Re: [Vo]:LENR has roots, needs wings

[Lennart Thornros]

Harry, how about laser roots?
Children need to test their wings early, rather sooner than later. Laser
roots can always find them.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:37 AM, H LV  wrote:

> Some people in positions of authority mistakenly believe it is necessary
> to cut children off from their roots before they can fly.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 'Flying roots' is an oxymoron I like much
>>
>> think about it, please  when reading:
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-09-2016-lenr-has-roots-but-needs.html
>>
>> peter
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR has roots, needs wings

[H LV]

I am talking about more the severe operation of deliberately concealing
from a child their cultural roots.

Harry

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Harry, how about laser roots?
> Children need to test their wings early, rather sooner than later. Laser
> roots can always find them.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:37 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
>> Some people in positions of authority mistakenly believe it is necessary
>> to cut children off from their roots before they can fly.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Flying roots' is an oxymoron I like much
>>>
>>> think about it, please  when reading:
>>>
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-09-2016-lenr-has-roots-but-needs.html
>>>
>>> peter
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR has roots, needs wings

[H LV]

Some people in positions of authority mistakenly believe it is necessary to
cut children off from their roots before they can fly.

Harry



On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>
>
> 'Flying roots' is an oxymoron I like much
>
> think about it, please  when reading:
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-09-2016-lenr-has-roots-but-needs.html
>
> peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:SAWS Patent Program- Cold Fusion-Antigravity Device Prohibition

[Bob Higgins]

The USPTO was created by congress under authority to do so granted by the
Constitution of the USA.  They are responsible to the US congress.  The
mission granted to congress is:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries"


Exactly what "promoting the Progress of Science" comprises is open to
interpretation.  It is unlikely that SAWS had caused any law to be broken
by the USPTO, so it will be up to some federal judge to determine if SAWS
affected patents were treated in some way "unjustly" by the USPTO and/or
not in the best interest of the United States as a whole.

As I posted in Peter's blog, there are ways around this - create a
portfolio of patents that circle the technology that is not being allowed,
so other people cannot practice the invention not being allowed without
violating the circled technology whose patents did issue.  While creating a
circle portfolio of patents is certainly a financial burden for the small
inventor, it is not a terrible burden for a corporation.  In fact, it can
be a benefit - circle the technology today, and eventually the USPTO will
allow the circled core (SAWS suppressed) technology as a submarine patent
(delayed issue), extending the exclusivity of the patented technology.

If Rossi and his investors are smart, they are busy circling his core
technology with a portfolio of patents designed so that these will be
allowable by the USPTO.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
> Rossi should join the Class Action against the USPTO SAWS Program which
> forbids LENR Cold Fusion Devices:
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=saws+uspto+%22class+action%22
>
> Ad astra,
> Ron Kita
>

[Vo]:SAWS Patent Program- Cold Fusion-Antigravity Device Prohibition

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L,

Rossi should join the Class Action against the USPTO SAWS Program which
forbids LENR Cold Fusion Devices:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=saws+uspto+%22class+action%22

Ad astra,
Ron Kita

[Vo]:Ongoing: World's first public test of the 'never die' battery O-Cube by Orbo

[Mats Lewan]

Check it out: Test undertaken by Frank Acland at E-Cat World:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/09/ecw-orbo-o-cube-testing-week-1-feb-9/

Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com 

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Jones Beene]

This could be the sleeper paper of the year. Photon multiplication in an 
incandescent cell - due to DCE/SPP would be a mechanism which changes the whole 
ball game, if true. As they snidely quip on SNL: Who knew?

BTW - this M.O. explains how the Lugano results, as clarified by Bob Higgins to 
COP~1.5 over 30 days, could have resulted from so low an inventory of hydrogen. 
In fact, the gain would have been the same with no fuel if SPP are supplying it 
! 

Simply stated, the gain from the incandescent glow-stick type of reactor can be 
the result of photon multiplication during SPP formation. The nickel and 
hydrogen can be superfluous. The main requirement is a nanoporous optically 
translucent ceramic and an electrically charged heater coil which can reach 
incandescence. The energy comes from the Dynamic Casimir Effect – which is the 
same as saying, from the zero point field.

