Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
In the Philippines, Renewables is "Must Take", The distribution company must take everything the renewable power plant can generate. So, I guess that can be considered baseload. Also, wave is not as intermittent as wind and solar. It is very much predictable to within a few days. 48 hour wave forecasts for swells are very accurate to within a few hours, sometimes up to 5 days. When a storm is approaching land fall from the Pacific, this period could last for 2 or more weeks. Currently, I am watching swell patterns that have remained predictable and consistent for over 3 weeks now. We've had a chain of 1 storm followed by 2 tropical drepressions plus another tropical depression predicted to occur in a few days.. The waves and swells have been excellent. If I had my system deployed, I would have made a killing. On a scale of intermittency, I would consider wind, solar, wave, hydro and biomass on this order. Regarding being competitive, is my figure competitive with LENR, with Rossi's hotcat, and more importantly with BLP's suncell. I consider suncell to be a bigger threat because of its portability and its minimal capex. Rossi's system requires an ecosystem of steam equipment and structures, hence could be expensive in capex. Suncell is just a small generator that can be ganged up and hence can be deployed quickly and rather inexpensively. Is my design competitive with your Air Vortex tower generator? Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw It is not in the same market as coal. Coal is baseload. But in terms of other intermittent renewables, yes it is competitive if your figures are correct. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: Hello folks, I would like your feedback on something. I am working on a wave powered power plant design that I think I can deploy for less than $200/kw. At this cost, is it competitive with other power sources. I read from wiki and other sources than Geothermal and Hydro power sources can be deployed for less than $300/kw but I am not sure how accurate this is and what exactly is included in that figure. And for that matter, is my figure competitive with coal? My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the waves. Here in the Philippine East coast, we get swell heights of 0.8m to 4m with period of 7-10 seconds. With a design life of 10 years, I figured that I would be able to generate electricity at $0.0019/kwh. You read that right, not 19 cents, but 1/5 of 1 cent per kwh. At this level of cost, I believe this is lower than even Rossi's Hotcat or BLP's suncell, am I correct? With operating cost added, I think I can generate electricty for around $0.005/kwh. At these price and cost levels, I can be very competitive with all currently known electricity sources, including hydro and geothermal and including other wave powered designs. My main concern is how competitive I can be when LENR hits the market. As of today, I only see 2 viable technologies that could possibly hit the market in the short term, Rossi's hotcat and Suncell. I read that the projected cost for Rossi's is 1 cent/kwh and for BLP is about $0.03/kwh. Does anybody have more accurate forcast figures for these two technologies. If this is accurate, I will be very very competitive. Give me your thoughts on how competitive I can be in the new LENR environment. Jojo
[Vo]:Re: Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Hello Bob To ignite a fuel aliquot only 5J is needed ( 5 V 10,000Amps 0.1 msec). The seam welder which produces the high current in the SunCell system needs about 200-300J to ignite the sample bcs of inefficiencies. So building a better powersystem will increase the excess energy and power considerable. Peter From: Bob Higgins Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 5:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? If Mills' water detonations for the SunCell are so energetic that he has a rumored COP of 100, then why did the previous demonstration in a calorimeter (which would have captured all of the radiant energy) only show a COP of ~2? I even think this was in error (the calorimetry) for failure to adequately account for the ejecta in the control vs. actual experiment. Why is Mills suddenly able to claim a high COP? Bob Higgins On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: I certainly do not dispute the long list of prior BLP predictions that failed to come to fruition. I think where I'm coming from is that, at least from my perception, it looks to me as if Mills senses something much more substantial with the SunCell technology working in tandem with the CIHT process. It appears to me as if Mills is betting the farm on the success of the latest technology. Make or break time. I grant you this is a subjective opinion. No more. No less. In the meantime, I really would like to acquire a better confidence level that the recycling process is not that difficult to do. That's one of the reasons I have been repeatedly harping on this subject, looking for different opinions and clarification from others. All we have to go on is Mills claim that it is. At present I'm willing to give Mills the benefit of the doubt... but only to a point. As the famous slogan went: "Trust, but verify" You are not so sure giving Mills the benefit of the doubt is warranted. I respect your doubt. So, here we are... until further developments. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Good point Bob. That number – COP ~2 keeps coming up over and over again in Ni-H results from a wide range of experiments. The most recent Mizuno and Cravens work, although not Ni-H are also in the COP ~2 range, and they are convincing. Is “two” the “new one” … for CoE purposes? We should prepare ourselves for the eventuality that there is gain in Ni-H but it will be limited to a low multiple, at least in the average gain over time…. Even if at times higher ranges can be seen. Give us a break, skeptics … it is still overunity. Actually, I can see the skeptics claiming victory (or trying to save face) since the gain is limited to ~2. From: Bob Higgins If Mills' water detonations for the SunCell are so energetic that he has a rumored COP of 100, then why did the previous demonstration in a calorimeter (which would have captured all of the radiant energy) only show a COP of ~2? I even think this was in error (the calorimetry) for failure to adequately account for the ejecta in the control vs. actual experiment. Why is Mills suddenly able to claim a high COP? Vincent Johnson wrote: I certainly do not dispute the long list of prior BLP predictions that failed to come to fruition. I think where I'm coming from is that, at least from my perception, it looks to me as if Mills senses something much more substantial with the SunCell technology working in tandem with the CIHT process. It appears to me as if Mills is betting the farm on the success of the latest technology.
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I basically concur with Axil's speculations. Let me add... Mills claims most of the energy released has been measured to reside within the electromagnetic spectrum of heat, "sun" light, UV and soft X-Rays. Very little kinetic energy had been measured. Apparently, this was a surprise to them, a fortuitous one. Mills claims the expansion ratio was measured to be a tepid 10%. Not a good rocket fuel if one is evaluating SunCell strictly for its capacity of generating kinetic thrust. I gather this is an amazingly small measurement for an observed explosion that is nevertheless extremely loud. 10% or not, the percussion is reported to produce an initial sonic wave capable of being felt through the inner laboratory walls of the BLP building. ...This according to Mills. Part 1: http://youtu.be/GxuoMzm2HNE Part 2: http://youtu.be/8TKgrOjac6Y Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:34 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? The Visible spectrum could have passed unaffected through the water of the calorimeter and produced free electrons in the metal structure, Those electrons could have been lost to grounded area of the structure. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: That explanation is completely faulty. Did the visible spectrum escape the calorimeter? If not, it was all converted to heat and should have been measured. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: How about this... The calorimeter only measures the heat (infrared portion of the emission spectrum). The visible and EUV portion of the emissions spectrum carry the majority of the reaction energy. There is the plasma blast energy that is lost which could be substantial. The majority of the energy produced by this sort of reaction is the energy carried by the electrons liberated by the plasma and also contributed by the electric arc, It is a mistake of the first order to waste the energy content of these electrons.
RE: [Vo]:Re: Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl To ignite a fuel aliquot only 5J is needed ( 5V @10,000 Amps). That is another curious value which keeps turning up – the 10,000 amps, since the seam welder is essentially a one turn 10,000 amp magnetic field… and also to John’s interview with Brian Ahern, which this thread will segue to, as soon as the old espresso machine does it daily duty. Nanomagnetism is the name of the game. Earlier this month, a thread came up to explore the coincidence of 10,000 amp turns showing up in various ways. The evidence was thin but interesting. This latest from Mills adds another datum to that observation. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg94642.html The observation was inspired by the Rossi "HotCat" image showing the resistance wiring scheme, and the realization that the electrical current in that case, even though it is used for heating, and even though it is not applied constantly- has an equivalent amp-turn property of about 10,000. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion/viewgallery/290598 … which can be estimated from the image - if one includes the turns around the wire axis at 10 amps input – but that arrangement cannot be modeled as a solenoid. The resultant magnetic field would be complex, probably helical and only a few hundred gauss. Same with the SunCell. Still, the 10,000 amp-turns is worth remembering since Letts/Cravens found that LENR benefits from modest fields of a few hundred gauss, and not higher. Emphasis on “modest field” not high field. As fate would have it, this value turned up recently as a "magic rating" in another field where the intent was simply to magnetize steel pipe. IOW to induce a permanent field in a ferromagnetic material, the rule of thumb is that 10,000 amp-turns will do the job – but less that that is iffy. Still… merely a coincidence … for those who believe that some coincidences are meaningless.
