[Vo]:Evidence conflict for Relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect
Ok,I was clued in about Barker patents and others, Rex research [http://www.rexresearch.com/coldfusn/nukwast.htm#brown] reveal evidence for acceleration of decay vs delay. I am interested now in what types of decay are involved And how measured. I am ignoring Gamma type since we have so few dead researchers but some He-4/Alpha is detected and am also focused on Beta since I assume the excess heat anomaly will work at least as well with tritium as deuterium. Reifenschweiler effect is not presently associated with excess heat but the 15nm titanium clusters loaded with tritium indicate conditions similar to Rayney nickel loaded with hydrogen are present. Not to imply that radioactive decay is in anyway needed to generate heat but rather that use of tritium in place of deuterium could act like dye in the water to help us solve the anomalous heat. Note I still feel fusion is a side effect or result of an interim ashless chemistry/oscillation between h1 h2 courtesy of delta in Casimir force that increases the energy, heat and relativistic environment that increases the probability of fusion. I am still searching for answers regarding accelerated and delayed Beta, do they mean a measuring device counts fewer particles while the Radioactive material is being stimulated? If the effect of the Casimir geometry is relativistic as I am predicting would the radiation or particles Received always appear slower just like the photon clock in the spaceship vs a stationary observer - regardless of which frame is accelerated the clock Always looks slower from a remote observation? My position is that the rate of emissions seen by a remote stationary observer from a tritium atom near luminal velocity would be slowed and when the atom is decelerated to the same frame as the observer we would find the half life increased from the observers perspective just like the twin paradox. The relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect however decelerates the atom relative to us the observers outside the cavity, We in effect become the more accelerated frame and the atoms will appear to have a shortened half life from our perspective when they return to our frame BUT the clock rate we observe of emissions while the atoms are in this decelerated frame should still appear slower just like the accelerated frame? Regards Fran Rex Research http://www.rexresearch.com/coldfusn/nukwast.htm#brown Nuclear Waste Remediation/Transmutation Patents
RE: [Vo]:Evidence conflict for Relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect
Jones, Thank you for the detailed reply, I have read it several times and am still digesting all the material. Your comment regarding the near field reactivity as a naked proton approaches the Casimir wall really caught my attention. I think we are on the same page even though you using a dynamic gradient induced by Vandergraff stimulation as an example, I am convinced the Casimir effect has a similar dynamic gradient as you approach the cavity walls. The smallest local geometries eventually contribute to an average Casimir force but the near field area is the most sensitive to changes in geometry - before a certain focal point is achieved these force vectors are aiding one moment and opposing the next as they sum into a less volatile average out away from the walls. This is another reason I consider the cavities as pump houses where these areas with a high dynamic gradient near the walls are constantly translating atoms to different confinement levels which, if they become diatomic while confined, will remain confined by virtue of the diatomic bond to accumulate in the gas population outside the cavity. IMHO The area away from the walls will store atoms in an averaged confined state but with less change in confinement will not contribute as much to catalytic action or creating diatomic bonds capable of maintaining the confinement. Best Regards Fran
[Vo]:black body radiation vs relativistic interpretation of casimir effect
In reply to a blog comment http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-hydrino-patent-based-catalyst-denie d-while-later-patent-relativistic-hydrogen-based-casimir-cavity-granted.html #comment-51584 Thomas to quote you, Since then, I have made the argument that the Casimir effect is caused by the thermal blackbody radiation emitted in the FIR by atoms in the surface of Casmir's plates. Electrostatic charging is not invoked. By this theory, wavelengths L 2G are excluded from the gap G as Casimir assumed. But unlike Casimir and his followers, I do not throw away the excluded EM energy from the gap. Instead, I conserve the excluded EM energy by creating UV and higher energy photons having wavelength L = 2G in the gap. In effect, the gap acts as a FIR frequency up-conversion device as required by the conservation of energy. I agree with the idea of up-conversion but it is the entire spectrum of space-time that up converts via a new inertial frame inside the cavity. Even normal Casimir theory admits the remaining vacuum wavelengths are higher in frequency but normal Casimir theory also thinks ZPE (sum of remaining waveforms energy) is reduced wheras I am arguing that ZPE would still appear constant inside the cavity and only appears reduced from our perspective outside the cavity due to relativistic effects. that is to say that the wavelengths create a new inertial frame in order to fit inside the cavity. a gas atom or any matter caught in this inertial frame sees an unchanged population of short/long wavelengths and the Casimir plates appear far enough apart to contain these wavelengths without any wavelength suppression. This may mean the suggestion by Beck and Mackey that wavelengths below 2Thz are more gravitationally active is really a matter of perspective - a useful relativistic measure but not an absolute measure. It also solves for the numerous claims of shrunken hydrogen such as hydrino, clusters, deuteron ice, ultra dense deuterium and fractional hydrogen as forms of relativistic containment. It even suggests our view of catalytic action may be in error, What we perceive as accelerated reactions outside a catalyst may actually occur at the normal rate from the perspective of the reactants. Regards Fran
[Vo]:Time Distortion Evidence on Flux Cap Delivery.
on Sat, 15 May 2010 11:54: Harvey Norris said Can Time itself be distorted in a way other then how Einstein predicted this by Relativity? Harvey, we are asking the same question although we might still technically have to call it relativity. The difference is that Einstein only referred To the effects of changing velocity on the spatial axis where the ratio of V^2/C^2 determines the rate of time dilation(gamma). No one looked at The possibility of altering the denominator because C is said to be a constant. C is a constant in all inertial frames meaning that when you fire a laser it moves away From you at 186kmiles/s regardless if you are stationary or already moving at .9C. We can still say C is constant because we are reducing the spatial ruler by which we measure time. We see this as Lorentzian contraction from the perspective of another inertial frame but locally we are unaware that space and time are even reshaping to keep C constant because we are reshaping with it. You and I and Ron Millet are trying to change the denominator in an abrupt manner. The normal way using the numerator is through large velocity or the equivalence method- a large mass to create a gravitational field both of which slow time. Both of these methods are a slow building Pythagorean relationship between space and the 90 degree displaced time axis where our vector/hypotenuse can only approach A theoretical limit of 45 degrees at best on the time axis by producing an acceleration or g field approaching C. if your temporal Y axis is defined as C and you attain a displacement velocity of near C on your X axis you would think your actual time/velocity vector should be 1.44 C at 45 degrees but because the x axis is defined by the rate of intersection with the Y axis this doesn't happen - the faster you go On the X axis the less you intersect with a y axis moving perpendicularly through the spatial plane. Tapping energy based on differential energy between these inertial frames is difficult due to the relative motion. In the case of equivalent acceleration you could say a waterfall taps gravitational energy But that is a one time effect that must be replenished by other energy sources. The challenge is to find or create diverse inertial frames in close proximity and stationary to each other. This would allow a more exploitable environment than simple time dilation. A 1996 book titled Cavity QED posits that a Casimir cavity produces this abrupt break between inertial frames, shielding the interior from the ambient rate of time outside by forcing virtual particles to fit between spatial boundaries too narrow for their size/wavelength. This suggests the present Casimir theory that longer wavelengths are displaced needs to be modified into the longer wavelengths reshape space-time inside the cavity to make room for themselves. The wavelengths will appear smaller in either case but in this interpretation they better explain The fractional hydrogen and clusters being reported by researchers. I did follow your arguments regarding the math and electronic implementations but can see with the complexities involved you are going to need some irrefutable evidence -as will I for that matter:_) Some of the questions that came to mind were resistive vs reactive measurements which can burn you in any tank circuits and then there is that 8 mile coil you mentioned that could be picking up energy out of the air - is it shielded? I am not being a total skeptic - Tesla said long ago that the ether could be somewhat solidified by High voltage and I know from personal experience to keep my high power capacitors shorted in storage or they will pick up a charge. Regards Fran
[Vo]:The paradox of length contraction?
