Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Brian Ahern]

I have been a dedicated foe of the Rossi Planet since February 2009. I 
interacted with his cohorts in New Hampshire. Even they had no idea what he was 
doing, because the first 11 'independent tests
\' all broke down and were indeterminate.

Eight years later nothing has changed. He has duped a cadre of gullable and 
hopeful folks from the LENR community. With any luck he will be incarcerated 
for fraud and tax evasion.


From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

Brian Ahern,
The proof that Rossi's E-cats don't work is less than that they do.
It serves no useful purpose to continually repeat your insults with no actual 
content.
I wonder what you will say if Rossi comes up with a decent demo this Summer.



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

One consideration that I feel is important to understand is what PT symmetry 
violation means with respect to CP symmetry violation. We understand that we 
can produce PT symmetry breaking using optical mechanisms but can PT symmetry 
violation somehow generate CP violation which is required to produce the decay 
of the nucleon (protons and neutrons)?

>From the various descriptions of symmetry in this article:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf

Space time (PT) Symmetry is only valid in an open system where energy and/or 
matter can be gained or lost. In a closed system, PT symmetry does not exist 
since a closed system can neither gain nor lose energy and/or matter. Because 
LENR requires CP symmetry breaking and CP symmetry breaking requires PT 
symmetry breaking, LENR can only occur in an open system.

Open vs. Closed Systems

Systems can be either open or closed. A closed system is one where a quantity 
or series of quantities cannot enter or leave the system. For example, a system 
might be closed to energy, meaning energy might not be able to enter or leave 
the system. A vacuum thermos flask does a really good job of stopping energy 
from leaving the system to keep your drink warm. So it might make sense to 
treat it as a closed system - but no system in the real world is ever perfectly 
closed, so it will only be an approximation.

The opposite of a closed system is an open system. An open system is one where 
a quantity or series of quantities can enter or leave the system to a 
significant degree. If you pour your hot drink into a mug instead of a vacuum 
thermos flask, the heat will escape relatively quickly into its surroundings. 
So a mug is most certainly an open system! Open systems are a lot more 
complicated to understand than closed systems, and so scientists prefer to work 
with closed systems when possible. Science usually stays away from open systems 
because closed systems makes things much simpler to explain and can be a good 
starting point before trying to explain open systems, too. Quantum mechanics 
only deals with closed systems.

Traveling backward in time.

If you make a movie of yourself throwing a ball, and thread the film backwards, 
it'll look the same as you catching a ball. So if you want to think of the 
falling object as being the same as the rising one going backwards in time, the 
physics will support that statement, but it doesn't sound all that cool.  It 
is, however, the same thing as antimatter being viewed as going backwards in 
time.

At the most basic level, the laws of physics are symmetrical: reverse time and 
they will follow the same route in reverse.  Reverse the charge, and things 
will be attracted where they would have repulsed, and vice versa.  Flip them 
both, and you've flipped it twice, so it's just like you started.

Since a positron is exactly like an electron, only with the opposite charge, 
then if you (a) replace an electron with a positron, and (b) reverse time, it 
behaves exactly like an electron.  The physicists call this Charge/Parity (CP) 
symmetry, where "parity" is actually more like looking at things in a mirror 
rather than flipping time, but it's the same idea.

Flipping time is another way of looking at flipping left and right: a 
left-moving object going forwards in time is just like a right-moving object 
moving backwards.

An electron like a ball sitting in the same spot is a closed system. It cannot 
change into a positron because it is not moving. The motionless ball is a 
closed system which cannot experience CP symmetry breaking. A moving ball is an 
open system where its motion can be deemed to have CP symmetry.

So in an open system that has experienced PT symmetry breaking, LENR occurs 
because the nucleon undergoes CP symmetry breaking since in this case PT = CP.

In optics, there are special conditions involving optical cavities that can 
experience PT summitry breaking. These cavities can reach out magnetically and 
become entangled with nucleo

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[John Berry]

Dave, it's not that there is a link between electrostatics and gravity, so
much as there is a link between the medium underlying both.

