Re: [Vo]:E-Cat LENR devices will be manufactured in Italy too, according to Rossi
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:17:10PM +0200, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > Hello group, > > A new tidbit in the following Italian interview to Andrea Rossi might > interest European E-Cat followers, and more in particular Italians: > > http://www.fantascienza.com/magazine/notizie/16367/e-cat-story-intervista-con-andrea-rossi/ > > * * * > > Interviewer: [...] Will the European [E-Cat] factory be in Sweden? > > Rossi: Most likely, we will work both in Sweden and Italy. > Interviewer: Wonderful news, I must say unexpected! > > Rossi: I have an Italian DNA, in my family I'm the third generation of > Italian entrepreneurs, I decided that I can't not work in Italy. > > Interviewer: Will the factory be in Bologna? > Rossi: (pauses, smiles) No comment. I think listening to Rossi actually decreases the amount of useful knowledge you have access to :) -X
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion--Fraud...James Randi and Robert Park...hmmmmm
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:01:17AM -0700, Jones Beene wrote: > Let me answer a criticism to Ron's post. It is not homophobic. It is about > "living a lie." http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/914-how-to-say-it.html Not telling others you are gay isn't living a lie, it's just nobody's damn business but your own. -X > > The "point" is that blind skepticism, even if it manages to expose nasty > con-men (or poor magicians) 99% of the time, can be harmful to society in > net results - if the 1% of time is so completely in error - that it severs > the purpose of greed barons (to wit: OPEC) and jealous competitors in the > ranks of science. In fact skepticism, or eve exorbitant levels of criticism, > can be devastating to society when it is wrong and yet well-intentioned yet > manages to stifle game-changing technology - as almost happened from the > shoddy efforts of Randi/Park and their ilk. > > > > Neither were qualified to jump onto LENR as "pathological science" - when > the only thing pathological could possibly be in the lie they are living in > their personal lives. Please do not take this the wrong way - Randi's > homosexuality is not the issue. Nor is Park's aversion to doing real > science. Make no mistake - these are both "entertainers" not scientists - > and neither particularly bright. The MacArthur thing is disgusting. > > > > The issue is basic honesty - and pretending to be an expert, or > knowledgeable in something which you are not, as both have done over the > years . and regrettably to the cheers of some, when they were able to expose > a Dennis Lee type of con-man. Cheers. But this kind of minor success lets > the "entertainer" think he has real insight and he becomes emboldened and > lazy, so that it becomes a reflex reactions - and essentially becomes blind > - no longer merely an entertainment shtick. > > > > The results can set progress back decades- and this has almost happened > since 1989 in LENR. > > > > The most ironic thing is that a person who could be a con-man himself, > Andrea Rossi, has managed to revive a dying field. I think that the field is > past the tipping point now, and yes - we will outlive the Rossi affair in > short term. > > > > > > From: Ron Kita > > > > Greetings Vortex-L: > > > > It was "nice" to see that the McArthur Foundation had so much money that > they > > could bestow James Randi a Fellowship. Nothing worse than wasting money on > good scientific research !!! > > > > Randi a good magician ...kept his gay-ness hidden until recently- 2010..is > this "Great Magic"...hmm? > > I wonder about Robert Park..hmmm..? Could Randi..make > Park...disappear??? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi > > > > Ron Kita, Chiralex > > >
Re: [Vo]:Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space, Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, Physics Essays 2012.04.03: Rich M
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:30:48AM +0300, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > Actually, Fiscaletti and Sorli did not invent anything new, but they just > reinvented Lorentz's theory of relativity from the early 1900's. It is > exactly the same theory that I was here using to explain the supposed > neutrino speed anomaly. (that was mostly ignored or misunderstood, because > people in general does not have cognitive tools to understand Lorentz's > theory of relativity) > > That is that length contractions are not necessary, but everything that has > been observed, can be explained if just time dilatation is assumed. Length contraction and time dilatation are equivalent, are they not? -X > As it follows from this that time dilatation is absolute in nature (it > depends only on the speed relative to Ether i.e. the local dominant gravity > field), the speed of light seems to get faster and faster from a perspective > of observer. Lorentz explained this that all three spatial lengths are > contracting in the universe, but this length contraction is of course only > subjective observation. As the observer's clock is slowing down, it looks > like lengths are contracting due to speed of light is gaining speed, because > inertialess photons are not bound to the moving inertial frame of reference. > And if lengths are defined as how far light travels in time interval, it > appears that lengths are measured to be shorter. > > —Jouni > > > On 17 Apr 2012, at 06:20, Rich Murray wrote: > > > Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space, > > Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life > > Institute in Slovenia, Physics Essays 2012.04.03: Rich Murray > > 2012.04.16 > > > > http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html > > > > April 14, 2012 by Lisa Zyga > > > > Light clocks A and B moving horizontally through space. > > According to length contraction, clock A should tick faster than clock B. > > In a new study, scientists argue that there is no length contraction, > > and both clocks should tick at the same rate in accordance with > > special relativity. > > Image credit: Sorli and Fiscaletti. > > > > (Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before > > Einstein and modern physics. > > But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics > > has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena > > represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. > > However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, > > founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time > > exists completely independent from space. > > In a new study, Sorli