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
The speculation (of inaccurate calorimetry) is nonsense. Visible photons passing through the water are captured on the wall of the calorimeter - all of the heat is retained and captured in the water. You guys seem to want to boost Mills by claiming he cannot measure his own gain because he is an idiot with calorimetry, and the gain is actually higher? LOL what kind of logic is that? Sorry, and there could eventually be higher gain than this from photocells, but the only real proof here is COP of about 2. No mystery why the photocell data is still not released. And you can see that titanium is far and away the best catalyst – which is what started this thread to begin with. Everything else is hype – designed to elicit funding from the carefully selected audience. OTOH – it is still COP ~2. And that is worth something From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson I basically concur with Axil's speculations.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I am not responding as a LENR skeptic. I do not believe that CPO = 2 is the new COP=1. And, I do believe LENR is a real effect. However, a thermal COP is difficult to measure without equivocation, particularly in explosive events. I saw errors in the previous Mills calorimetry being done when only a COP~2 was being demonstrated. There was enough uncertainty for me to not be convinced that COP was even greater than 1. Peter's claim that only 5J is needed to ignite the fuel pellet is a not-publicly-demonstrated claim (did I miss that demonstration?), that cannot be taken as true until demonstrated. Basically the whole premise of the SunCell hinges on that key fact which has not been (publicly) demonstrated. If Mills believes it can be done in 5J based upon his private experiments, he should build the machine and show it producing lots of net energy. I am not closed minded and I will believe a credible demo when I see it reported. I won't believe speculation - but - cogent speculation does deserve to be investigated. LENR has been demonstrated at high currents. See the Santilli papers and Kadeisvili's replication of his transmutation work. Bob Higgins On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:53 AM, wrote: > Hello Bob > > To ignite a fuel aliquot only 5J is needed ( 5 V 10,000Amps 0.1 msec). > The seam welder > which produces the high current in the SunCell system needs about 200-300J > to ignite the sample bcs of inefficiencies. > So building a better powersystem will increase the excess energy and power > considerable. > > Peter >
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jones sez: ... > Give us a break, skeptics … it is still overunity. Actually, I can > see the skeptics claiming victory (or trying to save face) since the > gain is limited to ~2. Damage control. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and soft X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. Again, according to "the doctor" that's where most of the energy resides. Just repeating what I heard. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? The speculation (of inaccurate calorimetry) is nonsense. Visible photons passing through the water are captured on the wall of the calorimeter - all of the heat is retained and captured in the water. You guys seem to want to boost Mills by claiming he cannot measure his own gain because he is an idiot with calorimetry, and the gain is actually higher? LOL what kind of logic is that? Sorry, and there could eventually be higher gain than this from photocells, but the only real proof here is COP of about 2. No mystery why the photocell data is still not released. And you can see that titanium is far and away the best catalyst – which is what started this thread to begin with. Everything else is hype – designed to elicit funding from the carefully selected audience. OTOH – it is still COP ~2. And that is worth something From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson I basically concur with Axil's speculations.
[Vo]:2 BLP Videos from the July 21 demonstrations are now available
Part 1: http://youtu.be/GxuoMzm2HNE Part 2: http://youtu.be/8TKgrOjac6Y It will probably take up a couple hours of your time. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Re: Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
>From Bob: ... > If Mills believes it can be done in 5J based upon his private experiments, > he should build the machine and show it producing lots of net energy. > I am not closed minded and I will believe a credible demo when I see it > reported. Agreed. From: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demonstration-Abbreviated.pdf See page 76. "BLP requested Engineering firm to provide a prototype in 16 - 18 weeks" This would imply we may have an answer, one way or another, by December or soon after... if we're lucky. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Of course the calorimeter can measure sunlight. Basically, if the light doesn't escape from the calorimeter, it was converted to heat and measured, probably quite accurately. The only question is whether the soft x-rays escaped. However, if Mills plans to capture these in silicon, then they would also have been measured by the calorimeter. To escape the calorimeter would require high energy x-rays and a lot of these would also have been measured to a lesser efficiency. Bob Higgins On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and > soft X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. > > > > Again, according to "the doctor" that's where most of the energy resides. >
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and soft X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. Yes, Steven – that is the case. You and Axil are confusing power and energy. This is a daily occurrence on forums and even among ‘fizzix perfessunals’ and no one is immune, so don’t take it as a personal criticism. The thermal energy of a down-converted and absorbed x-ray is 100% equivalent to its highest power as a photon in a vacuum. Yes, it has higher power before down conversion - compared to later when downshifted - but not higher energy. Energy stays the same under CoE - conservation of energy. Proper calorimetry will absorb all photons and measure their heat only. The soft x-rays of Mills are actually absorbed by the transparent plastic, or a mm of water or a few inches of air. UV is absorbed by everything. Visible goes through plastic and air unimpeded, but is fully absorbed by a thin coat of black paint. Once you realize the distinction between power and energy in calorimetry, there is no way Mills is underestimating the gain - and as Bob opines, he may be overestimating it. Again, according to "the doctor" that's where most of the energy resides. Of course that is true, as far as it goes - but can be misinterpreted QED. In the sense that soft x-rays or UV is where putative gain would come from, most the energy can be there and you must capture it, but still all that gain - ALL of it - is converted to heat by the calorimeter with no loss, and the only loss is peak power. Just repeating what I heard. That may be the problem (or is it lack of caffeine?) - you are repeating valid information, but not thinking about the implications. From: Jones Beene The speculation (of inaccurate calorimetry) is nonsense. Visible photons passing through the water are captured on the wall of the calorimeter - all of the heat is retained and captured in the water. You guys seem to want to boost Mills by claiming he cannot measure his own gain because he is an idiot with calorimetry, and the gain is actually higher? LOL what kind of logic is that? Sorry, and there could eventually be higher gain than this from photocells, but the only real proof here is COP of about 2. No mystery why the photocell data is still not released. And you can see that titanium is far and away the best catalyst – which is what started this thread to begin with. Everything else is hype – designed to elicit funding from the carefully selected audience. OTOH – it is still COP ~2. And that is worth something From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson I basically concur with Axil's speculations.
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
At 08:05 PM 7/25/2014, Foks0904 . wrote: I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY An outline can be found here: http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and (super?)-ferro-magnetism are closely related (and that the latter persists up to a thousand degrees.). Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic effect tapping into vacuum energy. Needs a transcript.
RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper which Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not have the time, so the hope is to entice someone else to "chop wood" (Van Morrison fans will appreciate this metaphor) I did a search for 62Ni but nothing turned up. A quick scan shows an unusual emphasis on helium, which has not apparent connection to Rossi. Quien sabe?
RE: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is there. It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of superferromagnetism and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon. He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error - noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. From: Alan Fletcher Foks0904 wrote: I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY An outline can be found here: http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooper ative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and (super?)-ferro-magnetism are closely related (and that the latter persists up to a thousand degrees.). Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic effect tapping into vacuum energy. Needs a transcript.
RE: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
I've been trying to find Ahern publications, but have so far failed. Only his patent on aharmonic modes, which is patently obfuscated.