Well over 20 years ago now, I got a good grounding (as an autodidact) in
physics.

Then a bit over 20 years ago, I came across fringe science claims, I was
skeptical at first, but I was fair in my skepticality, or you could say I
was also skeptical of my skepticism.

So I looked at the evidence and found it overall compelling, so then I went
looking for correlations

And I looked and looked, and I was looking in a very conventional reductive
manner, with a device with elements in a circle, I was looking at a single
element because there is nothing that could be effected by the circular
shape,right?

You see, at some level I was aware of a theory that that could be termed
"Aether Vortex Theory:, this is something that occurred to many people who
looked at this area, even though I'm not aware of anyone promoting it.

But I hated the idea of an aether, a medium to the background of space, so
looking at correlations that were conventional and reductionist I
found..

Almost precisely NOTHING!

But, I could not help but see this other "aether vortex" model, this model
that at least a 3rd of the people who have been around have said they
vaguely considered the same, but they wrote it off.

So anyway, I didn't, I was convinced by the strong correlations I saw.

But how do you work on something that you can't measure or see or know much
of anything about?

Through correlation, and eventually, after 17 years after first finding
this energy existed, I made an unusual coil and I felt it emit something I
could feel!

Eureka!

And more than that, I could feel it after the power was turned off for some
10 minutes, so I wasn't inadvertently feeling something conventional, and I
found most other people could feel it too!

As for Antigravity, that is not a technically rigorous term, it is merely
something that can be directed to act against gravity, or reduce the pull
of gravity or the mass of a vehicle, so it could be a directional thrust,
or even a non-gravitational force that pushes away from the planet or many
other things.

Currently my research seems to have found that all matter and energy is a
manifestation of some underlying substance, this in reasonable agreement
with a variation of quantum physics that proposes that quantum waves exist
in a field, in a substance, it is also in agreement with super-strings

.You am familiar with the reality of virtual particles, the lamb shift is
an extraordinary example of the reality of these, I highly recommend this
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g20JZ2HNZaw   Hint; it's the cosmology
that's wrong.

Anyway what I have found is something very much like virtual particles,
except I think they have a different Quanta, they have partial charges but
they could be called the ejecta or quantum radiation or wash from the
dynamics that make up regular matter.

Alas, despite finding that even though people can feel these energies in
circumstances with zero possible explanation from the Placebo effect (they
feel energy from a hidden device and are stranges in a public place and
it's not even a test) most people are not interested because thus far the
most useful things I have had it do are healings, similar but more rapid
than reported from "Chi"  or "Qi-Gong" practitioners or other similar
things, and some experiments that have resulted in clear glass and plastic
breaking in sync with each other and placing a block of Bismuth charged
with this energy on a bench gently a few feel from the glass and plastic
that took this instant to both break.

But most of my work has been with unpowered coils (I found that a simple
change meant they did not need to be powered) and believe it or not,
graphics!
Yes, light effects the aether or aetheric energies just as matter does, and
just as light can etch a circuit into a silicon wafer that becomes a CPU,
it can etch aircuit in the aether, a far more subtle medium that matter.

With the physical coils, up to 90% of people can feel the energy!

With graphics it is at best 60%, but it is had to get people to take that
seriously.

But I have learnt a lot, and I could go into some of what is happening with
the circular array of capacitors.

Having said that I don't have the complete picture pet, but I know that
part of it is that an "aetheric energy"  (note, this is not necessarily
energy in the strict sense, it might be more like virtual photons, a thing,
but not energy in the thermodynamic sense) that passes up through the
center is effected by a field that each plane/plate makes and, this
conditions the energy somehow, also energy is moving around in the
capacitor, the major limiter to am aether vortex is that aetheric energies
that are electron like and aetheric energies that are proton like rend to
move in opposite directions and this create several issues, this is undone
by having a capacitor which pola

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian Ahern,
The proof that Rossi's E-cats don't work is less than that they do.
It serves no useful purpose to continually repeat your insults with no actual 
content.
I wonder what you will say if Rossi comes up with a decent demo this Summer.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



One consideration that I feel is important to understand is what PT symmetry 
violation means with respect to CP symmetry violation. We understand that we 
can produce PT symmetry breaking using optical mechanisms but can PT symmetry 
violation somehow generate CP violation which is required to produce the decay 
of the nucleon (protons and neutrons)?  



