I agree with the condensation/ultra dense matter in the voids. We can agree to disagree about where the energy actually comes from for now. It would be nice to have a mass and energy balance around what is going on in a controlled lab setting, I am sure that is somewhat tricky.
The Papp/Rohner/TerraWatt/DePalma/Firmage devices make me think you can charge/compress/magnetically pulse/shock matter and get a similar energy pop. I pulled this paragraph from a recent Caltech article: Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and Michael Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order of magnitude problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other than zero-point energy. In Measureability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605418> and Electromagnetic dark energy <http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364> they propose that a phase transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a frequency of about 1.7 THz are *gravitationally active* whereas above that they are not. If this is the case, then the dark energy problem is solved: *dark energy is the low frequency gravitationally active component of zero-point energy.* I am sure we can all google something that supports our ideas. That is the great thing about Google! My new motto is "It's just gravity" This will make cold fusion more palatable for everyone...or should I name my theory "Gravifusion"? Stewart On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Axil,**** > > I think you are on the right track – it fits with MAHG, Mills, Rossi and > even the compressing gases in Noble gas engine claims. Not saying it > negates all the other theories but it sounds like a nice fit that minimizes > the number of miracles needed and is based on observed facts. We all try to > exploit HUP effect on gas in this confined environment but your focus on > the condensate threshold rather than my focus on covalent bond threshold or > Lamb pinch seems to ring truer.**** > > Very good theory my hat is off to you**** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 2:20 AM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The energy of the vacuum causes the Bosenova**** > > ** ** > > > The energy of the vacuum causes the Bosenova**** > > **** > > **** > > From: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0412041**** > > > *The collapsing condensate was observed to lose atoms until the atom > number reduced to about the critical value below which a stable condensate > can exist. The dependence of the number of remaining atoms on time since > initiation of the collapse _evolve was measured for the case of an initial > state with Ninit = 16000 atoms and repulsive interaction corresponding to > ainit = +7a0, where a0 is the hydrogen Bohr radius. ***** > > > *The onset of number loss is quite sudden, with milliseconds of very > little loss followed by a rapid decay of condensate population (within 0.5 > ms) after which the condensate stabilizes again. This behavior results from > the scaling of the loss rate with the cube of the density, the peak value > of which rises as 1/(tcollapse − t) near the collapse point. ***** > > > *This allows a precise definition of the collapse time tcollapse, the > time after initiation of the collapse up to which only negligible numbers > of atoms are lost from the condensate. Another quantitative result of the > experiment is the dependence of tcollapse on the magnitude of the > attractive interaction that causes the collapse, parametrised by the > (negative) scattering length acollapse. These measurements are performed > from an initial state with Ninit = 6000 atoms in an ideal gas state (with > interaction between them tuned to zero). The tcollapse datapoints presented > in the original paper have undergone one revision of their acollapse values > by a factor of 1.166(8) due to a more precisely determined background > scattering length. ***** > > > * Although the main focus of this paper shall be on the collapse time, we > mention two other striking features of the experiment: the appearance of > ’bursts’ and ’jets’. One fraction of the atoms that are lost during the > collapse is expelled from the condensate at quite high energies (**∼100 > nK to **∼400 nK, while the condensate temperature is 3 nK); this > phenomenon was referred to as ’bursts’. Finally, when the collapse was > interrupted during the period of number loss by a sudden jump in the > scattering length, another atom ejection mechanism was observed: ’jets’ of > atoms emerge, almost purely in the radial direction and with temperatures a > lot lower than that of the bursts (a few nK)* **** > > > My theory of the bosenova explosion**** > > When too many atoms are packed into too confined a space, the uncertainty > principle comes into play. A confined space means an uncertain(aka high) > kinetic energy. When confinement gets high enough, the associated increase > in kinetic energy destabilizes the condensate and the condensate breaks > down. When the condensate breaks down, the energy derived from the vacuum > is carried off by high energy atoms in the form of jets and bursts as > described above. **** > > When the condensate, reaches a size small enough to reduce the uncertainty > in the condensate’s momentum, the condensate will reform with a lowered > number of member atoms. **** > > **** > > **** > > Cheers: Axil**** > > **** >