In a side-by-side test, like the one which Alan Goldwater has been running, the 
null side will be as gainful as the loaded side (…if there is gain at all, but 
the results give the appearance of no gain).

From: Axil 

*   All those references to order of magnitude increases sound like over 
unity amplification of incoming photons.

Jones Beene wrote:
“Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons”
The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new 
catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR, but the 
paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195
Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic in 
circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is emerging is 
that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite whatever happens next. 
One photon going in with two coming out… provides a mechanism for gain if the 
wavelength is the same.
Abstract
The emission of photon pairs by a metal–dielectric interface placed between the 
mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is considered. The 
excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical length of surface plasmon 
polaritons in the interface. This leads to the dynamical Casimir effect – the 
generation of pairs of surface plasmon polariton quanta, which transfer to 
photons outside the interface. In the case of a properly chosen interface, the 
yield of two-photon emission may exceed that of the usual spontaneous 
parametric down-conversion.

[Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Jones Beene]

"Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons"

The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new
catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR, but
the paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195

Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic in
circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is emerging is
that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite whatever happens
next. One photon going in with two coming out. provides a mechanism for gain
if the wavelength is the same.

Abstract
The emission of photon pairs by a metal-dielectric interface placed between
the mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is considered. The
excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical length of surface
plasmon polaritons in the interface. This leads to the dynamical Casimir
effect - the generation of pairs of surface plasmon polariton quanta, which
transfer to photons outside the interface. In the case of a properly chosen
interface, the yield of two-photon emission may exceed that of the usual
spontaneous parametric down-conversion.

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Jones Beene]

Here is another paper which reinforces the previous one. (wrt DCE being
relevant to understanding one form of LENR - the glow-stick version)

 

"The dynamical Casimir effect generates entanglement" Felicetti, S et al

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR14/Session/J28.11

 

"The existence of vacuum fluctuations, i.e., the presence of virtual
particles in empty space, represents one of the most distinctive results of
quantum mechanics. It is also known, under the name of dynamical Casimir
effect, that fast-oscillating boundary conditions can generate real
excitations out of the vacuum fluctuations." 

 

Long-awaited, the first experimental demonstration of this phenomenon has
been realized only recently, in the framework of superconducting circuits
[C. M. Wilson et al. Nature 479, 376-379 (2011)]. In this contribution, we
will discuss novel theoretical results, showing that the dynamical Casimir
effect can be exploited to generate bipartite and multipartite entanglement
among qubits. We will also present a superconducting circuit design which
can feasibly implement the model considered with current technology.



"Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons"

The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new
catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR, but
the paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall.

 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195

Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic in
circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is emerging is
that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite whatever happens
next. One photon going in with two coming out. provides a mechanism for gain
if the wavelength is the same.

Abstract

The emission of photon pairs by a metal-dielectric interface placed between
the mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is considered. The
excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical length of surface
plasmon polaritons in the interface. This leads to the dynamical Casimir
effect - the generation of pairs of surface plasmon polariton quanta, which
transfer to photons outside the interface. In the case of a properly chosen
interface, the yield of two-photon emission may exceed that of the usual
spontaneous parametric down-conversion.

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones,
can you view this?   
http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.093602
it looks like an earlier version that isn't behind a pay wall.
Fran



From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

Here is another paper which reinforces the previous one... (wrt DCE being 
relevant to understanding one form of LENR - the glow-stick version)

"The dynamical Casimir effect generates entanglement" Felicetti, S et al
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR14/Session/J28.11

"The existence of vacuum fluctuations, i.e., the presence of virtual particles 
in empty space, represents one of the most distinctive results of quantum 
mechanics. It is also known, under the name of dynamical Casimir effect, that 
fast-oscillating boundary conditions can generate real excitations out of the 
vacuum fluctuations."