>From the various descriptions of symmetry in this article:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf



Space time (PT) Symmetry is only valid in an open system where energy and/or 
matter can be gained or lost. In a closed system, PT symmetry does not exist 
since a closed system can neither gain nor lose energy and/or matter. Because 
LENR requires CP symmetry breaking and CP symmetry breaking requires PT 
symmetry breaking, LENR can only occur in an open system.



Open vs. Closed Systems



Systems can be either open or closed. A closed system is one where a quantity 
or series of quantities cannot enter or leave the system. For example, a system 
might be closed to energy, meaning energy might not be able to enter or leave 
the system. A vacuum thermos flask does a really good job of stopping energy 
from leaving the system to keep your drink warm. So it might make sense to 
treat it as a closed system - but no system in the real world is ever perfectly 
closed, so it will only be an approximation.



The opposite of a closed system is an open system. An open system is one where 
a quantity or series of quantities can enter or leave the system to a 
significant degree. If you pour your hot drink into a mug instead of a vacuum 
thermos flask, the heat will escape relatively quickly into its surroundings. 
So a mug is most certainly an open system! Open systems are a lot more 
complicated to understand than closed systems, and so scientists prefer to work 
with closed systems when possible. Science usually stays away from open systems 
because closed systems makes things much simpler to explain and can be a good 
starting point before trying to explain open systems, too. Quantum mechanics 
only deals with closed systems.



Traveling backward in time.


If you make a movie of yourself throwing a ball, and thread the film backwards, 
it'll look the same as you catching a ball. So if you want to think of the 
falling object as being the same as the rising one going backwards in time, the 
physics will support that statement, but it doesn't sound all that cool.  It 
is, however, the same thing as antimatter being viewed as going backwards in 
time.



At the most basic level, the laws of physics are symmetrical: reverse time and 
they will follow the same route in reverse.  Reverse the charge, and things 
will be attracted where they would have repulsed, and vice versa.  Flip them 
both, and you've flipped it twice, so it's just like you started.  



Since a positron is exactly like an electron, only with the opposite charge, 
then if you (a) replace an electron with a positron, and (b) reverse time, it 
behaves exactly like an electron.  The physicists call this Charge/Parity (CP) 
symmetry, where "parity" is actually more like looking at things in a mirror 
rather than flipping time, but it's the same idea.



Flipping time is another way of looking at flipping left and right: a 
left-moving object going forwards in time is just like a right-moving object 
moving backwards.
  
An electron like a ball sitting in the same spot is a closed system. It cannot 
change into a positron because it is not moving. The motionless ball is a 
closed system which cannot experience CP symmetry breaking. A moving ball is an 
open system where its motion can be deemed to have CP symmetry.



So in an open system that has experienced PT symmetry breaking, LENR occurs 
because the nucleon undergoes CP symmetry breaking since in this case PT = CP. 


In optics, there are special conditions involving optical cavities that can 
experience PT summitry breaking. These cavities can reach out magnetically and 
become entangled with nucleons via their magnetic projections. This phenomenon 
is known as the chiral magnetic effect(1) — “chiral” means “distinguishing left 
from right, When PT symmetry is broken in these entangled open systems of 
optical cavities and nucleons decay via CP symmetry breaking. The energy of the 
nucleon decay flows one way into the optical cavity.  


It seems to me that it is central to the understanding of LENR to appreciate 
the mechanisms of symmetry breaking with regards to nucleons.  