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it > in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, > with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches > with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the > relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. > After thinking about this more, I kind of like your description for the three dd branches. Is it something you heard or read about somewhere, or just what made sense to you? The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a > nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you > end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest > and hits and sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, > and 3) the proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the > same time and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron > is released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you > get tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. > Another possible interpretation of this is that in the d(d,p)t and d(d,n)3He branches, the two d's do not fully tunnel into a compound nucleus. Instead, the individual nucleons (p in one case, and n in the other) tunnel across the potential barrier along the lines of the Oppenheimer-Phillips process and are stripped off of the d that once held them. Preceding the scattering, there may or may not be reorientation of the d's to account for Coulomb repulsion from the proton in the oncoming d. This would predict that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be > very rare. However, because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei > approach each other, it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons > more likely to face each other, but this only happens at the last minute. > Because of this, 2) may be slightly more favored. > A different prediction would be that the strong Coulomb field in the background orients the d's so that the constituent p's are facing out away along the gradient towards less charge. So the incident d's would look like this: Coulomb field + n n | -> <- | p p In this scenario, the two d's collide in parallel instead of oriented at random or in tandem. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
> From: "Alan Fletcher" > I've been trying to find Ahern publications, but have so far failed. > Only his patent on anharmonic modes, which is patently obfuscated. A little of it's in these slides : http://www.slideshare.net/ecatreport/ahern-lenr-theories
RE: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Here are some slides of a presentation, which may be less obfuscated http://www.slideshare.net/ecatreport/ahern-lenr-theories -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher I've been trying to find Ahern publications, but have so far failed. Only his patent on aharmonic modes, which is patently obfuscated.
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Yeah, those are also in PDF form at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/AhernBSenergyloca.pdf Several sections of Celani's ICCF18 cover Ahern : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFfurtherpro.pdf
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Localization is a major subject in condensed matter physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization A Nobel prize was issued in this field. Oftentimes, experimenters stumble on an effect that has been developed in other areas of science that are unknown to them. Ahern may have done this. This localization is only applicable to lattice structures that are as large as Piantelli's nickel bars. Nano and micro particles are too small to demonstrate localization effects of electrons due to topological defects. It is the physical boundaries imposed my there size that produces the resonant effects that are so important in the concentration of energy into atomic level magnetism. LENR may also be an effect that has been studied over decades in the hot spot phenomena in nanophasmonics were a huge concentration of EMF is a result of resonant dipole vibration in a micro/nano antenna structure. One major factor that is never mentions as a factor in EMF concentration is the importance of photon entanglement with electrons as a why to convert electrons into bosons. Ken Shoulders had most of the theory of energy concentration correct, but he never understood how electron concentration must be enabled by photon entanglement. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > At 08:05 PM 7/25/2014, Foks0904 . wrote: > > I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT > colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with > MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has > enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the > ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: > "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals > enjoy: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY > > An outline can be found here: > http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ > > > That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) > > Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete > breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). > > At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and (super?)-ferro-magnetism > are closely related (and that the latter persists up to a thousand > degrees.). > > Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic effect > tapping into vacuum energy. > > Needs a transcript. >
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at last years ICCF. Regards, John On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a > few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention > (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have > belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of > overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is > there. > > > > It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any > evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium > fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. > Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of superferromagnetism > and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon. > > > > He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error - > noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. > > > > *From:* Alan Fletcher > > Foks0904 wrote: > > I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT > colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with > MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough > for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & > taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, > Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY > > An outline can be found here: > http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ > > > That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) > > Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete > breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). > > At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and (super?)-ferro-magnetism > are closely related (and that the latter persists up to a thousand > degrees.). > > Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic effect > tapping into vacuum energy. > > Needs a transcript. >
[Vo]:new paper atpublished on Ego Out
Dear Friends, Good answers are still rare in the field of LENR. so let's try with good questions: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/lenr-theories-or-principles.html Is this good? It is used to confront an answer to the question "How does LENR work?"- diven by Ed Storns. Ed wanted his new theory thoroughly discussed It is very probable that positive opinions will prevail therefore what I say here will have not much impact. It will be just an opportunity for reinforcing the theory. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the facts in the story of the nano system Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree with > for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements from > NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot of > respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better to > mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, but > he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. > > I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I think > I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy of > loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, non-linear, > open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in "violation" of > the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side I can't totally > dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort of abnormal > energy concentration is necessary -- that linear reaction-diffusion can get > H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without needing to invoke non-linear > dynamics. It's hard to say. > > I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some > light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, > because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth > of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at > last years ICCF. > > Regards, > John > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a >> few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention >> (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have >> belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of >> overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is >> there. >> >> >> >> It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any >> evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium >> fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. >> Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of superferromagnetism >> and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon. >> >> >> >> He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error - >> noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. >> >> >> >> *From:* Alan Fletcher >> >> Foks0904 wrote: >> >> I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT >> colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with >> MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough >> for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & >> taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, >> Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY >> >> An outline can be found here: >> http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >> >> >> That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) >> >> Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete >> breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). >> >> At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and (super?)-ferro-magnetism >> are closely related (and that the latter persists up to a thousand >> degrees.). >> >> Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic >> effect tapping into vacuum energy. >> >> Needs a transcript. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > That may be the problem (or is it lack of caffeine?) 4200 cup equivalent (@95 mg/cup) and none of those nasty alkaloids: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E6GSKEM at less than a cent per cup. Makes that Starbucks espresso look gawdy. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Axil -- Perhaps you missed it, but he refers to both spintronics and the vortex-like character of cooperative electron orbitals. So no, I don't think he's neglecting the relevance of spin on that scale. He even references the work of Hotson, who puts lots of emphasis on the untapped potential of spin. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to > a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of > study must be considered to put all the pieces together. > > > > One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how > magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. > > > > Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical > role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism > toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the > lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand > Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the > facts in the story of the nano system > > > > Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in > Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree >> with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements >> from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot >> of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better >> to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, >> but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. >> >> I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I >> think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy >> of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, >> non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in >> "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side >> I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort >> of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear >> reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without >> needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. >> >> I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some >> light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, >> because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth >> of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at >> last years ICCF. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene >> wrote: >> >>> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a >>> few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention >>> (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have >>> belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of >>> overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is >>> there. >>> >>> >>> >>> It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any >>> evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium >>> fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. >>> Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of superferromagnetism >>> and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon. >>> >>> >>> >>> He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error >>> - noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Alan Fletcher >>> >>> Foks0904 wrote: >>> >>> I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT >>> colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with >>> MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough >>> for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & >>> taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, >>> Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY >>> >>> An outline can be found here: >>> http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >>> >>> >>> That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) >>> >>> Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete >>> breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). >>> >>> At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and >>> (super?)-ferro-magnetism are closely related (and that the latter persists >>> up to a thousand degrees.). >>> >>> Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic >>> effect tapping into vac