Long-awaited, the first experimental demonstration of this phenomenon has been 
realized only recently, in the framework of superconducting circuits [C. M. 
Wilson et al. Nature 479, 376-379 (2011)]. In this contribution, we will 
discuss novel theoretical results, showing that the dynamical Casimir effect 
can be exploited to generate bipartite and multipartite entanglement among 
qubits. We will also present a superconducting circuit design which can 
feasibly implement the model considered with current technology.


"Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons"

The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new 
catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR, but the 
paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195

Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic in 
circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is emerging is 
that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite whatever happens next. 
One photon going in with two coming out... provides a mechanism for gain if the 
wavelength is the same.

Abstract

The emission of photon pairs by a metal-dielectric interface placed between the 
mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is considered. The 
excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical length of surface plasmon 
polaritons in the interface. This leads to the dynamical Casimir effect - the 
generation of pairs of surface plasmon polariton quanta, which transfer to 
photons outside the interface. In the case of a properly chosen interface, the 
yield of two-photon emission may exceed that of the usual spontaneous 
parametric down-conversion.

[Vo]:Re: DCE for SPP

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPPOne interesting issue about the coupling of an SPP and 
potential photon multiplication is that there should be a mechanism to allow 
the transfer of one quanta of angular momentum at a time.  If this is the case, 
the paper suggests that SPP’s must have quantum numbers associated with a given 
SPP and that there is a quantum number for orbital spin and energy and maybe 
intrinsic spin of the photons as well.  Are any of the papers considering 
quantum numbers for SPP’s?  

My thought is that there may be an obvious mechanism for coupling of an SPP to 
lattice electrons and, hence, phonic (heat) energy and angular momentum as well 
as the production (release) of individual photons. 

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

This could be the sleeper paper of the year. Photon multiplication in an 
incandescent cell - due to DCE/SPP would be a mechanism which changes the whole 
ball game, if true. As they snidely quip on SNL: Who knew?

BTW - this M.O. explains how the Lugano results, as clarified by Bob Higgins to 
COP~1.5 over 30 days, could have resulted from so low an inventory of hydrogen. 
In fact, the gain would have been the same with no fuel if SPP are supplying it 
! 

Simply stated, the gain from the incandescent glow-stick type of reactor can be 
the result of photon multiplication during SPP formation. The nickel and 
hydrogen can be superfluous. The main requirement is a nanoporous optically 
translucent ceramic and an electrically charged heater coil which can reach 
incandescence. The energy comes from the Dynamic Casimir Effect – which is the 
same as saying, from the zero point field.


In a side-by-side test, like the one which Alan Goldwater has been running, the 
null side will be as gainful as the loaded side (…if there is gain at all, but 
the results give the appearance of no gain).


From: Axil 

Ø  All those references to order of magnitude increases sound like over 
unity amplification of incoming photons.


Jones Beene wrote:

“Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons”

The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new 
catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR, but the 
paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall…

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195

Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic in 
circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is emerging is 
that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite whatever happens next. 
One photon going in with two coming out… provides a mechanism for gain if the 
wavelength is the same.

Abstract

The emission of photon pairs by a metal–dielectric interface placed between the 
mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is considered. The 
excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical length of surface plasmon 
polaritons in the interface. This leads to the dynamical Casimir effect – the 
generation of pairs of surface plasmon polariton quanta, which transfer to 
photons outside the interface. In the case of a properly chosen interface, the 
yield of two-photon emission may exceed that of the usual spontaneous 
parametric down-conversion.

[Vo]:LENR inside Ceres

[Axil Axil]

The dwarf planet Ceres is yet another small body to show internal heat
produced by an unknown cause. The white spots that show up around the
surface of Ceres are salt deposits produced by the upwelling of liquid
brine onto the surface of Ceres.  Ceres has an atmosphere of ionized water
coming from the dissociation of this brine that is happening in an ongoing
process. Water vapor has been detected above some of the larger of these
white spots.

The Dawn probe has shown that Ceres has a liquid ocean under its surface.

The Dawn space probe is orbiting Ceres at an altitude of 240 miles. Ceres
is the largest body inside the asteroid belt

Re: [Vo]:at your mercy: please explain what BackEMF/Lenz Law is - and what would happen if a motor/generator could be built that is not subject to them?