and Fiscaletti have shown that two phenomena of > > special relativity -- time dilation and length contraction -- can be > > better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the > > quantity used to measure change (i.e., photon motion) in this space. > > > > The scientists have published their article in a recent issue of Physics > > Essays. > > The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have > > investigated the definition of time as a “numerical order of material > > change.” > > > > The main concepts of special relativity -- that the speed of light is > > the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no > > absolute reference frame -- are traditionally formulated within the > > framework of Minkowski spacetime. > > In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively > > visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by > > an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way. > > In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of > > special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski > > spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the > > fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. > > They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those > > demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed > > airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation > > but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction. > > According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds > > due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both > > time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue > > that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity > > between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which > > the clocks are a part of. > > In this view, space and time are two separate entities. > > > > “With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in 3D space,” > > Sorli told Phys.org. > > “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth > > dimension of space. > > Instead, time as a numerical order of change ex
Re: [Vo]:Toyota demos 60 km/l hybrid prototype
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:37:24AM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Steven V Johnson wrote: > > > > > It's an attractive entry-level price. Correct me if I'm wrong but I > > gather none of the Toyota Prius models are true plug-ins. Correct? > > > > The plug-in version is sold in the U.S. with very limited availability this > year: > > http://www.toyota.com/prius-plug-in/?srchid=K21577_p417641580 > > I think it is more widely available in Japan. > > I think there will be a real problem with gas going stale. For urban use, I > would prefer a pure electric car. A 100-mile range would be fine for me, > and for many other people. IIRC it's fairly trivial to convert a gas hybrid to a plug-in, if you're in a pinch. -X
Re: [Vo]:Yet another flying car
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Robert Lynn wrote: > Flying cars can eliminate the need for cities, and many of the problems > that cities create: > -crime and other social problems arising from lack of community > -hugely expensive housing driven by high land prices > -wasted lives commuting > -environmental issues from high population densities > -expensive and bad environment for children, (cities are huge population > sinks where people cannot afford to have children, unlike rural areas) > -massive expense of transport infrastructure As hinted at by Jed and Eric, the problems you are describing are very US-centric, and I don't think flying cars are the way to address them. In Europe (for example) cities are designed to live in, rather than commute from/to I was born in the US, and you pretty much have to have a vehicle: the public transportation is poor or nonexistent, there are few bike lanes, and important places (home, work, market, pub) are so geographically separated that you have no other options. Over here things are much better. Every place I want to go is accessible by foot. There are dedicated bike paths to and from every city, and if you don't have a bike there are trains and buses which run frequently around the clock. The social life certainly benefits from this. Perhaps better planning would assuage some of these problems, but I'm not so sure. It's possible this urban sprawl/car culture runs too deep. -X > Electric VTOL aircraft can be extremely efficient and cheap and not too > noisy if they are sized to carry one person (the majority of all needed > trips). Here is a nice example that is being developed at the moment: > http://www.jobyaviation.com/animation.php > 100miles in an hour point to point with <$3 in electricity and no roads > from an aircraft that would cost <$10k in mass production (with a concept > that really can work). This form of transportation would be far cheaper > than cars, buses or trains, and would have better range for lower cost than > electric cars. Automated aircraft control is a much easier problem to > solve than automated car driving owing to consistency of air and lack of > obstacles. > > There are many other similar concepts. High powered brushless motors and > batteries + GPS and cheap digital communications and computing have really > opened up tremendous opportunities in this area, I expect to see a > breakthrough product in next 10 years. > > > On 5 April 2012 03:32, Eric Walker wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > The solution to the traffic problem is to stop going places. Reduce > >> commuting distances with full screen video telecommuting from home and from > >> satellite offices. > >> > > > > Agreed. Make cities beautiful and livable and compact enough for people > > to get around by foot and use mass transit. This is the pattern of > > European cities. Many American cities had the misfortune of expanding when > > the automobile was becoming common and people were infatuated with the > > freedom of movement they allow. People don't appear to have appreciated > > how much strip malls, traffic, automobile pollution and urban sprawl would > > detract from their quality of life. > > > > It's possible to increase urban population density without getting rid of > > cars altogether. They can be kept in compact garages near the outskirts of > > a city. Flying cars would only add to the noise and clutter. > > > > Eric > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Dorito UFO Spotted Again
