RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The bottom line IMO is that we will just have to wait till more definitive and independent info becomes available. Robin, Exactamundo. This is precisely why I think that yesterday's announcement of NASA throwing its hat into the Ni-H ring is actually the best News (maybe the only good News) since January 14. Focusing on Rossi now is a waste of time. He made a breakthrough of Mills/Arata/Piantelli but he does NOT have a clue what the underlying principle is IMHO and cannot be relied on to be truthful. Forget Rossi. This arena is wide open. Go for it, vorticians! See if you can figure this one out before NASA has it powering the next launch vehicle. Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:37:20 -0400: Hi Fran, [snip] >Robin , > I made the mistake of starting from the bottom of the email replies - > your position that the ash is roughly proportional would have balanced Scott > Smith's position that there is far too much ash for heat extracted - I made > some assumption in my previous reply that were based on the position of there > being too much ash. Given your position, I may have been way too pre-mature > in speculating the heat extracted could be the difference between the nuclear > and ZPE. >Regards >Fran I didn't include the word "roughly" for nothing. It's really still anybody's guess as to whether or not transmutation is actually taking place. Jones may be correct about Copper migration. Perhaps Rossi really is enhancing the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims (though I can't see why anybody would bother, which leaves me wondering just how trustworthy this info is). The bottom line IMO is that we will just have to wait till more definitive and independent info becomes available. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
Robin , I made the mistake of starting from the bottom of the email replies - your position that the ash is roughly proportional would have balanced Scott Smith's position that there is far too much ash for heat extracted - I made some assumption in my previous reply that were based on the position of there being too much ash. Given your position, I may have been way too pre-mature in speculating the heat extracted could be the difference between the nuclear and ZPE. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:49:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] > The E-cat certainly appears to include nuclear reactions but I don't know if > it was ever established that the amount of ash produced was proportional to > energy output. It does appear to be at least roughly so. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
Robin, I agree thermal is the "primary" source of motion at our scale but ZPE is the "inexhaustible" source at any scale. Gas and Casimir geometry just happen to have properties we can use to exploit this inexhaustible source. The relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect means that the most fractionalized gas atom [1/137] are actually spatially "Decelerated" or "negatively accelerated" from our perspective - just like relativistic space travelers approaching C are "spatially accelerated" and seem to slow down thru negative dilation from our perspective, the atoms in the cavity are "spatially confined" and seem to accelerate thru positive dilation from our perspective. The point being that it is always the differential from our perspective but where the energy potential stems from the object accelerating itself to near C in positive dilation the energy in the case of negative dilation comes from the universe surrounding the Casimir device which races away from the decelerated objects inside the shielded / suppressed energy density inside the cavity. The relationship for the fractionalized observer to the non fractionalized observer outside the cavity is exactly the same as our relationship to the Paradox twin. As long as the difference in energy density / nano geometry is maintained you have a relativistic component that amplifies this otherwise hidden energy source. Remember that relativistic effects are invisible locally so these fractionalized atoms are feeling equivalent acceleration due to changes in Casimir geometry and are traveling through what they perceive as normal space (on our time axis) - completing far too many chemical reactions from our perspective for the "short" time they remained in the cavity but from their own perspective only the normal number of reactions they participated while being inside the cavity for "years" from their own perspective. This again is why I think a relationship between time dilation in the Gamma formula can be related to the Casimir formula. I have been re-considering Jones Beene's posit about negative energy in a book balancing relationship with nuclear reactions, I was opposed because I was thinking additional energy on top of ZPE but Scott Smith's remark about there being too much copper in the ash for the amount of heat now has me wondering if the two energy sources have to be in opposition..or as Jones described it as "an unavoidable nuclear reaction" such that the amount of energy derived is the difference between ZPE and nuclear energy released. This might help explain the reduced Gamma as a "relativistic" nuclear reaction occurring between different vacuum energy densities on an axis we outside the cavity perceive as temporal but inside the cavity is locally perceived as spatial. The copper would indicate a lot of wasted nuclear and ZPE energy cancelling but may be a necessary price to keep the radiation hidden or at least down converted to our frame. I remain unqualified to suggest specific nuclear reactions but I am convinced that atomic and diatomic gas react differently to changes in energy density giving rise to disassociations and sling shot effects where the potential and probability for collisions are greatly enhanced [quantum blender]. Regards Fran mixent Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:03:44 -0700 In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:19:10 -0400: Hi, [snip] >provided gratis by the constant motion of gas[ZPE] ...but AFAIK gas motion is not primarily ZPE driven. It's just the thermal energy of the molecules. So the implication would seem to be that as the energy was extracted, the gas would get colder, until it reached the point where the temperature is maintained by the ZPE (absolute zero?). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:49:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] > The E-cat certainly appears to include nuclear reactions but I don't know if > it was ever established that the amount of ash produced was proportional to > energy output. It does appear to be at least roughly so. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:19:10 -0400: Hi, [snip] >That's why I was trying to find a form of the time dilation formula[Gamma] >already solving for force You might try reverse engineering Einstein's full equation to get the momentum, then you can calculate force from dp/dt. (Assuming you can work a time dependence into it.) Alternatively, try F = dE/dx. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:19:10 -0400: Hi, [snip] >provided gratis by the constant motion of gas[ZPE] ...but AFAIK gas motion is not primarily ZPE driven. It's just the thermal energy of the molecules. So the implication would seem to be that as the energy was extracted, the gas would get colder, until it reached the point where the temperature is maintained by the ZPE (absolute zero?). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
Ron, The E-cat certainly appears to include nuclear reactions but I don't know if it was ever established that the amount of ash produced was proportional to energy output. My point is that the common materials and environments of different devices and procedures suggest to me that energy density pumping and catalytic disassociation represent the initiating conditions common to all. I think it can occur with or without subsequent nuclear reactions but Jones put it more succinctly in his reply [snip] that in a "ZPE-only" interpretation, a nuclear reaction may not be needed, however - it is unclear if it can be completely avoided.[/snip] The difference between these different energy exploiting methods may rest on just how they go about avoiding or limiting an unavoidable nuclear reaction. I'm a little scared of doing this stuff at home with hydrogen at 35 bars? While still getting the tungsten heater wires inside the reactor.. It seems like it could be miniaturized into something like a refillable CO2 cartridge but we need access to install the powders and heating elements... I only got 1 house :_( Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Ron Wormus [mailto:prot...@frii.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Roarty, Francis X Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll Fran, I've been following you ideas for awhile but I don't see how they can apply to Rossi if you believe the Ni---> Cu claims which were supposedly verified by the Swedes. At one time I was going to try a MAHG replication but it turned out that Naudin made obvious errors in his power measurements which he refused to correct. Is Naudin still active? In any case it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to test your reaction scenario. Ron --On Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:19 AM -0400 "Roarty, Francis X" wrote: > Jones, > I agree with most of what you are saying even that we still "dispute" > the need to "makeup" > chemical energy released by catalytic disassociation. ZPE is absolutely based > on a negative > potential but once you provide a method to rectify this energy (Heisenberg > trap) it operates on > the absolute difference between two potentials which is positive energy. My > point is that some > energy can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry without the need for any > nuclear reactions > and it could even be of a similar scale. I think this is what Moller and > Naudin were pursuing > with the MAHG device. We have been programmed to accept that the ZPE in gas > motion cannot be > exploited because we assumed gravity is isotropic but that changes in Cavity > QED where we can > suddenly exploit differences in inertial frames without the need for near > luminal velocity...in > fact what "velocity" there is to move the h1 and h2 between frames is > provided gratis by the > constant motion of gas[ZPE]. If you add in the "relativistic" interpretation > of Casimir effect > the "frequency" of these disassociations suddenly scales at an almost > unlimited rate [terahertz > +] based on A/a^4 [plate area over separation^4] . That's why I was trying to > find a form of the > time dilation formula[Gamma] already solving for force so I could make it > directly equal to the > Casimir formula and get an idea for just how much acceleration and how > dynamically it changes > inside the array of geometry created by "real" Casimir materials. Once the > formulas for positive > changes in energy density [Gamma] seen in near luminal objects are related to > negative changes > seen in nano geometry [Casimir] it becomes possible to solve in terms of each > other's variables. > I think rapid changes in equivalent acceleration [jerk] occur due to Casimir > geometry and are > responsible for the property we call catalytic disassociation. The time > dilation would locally > mask the equivalent acceleration we calculate outside the cavity BUT the > accumulating velocity > would rapidly sling shot the gas between an array of different inertial > frames formed by the > tapestry where the gas momentum would keep finding itself in violent > opposition to the changing > magnitude and vector of the negative acceleration [quantum blender]. I don't > expect you to agree > but still argue it is a valid possibility. Regards > > Fran > > > Jones Beene wrote on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:40 PM > > [snip]To put this all into the average vortician's perspective, Fran and a few > others on vortex believe that the Casimir force and therefore ZPE are > intimately involved in both the Mills' reaction and in "lattice assisted > nuclear fusion&quo