[Vibrator !]

It was late and i didn't read it back.. i meant that the roles of both
Newton's 3rd law and Lenz's law in shoring up conservation of energy and
momentum is often under-appreciated - as evinced by the previous replies to
this thread, which prompted me to delurk after so many years..

Interia is velocity independent due to mass constancy - a body's inertia
(its resistance to a given acceleration) is constant, and not a function of
its current velocity.  But kinetic energy IS a function of velocity - it
costs more energy to further accelerate a mass, the faster it goes - for a
1 kg mass, the special introductory one-time-only offer is just 1/2 a Joule
for the first meter per second of acceleration.  Bargain basement.

But then each additional m/s of acceleration costs more and more,
escalating as half the square of the rising velocity.  If our target speed
is 100 m/s, then that final m/s of acceleration from 99 m/s costs a
whopping 99.5 Joules - almost 200 times the cost of the first meter / sec.

So my point was simply that an N3 violation would allow us to maintain that
1/2 J/kg/m/s deal indefinitely - we'd always begin stationary relative to
our reaction mass, regardless of the rising system velocity.  So our input
energy would scale following the same dimensions as momentum (P=MV).  Since
KE = 1/2 MV^2, P and KE both converge at a value of two anyway (since half
two squared is still two) - so in principle their units and dimensions
would become identical.. at which point the question of whether we're
inputting "energy" or "momentum" becomes entirely academic - if the system
momentum gained 1/2 a meter per second per Joule, it would sustain that
ratio independently of rising net system velocity.

And yes, a Lenzless motor presents no load upon the power supply.

To elaborate, in a conventional motor we could monitor the rotor's activity
via a scope attached to the power supply - accelerations of the rotor cause
back EMFs - if a rotor is pushed one way, the voltage supplying the current
is pushed back...  equal and opposite reactions, and so active feedback to
the power supply.

But a Lenzless motor accelerates its rotor without inducing counter-EMFs -
so there is no feedback on the power supply.  The rotor is pushed one way,
but the current and voltage are completely unfazed by its acceleration.

Hence the only dissipative workload on such a solenoid would be resistance
losses - buy a heater, get a free blender.  The free RKE will dissipate to
heat and so register in a calorimeter as a gain over and above Joule
heating.

As for the power of ten thing, as already explained, the baseline minimum
cost of a 1 kg/m/s of acceleration is 1/2 a Joule (because KE=1/2MV^2).
And an N3 violation would enable us to keep taking that introductory offer,
repeatedly - basically re-joining the back of the queue in a ropey
disguise.  Which would mean we could accelerate a 1 kg mass, say, up to 100
m/s, say, using 100 discrete 1/2 J per 1 kg/m/s thrusts, for a total
expenditure of 50 Joules.  Yet at 100 m/s, from a stationary reference
frame, a 1 kg mass has 5 kJ of energy.   50 J in for 5,000 J out is
actually two powers of ten, so my bad.  And i also mis-spelled
"motherlode"...  but there it is.  For such an oft-overlooked energy
asymmetry, it's a particularly bountiful one..

But EM or mechanical, it's the same fundmanetal asymmetry, creating energy
by not conserving momentum.  Furthermore the gain in energy is not
apportioned from the input energy - all of which is always accounted for,
internally, in the form of mass displacements, but rather from its
asymmetric distribution (specifically its momentum component) relative to a
third (ie. static) reference frame.


PS. On reflecton, it seems the powers of ten are just waypoints - at 500 J
input we'd have 50,000 J output, so three powers of ten gain margin.  The
peak efficiency is thus arbitrary and simply equal to the standard
divergence between P and KE for their respective linear vs exponential
dimensions.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> I followed your presentation, ...
>>
>
> The presentation was a little more opaque than I at first appreciated.
>
> "As with Newton's 3rd law, many people miss why conservation of energy
> should be dependent upon equal and opposite reactions."
>
> "Inertia is velocity-independent."
>
> "Essentially, accelerating a mass Lenzlessly would present no load upon
> the power supply - only usual resistance losses remain, following Joule's
> 2nd law for heat (Q=I^2RT where Q = J and I^2RT is current squared times
> resistance times time)... calorimetry would thus show gains"
>
> "EM or mechanical, the peak efficiency of an N3 break is a power of ten of
> whatever's input."
>
> I take it back.  I didn't really understand it.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:at your mercy: please explain what BackEMF/Lenz Law is - and what would happen if a motor/generator could be built that is not subject to them?