2012/3/30 Jouni Valkonen : > Quite nice video. This kind of video however is very easy to do as frame by > frame animation. It may require a lot of algorithmic work, but it is not > that difficult to do. There were more photorealistic antigravity nazi-ufos > in the Iron Sky movie! > > There was speculation that it was based on antigravity. Antigravity however > is not physically plausible, because 90% reduction in inertia would wreak a > havoc in cellular chemistry that cannot work properly without proper levels > of inertia. Therefore antigravity, i.e. making the aircraft lightweight, is > not practical way to travel. I don't think this is true. At the scale of molecular chemistry gravity has pretty much no effect. If you look at molchem simulations you'll see they never take gravity into consideration. I remember a whole sleuth of ISS experiments confirming that most living things do just fine in low/no gravity. It's just us big creatures that start to turn to mush... afaik that's only a problem if you try to return to earth ;) > Antigravity could be done in principle perhaps if craft can be shielded from > Earth's gravity, although it does not sound very plausible. But reducing the > craft's inertia is just not possible. I think that even electronics must be > separately adapted to smaller levels of inertia, and drastic reduction of > inertia could even destroy molecular and perhaps even nuclear bonds in > materials. Remember that gravity is the weakest of all the forces. If you're sending something into space where you'll be doing microgravity experiments, I think the only thing you need to do with regards to electronics is radiation harden them. As for other materials, I just don't think gravity has any effect. (I'm assuming we're not talking about neutron star or black hole gravity). Also I'd like to add, and anyone feel free to comment on this, since gravity is essentially the curvature of spacetime it should be conservative: e.g. no shielding. Unless you have another ider... -X > On 29 Mar 2012, at 21:21, Terry Blanton wrote: > > This is one of the best vids I have seen: > > http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981222033 > > T
Re: [Vo]:Highly ENRgized C-force ='d by E-force ='s IFO
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:08 AM, wrote: > In reply to Xavier Luminous's message of Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:56:53 +0200: > Hi, > [snip] >>On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM, wrote: >>> In reply to Xavier Luminous's message of Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:28:25 +0200: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] This Bohr model picture of the atom is incorrect. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom, so there's no centrifugal force component (though they are bound via quantum mechanical principles). -X >>> Prove that the Bohr model is not a special solution to the Schrödinger >>> equation. >> >>Here's an example for starters. An electron has a charge, and an >>accelerating charge will emit a photon. If an object travels in a >>circular path, it is accelerating. If the Bohr model was correct, the >>electrons would emit a burst of photons as they orbited, losing energy >>and quickly crashing into the nucleus. But of course this doesn't >>happen, which is one reason why the Bohr model is incorrect and you >>can't say that electrons orbit an atom. > > The reason this doesn't happen is not because the Bohr model is impossible. > The > reason is that a smaller orbit than the "ground state" would require a change > in > angular momentum of the electron that is less than the angular momentum of a > photon, hence a photon can't be formed to carry away the difference in angular > momentum that shrinkage below the ground state would require. Which in turn > neatly explains why photon emission stops upon achieving the ground state. The picture that electrons orbit an atom makes no sense whatsoever. Your description works for simple atoms, but fails to account for may effects. Here's a good list from Wikipedia of things the Bohr model has problems with: - Much of the spectra of larger atoms. At best, it can make predictions about the K-alpha and some L-alpha X-ray emission spectra for larger atoms, if two additional ad hoc assumptions are made (see Moseley's law above). Emission spectra for atoms with a single outer-shell electron (atoms in the lithium group) can also be approximately predicted. Also, if the empiric electron-nuclear screening factors for many atoms are known, many other spectral lines can be deduced from the information, in similar atoms of differing elements, via the Ritz-Rydberg combination principles (see Rydberg formula). All these techniques essentially make use of Bohr's Newtonian energy-potential picture of the atom. - The relative intensities of spectral lines; although in some simple cases, Bohr's formula or modifications of it, was able to provide reasonable estimates (for example, calculations by Kramers for the Stark effect). - The existence of fine structure and hyperfine structure in spectral lines, which are known to be due to a variety of relativistic and subtle effects, as well as complications from electron spin. - The Zeeman effect - changes in spectral lines due to external magnetic fields; these are also due to more complicated quantum principles interacting with electron spin and orbital magnetic fields. - The model also violates the uncertainty principle in that it considers electrons to have known orbits and definite radius, two things which can not be directly known at once. - Doublets and Triplets: Appear in the spectra of some atoms: Very close pairs of lines. Bohr’s model cannot say why some energy levels should be very close together. - Multi-electron Atoms: don’t have energy levels predicted by the model. It doesn’t work for (neutral) helium. (Off the top of my head this doesn't explain the exclusion principle either.) In short, quantum mechanics makes up for all the shortcomings of this description and we should really abandon thinking of atoms as electrons orbiting a nucleus. > In short this argument doesn't constitute the requested proof. Hopefully the above list is sufficient. If you'd like me to elaborate on any one of them, and their experimental confirmations I'd be glad to. If you're interested you should check out an intro to quantum book like Griffiths... it explains this stuff in really easy to understand language. >> >>The other easy thing is that the Bohr model doesn't predict the >>electron cloud density: p- and s-orbitals, etc. > > Note that I didn't say that the Bohr model was "the" solution. I only > requested > that you show that it couldn't be a *particular* solution. IOW I'm asking that > you show that it can *never* happen. You're correct that the Bohr model can be a particular solution to explain some atomic features. My problem with it is that it makes you think of electrons as classical particles instead of quantum mechanical objects. This thinking, IMHO, should be eliminated. > BTW exactly how is electron cloud density measured? (IOW how do you know that > QM > predictions thereof are correct?) You take pictures! Here are two, hopefully they're not paywalled. http://www.chymist.com/Imaging%20atomic%20orbitals.pdf http://arxi