What is simultaneous for the train will be seen by the tracks as a delay between the sprayers. My guess is the marks will be spaced the normal length of the train -space time can reshape for the train near luminal speeds and you can accumulate time dilation for any paint particles traveling between inertial frames but IMHO the gradient of inertial frames would have a refractive effect. I originally considered Naudts suggestion that f/h is relativistic was based on this Pythagorean relationship of v/c based on time being 90 degrees displaced from all 3 of our spatial dimensions. This is what gives Lorentzian contraction a biased dimension that contracts in the direction of motion instead of uniform contraction. I still agree with Naudts relativistic solution for f/h but think it can occur with a stationary object Where time is instead manipulated via a Casimir field = displacement of virtual particles such that they can still fit between the plates. The difference in pressure between inside and outside causes a vortex wherever a cavity or defect occurs to relieve the pressure. This vortex is experienced by any gas atoms inside the cavity placing them in different inertial frames then the plate boundaries of the cavity. I submit this would cause uniform contraction, make room to store numerous more atoms than cavity geometry predicts and suggests an alternate explanation for catalytic action where reactants actually experience all the time we think we are saving outside the cavity. IMHO Fran
RE: [Vo]:Shanahan is proposing the cigarette lighter hypothesis
Jed Rothwell On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:33 Jed Rothwell said Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The entire palladium lattice can be considered a collection of cavities. No, it is a lattice. A lattice is not the same as a cavity. A cavity is a break in the lattice, in which D2 molecules can form. Deuterons cannot come together to form molecules in a lattice. They might be able to come together to form helium atoms. That's the subject of debate, but no one asserts they can form D2. Jed, Abd may have a point, if we consider the cathode a stack of Casimir plates that have all been pulled together by Casimir force to form a solid, atoms in small numbers form covalent bonds then clusters before they start to form metallic bonds - perhaps metallic bonds are a function of Casimir effect - the almost free electron generated by this squeezing together of the lattice. You also say deuterons cannot come together to form D2 in the lattice but I posit that fractional d2 formed in the cavities which act like our pump to fractionalize atoms then tie them together with a diatomic bond. These fractional d2 molecules would then be stuck in the lattice just like normal d2 is stuck outside of a Pd membrane. Where do Miley and Arata claim they observe the f/h or f/d? Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:Shanahan is proposing the cigarette lighter hypothesis
OK, we are agreed that P1V1/T1 =P2V2/T2 even applies to state changes of gas atoms. Normally Anything that effects the volume of the overall population but here is where COE meets Casimir effect Which allows monatomic gas to translate Freely with very little opposition to fractional states, We can ignore the argument about this being relativistic or not and just treat this as a property of a Pd membrane that allows monatomic gas to pass but is a barrier to diatomic gas. My posit is that when f/h1 becomes f/h2 it finds itself surrounded by barriers where it must remain locked until it is again disassociated by random thermal energy. Unlike normal h2 this f/h2 does have one additional energy gradient that it can tap to help it translate back to normal h2. The sum of vacuum fluctuation energy that determined it's fractional value is decreasing as it leaves the cavity boundaries and enters the lattice, that differential wants to reshape the orbitals of the f/h2 but is prevented from doing so by the diatomic bond. I am humbly suggesting these f/h2 or f/d2 can take up positions normally occupied by a single d1 and that defects and cavities can be considered the pump houses where fractional diatomic bonds are utilized as containment vessels. Regards Fran Jones Beene Wed, 12 May 2010 20:20:58 -0700 -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Yes, I understood that. The heat, though, doesn't come from expansion of hydrogen. Wrong. Some of the heat does come from expansion of hydrogen. Of course much more comes from combustion. When air initially at a moderate temperature is expanded through a valve, its temperature decrease because it starts out below the inversion temperature of the constituent gases, and the expansion will cause a temperature reduction as the result of the Joule-Thomson effect. Any gas expanded at constant enthalpy will experience a temperature decrease ONLY if is below the inversion temperature, however, and if above it will usually experience a temperature increase. I was not assuming endothermy from expansion, but from evaporation (more like sublimation in this case). There is no difference. It's simply the reversal of the heat released from absorption. If hydride/deuteride formation is exothermic, and it is, then de-formation is endothermic. Wrong. You are missing the balance point. The balance is between the energy used to pressurize the gas before loading and the net energy returned by both hydride formation and hydride release. If the energy needed to compress hydrogen for loading a tank is say 10 W-hrs, then that can be balanced exactly against 5 W-hrs of exotherm for deuteride formation and another 5 W-hrs of exotherm for expansion. Get it? Note that failure to account for the heat of formation of palladium deuteride could be a possible source of error in the calorimetric analysis of CF experiments. You finally got something right! But it would not explain heat after death. Partly wrong. It can explain some of it, but usually there is much more heat after death than can be explained by expansion above the inversion temperature. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Takahashi ACS report
Or whatever happens when fusion occurs within a BEC. Do we know how these behave? What does it mean to fuse within a BEC? (if they aren't separate, how do they fuse, or, perhaps more to the point, how do they *not* fuse? How tightly coupled will this BEC be to the confining palladium? Often it's pointed out that Bose-Einstein Condensates are only known to form at low temperature. But temperature refers to relative motion of the component molecules. If for some reason they have no relative motion, they would be at zero temperature. We are not accustomed to thinking of pockets of low temperature within objects of higher temperature, but this would be a transient pocket of only two molecules. What's the frequency of that? Abd, The cavity breaks isotropy, from our perspective outside the cavity the interior undergoes negative acceleration, we are effectively the paradox twin rushing away from the cavity but instead of doing so on the spatial axis at a right angle to time this method allows us to directly manipulate the speed of time in the cavity. The atoms can remain stationary relative to an observer outside the cavity and still be time dilated in this modified Lorentzian model that yields a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect. *. But temperature refers to relative motion of the component molecules.*** The overall temperature of the entire cluster as Miley would call it is lower from our perspective outside the cavity because it exists in a much slower inertial frame. The Paradox twin who remains on earth observes that his twin approaching C appears nearly Motionless . We as observers outside the cavity appear nearly motionless to the hydrogen atoms inside the cavity who see the ratio of long and short vacuum fluctuations unchanged from their perspective even though we outside see the longer wavelengths displaced - they actually twist on the time axis and bend space time for any matter in the cavity producing the fractional or Naudts orbitals. IMHO Fran
RE: Re: [Vo]:Berkeley Scientists discover inexpensive metal catalyst for generating hydrogen from water news
Thanks Robin, I stretched myself too thin and consequently the brain fart missing the per sec. I did catch the need for added energy but was wondering how it would perform in an environment of h1 and you answered that also In confirming it is a Mills catalyst. My pet theory is that Oxygen allows a normal chemical reaction and that a catalyst starved of it can disassociate h2 all by itself if the component atoms are trying to translate to a different fractional orbit value. Gas law is based on UP and I am saying it can be rectified by a fractional molecule that doesn't want to move inside the cavity to any position where the distance between the plates change. After some threshold the molecular bond breaks restoring atomic energy from the force of gas law which allows the fractional atoms to translate to a new value appropriate for the local Casimir geometry. I don't know if the threshold is enough to hold a fractional molecule together outside of the cavity but if at all possible it would only be a small fraction. Maybe some H2/2 or H2/3 in HHO? Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:old concrete or limestone a great fuel source
Robin, I was trying to leverage the gas producing rate of interleaved plates such as used in HHO kits vs the slow formation of separated H and O electrodes in a Hoffman arrangement. In the HHO arrangement I can accomplish this easily by placing my glass filter/reactor inline with a torch fitting and burn off the gas as it exits the torch fitting. I am still considering the apx $150 for a lecture bottle but then I would still need a high pressure regulator and a local place to refill - someone recently told me it should be available through a propane dealer but I would have to verify local availability and locate a regulator. My goal is to create a stream of pure hydrogen through an inline glass filter filled with different powders and a heating method to disassociate the hydrogen inside the filter (perhaps underwater to eliminate any chance of Oxygen). I am open to suggestions but if I go back to the Hoffman method it would require a closed loop since I would not have enough h2 to waste or burn off. I recall seeing an outdoor arrangement on the net where they were using 4 inch pvc pipes and lots of stainless/strong electrolyte to make up for the lower rate of production. I got my new bubbler today and the torch flame was very much improved -I must have had more of a leak than I thought. I still can't melt a Canadian coin made of nickel but can turn much of it a glowing cherry red. I know a second gas is need to cut but is it possible to use HHO to create an alloy of nickel and aluminum if I file small amounts of the metals into a powder and then place them into something akin to a furnace. I am presently using a cinder block on my Bench in basement as a fire shield to experiment on but want to experiment with some materials like fire brick to see if I can contain and concentrate the heat enough to melt and alloy the filings. any ideas? Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:man runs on cold fusion
On Fri April 30 Jones Beene said [quote]Possibly, but if you are looking for Casimir cavities, there are probably far better choices from nature (or rather from altering nature) than mere limestone. A search for nanoporous calcium carbonate turns up many jewels: http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol4/4111541.pdf. including the factoid that this material has a capacitance of ~650 F per g! [/quote] Jones, Thanks for a great citation and yes I should have specified calcium carbonate in the thread - according to Wikipedia [quote]Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the chemical formula CaCO3. It is a common substance found in rock in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, pearls, and eggshells. Calcium carbonate is the active ingredient in agricultural lime, and is usually the principal cause of hard water. It is commonly used medicinally as a calcium supplement or as an antacid, [/quote]. It looks like limestone and antacids are a readily available source of calcium carbonate. I would like to experiment with it but after finally repairing my HHO /torch kit am coming to the conclusion that HHO is an issue and I really need a pure hydrogen environment for the lime or lime mixtures with other nano powders.