[Vibrator !]

Forgive my lack of clarity - the proposition is a hypothetical N3 violation
during an otherwise perfectly elastic interaction, and repeated
cyclically.


Suppose each mass is 1kg, and 1 Joule is input between them; normally
they'd fly apart, each accelerated to 1 m/s in opposite directions.  When
the slack is taken up they bounce back together, and so continue
oscillating indefinitely, with no net change in position or system momentum.

If however one half of the interaction was reactionless - say, when the
masses push off from one another, or else when the chord goes taut and they
rebound, then the net system momentum, relative to a stationary observer,
has increased.

>From the internal reference frame aboard either mass, the net system is
indeed conserved.  Energy, too.

But from an external frame, the net system has been accelerated.

And if this anomally is repeated, the amount of increase in net system
momentum each interaction remains constant - a linear rise in velocity as
measured from the external frame.

On-board, from the internal frame, the relative velocities between the two
masses can remain a constant sinusoid - they never exceed a relative
velocity of 2 m/s.  It is immaterial, from their point of view, how that
momentum is distributed between them as measured from some other frame.
Internally, CoM and CoE always apply.

But externally, we have a linear rise in system momentum - in this case,
rising by a consistent .5 m/s per Joule (a 1 kg / m / s unbalanced momentum
divided between two 1 kg masses gives a 1/2 m/s net acceleration).  And
whereas if we wanted to pay for such an acceleration by conventional means,
the requisite input energy rises by half the square of velocity, here it
remains a flat-line constant, independent of net system velocity.

Again, the reason many folks forget that conservation depends upon N3
symmetry is that you have to repeat the outcome for the anomally to appear,
since it is by its nature a differential and so emerges from how the
energies evolve as they scale...   Plus, such system invoke a third
reference frame which must be considered before the anomally becomes
apparent - an N3 violation in a 2-body problem is all but meaningless.



On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>
> So an effective N3 violation would allow you to create energy by
>> effectively towing your reaction mass along for free.  Consider two
>> adjacent 1kg masses in free space connected via a perfectly elastic slack
>> tether: an impulse is applied between them, but because abracadabra, only
>> one moves, until they collide again; from either mass's frame of reference,
>> that detail is irrelevant - if we input 1 J of energy then that's all the
>> system has, and whether 1/2 a J resides in each mass or one has more than
>> the other may seem academic...
>>
>
> I followed your presentation, except for this part. It's not clear to me
> how someone might propose that a system comprising two masses connected by
> an elastic tether might be made to violate Newton's 3rd law.  When the
> first mass, which is initially set in motion, begins to accelerate the mass
> that was left at rest initially once the tether becomes taut, its momentum
> will decrease as the momentum of the second mass increases, conserving
> momentum for the system as a whole.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: DCE for SPP

[Axil Axil]

A polariton is an entangled photon electron pair. The electron is produced
by a dipole vibration of the electron and hole.