Re: [Vo]:RE: HENR?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > In reply to lorenhe...@aol.com's message of Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:38:41 -0400 > (EDT): > Hi, > > Nuclear reactors are already way past self sustaining. In fact they produce > huge > amounts of excess power that is sold and consumed as electrical power. > However I suspect you are trying to lead this discussion into UFOs. ;) > The radioactivity is not a consequence of inefficiency. It's a natural > consequence of the fissioning of heavy nuclei with neutrons. > This is because heavy nuclei are "neutron rich" relative to light nuclei, so > when a heavy nucleus is fissioned, creating two or more light nuclei, there > are > always a few neutrons "left over". > Some of these escape as free neutrons (and continue the chain reaction), > others > remain attached to the daughter nuclei (i.e. the fission fragments), which are > then radioactive (because they basically have too many neutrons). > Interesting side note: If you could initiate the fission reaction with protons > iso with a neutron, then you could conceivably end up with stable fission > fragments (i.e. not radioactive). > >>Right, that's somewhat how I thought they operated, and so my follow-up >>question is what if the energy being produced simply wasn't distributed >>'perse >>to various facilities or buildings, facilities, households, or >>what-have-you,,, but instead rather, for a more highly efficient purpose or >>function? >> >>IOW's, instead of simply expending energy, why not use it in a more highly >>efficient manner, so as to enable it to operate on a self-sustaining mode. > >>Now, the purpose of having a self-sustaining Plant (no energy expended) >>would first be to eliminate any radioactive-waste by-product. >> >>The other main idea or benefit to having a powerfully efficient >>self-sustaining system would of course depend on the development of some new >>revolutionary breakthrough engineering skills, that can enable an altogether >>new >>compatable form of propulsion (yet unknown to us) to be directly integrated >>within the Plant, so to operate at peak performance, on-demand. >> >><< That is exactly what a nuclear power plant does... (well, not yet...) In case you're not familiar, there's a huge project called ITER which is trying to achieve fusion, with better funding than the LHC. -X
Re: [Vo]:LINR... Light Inertia Nuclear Reaction?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:59 PM, wrote: > Considering that I've spent the better part of the last 30-yrs watching the > nightskies, and what I've seen with my very own two eyes, and, down here > above the good earth, I have been lead to an undeniable conclusion (beyond all > doubt) that our world and/or civilization is host to extremely advanced > civilizations that consist-of various shaped-craft, comprised of extremely > sophisticated technology, and/or a process second-to-none. > > > Now whatever you do, please don't think that I don't realize what I claim, > may seem rather presumptuous or even preposterous,,, however, what I have > observed on more occasions than I can count, simply cannot be construed, > misperceived, convoluted, distorted, denied, and/or disregarded. > On numerous > occasions, it was more than just obvious that a coordinated-light-effort was > conducted, plus, Hi-G maneuvers, & configurations of lights resembling small > star-clusters or constellations, which were moving along at some relative > orbital-speed up in-space on a perfectly clear star-lit night (no moon). I saw strange lights therefore aliens. -X
Re: [Vo]:working on elementary antigravity II
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:51 PM, wrote: > INTRODUCTION > > > I got my test book "Electronic Project" published. Now that I know I can do > it I am working on Elementary Antigravity II. > the intro is pasted below and I hope to have it done by July. Do you have a working theory for antigravity? If so, share. -X
Re: [Vo]:Highly ENRgized C-force ='d by E-force ='s IFO
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM, wrote: > In reply to Xavier Luminous's message of Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:28:25 +0200: > Hi, > [snip] >>This Bohr model picture of the atom is incorrect. Electrons do not >>orbit the nucleus of an atom, so there's no centrifugal force >>component (though they are bound via quantum mechanical principles). >> >>-X > Prove that the Bohr model is not a special solution to the Schrödinger > equation. Here's an example for starters. An electron has a charge, and an accelerating charge will emit a photon. If an object travels in a circular path, it is accelerating. If the Bohr model was correct, the electrons would emit a burst of photons as they orbited, losing energy and quickly crashing into the nucleus. But of course this doesn't happen, which is one reason why the Bohr model is incorrect and you can't say that electrons orbit an atom. The other easy thing is that the Bohr model doesn't predict the electron cloud density: p- and s-orbitals, etc. Again, electrons don't orbit an atom. There are a lot more problems with the Bohr model, and I wish they'd stop teaching it in school because it gives you a false intuition. -X
Re: [Vo]:Highly ENRgized C-force ='d by E-force ='s IFO
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM, wrote: > First tho, I need to know if there's anyone out there who knows how to > calculate the regulating of energy to a Housing of Electromagnetic sections, > of > which is configured to closely surround an SRC (spinning armature center), > which is engineered with an imbalance of 1-lb or so. > The approximate size > of this SRC would be that of a larger size wheel/tire, with a diameter of 36" > X 12" thick, spinning at a rate of 1,000 Rps's. This makes no sense. On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:45 AM, wrote: > In reply to lorenhe...@aol.com's message of Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:53:30 -0400 > (EDT): > Hi, > [snip] > > In an atom the centrifugal force experienced by an electron can be balanced > with > the centripetal force of electrostatic attraction, yet atoms show no > particular > desire to accelerate away as a consequence. In short I see no reason at all > why > your concept would work. This Bohr model picture of the atom is incorrect. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom, so there's no centrifugal force component (though they are bound via quantum mechanical principles). -X
Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > The temperature have not increased since 13 years, and they succeed in > pretending it is accelerating (I imagine they use convenient averaging). > Comment on Ice seems to ignore recent analysis that couple the melting > planned with non observed past melting (one imply the other so, since it did > not happened, it won't happen)... No matter what you believe about climate change, it is important for humans to be able to control the earth's climate. There have been an enormous amount of extinction events in the past for this reason. If we have the ability to avert such disaster, we should do so. And I think it can be done... after all, we were successful at fixing the hole in the ozone layer. Even if the science is completely fraudulent (which I don't think it is), the policies that would be proposed as a way to combat climate change are all good: reduce emissions, invest in renewable energy, improve efficiency, etc. Actually, all of these things make good economic sense as well. So I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here. > Anyway we don't care, LENR solve the problem. it will avoid a battle, and > both camp will say "I was right". This is dangerous thinking. I wouldn't put all my money on LENR, at least yet. When people talk to you of silver bullets you should always be cautious. -X > 2012/3/28 Jed Rothwell >> >> Not good. See: >> >> >> thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/24/451239/manmade-climate-change-accelerated-in-2001-2010-world-meteorological-organization-reports >> >> This came to my attention because someone linked a response to >> LENR-CANR.org. >> >> - Jed >> >
Re: [Vo]:nanoparticles in LENR
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:57 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Interesting information Xavier. The high Q nature of the resonances > suggests that the circulating plasmon currents may not be subject to > significant resistive losses. Is it possible that these currents are > flowing within a super conductive structure? I personally wouldn't call plasmonic resonances "high Q", but I guess it depends on who you ask... they're many orders of magnitude less than a whispering gallery or fabry perot resonances. As for superconductivity, there's none of that going on. A plasmon is a quantized oscillation of free charge on the surface of a metal. This works the same way as signals in any electronic circuit: the electrons themselves aren't moving (except for a very slow drift velocity), but they transfer EMF at (nearly) the speed of light. I should also say that plasmons are polaritions in that they are coupled with the photon that creates them. I'm not so familiar with spheres themselves, but I know that on, for example, a flat silver film the 1/e lifetime of a plasmon is something like 100um, at which point it will either decay back into a photon or be absorbed as heat (resistive losses). > I would expect large spheres > of these types of material to be subject to standard resistive losses that > would broaden any resonance that appears due to size and shape. Are you > aware of any transition effects that occur as the size of the particle is > reduced? Yes... argh but I can't remember. A couple of weeks ago I attended a lecture about gold nanoparticles and I remember something significant happening around 80nm, but I can't say more. Basically since the plasmon is confined to the 2D surface of the sphere there are certain eigenmodes which can be excited. But at this point I don't think you can think of their behavior in the context of standard resistive losses. If you look up pictures of metal nanoparticles in suspension you can see that their size gives you different colors. > An example would be the appearance of highly sharpened spectral > line resonances which shows up as the size of the nanoparticle is > significantly reduced. An effect like this would imply that the atoms > within the nano sized structure are acting in a manner somewhat as a high > temperature condensate. Plasmons are oscillations of *free* electrons, which aren't bound to the atom. So no condensate here. Actually, for a condensate you need neutral atoms like Rubidium or Cesium. > Can anyone compare the line resonances seen in the nanoparticles to the line > resonances associated with atomic responses? I am particularly curious > about the bandwidth of the resonances about their center frequencies. Just throwing out numbers here... your run of the mill HeNe has a linewidth in the GHz, and that's assocated with an atomic transition. That's pretty big, but you can buy single mode atomic CW sources that are in the neighborhood of kHz. This is much sharper than nanoparticles, which I think are all in the tens of THz > >> Also, it would be interesting to see if the individual nano scale plasmon >> resonances would magnetically couple and thus share energy. > > I've seen this with nanorod arrays, where plasmon resonance couple to > each other, but I'm pretty sure it's not magnetic coupling (plasmons > are TM waves). > >> In the same >> line of thought, would this form of coupling tend to smooth out what would >> otherwise be very precise energy levels? > > I think you still get very sharp linewidths, even with coupling. > >> Dave >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Peter Gluck >> To: VORTEX >> Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 6:34 am >> Subject: [Vo]:nanoparticles in LENR >> >> Quantum Plasmons Demonstrated in Atomic-Scale Nanoparticles >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321143017.htm >> >> This can be important for LENR >> >> Peter >> >> PS I cannot solve my "Chrome kills hyperlinks" problem- very bad >> for my blog, I can only by-pass it by using Internet Explorer >> Do you have some experience with it? >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >
Re: [Vo]:nanoparticles in LENR
