[Vo]:A relativistic Shrödinger's cat
From the appendix of the paper Stellar Aberration: the Contradiction between Einstein and Bradley http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO2PDF/V14N2RUS.pdf Apeiron, Vol. 14, No 2, April 2007 111 © 2007 C. Roy Keys Inc. — http://redshift.vif.com Appendix I: A relativistic Shrödinger’s cat The spherical light propagation for all inertial observers imposed by the light postulate, besides being incompatible with the observed stellar aberration effect (as showed in this article), gives rise to the following paradox. Let us imagine a slightly modified version of the relativistic light clock, in which the wave source is a laser, and thus capable of emitting light not in a radial way, but in one single direction. Furthermore, imagine that along this direction, at a distance D from the source, there is a detector capable of releasing, if hit by a light pulse, a lethal gas in a box which contains a cat (Fig.7). At a given instant, the laser emits a light pulse towards the detector. According to an observer at rest with respect to this device, the light pulse reaches the detector after a time D c , and the cat dies. But according to an observer in perpendicular motion relative to the velocity of the light pulse, on the basis of the light postulate the light pulse does not reach the detector, because in the time this pulse travels the distance D, the detector has changed its place, travelling a distance vt, and, in absence of a radial emission, no spherical wave front can reach it. Therefore, according to the observer in motion, the cat does not die. We are therefore now facing a similar result to that obtained in the famous thought experiment conceived by Shrödinger to disprove Quantum Mechanics.† In fact, on the basis of the principles of the SRT, two observers do not view the same event at two different times (relativity of simultaneity), but view two different events, that is, two different realities! The Shrödinger paradox is usually solved by appealing to the inapplicability of Quantum laws to macrocosm systems, instead ruled by the entropy law. Our relativistic paradox takes instead place entirely in the macrocosmic world, and therefore a superposition of contradictory macroscopic events cannot be avoided. But simply because of this reason, it turns out to be unacceptable. --- Harry
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago. I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work. Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math. and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago... I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work... Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good... but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking... NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math... and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is... it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move
RE: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
This was an excellent video but Steven's post did not come through to me. I had to track the url down in the archives. BTW - check out the cult (geek) movie: Primer -Original Message- From: Rob Dingemans Dear Steven, Thanks for sharing this video, I enjoyed it. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW - check out the cult (geek) movie: Primer And the director's recent second movie: Upstream Color http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084989
RE: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
Jones, Sorry you experienced technical difficulties retrieving my recent message from the past. RE: Primer. The trailers are intriguing. Sort of like Looper. I think I Netflixed it years ago, but I'm not entirely sure anymore. I have two rationalizations I can go with: 1. Sometimes there are advantages to losing one's memory. 2. Or... perhaps I just left this little past probability in a discarded past timeline, and then it got merged. Must not have been the dominant timeline. ;-) Shoot! If I can't remember I might as well watch it again. Done on a 7k budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_%28film%29 That took balls. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
RE: near-field papers I would most definitely like any references. I've also been told by a very skilled RF engineer that the electric and magnetic fields in the near-field are not necessarily coupled; not sure if that is the exact term he used, but his point was that the near field is somewhat, or can be somewhat, different from the far-field. -mark From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago. I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work. Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math. and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
You might look at this paper as well; I've mentioned it many moons ago. Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields, Xing-Hao Ye http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 Abstract The electric and magnetic fields are investigated on the basis of quantum vacuum. The analysis of the electromagnetic energy and force indicates that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the vacuum virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a rearrangement of the vacuum polarization. It means that an electromagnetic wave is a successional changing of the vacuum polarization in space. Also, it is found that the average half length of the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge is a=2.8 *10^(-15)m. The result leads to the step distribution of the field energy around an electron, the relation between the fine structure constant and the vacuum polarization distribution, and an extremely high energy density of the electromagnetic field. Finally, Anyone who has seen the mag-field-lines in iron filings has to at least wonder if this is an obvious manifestation of the polarization discussed in the above paper. 'Fields' are not just convenient mathematical constructs, but a real physical phenomenon which directly influences matter. The scientist in me then wonders if the iron filings are following a polarization of atoms in the air??? But I would bet that you would see the same thing if done in a vacuum. -Mark Iverson From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago. I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work. Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math. and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html
[Vo]:FYI: articles of potential interest...
Klein tunneling: Coupled particles cross energy wall http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130529092204.htm The authors relied on an analytical and numerical study of a landmark model of interacting particles, called the Hubbard model. It is typically used to describe particle pairs in condensed matter such as in semi-conductors and in so-called matter wave physics, used for instance to describe microscopic particles oscillating between their material and wave-like characteristics. Longhi and Della Valle predict a new type of Klein tunnelling for a couple of interacting particles confronted by an energy barrier. Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together. Quantum chaos in ultracold gas discovered http://phys.org/news/2014-03-quantum-chaos-ultracold-gas.html Good vibes: A way to make better catalysts for meds, industry and materials http://phys.org/news/2014-03-good-vibes-catalysts-meds-industry.html The vibrations alone are not adequate, but combined with other classical techniques in physical organic chemistry, we are able to predict how reactions can occur, says chemistry professor Matt Sigman, senior author of the study in the Thursday, March 13, issue of the journal Nature.