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to > a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of > study must be considered to put all the pieces together. > > > > One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how > magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. > > > > Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical > role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism > toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the > lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand > Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the > facts in the story of the nano system > > > > Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in > Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree >> with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements >> from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot >> of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better >> to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, >> but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. >> >> I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I >> think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy >> of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, >> non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in >> "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side >> I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort >> of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear >> reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without >> needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. >> >> I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some >> light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, >> because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth >> of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at >> last years ICCF. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene >> wrote: >> >>> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a >>> few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention >>> (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have >>> belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of >>> overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is >>> there. >>> >>> >>> >>> It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any >>> evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium >>> fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. >>> Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of superferromagnetism >>> and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon. >>> >>> >>> >>> He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error >>> - noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Alan Fletcher >>> >>> Foks0904 wrote: >>> >>> I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT >>> colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with >>> MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough >>> for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & >>> taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, >>> Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY >>> >>> An outline can be found here: >>> http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >>> >>> >>> That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) >>> >>> Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to discrete >>> breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). >>> >>> At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and >>> (super?)-ferro-magnetism are closely related (and that the latter persists >>> up to a thousand degrees.). >>> >>> Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnet
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
I only when through the recording once, so what you say might be so. But he did not expound on the importance of how free electrons can form vortexes as an energy concentration mechanism. Electron orbitals can never achieve the degree of localization and the concentration necessary for the proper constraint of electrons demonstrated by localization. Electron orbitals are a dead end, it is the behavior of free electrons that are the key to LENR. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Axil -- Perhaps you missed it, but he refers to both spintronics and the > vortex-like character of cooperative electron orbitals. So no, I don't > think he's neglecting the relevance of spin on that scale. He even > references the work of Hotson, who puts lots of emphasis on the untapped > potential of spin. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization >> to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of >> study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >> >> >> >> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how >> magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >> >> >> >> Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical >> role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism >> toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the >> lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand >> Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the >> facts in the story of the nano system >> >> >> >> Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in >> Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree >>> with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements >>> from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot >>> of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better >>> to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, >>> but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. >>> >>> I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I >>> think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy >>> of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, >>> non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in >>> "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side >>> I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort >>> of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear >>> reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without >>> needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. >>> >>> I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some >>> light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, >>> because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth >>> of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at >>> last years ICCF. >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene >>> wrote: >>> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is there. It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of superferromagnetism and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same phenomenon. He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement error - noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. *From:* Alan Fletcher Foks0904 wrote: I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with the vacuum. All speculation of course. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field > seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), > which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. > > When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he > may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization >> to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of >> study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >> >> >> >> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how >> magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >> >> >> >> Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical >> role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism >> toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the >> lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand >> Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the >> facts in the story of the nano system >> >> >> >> Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in >> Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree >>> with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements >>> from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot >>> of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better >>> to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, >>> but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. >>> >>> I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I >>> think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy >>> of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, >>> non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in >>> "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side >>> I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort >>> of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear >>> reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without >>> needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. >>> >>> I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some >>> light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, >>> because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth >>> of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at >>> last years ICCF. >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene >>> wrote: >>> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are a few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which device others have belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the historians of overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to explain but is there. It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes deuterium fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. Nanomagnetism is roughly eq
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
The vacuum becomes unstable with the injection of energy: magnetic energy. Based on the strength of that magnetic energy, the vacuum behaves in various ways. This variably in the response of the vacuum to variable magnetic energy input is where the wide variability in LENR reactions comes from. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I > see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity > electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling > between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these > collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical > modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was > at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same > conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and > Mallove believed was legitimate. > > So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material > requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these > nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite > good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and > re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into > our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave > in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from > fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material > that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with > the vacuum. > > All speculation of course. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >> >> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he >> may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization >>> to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of >>> study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >>> >>> >>> >>> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand >>> how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >>> >>> >>> >>> Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the >>> critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification >>> mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the >>> dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To >>> understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals >>> all the facts in the story of the nano system >>> >>> >>> >>> Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in >>> Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at last years ICCF. Regards, John On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are > a few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic invention > (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test
RE: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
“Ion acoustics” go back to Hannes Alfven (another Swedish connection) and probably is relevant to the Manelas solid-state ferrite magnetic billet, even though there is no obvious plasma involved, no frozen-in mode and so on – but the key is negative hysteresis. Even the great Alfven was accused of having heretical ideas on anomalous energy. A virtual plasma probably requires a minimum space for field lines (thus a rather large billet) and self-propagating waves (due to “conditioning”) in order to act like a solid state plasma. If there is a Higgs interaction, it may relate to the element Barium (barium ferrite) which has isotopes of the same mass as the Higgs. BTW one curious detail is that the billet will levitate a pin placed over it like the “Levitron” but without the electromagnet of the Levitron and with an analogy to high temperature superconductivity. The thing that usually convinces skeptics of a bona fide anomaly in the Manelas device is that there was a substantial temperature drop in the billet over the test run, compared to ambient - and in spite of coils around it being pulsed with substantial current, which should have raised the temperature significantly. From: Foks0904 I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes.
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
The vacuum behaves differently based on the structure of the matter that it encloses. The way the vacuum behaves in space free of matter is different from the way the vacuum behaves inside the nucleus, which in turn is different from the way the vacuum behaves inside a proton or the neutron. This variety of behavior is a characteristic of the Higgs mechanism in the production of matter. This is a characteristic of the Higgs field where the type of particle involved in the Higgs interaction determines how the Higgs field interacts with the particle. Energy input into the vacuum seems to catalyze (make real) various virtual particles based on the contextual location of that interaction. For example, a vortex of polaritons will catalyze mass from the Higgs field in the dark matter context. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The vacuum becomes unstable with the injection of energy: magnetic energy. > Based on the strength of that magnetic energy, the vacuum behaves in > various ways. This variably in the response of the vacuum to variable > magnetic energy input is where the wide variability in LENR reactions comes > from. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >> Mallove believed was legitimate. >> >> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material >> requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these >> nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite >> good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >> the vacuum. >> >> All speculation of course. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >>> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >>> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >>> >>> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he >>> may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the facts in the story of the nano system Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree > with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash > measurements > from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a > lot > of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better > to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, > but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. > > I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I > think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the > analogy > of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, > non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in > "violation" of the second law
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and soft > X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. Any electromagnetic radiation at these energies that is stopped within the volume of the calorimeter will be thermalized and picked up as a temperature increase. As others have mentioned, UV and soft x-rays do not have a long mean-free path in many substances and are likely to be stopped; if not within the calorimeter volume, then at its inner wall, unless the energy is primarily delivered as visible light and the calorimeter has a transparent wall. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Attenuation.svg http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/613529/ultraviolet-radiation That a calorimeter is likely to pick up the energy delivered by such radiation is a detail that Mills will readily understand. Are you familiar with the details of the calorimetry, e.g., what kind of calorimeter was used? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