1 - 
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010

[Vo]:I would rather have a lilium than a flying car

[Frank Znidarsic]

https://lilium.com/

[Vo]:what I think about opposition to LENR causes and effects

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-24-2017-lenr-what-i-think-about.html

Please read my blog associate Georgina's posting too!

thanks!

peter

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

Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[Adrian Ashfield]

 For sure it will require some good regulations that would, but won't. be 
better made by engineers.
Imagine your typical Philly car driver in the air! The other problem is 
noise.

AA

 

 

-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:34 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon


I would love to have a flying car, especially when within the DC area.  My 
major concern is that we have far too many lawyers ready to sue any new 
technology offering.  Don't you think that some form of immunity to 
unreasonable lawsuits might be required for any small to mid sized companies 
that hope to enter the field?  Otherwise they will go the way of diving boards.

Dave 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Adrian Ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:12 am
Subject: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon


It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
Companies trying to make one include:.
Terrafugia
Kitty Hawk
Airbus Group
Moller International
Xplorair
PAL-V
Joby Aviation
EHang
Volocopter
Uber
Haynes Aero
Samson Motorworks
AeroMobil
Parajet
Lilium

Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without either an 
improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

AA

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Axil Axil]

One consideration that I feel is important to understand is what PT
symmetry violation means with respect to CP symmetry violation. We
understand that we can produce PT symmetry breaking using optical
mechanisms but can PT symmetry violation somehow generate CP violation
which is required to produce the decay of the nucleon (protons and
neutrons)?


>From the various descriptions of symmetry in this article:

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf


Space time (PT) Symmetry is only valid in an open system where energy
and/or matter can be gained or lost. In a closed system, PT symmetry does
not exist since a closed system can neither gain nor lose energy and/or
matter. Because LENR requires CP symmetry breaking and CP symmetry breaking
requires PT symmetry breaking, LENR can only occur in an open system.


Open vs. Closed Systems


Systems can be either open or closed. A closed system is one where a
quantity or series of quantities cannot enter or leave the system. For
example, a system might be closed to energy, meaning energy might not be
able to enter or leave the system. A vacuum thermos flask does a really
good job of stopping energy from leaving the system to keep your drink
warm. So it might make sense to treat it as a closed system - but no system
in the real world is ever perfectly closed, so it will only be an
approximation.


The opposite of a closed system is an open system. An open system is one
where a quantity or series of quantities can enter or leave the system to a
significant degree. If you pour your hot drink into a mug instead of a
vacuum thermos flask, the heat will escape relatively quickly into its
surroundings. So a mug is most certainly an open system! Open systems are a
lot more complicated to understand than closed systems, and so scientists
prefer to work with closed systems when possible. Science usually stays
away from open systems because closed systems makes things much simpler to
explain and can be a good starting point before trying to explain open
systems, too. Quantum mechanics only deals with closed systems.


Traveling backward in time.


If you make a movie of yourself throwing a ball, and thread the film
backwards, it'll look the same as you catching a ball. So if you want to
think of the falling object as being the same as the rising one going
backwards in time, the physics will support that statement, but it doesn't
sound all that cool.  It is, however, the same thing as antimatter being
viewed as going backwards in time.


At the most basic level, the laws of physics are symmetrical: reverse time
and they will follow the same route in reverse.  Reverse the charge, and
things will be attracted where they would have repulsed, and vice versa.
Flip them both, and you've flipped it twice, so it's just like you started.



Since a positron is exactly like an electron, only with the opposite
charge, then if you (a) replace an electron with a positron, and (b)
reverse time, it behaves exactly like an electron.  The physicists call
this Charge/Parity (CP) symmetry, where "parity" is actually more like
looking at things in a mirror rather than flipping time, but it's the same
idea.


Flipping time is another way of looking at flipping left and right: a
left-moving object going forwards in time is just like a right-moving
object moving backwards.



An electron like a ball sitting in the same spot is a closed system. It
cannot change into a positron because it is not moving. The motionless ball
is a closed system which cannot experience CP symmetry breaking. A moving
ball is an open system where its motion can be deemed to have CP symmetry.


So in an open system that has experienced PT symmetry breaking, LENR occurs
because the nucleon undergoes CP symmetry breaking since in this case PT =
CP.