See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU



On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> One interesting issue about the coupling of an SPP and potential photon
> multiplication is that there should be a mechanism to allow the transfer of
> one quanta of angular momentum at a time.  If this is the case, the paper
> suggests that SPP’s must have quantum numbers associated with a given SPP
> and that there is a quantum number for orbital spin and energy and maybe
> intrinsic spin of the photons as well.  Are any of the papers considering
> quantum numbers for SPP’s?
>
> My thought is that there may be an obvious mechanism for coupling of an
> SPP to lattice electrons and, hence, phonic (heat) energy and angular
> momentum as well as the production (release) of individual photons.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:02 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP
>
>
> This could be the sleeper paper of the year. Photon multiplication in an
> incandescent cell - due to DCE/SPP would be a mechanism which changes the
> whole ball game, if true. As they snidely quip on SNL: Who knew?
>
> BTW - this M.O. explains how the Lugano results, as clarified by Bob
> Higgins to COP~1.5 over 30 days, could have resulted from so low an
> inventory of hydrogen. In fact, the gain would have been the same with no
> fuel if SPP are supplying it !
>
> Simply stated, the gain from the incandescent glow-stick type of reactor
> can be the result of photon multiplication during SPP formation. The
> nickel and hydrogen can be superfluous. The main requirement is a
> nanoporous optically translucent ceramic and an electrically charged
> heater coil which can reach incandescence. The energy comes from the
> Dynamic Casimir Effect – which is the same as saying, from the zero point
> field.
>
> In a side-by-side test, like the one which Alan Goldwater has been running,
> the null side will be as gainful as the loaded side (…if there is gain at
> all, but the results give the appearance of no gain).
>
> *From:* Axil
>
> Ø  All those references to order of magnitude increases sound like
> over unity amplification of incoming photons.
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> “Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons”
>
> The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new
> catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR,
> but the paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall…
>
> *http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195*
> 
>
> Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic
> in circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is
> emerging is that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite
> whatever happens next.* One photon** going** in with two** coming** out…
> provides a mechanism for gain if the wavelength is the same.*
>
> *Abstract*
>
> The emission of photon pairs by a metal–dielectric interface placed
> between the mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is
> considered. The excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical
> length of surface plasmon polaritons in the interface. This leads to the
> dynamical Casimir effect – the generation of pairs of surface plasmon
> polariton quanta, which transfer to photons outside the interface.* In
> the case of a properly chosen interface, the yield of two-photon emission
> may exceed that of the usual spontaneous parametric down-conversion.*
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ongoing: World's first public test of the 'never die' battery O-Cube by Orbo

[Vibrator !]

Fantastic, LOL wouldn't be surprised if they left out his battery
deliberately...


Some thoughts on their cell - why the need for dissimilar metals if not to
act as cathode and anode relative to an electrolyte?  IOW, if the
electret's chemically inert then WHAT OTHER benefit might there be to the
"dissimilarity" of the metal poles?

Presumably, the answer lies in the sense in which metals are most
meaningfully "dissimilar" - which has to be... charge density.

One plate has more free charge than the other.

So, why would that matter if not to act as donor and recepticle in an
ionising reaction?

But then we recall from Orbo theory that propgation rates are inversely
proportional to field densities!  Which leads to some interesting
speculations such as transient current differentials between poles...

But perhaps the most simple effect of dissimilar native charge densities
would be in polarising the dielectric between them - if the upper plate had
higher charge density then it's top-negative, but internal electrostatic
repulsion would leave the dielectric charge separation polarised in the
opposite direction, top-positive, with the dielectric's charge bunched up
towards the lower charge density of the lower plate.


So it would be interesting to note the polarisation of the electret
relative to that of the intrinsic charge density difference between the
plates.  Same direction, or opposite?

The preferential properties of their electret material can also be implied
from first principles - for instance, a highly polar "domain" molecule,
interspersed with a non-mixing elastic base.  It might be quite simple to
begin reverse engineering...


What bothers me about the dissimilar metals thing is their insistance this
remains "classic Orbo" - ie. energy from a force/time delta.  Which means
the dissimilarity of the metals must be doing something more than merely
anchoring the charge separation - if the system is still dependent on
passive time-dependent force variations, as they seem to be claiming, then
they're alluding to a free charge separation that is a function differing
or changing current velocities.

Classic PM Orbo depended on asymmetric rates of increasing vs decreasing B
for a given mechanical velocity.  Making a direct like-for-like
substitution of magnetic flux for charge, implies asymmetric rates of
charge and discharge for electrons entering and leaving the cell, due to
spending slightly longer in limbo when transiting though one plate relative
to the other - a transient charge separation, but hence an EMF nonetheless,

Rank speculation of course, but there's some testable hypotheses here..