[Vo]:old concrete or limestone a great fuel source
Mixent said on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:58:41 -0700 [snip] which BTW doesn't mention the Ca-48 reaction Ca-48 = Ti-48 + 4.27 MeV (Ca-48 is 0.18% of natural Ca) which averages to 7.7 keV / atom of Ca. Which would make old concrete or limestone a great fuel source, about 1000 times better than coal. ;) Perhaps someone should try LENR using Ca(OH)2 iso LiOH? ;) There is almost as much Ca-48 in the crust as there is Zr (all isotopes combined; Ca is much more abundant than Zr). BTW the single beta decay of Ca-48 to Sc-48 is also energetically possible (278 keV). [/snip] Mixent, I have been waiting for someone to mention calcium or limestone. Calcium is a pourous alkaline earth metal and conductive making it capable of forming Casimir geometry, I have a bag of limestone powder in my garage right next to a cup of carbon black I got from a paint store both waiting for me to make a hydrogen only generator because I don't want my HHO kit to oxidize the catalyst. I think these powders have the potential to produce Casimir geometry both in their grain boundary as pores like a skeletal catalyst and also between grains as they pack together leaving gaps and crevices of perhaps lesser geometry like the Haisch Model prototype (.1u holes). These lesser geometries are very interesting like the Arata nano materials because the gas doesn't have to leach out slowly from a lattice or cavity but instead can be circulated endlessly to release heat at a lower rate over a larger area. I think the heating effect in cement may not be all ash chemistry - if the oxidant was removed by displacing oxygen with an inert gas and instead circulating hydrogen through the mixture of inert gas and calcium we might have a candidate for ashless chemistry passing through the Casimir geometry. It would not simulate the insulation layers that Haisch and Moddel envision in their prototype but there is a zero manufacturing cost trade off for just taking whatever the natural change in geometry you get from self packing of the particles.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and BLP
Jed, I agree that these effects are all related for the same reasons you state and that Arata supplies the most compelling evidence. Your argument regarding this being fushion or chemical and your reply to Mike Carrel 50 kW for how long? How much energy? From what mass of fuel? implies you are not considering ashless chemistry where changes in Casimir geometry could disassociate the diatoms and reverse the natural reaction to from diatoms. This would be a fueless source of energy based on scale and geometry that could explain the reaction of atomic hydrogen in a skeletal catalyst and provide the thermal runaway and acceleration of gas atoms into the surrounding lattice. This won't make me popular since it suggests the limited fusion artifacts are are only a side effect driven by this oscillation between h1 and h2 but it does a better job of solving for the common denominator. even sonoluminescence could be explained as this same oscillation where the menisci act as the moving plates being driven by acoustic energy. I am not trying to separate the lattice from the cavity because they need each other like the hole needs a sail to accumulate wind pressure to make a whistle. Mike Carrel said.. Mills has repeatedly stated that there exists a H-2H catalytic reaction in which two H atoms can induce the hyrino transition in a third H atom. Once created, the hydrino can catalyse other H atoms. The conditions under whch the reaction rate may be significant include the cathodes or LENR cells. The reaction is strongly exothermic, beyond ordinary chemistry. Such may produce excess heat, but does not account for transmutation or 4He production. Notably, Mills has not claimed any connection with LENR 'excess heat'. As for the above comment from Mike I suspect that the Casimir force accumulated by the conductive plates permeates out into the cavity creating an environment where the diffused gas atoms feel like they are in constant contact with a third body. When the BLP animation shows a 3 body collision I don't think it actually needs to happen - the geometry of the pore creates a concentrated field allowing the atoms in the plates to react remotely with the gas atoms allowing the transitions to occur solely based on geometry and whether or not the gas atoms are atomic or diatomic. Regards Fran
[Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass through the eye of a stationary needle?
RE: [Vo]:non radiative transfer of energy
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:22:45 Jones Beene said [Quote]When the spin flips, a photon is always emitted or absorbed, and a tiny amount of heat is transferred. At high pressure, the flipping could happen at rate measured in terahertz (blackbody kinetic rate) so even a tiny heat difference (micro-eV) is magnified in certain conditions. Spin flipping results in the emission of a 5.9 x10^-6 eV photon - which is small and is also is the characteristic signature of cosmic background radiation (CMB) so there are plenty of detectors designed to find it. [/quote] Jones, That isn't much energy per photon and not in the right spectrum for black light plasma but you said the ratio Of O to P varies with kinetic confinement such that the Casimir cavity can be substituted for coldness, Can I point out the AC potential here? The constant change in geometry at the local levels should mean that atoms diffused into the tightest geometries Of these cavities are constantly seeing huge shifts in the Casimir value relative to their immediate positions. For these most Confined atoms Casimir geometry has been reduced in scale by several magnitudes. The narrowing cavity keeps revealing new plates And outcroppings that exert more influence as the distances narrow changing the confinement and therefore temperature Of the molecule dramatically back and forth. Wouldn't this cause your O-P pump to oscillate? And if Naudts is right about a relativistic environment then these scales could go much lower than logic would dictate. Regards Fran
[Vo]:I missed Jed when he quit and now I miss Steve
Just so I understand what all the fuss is about.. Is it because he is pushing neutron capture when he is supposed to be unbiased? I watched the Youtube presentation and frankly I liked it. How often does neutron capture occur normally? Does neutron capture get accelerated by catalytic action?