Although it is true that wave power is not as intermittent as other renewables, it is not responsible to point to public policy as the basis for classifying the statistical physics of the source when scaled. You must account for the physics in commensurate terms, such as the cost of storage or other dispatchable generation (such as natural gas turbine). As for the atmospheric vortex engine (which decidedly is not mine -- I had no hand in its invention) your numbers beat the maritime AVE unless the maritime AVE is deployed in the manner in which I _did_ design: Largely self-replicating AVECarbocrete cores -- or some variation thereon such as AVECPVC cores -- with a fast doubling time utilizing in situ resources of the tropical doldrums. If my maritime deployment technique is pursued, it wins due to the superior baseload power. On the other hand, any maritime system may benefit from the addition of your system. When will you have demonstrated your numbers? On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > In the Philippines, Renewables is "Must Take", The distribution company > must take everything the renewable power plant can generate. So, I guess > that can be considered baseload. > > Also, wave is not as intermittent as wind and solar. It is very much > predictable to within a few days. 48 hour wave forecasts for swells are > very accurate to within a few hours, sometimes up to 5 days. When a storm > is approaching land fall from the Pacific, this period could last for 2 or > more weeks. Currently, I am watching swell patterns that have remained > predictable and consistent for over 3 weeks now. We've had a chain of 1 > storm followed by 2 tropical drepressions plus another tropical depression > predicted to occur in a few days.. The waves and swells have been > excellent. If I had my system deployed, I would have made a killing. On a > scale of intermittency, I would consider wind, solar, wave, hydro and > biomass on this order. > > Regarding being competitive, is my figure competitive with LENR, with > Rossi's hotcat, and more importantly with BLP's suncell. I consider > suncell to be a bigger threat because of its portability and its minimal > capex. Rossi's system requires an ecosystem of steam equipment and > structures, hence could be expensive in capex. Suncell is just a small > generator that can be ganged up and hence can be deployed quickly and > rather inexpensively. > > Is my design competitive with your Air Vortex tower generator? > > > > > Jojo > > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l > *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2014 1:54 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw > > It is not in the same market as coal. Coal is baseload. But in terms of > other intermittent renewables, yes it is competitive if your figures are > correct. > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Jojo Iznart > wrote: > >> Hello folks, I would like your feedback on something. >> >> I am working on a wave powered power plant design that I think I can >> deploy for less than $200/kw. At this cost, is it competitive with other >> power sources. I read from wiki and other sources than Geothermal and >> Hydro power sources can be deployed for less than $300/kw but I am not sure >> how accurate this is and what exactly is included in that figure. And for >> that matter, is my figure competitive with coal? >> >> My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost >> less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate >> between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the >> waves. Here in the Philippine East coast, we get swell heights of 0.8m to >> 4m with period of 7-10 seconds. >> >> With a design life of 10 years, I figured that I would be able to >> generate electricity at $0.0019/kwh. You read that right, not 19 cents, >> but 1/5 of 1 cent per kwh. At this level of cost, I believe this is lower >> than even Rossi's Hotcat or BLP's suncell, am I correct? With operating >> cost added, I think I can generate electricty for around $0.005/kwh. >> >> At these price and cost levels, I can be very competitive with all >> currently known electricity sources, including hydro and geothermal and >> including other wave powered designs. >> >> My main concern is how competitive I can be when LENR hits the market. As >> of today, I only see 2 viable technologies that could possibly hit the >> market in the short term, Rossi's hotcat and Suncell. I read that the >> projected cost for Rossi's is 1 cent/kwh and for BLP is about $0.03/kwh. >> Does anybody have more accurate forcast figures for these two >> technologies. If this is accurate, I will be very very competitive. >> >> Give me your thoughts on how competitive I can be in the new LENR >> environment. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
The discharge of an electric arc has been experimentally shown to produce nuclear effects. This might be true in the Sun unit. A way to tell if nuclear reactions are occurring is the Sun unit reaction is to place a piece of U238 in the sun unit as a probe of nuclear activity. If the ratio of U235 to U 238 changes after an extended period of Sun unit operations, then it is shown that a nuclear process is underway produced by the arc of electricity that triggers the Sun reaction. U238 will react at a higher rate than does U235 so the percentage of U235 will go up over time. This will place in doubt the hydrino explanation of the Sun unit reaction, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > > Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and soft >> X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. > > > Any electromagnetic radiation at these energies that is stopped within the > volume of the calorimeter will be thermalized and picked up as a > temperature increase. As others have mentioned, UV and soft x-rays do not > have a long mean-free path in many substances and are likely to be stopped; > if not within the calorimeter volume, then at its inner wall, unless the > energy is primarily delivered as visible light and the calorimeter has a > transparent wall. > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Attenuation.svg > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/613529/ultraviolet-radiation > > That a calorimeter is likely to pick up the energy delivered by such > radiation is a detail that Mills will readily understand. Are you familiar > with the details of the calorimetry, e.g., what kind of calorimeter was > used? > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
By the way, TiO was a *superatom* of *nickel*.. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The discharge of an electric arc has been experimentally shown to produce > nuclear effects. This might be true in the Sun unit. A way to tell if > nuclear reactions are occurring is the Sun unit reaction is to place a > piece of U238 in the sun unit as a probe of nuclear activity. If the ratio > of U235 to U 238 changes after an extended period of Sun unit operations, > then it is shown that a nuclear process is underway produced by the arc of > electricity that triggers the Sun reaction. > > U238 will react at a higher rate than does U235 so the percentage of U235 > will go up over time. This will place in doubt the hydrino explanation of > the Sun unit reaction, > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < >> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: >> >> Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and >>> soft X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. >> >> >> Any electromagnetic radiation at these energies that is stopped within >> the volume of the calorimeter will be thermalized and picked up as a >> temperature increase. As others have mentioned, UV and soft x-rays do not >> have a long mean-free path in many substances and are likely to be stopped; >> if not within the calorimeter volume, then at its inner wall, unless the >> energy is primarily delivered as visible light and the calorimeter has a >> transparent wall. >> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Attenuation.svg >> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/613529/ultraviolet-radiation >> >> That a calorimeter is likely to pick up the energy delivered by such >> radiation is a detail that Mills will readily understand. Are you familiar >> with the details of the calorimetry, e.g., what kind of calorimeter was >> used? >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
Thanks for your insights. I have a prototype already built. I am looking to deploy it in the next few days and look at actual generated volumes of water and pressure. If you want an actual operating 3MW power plant, you may have to wait till next year. I can show it to you by then. My system can be scaled on a per 150kw basis. Each generator is about 150kw. To produce more power, simply add more units of 150kw. Here are the basic stats of a 150kw unit. 1. Rated Power: 150kw Induction Generator. 2. Swell Height required: 0.8m to 2m @8-10 second period. 3. Number of pumps: 504 (grid of 72 by 7 pumps) 4. Coast area occupied by 504 pumps: 55m x 26m @ 18' to 35' depth 5. Generated Pressure: 180psi minus friction loss in pipes 6. Generated Volume: 3773 gpm 7. Cost of each pump: <$15-$30 8. Projected Material Cost: ~$61,500 9. Projected Labor and Deployment Cost: Don't know exactly. Estimated to be around $30,000 10. Operating cost: Labor for 3 engineers to watch the power station 24/7, and maybe 3 divers to perform routine maintenance, plus some general workers. 11. Fuel Cost: Of course zero cost. It's God-given fuel 12. Maintenance Cost: Largely dependent on how long Fire hoses last under permanent immersion in sea water. If they last 10 years, this would be my design lifetime, so maintenance cost would be close to zero. There are no other significant maintenance items that I forsee, other than routine greasing of generator bearings and possibly replacement of bearings every year. The numbers look good although after viewing Randy's SunCell video, I am doubtful my system can compete with it. He says he can deploy for $300/kw but his system does not require the grid. My system requires new grid to be built to the eastern areas of the Philippines - so additional cost I haven't factored in. I am concerned by the Death Spiral of the grid bought on by new LENR technology. My system can compete in terms of generation cost but if the grid collapses, my generators are useless. Although a slight consolation is that the Philippine Grid will probably not collapse at least for another 20 years from the introduction of LENR technologies. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 4:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw Although it is true that wave power is not as intermittent as other renewables, it is not responsible to point to public policy as the basis for classifying the statistical physics of the source when scaled. You must account for the physics in commensurate terms, such as the cost of storage or other dispatchable generation (such as natural gas turbine). As for the atmospheric vortex engine (which decidedly is not mine -- I had no hand in its invention) your numbers beat the maritime AVE unless the maritime AVE is deployed in the manner in which I _did_ design: Largely self-replicating AVECarbocrete cores -- or some variation thereon such as AVECPVC cores -- with a fast doubling time utilizing in situ resources of the tropical doldrums. If my maritime deployment technique is pursued, it wins due to the superior baseload power. On the other hand, any maritime system may benefit from the addition of your system. When will you have demonstrated your numbers? On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: In the Philippines, Renewables is "Must Take", The distribution company must take everything the renewable power plant can generate. So, I guess that can be considered baseload. Also, wave is not as intermittent as wind and solar. It is very much predictable to within a few days. 48 hour wave forecasts for swells are very accurate to within a few hours, sometimes up to 5 days. When a storm is approaching land fall from the Pacific, this period could last for 2 or more weeks. Currently, I am watching swell patterns that have remained predictable and consistent for over 3 weeks now. We've had a chain of 1 storm followed by 2 tropical drepressions plus another tropical depression predicted to occur in a few days.. The waves and swells have been excellent. If I had my system deployed, I would have made a killing. On a scale of intermittency, I would consider wind, solar, wave, hydro and biomass on this order. Regarding being competitive, is my figure competitive with LENR, with Rossi's hotcat, and more importantly with BLP's suncell. I consider suncell to be a bigger threat because of its portability and its minimal capex. Rossi's system requires an ecosystem of steam equipment and structures, hence could be expensive in capex. Suncell is just a small generator that can be ganged up and hence can be deployed quickly and rather inexpensively. Is my design competitive with your Air Vortex tower generator? Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bower
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost > less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate > between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the waves. > I'm guessing there will need to be tethering to anchor all of the pumps. What measures will be needed to ensure safety of swimmers in the area? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
No tethering needed. The foot of the pump will seat on the sea floor. My pumps have a narrow depth that it can be deployed on. No swimmers near the pumps. The pump will be deployed at least a 100 feet from the shore where depths are at least 18'. Even if they do stray close by, there is very minimal danger. The pumps are just a bunch of floaters bobbing up and down in the waves. In fact, if the pumps are deployed as a curtain around the swim area beach, it would make the swimming experience more pleasant because the pumps will act as sort of a break water making waves milder for the beach swimmers. The pumps will not make surfing possible for obvious reasons, but swimming in the shallow areas should be OK. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the waves. I'm guessing there will need to be tethering to anchor all of the pumps. What measures will be needed to ensure safety of swimmers in the area? Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I > see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity > electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling > between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these > collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical > modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was > at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same > conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and > Mallove believed was legitimate. > > So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material > requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these > nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite > good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and > re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into > our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave > in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from > fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material > that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with > the vacuum. > > All speculation of course. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >> >> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he >> may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization >>> to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of >>> study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >>> >>> >>> >>> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand >>> how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >>> >>> >>> >>> Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the >>> critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification >>> mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the >>> dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To >>> understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals >>> all the facts in the story of the nano system >>> >>> >>> >>> Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in >>> Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash measurements from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a lot of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his theory applies better to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" systems than it does to LENR, but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in both. I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the analogy of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip side I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any sort of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed some light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking on that, because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a wealth of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they promised to at last years ICCF. Regards, John On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there are > a few thin