In optics, there are special conditions involving optical cavities that can
experience PT summitry breaking. These cavities can reach out magnetically
and become entangled with nucleons via their magnetic projections. This
phenomenon is known as the chiral magnetic effect(1) — “chiral” means
“distinguishing left from right, When PT symmetry is broken in these
entangled open systems of optical cavities and nucleons decay via CP
symmetry breaking. The energy of the nucleon decay flows one way into the
optical cavity.


It seems to me that it is central to the understanding of LENR to
appreciate the mechanisms of symmetry breaking with regards to nucleons.


1 -
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/16/violating-parity-with-quarks-and-gluons/#comments

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> A post that might hold some insights as follows:
>
>
>
>1. Giuseppe April 23, 2017 at 3:37 PM
>
> 
>
>Dear Andrea,
>
>
>seems that to activate the E-Cat you need heat, does the QuarkX need
>heat to be activated?
>
>
>Best regards, Giuseppe

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Nigel Dyer]

My power supply blew up shortly afterwards and although I have bought 
some new ones (they are only a few pounds) I have not set it up again as 
it has been rather overtaken by events


Nigel

On 24/04/2017 02:17, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nigel Dyer > wrote:


If I remember correctly it was something like that. The counter
had to be very close to register clicks, such that it was
consistent with alpha particles, but it was not stopped by a peice
of paper, which would have stopped alpha particles, but which
would allow through a voltage transient.

I believe paper will allow beta particles through, which will also be 
picked up by a GM counter.  I assume you were correct in your 
assessment that the dV/dT was messing with your GM counter.  But I 
doubt a piece of paper would rule out everything interesting.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[protech]

Dave,
I too would love to have one but I,d hate to think of my neighbors in one!
Ron

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:33:34 -0400, David Roberson 
wrote:
> I would love to have a flying car, especially when within the DC area.
My
> major concern is that we have far too many lawyers ready to sue any new
> technology offering. Don't you think that some form of immunity to
> unreasonable lawsuits might be required for any small to mid sized
> companies that hope to enter the field? Otherwise they will go the way
of
> diving boards.
> 
>  Dave 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>  From: Adrian Ashfield 
>  To: vortex-l 
>  Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:12 am
>  Subject: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon
> 
>   It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
>  Companies trying to make one include:.
>  Terrafugia
>  Kitty Hawk
>  Airbus Group
>  Moller International
>  Xplorair
>  PAL-V
>  Joby Aviation
>  EHang
>  Volocopter
>  Uber
>  Haynes Aero
>  Samson Motorworks
>  AeroMobil
>  Parajet
>  Lilium
> 
>  Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without
> either an improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power
source.
> 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html
> [1]
> 
>  AA   
> 
> Links:
> --
> [1]
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[David Roberson]

I would love to have a flying car, especially when within the DC area.  My 
major concern is that we have far too many lawyers ready to sue any new 
technology offering.  Don't you think that some form of immunity to 
unreasonable lawsuits might be required for any small to mid sized companies 
that hope to enter the field?  Otherwise they will go the way of diving boards.

Dave 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Adrian Ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:12 am
Subject: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon


It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
Companies trying to make one include:.
Terrafugia
Kitty Hawk
Airbus Group
Moller International
Xplorair
PAL-V
Joby Aviation
EHang
Volocopter
Uber
Haynes Aero
Samson Motorworks
AeroMobil
Parajet
Lilium

Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without either an 
improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

AA

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[David Roberson]

John,
I honestly do not understand how an electrical charge is associated with 
gravity, but apparently some have observed a link.  The fact that gravitational 
forces are so weak with respect to electromagnetic forces tend to suggest that 
a very tiny coupling between the two would be all that is required in order to 
see some effects.

My current position is one of a skeptical nature since I have not had 
sufficient opportunity to pursue the subject.  Do you know of any good links to 
research papers, etc. that I could follow when time permits?  If these types of 
interactions are possible then the payoff to society could be enormous.