Re: [Vo]:I missed Jed when he quit and now I miss Steve
Abd, Thanks- I kind of figured there was more to it than I was processing. I asked about the normal rate of neutron capture because I thought it might change with fractional hydrogen. Always the optimist I find myself looking for the mechanism by which it could work. I really feel we already have all the information we need to solve this mystery but no one wants to borrow parts from one another to solve it correctly. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Moddel paper on energy extraction
Horrace, I don't disagree with your assessment and it is no surprise the Professor finds his own patented method the only likely candidate but there are 2 things I gained from section C of his paper. First I finally understand the term Haisch coined Casimir -Lamb shift which they claim is different from the method employed by Mills. Moddel depicts both Lamb shift and Casimir effect as based on differences in vacuum energy Where The electromagnetic quantum vacuum can be altered in a much more significant way in a Casimir cavity. I don't see much difference in this Casimir Lamb- shift and what vorticians call f/h but I will give him that there is presently no connection between Casimir effect and catalytic action so my comparison between the Mills' and Moddel method remains speculative. The 2nd thing I noticed is that he makes a very similar case to my speculations without any relativistic baggage. He uses Larmor radiation , energy and known scince regarding vacuum fluctuations and boundaries. To account for their process. The only real disagreement I maintain is that the hydrogen translation will be symmetrical into and out of the cavity unless they do some chemistry to make it asymmetrical. My next blog Will be written citing his paper and terminology - I think I can put my argument together without any reference to Naudts or Bourgoin to produce at least 1 non fringe blog. Regards Fran [quote from section C of Moddel paper] 1. Zero-point energy ground state and Casimir cavities There is a fundamental difference between the equilibrium state for heat and for ZPE. It is well understood that one cannot make use of thermal fluctuations under equilibrium conditions. To use the heat, there must be a temperature difference to promote a heat flow to obtain work, as reflected in the Carnot efficiency of Eq. (4). We cannot maintain a permanent temperature difference between a hot source and a cold sink in thermal contact with each other without expending energy, of course. Similarly, without differences in some characteristic of ZPE in one region as compared to another it is difficult to understand what could drive ZPE flow to allow its extraction. If the ZPE represented the universal ground state, we could not make use of ZPE differences to do work. But the entropy and energy of ZPE are geometry dependent.32 The vacuum state does not have a fixed energy value, but changes with boundary conditions.33 In this way ZPE fluctuations differ fundamentally from thermal fluctuations. Inside a Casimir cavity the ZPF density is different than outside. This is a constant difference that is established as a result of the different boundary conditions inside and out. A particular state of thermal or chemical equilibrium can be 10 characterized by a temperature or chemical potential, respectively. For an ideal Casimir cavity having perfectly reflecting surfaces it is possible to define a characteristic temperature that describes the state of equilibrium for zero-point energy and which depends only on cavity spacing.31 In a real system, however, no such parameter exists because the state is determined by boundary conditions in addition to cavity spacing,34 such as the cavity reflectivity as a function of wavelength, spacing uniformity, and general shape. The next approach to extracting power from vacuum fluctuations makes use of the step in the ZPE ground state at the entrance to Casimir cavities. According to stochastic electrodynamics (SED), the energy of classical electron orbits in atoms is determined by a balance of emission and absorption of vacuum energy.35 By this view of the atom, electrons emit a continuous stream of Larmor radiation as a result of the acceleration they experience in their orbits. As the electrons release energy their orbits would spin down were it not for absorption of vacuum energy from the ZPF. This balancing of emission and absorption has been modeled and shown to yield the correct Bohr radius in hydrogen.36 Accordingly, the orbital energies of atoms inside Casimir cavities should be shifted if the cavity spacing blocks the ZPF required to support a particular atomic orbital. A suitable term for this is the Casimir-Lamb shift. The energy levels of electron orbitals in atoms are determined by sets of quantum numbers. However the electromagnetic quantum vacuum can change these energies, as exhibited in the well known Lamb shift. In the case of the Lamb shift the nucleus of the atom (a single proton for hydrogen) slightly modifies the quantum vacuum in its vicinity. The result is that the 2P1/2 and 2S1/2 orbitals, which should have the same energy, are slightly shifted since they spread over slightly different distances from the nucleus, and hence experience a slightly different electromagnetic quantum vacuum. The electromagnetic quantum vacuum can be altered in a much more significant way in a Casimir cavity.
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
My earlier post was over reacting to a post by Professor Moddel on Huffington post(below) that some bloggers (me) were improperly linking their method to the hydrino. If I interpret the Professors reply correctly he is making this an all or nothing gambit. There may be different ways to describe what is going on inside these cavities and different ways to elicit it to happen but in the end there can be only one and that theory will apply equally to all the claims regarding catalysts and atomic hydrogen. Nature does not pay attention to our theories and I hope the professor is correct that there are different ways to ways to extract energy so that more people can stake a claim but my gut feeling is that all these methods are all just a different perspective on the same underlying physics. Moddel and Haisch may have a better theory than Mills but it was later and neither of them actually nailed it like I feel Naudts and Bourgoin did. Regards Fran FROM HUFFINGTON POST: quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/GModdel GModdel Unfan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/sorry-its-malig nant-why-s_b_500733.html I'm not a fan of this user permalink http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/?show_comment_i d=42487436#comment_42487436 Friedfish writes that I believe that our patent was a mistake, but he is incorrect. I certainly don't think that. I wrote a technical article http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/Moddel_VacExtracV1.pdf http://http:/ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/Moddel_VacExtracV1.pdf f) and a version for a non-technical audience http://psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf http://http:/psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf f) describing some errors that zero-point energy proponents have made, but I believe that our patent has avoided those errors. We have carried out some experiments, with limited funding, to see if the concept works and the results are so-far ambiguous. Some bloggers have linked our patent to Blacklight Power's hydrino. I cannot comment on whether the concept of a hydrino is valid, but the physics behind it is certainly different from the physics that supports our concept./unquote From: Francis X Roarty [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:03 PM To: 'a...@lomaxdesign.com' Cc: 'vortex-l' Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Abd, I totally agree, and frankly think no body except Naudts and Bourgoin really nailed the theory, Mills hydrogen with catalytic action, Haisch Moddels' hydrogen with Casimir cavities, Superwave hydrogen compressed bubbles all seemed to be based on different metrics of the same underlying energy source. If the relativistic concept is correct then all these researchers are employing the same environment. They do use different methods to extract the energy from the catalyzed hydrogen so their patents are differentiated but the right thing to do is acknowledge Mills was first to patent the environment - or I should say was first to try and patent the environment. This probably won't happen until after the technology is proved and the research really explodes. Regards Fran Simulation http://www.byzipp.com/sun30.swf of Fractional Hydrogen ash less chemistry in Flash actionscript
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Abd, I totally agree, and frankly think no body except Naudts and Bourgoin really nailed the theory, Mills hydrogen with catalytic action, Haisch Moddels' hydrogen with Casimir cavities, Superwave hydrogen compressed bubbles all seemed to be based on different metrics of the same underlying energy source. If the relativistic concept is correct then all these researchers are employing the same environment. They do use different methods to extract the energy from the catalyzed hydrogen so their patents are differentiated but the right thing to do is acknowledge Mills was first to patent the environment - or I should say was first to try and patent the environment. This probably won't happen until after the technology is proved and the research really explodes. Regards Fran Simulation http://www.byzipp.com/sun30.swf of Fractional Hydrogen ash less chemistry in Flash actionscript