Re: [Vo]:Microwave Transmutation/Blue Eagle Refiners
I have made this at my home lab. There was no magnetic particles in the graphite at first. After the microwave heating I got magnetic particles. I tested it for iron in a simple wet chemical test and it show it contain iron. But then I extracted the untreated graphite in HCl and made same test. This show the natural graphite was contain iron from the start. The heat must have making the carbon reduce the iron from an unmagnetic state to a ferromagnetic sate. I have tested additional two different samples of natural graphite sold as "pure" and in both I find iron. On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:29:40 -0700, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Brad Lowe wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk [2] Is he creating "magnetic" carbon, or is it fusion? http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/news/magnetic-carbon/ [3] The article talks about how proton irradiation can make carbon magnetic. Even if there was proton irradiation and it did not result in fusion (proton capture), is still interesting that there would be a energetic protons. Eric Links: -- [1] mailto:ecatbuil...@gmail.com [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk [3] http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/news/magnetic-carbon/
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
*it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing > it elsewhere > > With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the > way as an inappropriate analogy. > > The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which > results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs > mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of > material. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >> Mallove believed was legitimate. >> >> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material >> requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these >> nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite >> good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >> the vacuum. >> >> All speculation of course. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >>> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >>> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >>> >>> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he >>> may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the facts in the story of the nano system Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
Actually, if the bulk of your device can be constructed from CPVC and carbon fiber, it may be superior to the AVECarbocrete core or AVECPVC core replicating unit for the third stage of power generation described below, so long as it can be deployed in waters with limited maximum stretches of low sea state: 1) Use power to produce more power generation cores from in situ maritime resources. 2) Produce an artificial floating atoll for real estate development of ocean-front condos that also provides a constant low sea state lagoon upon which float photobioreactors for aquaponics. 3) Supply ongoing power to the atoll's population of about 100,000. Since the atoll is an ideal geometry for capturing wave energy, and it needs to somehow deal with wave energy anyway to provide the low sea state lagoon, it may make sense to decouple the AVE from the atoll, once finished, by incorporating your wave system into the structure of the atoll. This might speed the completion of the atoll as it intercepts an ever increasing wave front, but more importantly (since the doldrums are low sea state) the atoll, once finished, could be transported to a higher sea state environment where the ongoing power to the atoll's population of 100,000 (stage 3 of power generation) would be entirely wave energy where the dispatchable power was provided by compressed air stored inside CPVC flotation structures that are necessary, in any case, for a floating atoll. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > No tethering needed. The foot of the pump will seat on the sea floor. > My pumps have a narrow depth that it can be deployed on. > > No swimmers near the pumps. The pump will be deployed at least a 100 feet > from the shore where depths are at least 18'. Even if they do stray close > by, there is very minimal danger. The pumps are just a bunch of floaters > bobbing up and down in the waves. In fact, if the pumps are deployed as a > curtain around the swim area beach, it would make the swimming experience > more pleasant because the pumps will act as sort of a break water making > waves milder for the beach swimmers. > > The pumps will not make surfing possible for obvious reasons, but swimming > in the shallow areas should be OK. > > > Jojo > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Eric Walker > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, July 27, 2014 5:17 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Jojo Iznart > wrote: > > My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump >> cost less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate >> between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the waves. >> > > I'm guessing there will need to be tethering to anchor all of the pumps. > What measures will be needed to ensure safety of swimmers in the area? > > Eric > >
[Vo]:How Russia uses fossil fuels to influence and corrupt Europe
An interesting article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/russia_s_corrupt_control_of_europe_how_vladimir_putin_keeps_the_continent.html The author is an American journalist married to the Foreign Minister of Poland. Based on this and various other reports, I expect Putin will oppose cold fusion and do all that he can to prevent it. And he can a lot! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > Jed, if it is at all within the capacity of your busy schedule would you > be willing to view the June 25 video demos posted out at the BLP web site: > > > > Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M > > Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU > Sorry, I cannot make out what they are saying during the demonstration. The lab equipment is too noisy. I guess I'll have to read the documents if I want to try to understand this. They are using a bomb calorimeter which is the only way to capture heat from . . . a bomb. An explosion. That part is sound. It does not take 2 hours to watch. The timeline for these video 1 is: 0:00 - 0:37 Mills theory blather. 0:37 - 1:11 Demonstrations. Much more background noise. 1:12 - 1:20 Mills business blather. Kind of ridiculous, in my opinion. 1:20 - end More theory blather plus the audience watches a video. I believe it is this one, or something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cuzlyu4czYs Video 2 seems to be devoted mainly to Q&A and audience comments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I watched the 2 videos and my impressions are as follows: 1. It seems like the design has undergone a lot of changes. The engineering appears to have improved based on what they've learned. I like the newest design of the suncell with a curved roof with a wash down water spray system. I think that was ingenious. My impression that BLP is a serious company really trying to solve a problem 2. I thought it was foolish for Randy to be revealing too much details about how his devices work. He seems to have revealed everything. Now, a chinese company with no respect for patent law can easily replicate his design and flood the market. Good for us, but bad for him. 3. I get the impression that they are really very close to commercialization. The problems he talked about are relatively simple engineering problems that can be solved relatively quickly. I feel 16-18 weeks is a reasonable target for a prototype. 4. The markets will be shaken when Randy releases a working prototype that closes the loop. It will be truly revolutionary and it will sell like pancakes. A 1mx1mx1m device that can produce 250kw. That would be awesome and I'll be one of the first in line. The DOD will be running a stampede to Randy's door for his devices. He'll not be able to make enough to supply all this sudden rush of demand. And if Randy delivers even just a fraction of his promised output, it will be truly revolutionary. I can't emphasize this enough. It will be the beginning of the death of Oil and this death will come rather quickly. 5. I don't get the sense that BLP is commiting some kind of fraud. On video 2, 3 of his partners endorsed Randy's work rather strongly. I get the sense that they have done their homework and believe in the technology and they are coming out strongly in support. 6. I don't get the sense that Randy was running a dog and pony show. He seems quite open and straitforward and revealing some of his secrets. I don't get the sense that his listeners were gullible people who are easily duped. They appear to be fairly intelligent and trained folks. I don't agree with Jones' impressions that these people with simple-minded investors and easily fooled by Randy. 7. I think we may have a winner here. This technology will run circles around Rossi's hotcat. If they can build this prototype and clearly closes the loop, it will be goodbye - strike out for Rossi's hotcat. The hotcat will never be able to compete with the suncell, in any application. The hotcat requires a lot of capex infrastructure to generate electricity. The suncell delivers electricity right of the box at a small form factor. 8. It will also spell the end to my wave-powered project. It won't make any sense to invest in wave power when such a cheap device as the suncell exist. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead of calling it "conceptual junk"? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take criticism. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing > it elsewhere > > With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the > way as an inappropriate analogy. > > The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which > results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs > mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of > material. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >> Mallove believed was legitimate. >> >> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material >> requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these >> nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite >> good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >> the vacuum. >> >> All speculation of course. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >>> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >>> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >>> >>> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he >>> may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. To understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that reveals all the facts in the story of the nano system Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I disagree > with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash > measurements > from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I still have a >
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
>From Jojo: ... > It will also spell the end to my wave-powered project. > It won't make any sense to invest in wave power when such a > cheap device as the suncell exist. I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not just yet. There are plenty of skeptical opinions expressed on this list that have strongly suggested Mill's COP measurements may be nowhere near 100. I prefer to remain agnostic on the matter, for now. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jones, Axel, Eric, Jed, Thanks for your input about calorimetric measurements. Good to know that stuff. I'm not an expert on calormetry. I was gone most of the day attending a birthday party down in Aurora, Illinois. I believe Jed is correct. I believe a bomb calorimeter was used to measure the soft X-Rays. My focus continues to be focused on how easy or difficult the recycling process really is. I believe this is an issue both Jones and I can agree on. Hopefully I'll find some time to view the latest July 21 videos before the end of this weekend. I hope I will be proven wrong on this point but after viewing them I suspect I will not know any more about the recycling process than I currently know - which is not enough. Still, they may be more informative on related matters. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent > structures can become stable * > > There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period > of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the > context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. > > > > Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC > endures but will decay when isolated on its own. > > > > The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but > that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta > decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases > its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does > not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for > spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an > aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro > particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark > discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. > The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support > of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for > long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of > a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). > > > > Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never > added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental > explanations. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >> it elsewhere >> >> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the >> way as an inappropriate analogy. >> >> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >> material. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >>> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >>> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >>> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >>> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >>> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >>> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >>> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >>> Mallove believed was legitimate. >>> >>> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material >>> requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these >>> nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite >>> good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >>> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >>> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >>> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >>> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >>> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >>> the vacuum. >>> >>> All speculation of course. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their > specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, > many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. > > > > One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand > how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. > > > > Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the > critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification > mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the > dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. > To > understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that > reveals > all the facts in the story of the nano system > > > > Furthermore, Ahern never ment
