his theory for LENR..

 

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: Bob Cook   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:12 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
evanescent light waves

 

Jones--

 

the rabbit hole just became more crowded.

 

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: Jones Beene   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:32 PM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in
evanescent light waves

 

These references tie into the thread on a dynamical Casimir effect in LENR
and to SPP. 

That may be why they were sent, but in case the connection is not obvious to
everyone, here is an additional point. 

Mie scattering and Mie's solution to Maxwell - is the scattering of
electromagnetic radiation by a sphere. Generally a sphere makes a good
radiator but does not make a good antenna, but there are exceptions. When
the sphere is a micron-sized nickel powder, loaded with hydrogen and with
nanometer geometry in the surface features (tubules), all of this becomes
relevant to SPP.

On page 5 of the first link, they talk about SPP "Recently, we described
such spin for surface plasmon polariton, and it was shown that the imaginary
longitudinal field component plays an important role in optical coupling
processes. 

From: Mark Jurich 

 Mark Iverson wrote:

 | Extraordinary momentum and spin discovered in evanescent light waves

 | http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

 | Paper Ref:

|
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

FYI:

arXiv Preprint: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pd

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Bob, you need to watch The Matrix!

-mark

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of
everything.

 

Harry

 

So be it.

 

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: H Veeder   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM

Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of
everything.

 

Bob,
Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take
the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever
you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I
show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

 

Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
Harry

 

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Harry--

 

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the
red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from
my pill box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

 

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: H Veeder   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM

Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of
everything.

 

 

 

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

Bob stated:

". we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole."

 

Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)

 

-Mark

 

 

 

One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references
to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

 

Neo's apartment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

 

The red/blue pill scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

 

Harry

 

 

 

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Bob Cook]

Harry--Wikipedia regarding The Matrix says the following:

>>The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols 
>>representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of 
>>reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).  The 
>>terms, popularized in science fiction culture, derive from the 1999 film The 
>>Matrix. In the movie, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a 
>>red pill and a blue pill. The blue pill would allow him to remain in the 
>>fabricated reality of the Matrix, therefore living the "illusion of 
>>ignorance", while the red pill would lead to his escape from the Matrix and 
>>into the real world, therefore living the "truth of reality".<<

I think you've got your pills mixed up.  The red ones get you to reality, 
although wonderland would not be to bad--it might be a little like this blog, 
which is a lot of fun.

Bob 



Contents
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


  Bob,
  Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
  "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the 
blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you 
want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you 
how deep the rabbit-hole goes."



  Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
  Harry



  On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory 
of everything.







  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Bob stated:

". we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole."



Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)



-Mark








  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some 
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)


  Neo's apartment:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI



  The red/blue pill scene:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg



  Harry