RE: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:22:07 Jones Beene wrote Fran, The large spheres are diatomic hydrogen when outside the cavity, but become monatomic after apparent shrinkage from our perspective, due to time dilation, then releasing the photon, is that correct? To cover more actual experimental results, one might also suggest that on occasion, nuclear reactions can occur with the walls of the cavity, even if that is not the main source of excess energy. In fact, this type of reaction might only be a QM balancing act . One never knows, do one? Jones, You are correct that on occasion nuclear reactions do occur - much more so than normal for 2 reasons, first time dilation means that the normal low probability Of this occurring at ambient is already multiplied by Gamma and secondly the cavity represents a 3rd body that accelerates atoms to different inertial frames just like the collisions shown in the BLP animation except there is no need for a collision -the non radiative transfer of energy is occurring constantly with changes in Casimir force that constantly reshape the orbitals to new fractional values based on local geometry (Thanks to Robin for making me investigate the 3rd body). I believe BLP included this collision in their animation to simplify their explanation but I am saying the quantum effect of Casimir geometry negates the need for an actual collision because the entire cavity is already working to transfer energy from the atoms at different rates based on local geometry/zones, you call this negative energy because time is occurring faster than the ambient isotropic value we consider the baseline outside a cavity. It doesn't matter if you consider time dragging behind inside the cavity or we outside the cavity are racing ahead in time the absolute difference is the energy potential we have the opportunity to exploit when inertial frames diverge. My posit is that the translation between frames is not symmetrical for different bond states of the atom, the nonradiative energy transfer is opposed by bound atoms and not by unbound atoms turning these bond states into a rectifier mechanism. Cheers Fran
[Vo]:Santilli, Ni-H, neutroids, atherinos, deflation fusion, and strange matter
Horace, They are discussing same on HSG presently. Regards Fran http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?p=6878sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db39bc 9149330#p6878 Postby JohnEB http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=148sid=0ab0baf3 ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 on March 12th, 2010, 5:21 pm Andrew: To add to the confusion, we have the work of R. M. Santilli. He seems to like an asymmetric time. See: http://www.magnegas.com/index.html http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant http://www.santilli-foundation.org/santilli-scientific-discoveries.html ... eries.html JohnEB http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=148sid=0ab0baf3 ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 Posts: 1682 Joined: December 22nd, 2008, 12:42 pm View of GUT-CP: Supporter Top http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db3 9bc9149330start=50#wrap _ Re: http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db3 9bc9149330start=50#p6880 Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?p=6880sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db39bc 9149330#p6880 Postby meulenberg http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=118sid=0ab0baf3 ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 on March 12th, 2010, 10:26 pm JohnEB wrote:Andrew: To add to the confusion, we have the work of R. M. Santilli. He seems to like an asymmetric time. See: http://www.magnegas.com/index.html http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant http://www.santilli-foundation.org/santilli-scientific-discoveries.html ... eries.html JohnEB, Thank you for the timely reference. I had encountered Santilli's website before in a different context, been interested, but ran out of time to look into it. Would you interpret http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf to be an independent production (and therefore verification) of deep-level hydrinos? Santilli's use of the word neutroid (instead of hydrino) and lack of reference to Mill' (or to Naudts') work seems to indicate complete independence from BLP or LENR work. The fact that this is a verification of a prior researcher's results (Borghi, 1969) would also indicate that this is not a random event - or a con job. Santilli's explanation (from Borghi's hypothesis?) is remarkably similar to my suggestion for a possible decay channel (leading to transmutation) in the cold fusion process for H-H or D-D interactions in the solid state. It looks as if things might be coming together! AndrewM meulenberg http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=118sid=0ab0baf3 ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 Posts: 92 Joined: December 18th, 2008, 8:20 am View of GUT-CP: Fence-Sitter Top http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db3 9bc9149330start=50#wrap _ Re: http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db3 9bc9149330start=50#p6881 Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?p=6881sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db39bc 9149330#p6881 Postby JohnEB http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=148sid=0ab0baf3 ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 on March 13th, 2010, 7:26 am Andrew said: Would you interpret http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf to be an independent production (and therefore verification) of deep-level hydrinos? Santilli's use of the word neutroid (instead of hydrino) and lack of reference to Mill' (or to Naudts') work seems to indicate complete independence from BLP or LENR work. The fact that this is a verification of a prior researcher's results (Borghi, 1969) would also indicate that this is not a random event - or a con job. I agree Andrew. One thing is certain - we have been immersed in the scientifically pathetic for a long time. JohnEB http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=148sid=0ab0baf3 ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 Posts: 1682 Joined: December 22nd, 2008, 12:42 pm View of GUT-CP: Supporter Top http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db3 9bc9149330start=50#wrap _ Re: http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db3 9bc9149330start=50#p6882 Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?p=6882sid=0ab0baf3ad879d779b8db39bc 9149330#p6882 Postby underante http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=3154sid=0ab0baf 3ad879d779b8db39bc9149330 on March 13th, 2010, 9:12 am meulenberg wrote: . . . Santilli's use of the word neutroid (instead of hydrino) and lack of reference to Mill' (or to Naudts') work seems to indicate complete independence from BLP or LENR work . . . AndrewM as it so happens, in a previous version of this paper (august 2006) still available for download from the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229v1 , reference is in fact made to dr mills endeavours in this area. despite this omission however, a change of title, and no mention of arcogen in favour of
Re: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:12:16 [snip]I thought it was a well recognized fact that monatomic Hydrogen only combines to molecular Hydrogen in three body collisions? (I.e. not through emission of a photon). That's why the Langmuir atomic Hydrogen torch works. If recombination by emission of a photon were possible, then the atomic Hydrogen formed in the arc would recombine long before it reached the work piece, and the whole concept would be useless (i.e. one might just as well use an arc welder). [/snip] Robin you may be right but I didn't run into this in my first and only 2 years of engineering physics - I have a big gap where missing 3rd and 4th year topics I try to pick up on as I need them but this may be a case where I didn't even know I was lacking. I was under the impression from chemistry that h1 will almost instantly reform to h2 if not heated into disassociation -this 3 body collision stuff is news to me and not having too much luck with google search on molecular hydrogen 3 body collisions - I keep getting stuff on stellar hydrogen. Are you saying I should show a 3rd body in the animation to justify the recombination? Regards Fran
[Vo]:WAVE(s) \'not\' Particles/Check\'VORTEX\' talks--
Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan said on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:34:23 -0800 [snip] * * * POINT: THE FASTER MASS TRAVELS(Einstein/correct),the more ENERGY-Mass it gathers(because Protons/Atoms are 'Micro-Singularities' making the entire-mass flow a running composite singularity/worm hole/WHICH is the VERY 'TIME-STREAM), this INCREASE OF MASS/ENERGY equals 'Increased Speed-Density' which also 'DIALATES' protons/atoms 'singularity-centres' which are micro-wormhole/powered by AexoBlackSpace ingress ELECTRO-GRAVIONIC PLASMA; and this ALSO INCREASES SPEED/DENSITY aka ELECTRO-PLASMIC GRAVION POTENTIAL aka GRAVITY. [/snip] Jack, I know the (Einstein/correct) model is preferred over a neo Lorentzian model but when you speak of gathering more energy mass The faster mass travels relative to protons/atoms wouldn't it be easier to conceptualize this from a Lorentz model with a moving ether. The Model then reduces to simple Pythagorean relationships. I don't know if protons/atoms represent 'Micro-Singularities' making the entire-mass flow a running composite singularity/worm hole/WHICH is the VERY 'TIME-STREAM), but I do agree with modeling the time stream from the nuclear scale, I think the textbook depictions of space time where space represents only a thin fish net is far more accurate than the authors intended which is why I prefer considering time and gravity from the perspective of a single atom. My position is that 3 dimensional space is an illusion of the macro scale and that the time axis intercepts an almost flat spatial axis. Your post seems to propose a Tesla like position where the singularities eat or sink the time stream, I prefer instead a Puthoff-like model where vacuum fluctuations manifest themselves in our almost flat spatial dimension (The Present) restoring energy to decaying orbitals and establishing the stable orbits for every element in the periodic chart as these fluctuations pass from the future to the past. This temporal axis ether would explain the results of MM, agrees with the concept of equivalence (relative motion between space axis and moving vacuum fluctuations on the time axis)and even relativity if you consider the vacuum flux can change speed but adjust the width of the present such that we are unaware of changes in C except relatively measured against a different inertial frame - I like Ron Millets' analogy of stirred coffee where the orbiting froth gets smaller as you stir faster but the trunk of the vortex going down into the coffee gets deeper such that the volume of the entire vortex/orbit remains constant. I think our illusion of 3D space stems from the accumulation of time acroos this almost flat spatial axis we call the Present. Best Regards Fran [ VORTEX: Again with the 'caps;' definitely incorrigable. . . . I've refuted the 'notion-theory' that there 'Tachyons'(hyper-faster-than LIGHTSPEED particles) also 'Gravi(tons) aka 'Particles responsible for GRAVITY. . . these exist but 'not' as particles but rather an ubiqitous (extension of AexoBlackSpace) CARRER-WAVE which is by-nature ALTERNATING CURRENT. This would indicate that upon this AexoBlackSpace SUPER CARRIER-WAVE(Carrier Wave that 'carrys' ALL other waves in the UNIFED FIELD of the Aexoverse/Universe/OMNIVERSE) that POTENTIALLY transit is AUTOMATIC back and forth in the TIME-STREAM/FLOW. Also the BIG-IDEA is that the GRAVION-TACHYON Carrier-WAVE-two-way-AC-STREAM/FLOW dictates the steady directional acceleration of the Galaxies.(I predicted this FIRST on the PLANET before 'HUBBLE' came on line) when 'HUBBLE CONFIRMED' then I became a CONSULTANT for NASA's 'ADVANCED PROPULSION RESEARCH PROJECT.' This is 'not' B.S. The bottom line is that the FLOW OUTWARD is indeed a TRANS-TEMPORAL AC-EINSTEIN-ROSEN PATHWAY and GRAVITATIONAL CONCENTRATED SPEED-DENSITY is the PRIME-DEVICE-of it's existence as such. * * * POINT: THE FASTER MASS TRAVELS(Einstein/correct),the more ENERGY-Mass it gathers(because Protons/Atoms are 'Micro-Singularities' making the entire-mass flow a running composite singularity/worm hole/WHICH is the VERY 'TIME-STREAM), this INCREASE OF MASS/ENERGY equals 'Increased Speed-Density' which also 'DIALATES' protons/atoms 'singularity-centres' which are micro-wormhole/powered by AexoBlackSpace ingress ELECTRO-GRAVIONIC PLASMA; and this ALSO INCREASES SPEED/DENSITY aka ELECTRO-PLASMIC GRAVION POTENTIAL aka GRAVITY. The TIME-MOBIUS deal is that Mass-Glaxies at a given point of their respective outward jouney toward 'surrounding/Universe-border' AexoBlackSpace that Mass's INCREASED SPEED-DENSITY exceeds the SPEED-DENSITY of the 'TEMPORAL-PAST's POSITIONAL LOCATION' on the 'outward' journey. In short the 'Future's more massive gravity-quotient causes the FUTURE to exert increasingly MORE DETERMININATE(on events) influence that the PAST heretofore exerted on the future. CUTTING TO THE CHASE: From here forward the FUTURE
[Vo]:relativistic Casimir effect
http://www.byzipp.com/animaTime.htm sim to follow later (actionscript is killing me)
RE: [Vo]:\Pycnodeuterium\ response from Muhlenberg HSG FORUM
Re: http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=235sid=dd8499e03bf9df3620a17b ea94a9e34cstart=50#p6745 Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?p=6745sid=dd8499e03bf9df3620a17bea9 4a9e34c#p6745 Postby meulenberg http://forum.hydrino.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=118sid=dd8499e0 3bf9df3620a17bea94a9e34c on February 17th, 2010, 3:18 pm froarty wrote:Andrew, I hope you don't mind I posted your reply on Vortex where this topic was initiated by Jones Beene. I don't mind at all. I got this reply - Jones Beene said on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:37:59 -0800 Enquiring minds want to know: 1) How does a Lochon differ from a Cooper pair ? 2) Is the formation of Lochons enhanced at cryogenic temperatures ? 3) Is the Lochon deflated ? 1) A cooper pair is paired in momentum space. A lochon is paired in 3-space (and/or perhaps in angular-momentum space). 2) Most lochons are simply paired s-electrons in normal orbitals. However, some are induced by local fields or high Fermi levels. The last are temperature dependent. The density of lochons of interest to LENR may be reduced at cryogenic temperatures. 3) A deflated lochon may be what we seek in LENR. However, an electron pair at sub-nuclear distances (deflation) is only for a small portion of the generally much-larger orbit. Although, for brief periods (a few cycles?) the orbits may shrink to that level. The mechanism of orbit shrinking is critical to the success of fusion processes. Getting to the naught orbit is simplified by the conversion of potential energy into relativistic mass rather than radiating it away. Being in a naught orbit doesn't guarantee deflation. At these dimensions, l=0 allows circular orbits that don't get within a 100 fm of the nucleus. - Now for my reply... Andrew, [snip] RE the Naudts orbit: The main argument against it is that it does not apply to fermions. However, I do not believe that anyone else has mentioned the fact that the 1s electron pair is a boson [/snip] I was unaware 1s pairs are considered bosons but it does make an interesting point. I think the equations by Naudts and Bourgoin are only valid in a catalytic environment. I am convinced that all catalytic action is based on a change in Casimir force and that Casimir force needs to be interperted relativisticlly. My point is the equations are only valid when quantifying the reactions from outside the cavity allowing the electrons to occupy the same spatial positions from the our perspective outside the cavity. Naudts equations describe a single solution many magnitudes beyond the fractional values solved for by Bourgoin. It is the fractional values that provide an intermediate energy source oscillating between atomic and diatomic states powered by sudden change in Casimir force. This may assist the more energetic case your paper describes and attainment of fusion artifacts reported by some researchers. Getting thru the low and intermediate range is a necessary step to reach the naught orbit. That is why I am interested in your model. Even in the catalytic environment, I believed that it takes a 3 or 4 body situation to be successful. You may have provided another path. However, I think that it takes examination of the Casimir effect at the atomic level to get it right. If fractional orbits help along the way, so much the better. However, unless the energy is extracted from the environment, they are only temporary. With l=0, normal means of such extraction (via photons or phonons) are not probable. I have posited that just the increased time flow would concentrate the background incidence of these occurrences; but you seem to be making an additional case for spatial confinement where the orbital proximity is even closer than just the relativistic effect. In my theory the orbital never really changes in the local frame of the atom, but you appear to be leapfrogging me by a whole new scale taking Casimir force down into the nuclei.. between neutrons? between the nuclei and the orbital where the orbital cloud represents one of the plates? I believe that the orbit actually shrinks (how else to obtain the energy from the Coulomb field). On the other hand, as the orbit shrinks to the naught level, the lochon (electron pair) becomes relativistic. Your model may be the best way to describe that situation. [The idea of the nuclear force being Casimir came from a back-of-the-envelope calculation that I performed 1.5 years ago that gave the correct orders of magnitude. Therefore, it is easy for me to accept your atomic Casimir effect. We need to look beyond the concept of plates. Electrons are the primary reflectors at the atomic level; protons and electrons transiting the nucleus at the nuclear level. Even neutrons have electric quadrupole moments evanescent waves, which can provide the Casimir force.] I have always felt the nuclei and orbital are both permeated by something traveling on
[Vo]:Processed Raney is safer Event Horizon Terminology