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent > structures can become stable * > > There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period > of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the > context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. > > > > Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC > endures but will decay when isolated on its own. > > > > The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but > that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta > decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases > its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does > not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for > spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an > aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro > particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark > discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. > The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support > of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for > long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of > a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). > > > > Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never > added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental > explanations. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >> it elsewhere >> >> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the >> way as an inappropriate analogy. >> >> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >> material. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >>> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >>> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >>> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >>> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >>> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >>> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >>> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >>> Mallove believed was legitimate. >>> >>> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material >>> requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these >>> nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite >>> good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >>> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >>> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >>> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >>> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >>> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >>> the vacuum. >>> >>> All speculation of course. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their > specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, > many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. > > > > One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand > how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. > > > > Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the > critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification > mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the > dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. > To > understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that > reveals > all the facts in the story of the nano system > > > > Furthermore, Ahern never ment
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
*just another wannabe who can't take criticism* If you want to understand the origin, development, and effect of longitudinal waves, then look at the theory and experiments of Ken Shoulders. He observe dark mode vortex production and the resultant projection of a monopole magnetic field a long time ago. I am just reviving the doctrinaire that Ken developed over a long and brilliant career. You want to understand this subject, but stop looking at waves in a river and understand what happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of nano-particles. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing > it elsewhere > > With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the > way as an inappropriate analogy. > > The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which > results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs > mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of > material. > > Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of > text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead > of calling it "conceptual junk"? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it > is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you > many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling > ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. > > I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I > don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your > extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some > calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual > name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it > subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take > criticism. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >> it elsewhere >> >> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the >> way as an inappropriate analogy. >> >> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >> material. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >>> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >>> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >>> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >>> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >>> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >>> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >>> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >>> Mallove believed was legitimate. >>> >>> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material >>> requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these >>> nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite >>> good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >>> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >>> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >>> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >>> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >>> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >>> the vacuum. >>> >>> All speculation of course. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their > specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, > many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. > > > > One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand > how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. > > > > Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the > critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification > mechanism toward p
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously. A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf *LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE* Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent >> structures can become stable * >> >> There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended >> period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within >> the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC >> endures but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but >> that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta >> decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases >> its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does >> not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for >> spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an >> aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro >> particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark >> discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. >> The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support >> of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for >> long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of >> a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). >> >> >> >> Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he >> never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his >> experimental explanations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and
[Vo]:One Hot Little Number
At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve High
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
I know Ken Shoulders' work Axil. In fact, I've devoted a small section to Ken over at blue-science (amongst many other relevant people from the OU world I've investigated/archived): http://www.blue-science.org/articles/suggested-articles/. His work is an important piece of the next generation of energy & propulsion technologies (beyond granting insight into the nature of space-time itself). You are obviously a very intelligent person and I don't disagree with parts of your theoretical framework, but from my perspective, you always seem to think there is only "one way" of perceiving/interpreting the evidence. This is very convenient for the perpetuation of your particular belief system. Then conversations devolve into pointless polemics over minutia. I just don't really understand the pointless tunnel-vision and lack of self-awareness. You take your loose associations too seriously, insist on their reality, and assume there could be no other plausible explanation/interpretation beside your own. There are many reality tunnels by which "truth" can be arrived at -- if I prefer Schauberger to Shoulders what does it matter? There is no "right" or "wrong" here -- everyone is fishing: http://evgars.com/Shauberger.htm On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > *just another wannabe who can't take criticism* > > If you want to understand the origin, development, and effect of > longitudinal waves, then look at the theory and experiments of Ken > Shoulders. He observe dark mode vortex production and the resultant > projection of a monopole magnetic field a long time ago. I am just reviving > the doctrinaire that Ken developed over a long and brilliant career. > > You want to understand this subject, but stop looking at waves in a river > and understand what happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit > involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of > nano-particles. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >> it elsewhere >> >> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the >> way as an inappropriate analogy. >> >> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >> material. >> >> Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of >> text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead >> of calling it "conceptual junk"? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it >> is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you >> many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling >> ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. >> >> I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I >> don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your >> extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some >> calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual >> name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it >> subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take >> criticism. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or wha
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't understand your rant in the slightest. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed > Storms seriously. > > A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the > plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is > one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. > > Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any > such experiment will disprove Eds theory. > > The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction > normal to its direction of current rotation. > > Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in > projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish > and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments > that I can reference *ad nauseam.* > > http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf > > *LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * > Snip > > Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results > for the > > traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental > data. > > (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, > as > > nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. > > (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be > able to > > pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black > paper.* > > (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are > observed. > > (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the > photosensitive > > layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed > > energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. > > (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. > . > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent >>> structures can become stable * >>> >>> There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended >>> period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within >>> the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. >>> >>> >>> >>> Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the >>> BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. >>> >>> >>> >>> The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but >>> that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta >>> decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases >>> its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does >>> not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for >>> spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an >>> aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro >>> particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark >>> discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. >>> The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support >>> of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for >>> long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of >>> a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). >>> >>> >>> >>> Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he >>> never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his >>> experimental explanations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. > I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity > electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling > between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these > collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical > modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