[Vo]:the far fringe - ORME and LENR
At the end of last year, a few observers were amazed to see Lewis Larsen turn even crankier than ever with transmutation claims. Or else, to his supporters - more prescient than ever. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr-transmutation -as-source-of-key-scarce-elements-dec-13-2013 Yet today, there seems to be more reason to suspect that something could be going-on with low energy transmutation in some types of LENR - which goes all the way back to 1989 ... but no, it is not back to Pons Fleishmann - instead back to David Hudson. Hudson filed a patent that year 1989 - for Orbital Rearranged Monatomic Elements, including nickel as one of them and palladium as another. He did not mention LENR as a possible application for ORME and AFAIK - even Larsen has not gone that far, since he is suggesting an effect and not the cause. Later in the nineties, while LENR was being taken somewhat seriously, at first, Hudson's work degenerated into magic elixirs, gold scams and new age mumbo-jumbo. Too bad, since the two discoveries could be joined at the hip and help to explain each other. It seems now, with the benefit of hindsight, that Hudson knew almost nothing scientifically about what he was seeing and ORME can now be identified as a special kind of exciton. Hudson was more rancher than physicist, and it shows. Then this appeared on Rossi's site two years ago: Q: The catalyst that you guard so well - is it a catalyst in the chemical sense? That is - changes in rate of a chemical reaction due to the participation of a substance called a catalyst. A: No, we call it a catalyst, but it is not a chemical catalyst. AR. Rossi's answer made little sense at the time, but more in the context of recent events, to the extent that orbital rearrangement, high spin, energy gain and occasional transmutation are found in the same experiment - and the possibility that high spin states are both cause and effect. Are high spin states a catalyst for nuclear transmutation ? ORME have never been documented as monatomic, despite the name. They are below nano geometrically, in the sense that we are looking at perhaps 1-15 atoms (an FCC crystal). A unique resonance that puts these few atoms into a high spin state and keeps them from agglomerating. They seem most likely to be identical to metallic excitons, but they were discovered before semiconductor excitons. In the past, Hudson seemed to be too far out on the far fringe to actually study as a science, but maybe some of the pieces to the LENR puzzle do relate. The case for Kervran's biological transmutation is much stronger than Hudson's - but if one of them is true then both are likely to be true. If there were to be a rock-solid result that comes up anytime soon, say - showing the disappearance of oxygen from an LENR experiment, or even a water-splitting experiment - it would make sense to look for the appearance of sulfur as the effect, and Hudson-excitons as the cause. (Hudson-excitons are ORMEs, but were probably never monatomic, so that description was an error from the start). Did anyone really ingest the magic elixir version? ... LOL, the predecessor to NZT-48 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:the far fringe - ORME and LENR
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Did anyone really ingest the magic elixir version? ... LOL, the predecessor to NZT-48 Modafinil.
Re: [Vo]:the far fringe - ORME and LENR
Jones-- I have thought all along that high spin states must be involved in whatever the LERN is. This is based on the observation that energetic particles are not a product of the mass conversion that is apparently occurring. The only other energy transfer mechanism that we know about is a transfer of mass energy to spin energy. I consider that the FCC lattice arrangement makes for a nice cage for H and other small particles to keep them close and increase the chance for a reaction different more stable, lower mass configuration. I agree with your suggestion that high spin states of virtual D and H possible in a magnetic field make the LENR possible via spin energy fractionation to lattice electrons and/or lattice atoms of NI, PD or other high nuclear magnetic catalysts added to the lattice alloy. I can see why Larsen was cranky given the Mitsubishi research showing transmutations without a doubt. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:25 PM Subject: [Vo]:the far fringe - ORME and LENR At the end of last year, a few observers were amazed to see Lewis Larsen turn even crankier than ever with transmutation claims. Or else, to his supporters - more prescient than ever. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr-transmutation -as-source-of-key-scarce-elements-dec-13-2013 Yet today, there seems to be more reason to suspect that something could be going-on with low energy transmutation in some types of LENR - which goes all the way back to 1989 ... but no, it is not back to Pons Fleishmann - instead back to David Hudson. Hudson filed a patent that year 1989 - for Orbital Rearranged Monatomic Elements, including nickel as one of them and palladium as another. He did not mention LENR as a possible application for ORME and AFAIK - even Larsen has not gone that far, since he is suggesting an effect and not the cause. Later in the nineties, while LENR was being taken somewhat seriously, at first, Hudson's work degenerated into magic elixirs, gold scams and new age mumbo-jumbo. Too bad, since the two discoveries could be joined at the hip and help to explain each other. It seems now, with the benefit of hindsight, that Hudson knew almost nothing scientifically about what he was seeing and ORME can now be identified as a special kind of exciton. Hudson was more rancher than physicist, and it shows. Then this appeared on Rossi's site two years ago: Q: The catalyst that you guard so well - is it a catalyst in the chemical sense? That is - changes in rate of a chemical reaction due to the participation of a substance called a catalyst. A: No, we call it a catalyst, but it is not a chemical catalyst. AR. Rossi's answer made little sense at the time, but more in the context of recent events, to the extent that orbital rearrangement, high spin, energy gain and occasional transmutation are found in the same experiment - and the possibility that high spin states are both cause and effect. Are high spin states a catalyst for nuclear transmutation ? ORME have never been documented as monatomic, despite the name. They are below nano geometrically, in the sense that we are looking at perhaps 1-15 atoms (an FCC crystal). A unique resonance that puts these few atoms into a high spin state and keeps them from agglomerating. They seem most likely to be identical to metallic excitons, but they were discovered before semiconductor excitons. In the past, Hudson seemed to be too far out on the far fringe to actually study as a science, but maybe some of the pieces to the LENR puzzle do relate. The case for Kervran's biological transmutation is much stronger than Hudson's - but if one of them is true then both are likely to be true. If there were to be a rock-solid result that comes up anytime soon, say - showing the disappearance of oxygen from an LENR experiment, or even a water-splitting experiment - it would make sense to look for the appearance of sulfur as the effect, and Hudson-excitons as the cause. (Hudson-excitons are ORMEs, but were probably never monatomic, so that description was an error from the start). Did anyone really ingest the magic elixir version? ... LOL, the predecessor to NZT-48