. I am pretty sure that the Sodium-Hydroxide processed Raney Nickel- the stuff . that is good to go, is pretty safe, especially since it is packed in a liquid . that limits oxidation and must actually be dried out to use. . Actually, they treat a very fine powder. Of course for LPD, I do need a solid . block. Scott, I am pretty sure that in solid form the sodium hydroxide is what makes it pyrophoric by Leaching Al pores into the surface areas and leaving Nickel plated cavities it becomes immediately dangerous- The powder is a little more complicated because fine metal powders form Casimir geometry between particles due to dissimilar packing geometries even without activation. Rayney Nickel powder combines both methods and must be stored as a slurry after activation. I could see them shipping the solid alloy and letting us leach it out ourselves or possibly larger powders that are not pyrophoric but anything else would have to be restricted due to safety concerns. . I use the term Event Horizon to simply define a dividing line between process-time . inside the cavity versus outside of it. Apparently someone else besides you and . I are talking about this stuff since in my original exposure to this idea--that . individual used the term Event-Horizon, comparing the altered Space time inside . the cavity to the gravitationally accelerated Space time inside a . Black hole---except in this we are on the opposite side of the border since our . events appear to happen slower to the folks living inside the cavity. Scott, I used event horizon to describe the maximum of equivalent acceleration, any large mass will actually produce Equivalent acceleration but time dilation accumulates so slowly you need an event horizon or dead star to make comparisons on the same scale with dilation due to luminal velocities. In both cases we are talking relative rates of change between space and time but in one case time is constant relative to change in spatial position while in the other time rate changes relative to a stationary spatial position. I have read that equations not involving C should not be called relativistic such as the Casimir formula but the dynamic Casimir force does involve C so I think my terminology is on solid ground since it is change in Casimir force that develops catalytic action. This said the event horizon was used to demonstrate equivalent acceleration and the point was that at the mesoscopic scale the Casimir plates are to a hydrogen atoms what an event horizon is to a spaceship -in fact it would also slow down hydrogen caught in the pressure zone or outside the plate material (think billowed sail) just like the astronaut -it is only in the tiny segregated area we call the cavity that it accelerates time. . I am quite taken with your interpretation that the oscillation along the time-line might . mean it is traveling forwards then backwards in time. Maybe . . . but here is . the problem: The relativistic astronaut has been traveling more slowly along . his time line---less time has elapsed for him, nonetheless, when he emerges from . his Spaceship Back on Earth he emerges into his brother's point in history. I am not certain if matter can actually leave the present or just does a 4D transformation where one spatial dimension trades places with time such that a different inertial frame simply means the present is wider or thinner than our frame. This gets into a weakness I have always had regarding velocity and acceleration where some people insist you need acceleration to produce time dilation while my take is that you only need a luminal difference in velocity to accumulate dilation. -maybe someone will chip in and explain it to me- . Likewise, when the catalyzed reactants emerge from the cavity, they are not . emerging from our future---if they are then you and I have got to send . ourselves the lottery numbers from fifteen minutes in the future---how about . it??? (I actually tried a similar thing with the Electron Einstein-Bose . Condensate inside a superconductor disk, positing that the condensate locked in . the electron zombie state over time as well as over physical distance---no . results yet!!!) See articles about Professor Ron Mallet http://www.physorg.com/news63371210.html who intends just that using powerful circulating laser beams. He hopes to receive messages from the future when they turn on their prototype. I have written him without reply and have considered exactly the scenario you describe but even looping a transmission while inside the other inertial frame or between frames still undergoes a translation every transmission between frames. Though experiment: Say you had a macro scale Casimir cavity sitting in front of you on a table. The
[Vo]:A Nano-Cavity \Rocket\ Z-PEC Zero-Point Energy Converter
Wm, I think it is a little more complicated than that although you are on the right track. In my opinion The trick is vacuum flux are moving on the time axis so from their perspective your box has 6 sides -they manifest while traveling from the future side to the past side while the other 4 sides located in 3D space appear flattened out to a width = to what we perceive as the present. Casmir plates can force these fluctuations to shrink, squeezing through the lattices to achieve equivalent acceleration from our perspective just like a large gravitational mass but on a mesoscopic scale. It is the tiny cavity between the plates that produces something the macro scale cannot, equivalent deceleration, The squeezed fluctuations accumulate a pressure behind the plates that is suddenly released by the cavity forming a fast moving vortex/venture. Instead of slowing time by opposing fluctuation flow, the cavity accelerates time flow. You can ignore the temporal and conservation of energy aspects if you put it in terms of catalytic action which really just disguises these terms but avoids a lot of controversy. This puts your present description on the right track, you have a time machine in the form of a rigid catalyst, you have the uncertainty principle driving gas law to keep atoms in motion, you have natures preference for a diatomic state and apparently you also have natures resistance to molecular motion in a catalytic environment but we know disassociated hydrogen can make a non radiative translation to fractional state. This suggests that a fractional molecule formed From these translated atoms also opposes catalytic action (change in Casimir force) so that the atomic motion of gas law provides relative motion with the stationary plates producing changes in Casmir force which break the bond - It is during this period while vacuum fluctuations are accumulating boundary conditions in opposition to the covalent bond that the potential for reactionless drive exist. The Plasma is produced at the moment of molecular formation locking the atomic fractional states proportional to local plate geometry, the molecule then moves based on gas law with the fractional states trying to change but opposed by the covalent bond, If this post plasma but pre bond break gas can be driven preferentially on one axis it may provide the elusive ether oar. If I had the ability to create black light plasma I would put the device in a nonferrous balance scale and change the opposing weights while the unit was on and compare to changing the weights while the unit is off - My theory is that the settle time would be much slower with the plasma on then off because of these increased boundary conditions. Regards Fran
[Vo]:Testing Relativistic Cavities Completed e-mail
WM, The repulsive Casimir effect is a misnomer, If you read the articles carefully you will discover there is a medium used to cause this effect. The nanomaterial is still attracted but less so than the medium which gets between the sphere and the plate - quite literally floating it above the surface on a more attractive medium. I don't recall the chemical used but the effect should really be called less attractive not repulsive. Judging from your use of terms like photon birth rate on one side of the plate vs the other and other places where you have referred to vacuum fluctuations I take it you embrace both camps of Casimir theory. After much investigation I also concluded they are equivalent and even found references to other researchers that concluded that regardless of which is correct both models provide same results whether vacuum flux exist or not. You also noted the 20 nm scale of Rayney Nickel pores - So far I haven't found any one other than myself proposing that all catalytic action is based on Casmir geometry stemming from this discovery so I don't know if I actually found something or am simply stating the obvious. For a couple months I thought I was the only one that noted this relationship until I found the Haisch- Moddel patent based on Casmir cavities was filed 6 months previous to my claim! They didn't make the connection to a Catalyst but then they wouldn't want to make the point of any similarity to Mills yet they make use of same environment by creating synthetic cavities. The interesting thing that has occurred since I first made this proposal is that Peng Chen at Cornell university discovered that catalytic action in nanotubes only occurs at the opening and defects in nanotubes using an atomic force microscope, This strongly suggests that it is the change in Casmir force we perceive as catalytic action. Unlike a steady magnetic field the Casmir field becomes a white water ride for hydrogen as the spacing of the plates change producing catalytic action. Even field variations experienced by atoms due to relative motion with the plates would be a wash from the perspective of CoE if it not for the Asymmetrical way covalent bonds oppose changes in the field vs the way atoms simply reshape. Regards Fran