*pointless polemics over minutia.* The devil is in the details. A magnetic driver for the LENR reaction has large engineering implications. For example, Nuclear magnetic resonance can tell what material will work in a reactor an which ones won't. Dynamic nuclear polarization can be used to dampen the LENR reaction by enhancing NMR action. The nature of the BEC that preserves the solutions can be better understood when attention to details are enforced. What particles and nanostructure are best suited to magnetic structures are determined by looking at details, Details are important and predictive of correct theory. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I know Ken Shoulders' work Axil. In fact, I've devoted a small section to > Ken over at blue-science (amongst many other relevant people from the OU > world I've investigated/archived): > http://www.blue-science.org/articles/suggested-articles/. His work is an > important piece of the next generation of energy & propulsion technologies > (beyond granting insight into the nature of space-time itself). > > You are obviously a very intelligent person and I don't disagree with > parts of your theoretical framework, but from my perspective, you always > seem to think there is only "one way" of perceiving/interpreting the > evidence. This is very convenient for the perpetuation of your particular > belief system. Then conversations devolve into pointless polemics over > minutia. I just don't really understand the pointless tunnel-vision > and lack of self-awareness. You take your loose associations too seriously, > insist on their reality, and assume there could be no other plausible > explanation/interpretation beside your own. There are many reality tunnels > by which "truth" can be arrived at -- if I prefer Schauberger to Shoulders > what does it matter? There is no "right" or "wrong" here -- everyone is > fishing: > > http://evgars.com/Shauberger.htm > > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> *just another wannabe who can't take criticism* >> >> If you want to understand the origin, development, and effect of >> longitudinal waves, then look at the theory and experiments of Ken >> Shoulders. He observe dark mode vortex production and the resultant >> projection of a monopole magnetic field a long time ago. I am just reviving >> the doctrinaire that Ken developed over a long and brilliant career. >> >> You want to understand this subject, but stop looking at waves in a river >> and understand what happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit >> involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of >> nano-particles. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of >>> text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead >>> of calling it "conceptual junk"? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it >>> is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you >>> many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling >>> ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. >>> >>> I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I >>> don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your >>> extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some >>> calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual >>> name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it >>> subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take >>> criticism. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. > I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity > electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling > between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produ
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then others may follow. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed > Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and > transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't > understand your rant in the slightest. > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed >> Storms seriously. >> >> A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the >> plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is >> one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. >> >> Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any >> such experiment will disprove Eds theory. >> >> The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a >> direction normal to its direction of current rotation. >> >> Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in >> projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish >> and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments >> that I can reference *ad nauseam.* >> >> http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf >> >> * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * >> Snip >> >> Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results >> for the >> >> traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental >> data. >> >> (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is >> charged, as >> >> nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. >> >> (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not >> be able to >> >> pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black >> paper.* >> >> (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are >> observed. >> >> (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the >> photosensitive >> >> layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed >> >> energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. >> >> (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. >> . >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and > re-depositing it elsewhere > > With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along > the way as an inappropriate analogy. > > The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which > results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs > mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of > material. > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks09
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
but from my perspective, you always seem to think there is only "one way" of perceiving/interpreting the evidence. Most LENR theories are based on emergent LENR phenomena that exist far above the primary causation. The Root cause of LENR is a single all encompassing mechanism. The many cause interpretation that you prefer is counterproductive to finding the beating heart at the center of LENR. Only one center is possible and its discovery is the only correct road to understanding LENR. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I know Ken Shoulders' work Axil. In fact, I've devoted a small section to > Ken over at blue-science (amongst many other relevant people from the OU > world I've investigated/archived): > http://www.blue-science.org/articles/suggested-articles/. His work is an > important piece of the next generation of energy & propulsion technologies > (beyond granting insight into the nature of space-time itself). > > You are obviously a very intelligent person and I don't disagree with > parts of your theoretical framework, but from my perspective, you always > seem to think there is only "one way" of perceiving/interpreting the > evidence. This is very convenient for the perpetuation of your particular > belief system. Then conversations devolve into pointless polemics over > minutia. I just don't really understand the pointless tunnel-vision > and lack of self-awareness. You take your loose associations too seriously, > insist on their reality, and assume there could be no other plausible > explanation/interpretation beside your own. There are many reality tunnels > by which "truth" can be arrived at -- if I prefer Schauberger to Shoulders > what does it matter? There is no "right" or "wrong" here -- everyone is > fishing: > > http://evgars.com/Shauberger.htm > > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> *just another wannabe who can't take criticism* >> >> If you want to understand the origin, development, and effect of >> longitudinal waves, then look at the theory and experiments of Ken >> Shoulders. He observe dark mode vortex production and the resultant >> projection of a monopole magnetic field a long time ago. I am just reviving >> the doctrinaire that Ken developed over a long and brilliant career. >> >> You want to understand this subject, but stop looking at waves in a river >> and understand what happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit >> involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of >> nano-particles. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of >>> text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead >>> of calling it "conceptual junk"? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it >>> is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you >>> many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling >>> ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. >>> >>> I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I >>> don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your >>> extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some >>> calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual >>> name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it >>> subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take >>> criticism. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. > I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity > electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling > between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these > collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical > modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the fi
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18. I'd need a much clearer definition of what the "soliton theory of LENR" is before I trust that could disprove anything. Do you actually mean "your theory"? The theory that has never appeared in print (beside a fractured mosaic of message board posts) and has never been subjected to any real scrutiny or test whatsoever? And if you mean Shoulders' theory instead, well that isn't your theory, and like I said it would disprove all fusion models, not just Ed's. You have a preoccupation with Ed because he dared to call you out for being a fuzzy thinker. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is > incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment > Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent > voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then > others may follow. > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed >> Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and >> transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't >> understand your rant in the slightest. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed >>> Storms seriously. >>> >>> A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the >>> plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is >>> one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. >>> >>> Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any >>> such experiment will disprove Eds theory. >>> >>> The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a >>> direction normal to its direction of current rotation. >>> >>> Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in >>> projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish >>> and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments >>> that I can reference *ad nauseam.* >>> >>> http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf >>> >>> * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * >>> Snip >>> >>> Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results >>> for the >>> >>> traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental >>> data. >>> >>> (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is >>> charged, as >>> >>> nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. >>> >>> (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not >>> be able to >>> >>> pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black >>> paper.* >>> >>> (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are >>> observed. >>> >>> (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the >>> photosensitive >>> >>> layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed >>> >>> energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. >>> >>> (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic >>> fields. >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent > structures can become stable * > > There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended > period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around > within > the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. > > > > Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the > BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. > > > > The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, > but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by > beta > decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron > releases > its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does > not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for > spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an > aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro > particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark > discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. > The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the > support > of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for > long enough to transmute the surrounding materi
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
*Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18.* Herein lies the problem with the LENR community. It is mired in the misconceptions of the deuterium/palladium history of LENR that has developed over the last 25 year, with the quest for tritium and the fusion to helium. This is Ed's tradition and is unfortunately a wrong turn in the understanding of LENR. Dr Miley is more on track and Ed derides Miley's ideas. A bad sign, Ed discounts my heroes and the foundation of my thinking. Ed need to be returned to the proper theoretical camp, I owe it to Ed, his position in LENR deserve no less. I am anonymous and as such I avoid the complications and the pitfalls of ego and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been > peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white > paper at ICCF-18. I'd need a much clearer definition of what the "soliton > theory of LENR" is before I trust that could disprove anything. Do you > actually mean "your theory"? The theory that has never appeared in print > (beside a fractured mosaic of message board posts) and has never been > subjected to any real scrutiny or test whatsoever? And if you mean > Shoulders' theory instead, well that isn't your theory, and like I said it > would disprove all fusion models, not just Ed's. You have a preoccupation > with Ed because he dared to call you out for being a fuzzy thinker. > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is >> incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment >> Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent >> voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then >> others may follow. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed >>> Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and >>> transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't >>> understand your rant in the slightest. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously. A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent >> structures can become stable * >> >> There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended >> period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around >> within >> the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the >> BEC endures but will decay whe
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
Designing a reactor that performs well is a very difficult and time consuming job, Just ask Rossi and DGT. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Steve High wrote: > At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in > order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need > to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% > conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated > as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the > reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple > country doctor so probably I'm missing something. > Steve High >