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:36 PM, David Roberson wrote: > This is an interesting article Harry. Thanks for posting it. I wonder if > anyone has seen papers that show the resonances and quality factor > associated with the size of the material. Can a small activation at the > correct wavelength of electromagnetic radiation lead to a large plasmon > current flow? Yes. For a really good example of this, read up on pregnancy detectors. Basically you have gold nanoparticles whose plasmon resonance can be seen optically (they look red) when a certain hormone binds to their surface. > Also, it would be interesting to see if the individual nano scale plasmon > resonances would magnetically couple and thus share energy. I've seen this with nanorod arrays, where plasmon resonance couple to each other, but I'm pretty sure it's not magnetic coupling (plasmons are TM waves). > In the same > line of thought, would this form of coupling tend to smooth out what would > otherwise be very precise energy levels? I think you still get very sharp linewidths, even with coupling. > Dave > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Gluck > To: VORTEX > Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 6:34 am > Subject: [Vo]:nanoparticles in LENR > > Quantum Plasmons Demonstrated in Atomic-Scale Nanoparticles > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321143017.htm > > This can be important for LENR > > Peter > > PS I cannot solve my "Chrome kills hyperlinks" problem- very bad > for my blog, I can only by-pass it by using Internet Explorer > Do you have some experience with it? > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
Re: [Vo]:BRUSH UP ON BASICS
When I initially saw the video on youtube, it didn't strike me as being a hoax. I probably wasn't in a particularly skeptical frame of mind and besides, the flight was only some seconds. Upon finishing however, I noticed some "related videos", one of which included a NOVA special where some guys made a legit human powered flying machine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZjHcjyLprw Note that the actual implementation is incredibly exhausting, requires high tech lightweight materials, and everything is shaved down to the absolute bare minimum. No small feat, for sure! XL On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM, William Beaty wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Found this more suitable for spare time than videos or games: >> http://hydride.has.it/ > > > Nice, but arrg, powerpoint. No PDF vers. > > For real fun we can go argue about amateur breakthrough hoax videos. DWFTTW > is old, so now it's battery-assist human ornithopter (below.) > > Looks borderline-feasible at a few hundred watts drive power. But the video > is full of suspicious stuff. Why make such an elaborate detailed hoax? > Perhaps it's a viral publicity campaign? > > WIRED > http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/human-bird-wings/#disqus_thread > > REDDIT > http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/r5har/is_whats_shown_in_this_video_possible_calling_on/ > > MYTHBUSTERS (new forum) > http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-mechanics-of-assisted-human-flight/ > > Or maybe it's the Other Hutchison Effect: "I almost have it working, so > lets make a fake video, since the public is so easy to fool. > > > PS > > Elderly physicist > http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556#comic > > > > > (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) > William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website > billb at amasci com http://amasci.com > EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair > Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci >
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Randy Wuller wrote: > And that comment is actually very misleading. Dick Smith didn't even bother > to try an negotiate anything with Defkalion. He backed away almost > instantly when they in principal accepted his offer. The idea he could test > without an NDA of some sort is ridiculous. Certainly Defkalion would have a > right to protect some aspects of information disclosed to or discovered by > testers and they never ever suggested results of the tests would be governed > by an NDA. Dick Smith is not serious about this and has a preformed bias > about what is happening. Could you (or anyone) post the actual terms that were rejected? > Ransom > - Original Message - From: "Xavier Luminous" > > To: > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi > > > >> 2012/3/16 Jouni Valkonen : >>> >>> Hyperions, then there is no reasons to doubt their words. (Too bad that >>> Dick >>> Smith cancelled the opportunity to test hyperions rigorously, if he had >>> not, >>> then we already would know whether Hyperions are real or phoney.) >> >> >> That's a little misleading. If I remember correctly, Dick Smith >> cancelled because Defkalion didn't agree to full disclosure of the >> test results (or something like that) >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Size Matters
Crystal skulls? Are you talking about that Indiana Jones movie? On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM, wrote: > In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:46:03 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] >>We might still improve computer storage by huge amounts using >>3-dimensional storage. > > My theory is that the crystal skulls are such 3D holographic recordings. The > immense power that they are purported to represent results from the knowledge > contained therein. I suspect that they can be "read" using lasers shone either > into the base, or into the eyes. They are said to contain prisms, which would > make sense in this scenario. > Furthermore, the shape of a skull also makes sense because the human head is > where we store knowledge. It should remain a valid symbol for information > storage through the ages. Furthermore, our brains receive most information > through our eyes, which also contain lenses, so it would make sense for the > eyes > in the crystal skulls to be lenses used to focus the laser beams > appropriately. > > Slight differences between the two beams (phase, frequency?) might be used to > select which "memory" is retrieved. > > I suspect that each skull represents either a different field of study or, > perhaps more likely, the knowledge of an entire civilization. > > Information stored in this form would be extremely durable, as the actual > recording medium is well protected by the outer crystal layer. > > This was either meant to be an enduring legacy that could only be used when a > civilization reached a certain degree of technological advancement (use of > lasers), or they were part of a museum exhibit. ;) > > Of course primitive cultures would have no understanding of technology, hence > the importance of the skulls simply resulted in legends of their "great > power". > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Horror
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > I am sorry but Nancy Grace was completely unknown to me. Please, take me to your world!