[Vo]:More-energetic Blue-shifted safer processed Raney
Scott, The EM drive link is http://www.universetoday.com/2008/10/09/is-the-impossible-emdrive-possible/ [snip] Actually, the untreated powdered alloy is pyrophoric, but once it has been treated with sodium hydroxide, I believe it is much safer. It can be bought in this form.[/snip] From wiki: Raney nickel is produced when a block of nickel-aluminium alloy is treated with concentrated sodium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide hydroxide. This treatment, called activation, dissolves most of the aluminium out of the alloy. The porous structure left behind has a large surface area, which gives high catalytic activity. The ratio of nickel to aluminium is around 1 for the original material used by Raney, and may vary from about 1 to 4. Please forward any links Regarding the sale of unactivated Rayney Nickel . I did look into this previously intending to use Drano to activate but maybe I got bad information. I don't follow your logic in this [snip] These so-called Virtual Photons do not last long enough to hit a wall and leave the cavity. The only photons coming out of the cavity formed just inside the event horizon. [/snip] Where did the event horizon come from? Do your virtual photons remain spatial or can I apply my relativisticl interpertation? I am presently reviewing similar dialogue with Thomas Prevenslik under Sci Blog replies http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-hydrino-patent-based-catalyst-denie d-while-later-patent-relativistic-hydrogen-based-casimir-cavity-granted.html or see snips below Regards Fran From Blog : Fran and I do not agree on the Casimir effect. Specifically, I do not believe the zero point field (ZPF) exists as Casimir claimed in 1949. We know the zero point energy (ZPE) for atoms and molecules exists. But there is absolutely no evidence for the ZPF. Today, astronomers infer the existence of the ZPF (or dark energy) based on an expanding Universe. But this is fallacious because the redshift that Hubble measured was most like due to absorption of the galaxy photon in submicron cosmic dust and not due to the Doppler effect. See www.nanoqed.org at 2009 under Cosmology and Cosmic Dust, paper Dark Enegy and Cosmic Dust So that brings us to what is being measured in the Casimir experiments today. Fran says I have argued that thermodynamics in combination with electrostatic charging is the source of the Casimir effect. That was my first attempt to explain the Casimir effect without the ZPF. Since then, I have made the argument that the Casimir effect is caused by the thermal blackbody radiation emitted in the FIR by atoms in the surface of Casimir's plates. Electrostatic charging is not invoked. By this theory, wavelengths L 2G are excluded from the gap G as Casimir asumed. But unlike Casimnr and his followers, I do not throw away the excluded EM energy from the gap. Instead, I conserve the excluded EM energy by creating UV and higher energy photons having wavelength L = 2G in the gap. In effect, the gap acts as a FIR frequency up-conversion device as required by the conservation of energy. Unfortunately, Casimir did not conserve EM energy and this has been going on by his followers for over a half century. The EM energy U in the gap depends on the kT energy of the surface atoms and is constant as the gap G changes. For N surface and subsurface atoms, U ~ NkT, and therefore there is no Casimir force F in the conventional sense, i.e., F = dU/dG = 0. However the EM energy density U/G^3 is not constant. It is the gradient of EM energy density at the surfaces in combination with the polarizability of the surface atoms that produces equal and opposite force on the gap surfaces. See Ibid, Casimir Effect, paper Casimir Update. Unlike Casimir followers, I only believe in what is known to exist - blackbody thermal radiation. I leave the ZPF to the philosophers. Thomas Prevenslik My Reply either model works Thomas, nice to hear from you, I have no problem with your interpretation, the end result is the same as long as long as the virtual photons are inexhaustable. You mention I do not throw away the excluded EM energy from the gap. Instead, I conserve the excluded EM energy by creating UV and higher energy photons having wavelength L = 2G in the gap. In effect, the gap acts as a FIR frequency up-conversion device as required by the conservation of energy. which lends support to work by Beck and Mackey that virtual particles below 2thz are more gravitationally active or slows time flow, ie upconverting to a higher frequency would be less gravitationally active or accelerates time flow. I simply think you focused on a small band of frequencies while it was actually the entire environment that was up converted because time is accelerated, your conclusion is, The EM energy U in the gap depends on the kT energy of the surface atoms and is constant as the gap G changes. For N surface and
[Vo]:new Science blog
hydrino http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-hydrino-patent-based-catalyst-deni ed-while-later-patent-relativistic-hydrogen-based-casimir-cavity-granted.htm l patent based on catalyst denied while later patent for relativistic hydrogen based on Casimir cavity granted
[Vo]:new Science blog fixed link
hydrino patent based on catalyst denied while later patent for relativistic hydrogen based on Casimir cavity granted http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-hydrino-patent-based-catalyst-denie d-while-later-patent-relativistic-hydrogen-based-casimir-cavity-granted.html
[Vo]:f/h on a white water ride down the Casimir stream
After recent correspondence I realized a much simpler analogy without invoking time dilation or anything more exotic than f/h. Strong Catalytic action alone could Tear apart a f/h molecule if the confinement geometry is selected to impede the high mobility of f/h molecules while f/h atoms are much less impeded and continue to accelerate. An abrupt change in Casimir force is known to create a catalyst (see Peng Chen @ http://www.physorg.com/news159199255.html Cornell), If the abrupt change is sufficiently large it can tear apart the molecule which can not react as fast the atoms it is holding together, like 2 water tubers in a turbulent mountain stream. As soon as the white water subsides the tubing partners can rejoin, In the case of f/h the 2 atoms have nature pushing them back together and giving off a photon until the next patch of white water (abrupt catalytic action) tears them apart again. There is no violation of CoE because you have 2 different forces in play, the desire for lowest energy state is constant but can be briefly overcome at abrupt changes in geometry/casimir force. The Casimir field is therefore not a steady state at the mesoscopic scale and we can use it to create a pulsating current of gas atoms / molecules in catalytic action. The covalent bond becomes a simple rectifier that releases heat energy in the form of a photon each time these forces cycle. Fran
Re: [Vo]:new Infinite Energy combustion engine using inert gases
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:15:43 -0800 Mike Carrell said If you want an understanding of the Papp engine, **study** the work of Randell Mills and the evolution of Balcklight Power. The idea of anengine running off nolble gases seems absurd, but argon, helium and water vapor can for a catalutic system which releases *very significant * amounts of energy. Papp performed a secret process to prepare his gases for the engine. We lack details, but the findings of Mills point to phenomena that perhaps Papp used. Mike, I didn't know about the water vapor but it suggests a sonoluminesence type environment, You mentioned It being catalytic which to my admittedly biased opinion means Casmir geometry just like Mills Rayney Nickel. If the gas can form a medium/meniscus that traps the water vapor and then compresses the meniscus into Casmir geometry you do have all the ingredients. My speculation is that Catalytic action only occurs when the geometry/Casmir force changes [Chen Peng at Cornell University recently reported that nanotubes only exhibit catalytic action at the openings and defects using an AFM to record his data.] In most cases the reactants have mobility or the catalyst is pliable enough to only accelerate the reactants -BUT in the case of a RIGID catalyst of the appropriate small size such as a skeletal catalyst the dihydrinos are cleaved apart and get to recombine and give off another photon until they reach the next defect or change in geometry. Using pressure to keep a meniscus squeezed just might equate to a rigid cavity. The speculation would mean most of the heat is generated without byproduct because the hydrino -dihydrino reaction just loops between falling to the diatomic state and being broken apart by change in Casimir force -The nuclear and chemical byproducts only occur in the destructive phase for Mills when the reaction runs away and hydrinos react with the alloy walls to produce hydrides or deuterides for Arata. Maybe the gas or liquid methods may help sustain the reaction long enough for us to learn more about it since the cavities are throw away instead of melting down like I think is the case with Mills.-it would only take some cat whiskers to break the parallel geometry and kill the field. Specutively Fran