I also find circular like systems such as toroidal fields to possess a form of 
'magic'.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 9:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish



Thanks David,
Do you also think it is interesting that it coincides with the Cap warp which 
several replicated and a few other similar claims...


I can actually take the correlation further, but right there, does that not 
show that anti-gravity is very likely possible with a circular capacitor?


There is a lot of evidence that circular things and circular arrays of things 
can do things that are extraordinary and unexpected by a single element.


This is not out of reach, it can be explained.






John Berry



On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the link.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish



I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the extraordinary 
side of science for the most part.


But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a 
circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated by I 
think 3 people in total.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html


I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing weight, 
more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive only.  One 
had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.


Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US Airforce 
sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't even aware of 
the  "Cap warp" experiments.


http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#



Does that not make a very strong case?


Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't wet 
and Nuclear this group isn't interested?





John Berry

[Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[Adrian Ashfield]

It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
Companies trying to make one include:.
Terrafugia
Kitty Hawk
Airbus Group
Moller International
Xplorair
PAL-V
Joby Aviation
EHang
Volocopter
Uber
Haynes Aero
Samson Motorworks
AeroMobil
Parajet
Lilium

Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without either an 
improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

AA

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Brian Ahern]

Once again the master has prevailed.

You are basing assumptions on tales from the "Book of Rossi" !

It is insulting to give any credence to the impresario.


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 9:47 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The Kerr effect


A post that might hold some insights as follows:


  1.  Giuseppe April 23, 2017 at 3:37 
PM

Dear Andrea,

seems that to activate the E-Cat you need heat, does the QuarkX need heat to be 
activated?

Best regards, Giuseppe

  2.  Andrea Rossi April 23, 2017 at 3:48 
PM

Giuseppe:

Not exactly. The mechanism is much more complex and is based on electromagnetic 
fields.

Warm Regards,

A.R.



The nature of the LENR reaction has evolved when the gas envelope is in the 
plasma state to depend solely on optical mechanisms. An EMF trigger is the 
factor can gets the LENR reaction going. not heat. As stated in the Rossi 
patent, very high voltage electrostatic potential is that trigger. The name of 
the triggering effect is "kerr effect". The minimum voltage at which the kerr 
effect is triggered is 30,000 volts.


This trigger applies to both Rossi's low temperature reactions and his plasma 
based reactions.


Kerr electro-optic effect

The Kerr electro-optic effect, or DC Kerr effect, is the special case in which 
a slowly varying external electric field is applied by, for instance, a 
voltage on electrodes across the sample 
material. Under this influence, the sample becomes 
birefringent, with different 
indices of refraction for light 
polarized parallel to or 
perpendicular to the applied field. The difference in index of refraction is 
controlled by the strength of the applied electric field.


[1-physicistsob.jpg]

Birefringence modifies how light behaves inside a whispering gallery wave.


Birefringence is the optical property of 
a material having a refractive 
index that depends on the 
polarization and 
propagation direction of light. These 
optically anisotropic materials are 
said to be birefringent (or birefractive). The birefringence is often 
quantified as the maximum difference between refractive indices exhibited by 
the material. Crystals with non-cubic 
crystal structures are often 
birefringent, as are plastics under 
mechanical stress.


The kerr effect produces a change in stated of the optical properties that 
underpin the LENR reaction. Research should be directed at finding where that 
change of state sets in.


As in Holmlid's experiments, a laser can produce the kerr effect


Optical Kerr effect

The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in which the electric 
field is due to the light itself. This causes a variation in index of 
refraction which is proportional to the local 
irradiance of the light. This 
refractive index variation is responsible for the nonlinear 
optical effects of 
self-focusing, self-phase 
modulation and 
modulational 
instability, and is the 
basis for Kerr-lens 
modelocking. This effect 
only becomes significant with very intense beams such as those from 
lasers. The optical Kerr effect has also 
been observed to dynamically alter the mode-coupling properties in multimode 
fibre, a technique that has potential applications for all-optical switching 
mechanisms.