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi
2012/3/16 Jouni Valkonen : > Hyperions, then there is no reasons to doubt their words. (Too bad that Dick > Smith cancelled the opportunity to test hyperions rigorously, if he had not, > then we already would know whether Hyperions are real or phoney.) That's a little misleading. If I remember correctly, Dick Smith cancelled because Defkalion didn't agree to full disclosure of the test results (or something like that)
Re: [Vo]:Plea for math/statistics expertise from RonPaulForums.com
Off the top of my head I'd like to mention that Benford's Law is particularly good at rooting out cheaters. Basically, the most significant digit from a sets of naturally occurring data tends to follow a well known power law distribution. This is true for things like lengths of rivers, street addresses, amounts entered on your taxes, etc. I know they use this in voting already, but I'm not sure exactly how. Would be interesting to see how this works out in this particular case. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM, James Bowery wrote: > The reason I'm posting this to vortex-l is that of all the candidates, the > only one that represents a serious threat to establishment science is Ron > Paul. > > The basic story is that a "signature" of "vote flipping" has turned up -- > and the beneficiary in every case of this signature has been Mitt Romney. > This analysis, if validated, could trigger the collapse of the Soviet, er, > American Empire. > > http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping. > > The first message is a good synopsis of the current arguments.
Re: [Vo]:Need pictures
What is this I don't even... On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Fznidarsic wrote: > I got the pictures at a junk store. I am writing in MS word then down > loading to html. I have downloaded the viewer from Amazon that presents the > work as it will be seen as a final product. Building an automotive cell > phone adapted is coming together. If it goes well Antigravity II will > follow > Frank Z > > Sent from my Kindle Fire
Re: [Vo]: Finally
So I wonder whether Rossi is sincere. I mean, does he really believe in what he's doing and has fooled himself (intentionally or not), or is he just doing the same Petroldragon/thermoelectric generator routine of the past? On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Craig Brown wrote: > > Praise The Lord. Krivit is finally going to calm the negative Rossi beating. > (see below). > > "New Energy Times has a few more loose ends to tie up for the Rossi story, > and we will publish them in the next week. Unless other significant news > develops about Rossi, our coverage will drop back significantly after next > week." > > From the following email he sent out > > > I received a good question today from a New Energy Times reader. > "Exactly why are you going after Rossi for what he is doing?" the reader > asked. > Twelve years ago, I chose as a profession investigating, analyzing and > reporting on low-energy nuclear reaction research. This is my beat. It is my > job to report on LENR news, be it good or bad. I choose to help readers > understand the full spectrum of science and issues related to LENR. > Sometimes, the stories are strictly about science. Sometimes, they're about > science politics. Sometimes, they're about science personalities. To fully > understand the work, the field and the news, I have to look at everything. > Also, I perform deep investigations. So if I find something - like Rossi's > past history, with his attempts to convert old tires into oil - that I think > will help readers understand the subject of the story, then I report that. > Because I am a specialist in LENR, I am able to understand a lot about these > kinds of stories, in terms of both the science and the history. > I approached the Rossi story 14 months ago with neutrality, and I cautiously > hoped for the best from it. Based on events that took place in June, 2011, > which I have partially reported, my neutrality and optimism dissipated. > New Energy Times has a few more loose ends to tie up for the Rossi story, > and we will publish them in the next week. Unless other significant news > develops about Rossi, our coverage will drop back significantly after next > week. > - Steven Krivit
Re: [Vo]:Bulk Calorimetry Performed on E-Cat?
I'd still like to see an experiment which eliminates the possibility of external energy entering the system (a la the thermocouple being plugged in backwards). But alas I think this will have to wait for a third party. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:01 PM, James Bowery wrote: > One of the tests proposed that gets away from a lot of the variables is to > take a body of water with a known temperature and mass, and repeatedly > recirculate it producing a higher temperature for the body of water from > which can be derived a lower bound on the energy. > > I call this "bulk" calorimetry as opposed to "flow". > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> What do you mean by "bulk" calorimetry? Isoperibolic? >> >> - Jed >> >
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
That's kind of vauge... which one of these documents would you recommend for Rossi type LENR math? On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM, wrote: > Yes there has been. My work on the subject. > > > http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterf.html > > Frank Znidarsic > > I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there > doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the > purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the > requirement. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Xavier Luminous > To: vortex-l > Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 3:58 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> Hey Vortex Gang, >> >> Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective >> to solve a problem. >> >> My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a >> required component for these LENR systems. > > I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there > doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the > purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the > requirement. > > I would be very skeptical of Rossi though, considering his past work > and current behavior surrounding the E-Cat, but that's just me. >
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Hey Vortex Gang, > > Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective > to solve a problem. > > My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a > required component for these LENR systems. I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the requirement. I would be very skeptical of Rossi though, considering his past work and current behavior surrounding the E-Cat, but that's just me.
Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
One's choice of coordinate systems is entirely arbitrary... It's a mathematical tool you choose to suit the problem at hand, not linked to nature in any physical way. On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM, James Bowery wrote: > I'm only pointing out a practical consideration that is central to science. > If you can't communicate you relinquish reproducibility. > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson wrote: >> >> I imagine that Newton's laws would be difficult to understand in certain >> coordinate systems but that does not suggest that they fail to function. >> Are you implying that the laws of physics work or not depending upon the >> view point? I contend that the real world does not care what coordinate >> system we select to observe it as our choice is merely for our convenience. >> Maybe we are not discussing the same issue. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: James Bowery >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 3:45 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates >> >> Newton's laws in spherical coordinates >> >> Sure... why not? >> >> Give it a try and report back. >> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM, David Roberson >> wrote: >>> >>> I do not agree that the choice of coordinate systems changes the physics >>> of any experiment. I only see the coordinate system chosen as a way to >>> locate the position and other position derivatives of a body. >>> >>> Could you explain how the Madelung constant would relate to real world >>> effects? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: David Jonsson >>> To: vortex-l >>> Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 6:42 pm >>> Subject: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system >>> can not be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this. It >>> becomes divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic >>> coordinate. Covariance can thus be forgotten. >>> >>> Check >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant >>> >>> Are there any other examples of this effect where choice of coordinate >>> system gives different values? >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Requesting recommendations on Web Authoring tools & animation generation packages
> Can anyone recommend economical software packages that allow one to assemble > batches of individual/still graphics into an animated video clip imagemagick is probably the easiest way to do this. If you have real research, why not just make a PDF with latex and post on arXiv? That's certainly KISS, and you don't have to worry about hosting. On my own site I host a bunch of PDFs that I've written, and I find it easiest in this case to just write the HTML by hand. No weird programs to install, low server load, etc. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: > Steven, > > > Video) > there are plenty those two are a good power/features compromise: > http://www.kdenlive.org/features > http://www.kinodv.org/article/static/2 > > Web Authoring) > You need 3 things: > a) an editor > b) a web framework > c [optional]) a css + javascript framework > > a) I would suggest to stay away from complex visual editors ala > frontpage any such tool put constraints on creativity and becomes > obsolete. Use your favorite editor and your browser to see the > results. IMHO beter keep the effort of typing (i.e. the > typewriter/editor) distinct from the writing (i.e. the story you put > on the paper). Use the following site to learn and answer almost any > doubt about html+css+javascript: > http://w3schools.com > > b) To answer this question you need to choose based on your favorite > programming language and/or programming skills. You can stay away > from SQL in many frameworks. Some hide any db complexity others do > not use a db at all. In the list below choose starting from the > language you know: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks > > c) This is optional and is needed to manage nice presentational > features such as fancy menus, visual effects and recognition of user > device (pc, tablet, smartphone ecc ecc). The choice often depends on > b) i.e. some web frameworks impose you to use their own css+js and you > will eventually fight to make them work your way, while others do not > include anything, just plain html so you may need to find your > preference. In the links below you will find that most support > generation of vectorial graphics. If you are brave enough you can use > them to show realtime computation of your algorithms on users browser. > > suggested: > http://www.developerdrive.com/2011/09/13-javascript-frameworks-that-can-make-you-a-better-web-developer/ > more complete frameworks: > http://net.tutsplus.com/articles/web-roundups/20-javascript-frameworks-worth-checking-out/ > > HTH > > mic > > > Il 03 marzo 2012 18:44, Jed Rothwell ha scritto: >> I know nothing about video files, but for web authoring, I have been >> assimilated by the Borg and I have just about finished transferring >> everything to WordPress. I am using a minimalist, ultra-clean version: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/ >> >> This should be finished in a few days. I am going to cut out the the black >> plane and make it full-width. I need to fix a few glitches. The images that >> click to expand keep showing up in different formats, and the lists of >> papers keep changing format. >> >> This is based on: >> >> http://www.studiopress.com/themes/genesis >> >> It is clean and well written compared to other Themes. Be sure you follow >> instructions and use the sample blank "child" theme. This company has >> several populated themes as well. >> >> With modern software you have work to keep it simple. You have to ruthlessly >> prune out options, mainly by remarking out stuff in the parameter file >> (syle.css). Rococo complexity is the norm. For example, this Theme came with >> quoted text in a strange font, with the text in grey shown in an off-white >> background, making it impossible to read. Who does that?! Why? Add a few of >> these /* */ to style.css and bingo, that's gone. >> >> The thing about WordPress is that there are a zillion group-sourced add-on >> utilities for it: the "plugins" and "widgets." Some are free, some at >> minimal cost. You find one for just about any purpose. Most of the ones I >> have found are not comprehensive or of good quality, but they cover a >> broader range of applications than any single-source software could provide, >> even from a company as big as Microsoft. >> >> Look for video related plug-ins here, or with Google: >> >> http://wordpress.org/ >> >> See if you find something suitable. >> >> - Jed >> >
Re: [Vo]:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Tom Barnett wrote: > I got this email below. Could someone verify that this is legit and not > spam? 100% scam, no questions about it. > Dear Subscriber, > > > We are experiencing some serious technical problems with our servers. > Therefore, we would be shutting down all unused and unverified accounts. So > to avoid deactivation of your account, you will have to re-confirm your > e-mail address by replying with your login information's below. > > Username : > Password : > > This is a very simple and easy to do. Just click the reply button and > forward your login details to us. once we receive the requested information > you will be able to continue using > your account without interruption. > > > Customer Care > Case number: 8941624 > Property: Account Security > > Copyright © 2011 Web team Inc. > Thank you.