On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Mats Lewan  wrote:

> Check it out: Test undertaken by Frank Acland at E-Cat World:
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/09/ecw-orbo-o-cube-testing-week-1-feb-9/
>
> Mats
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:56:48 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>All those references to order of magnitude increases sound like over unity 
>amplification of incoming photons.

The original number is 1E-6, i.e. 1 in a million. Hence even orders of magnitude
improvement doesn't even get you to 1, let alone OU.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Axil Axil]

Do you believe the the Penrose mechanism can also add a multiplier effect
to the extraction of energy from the vacuum in the dark mode SPP?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:50 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:56:48 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >All those references to order of magnitude increases sound like over
> unity amplification of incoming photons.
>
> The original number is 1E-6, i.e. 1 in a million. Hence even orders of
> magnitude
> improvement doesn't even get you to 1, let alone OU.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

[Vo]:LENR has roots, needs wings

[Peter Gluck]

'Flying roots' is an oxymoron I like much

think about it, please  when reading:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-09-2016-lenr-has-roots-but-needs.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.4413.pdf

Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons V. Hizhnyakov, A.
Loot, S.Ch.

 Azizabadi Institute of Physics, University of Tartu, Ravila 14c, 50411
Tartu, Estonia E-mail: h...@fi.tartu.ee

Abstract.

Emission of photon pairs by an interface of asymmetric dielectric and thin
metal film excited by a normally falling plane wave is considered. The
excitation causes oscillations in time of the phase velocity of surface
plasmon polaritons in the interface. This leads to the dynamical Casimir
effect – the generation of pairs of surface plasmon polariton quanta, which
transfer to photons outside the interface. In case of a properly chosen
interface, the yield of two-photon emission may exceed that of usual
spontaneous parametric down conversion.


7. Concluding remarks

A theoretical consideration of the dynamical Casimir effect in a
metal-dielectric interface with asymmetric dielectric is presented. It is
shown that the enhancement of the field of surface plasmon polaritons in
the interface may allow one to generate photon pairs with remarkable yield
of the order of 6 10 or more. The efficiency of the dynamical Casimir
effect in a metal-dielectric interface could be additionally enhanced a few
orders of magnitude if to use a proper grating: in addition to the
enhancement of the field of generated surface plasmon polaritons this would
allow one to enhance the field of excitation as well. One more possibility
to enhance the efficiency of the process under consideration is to surround
the metallic film by layers of dielectric crystals with enhanced second
order susceptibility. As examples of such crystals may serve AgGaSe2 and
NiNbO3, where (2)  30 pm/V [26]. It is expected that analogous value of
(2)  should have chalcopyrite compounds [27]. Moreover hetero-structures
with asymmetric quantum wells presumably may have (2)   400 pm/V [28].
This may allow one to additionally increase the yield  of the process a
few orders of magnitude. It is not excluded that the dynamical Casimir
effect in metal-dielectric interfaces may allow one to achieve full
conversion of incident photons to photon pairs.

All those references to order of magnitude increases sound like over unity
amplification of incoming photons.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> “Dynamical Casimir effect for surface plasmon polaritons”
>
> The title says it all, in terms of hitting on two of the significant new
> catch-phrases which are cropping up in the glow-stick version of LENR,
> but the paper (from Estonia) is behind a paywall…
>
> *http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114012195*
> 
>
> Ostensibly, it would explain how the SPP can become excessively energetic
> in circumstances which are relatively mundane. One message that is
> emerging is that SPP formation could be gainful in itself, despite
> whatever happens next. One photon going in with two coming out… provides a
> mechanism for gain if the wavelength is the same.
>
> *Abstract*
>
> The emission of photon pairs by a metal–dielectric interface placed
> between the mirrors of the resonator and excited by a plane wave is
> considered. The excitation causes oscillations in time of the optical
> length of surface plasmon polaritons in the interface. This leads to the
> dynamical Casimir effect – the generation of pairs of surface plasmon
> polariton quanta, which transfer to photons outside the interface. In the
> case of a properly chosen interface, the yield of two-photon emission may
> exceed that of the usual spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
>
>