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
Fran, I've been following you ideas for awhile but I don't see how they can apply to Rossi if you believe the Ni---> Cu claims which were supposedly verified by the Swedes. At one time I was going to try a MAHG replication but it turned out that Naudin made obvious errors in his power measurements which he refused to correct. Is Naudin still active? In any case it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to test your reaction scenario. Ron --On Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:19 AM -0400 "Roarty, Francis X" wrote: Jones, I agree with most of what you are saying even that we still "dispute" the need to "makeup" chemical energy released by catalytic disassociation. ZPE is absolutely based on a negative potential but once you provide a method to rectify this energy (Heisenberg trap) it operates on the absolute difference between two potentials which is positive energy. My point is that some energy can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry without the need for any nuclear reactions and it could even be of a similar scale. I think this is what Moller and Naudin were pursuing with the MAHG device. We have been programmed to accept that the ZPE in gas motion cannot be exploited because we assumed gravity is isotropic but that changes in Cavity QED where we can suddenly exploit differences in inertial frames without the need for near luminal velocity...in fact what "velocity" there is to move the h1 and h2 between frames is provided gratis by the constant motion of gas[ZPE]. If you add in the "relativistic" interpretation of Casimir effect the "frequency" of these disassociations suddenly scales at an almost unlimited rate [terahertz +] based on A/a^4 [plate area over separation^4] . That's why I was trying to find a form of the time dilation formula[Gamma] already solving for force so I could make it directly equal to the Casimir formula and get an idea for just how much acceleration and how dynamically it changes inside the array of geometry created by "real" Casimir materials. Once the formulas for positive changes in energy density [Gamma] seen in near luminal objects are related to negative changes seen in nano geometry [Casimir] it becomes possible to solve in terms of each other's variables. I think rapid changes in equivalent acceleration [jerk] occur due to Casimir geometry and are responsible for the property we call catalytic disassociation. The time dilation would locally mask the equivalent acceleration we calculate outside the cavity BUT the accumulating velocity would rapidly sling shot the gas between an array of different inertial frames formed by the tapestry where the gas momentum would keep finding itself in violent opposition to the changing magnitude and vector of the negative acceleration [quantum blender]. I don't expect you to agree but still argue it is a valid possibility. Regards Fran Jones Beene wrote on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:40 PM [snip]To put this all into the average vortician's perspective, Fran and a few others on vortex believe that the Casimir force and therefore ZPE are intimately involved in both the Mills' reaction and in "lattice assisted nuclear fusion" and in the Rossi effect. "Nano" is the key word. Or "FRET" if you are a bit more sophisticated on the theoretical end. That would be LANR, in contrast to LENR, but the two are essentially the same animal from different perspectives. The zero point field can provide a force which can provide net thermal energy under certain narrow conditions, if at high repetition rate. But for the long term, the excess energy must be replaced periodically by a nuclear process. The Mills' reaction can be reconciled with this, if one accepts that he cuts short the progression intentionally. CANR or "chemically assisted" is another way of saying the same thing- that valence electrons (i.e. chemistry) can influence nuclear reactions, especially when there is cavity confinement so that interactions with valence electrons are accelerated; and to the extent that the "improbable become probable" due to the extreme number of sequential transactions (terahertz). The key to all of it is hydrogen going from molecular to atomic and back. H2 is tightly bound. A spillover catalyst breaks that bond catalytically and actually extracts heat to do it. That is not in dispute. A net energy asymmetry in this process is only possible when there is a nuclear process which can provide the "makeup". (That is the dispute) The best way that I can verbalize the 'Rossi effect', but others have their own perspectives on it - is that it is a hybrid ZPE/nuclear process. [/snip]
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll
Jones, I agree with most of what you are saying even that we still "dispute" the need to "makeup" chemical energy released by catalytic disassociation. ZPE is absolutely based on a negative potential but once you provide a method to rectify this energy (Heisenberg trap) it operates on the absolute difference between two potentials which is positive energy. My point is that some energy can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry without the need for any nuclear reactions and it could even be of a similar scale. I think this is what Moller and Naudin were pursuing with the MAHG device. We have been programmed to accept that the ZPE in gas motion cannot be exploited because we assumed gravity is isotropic but that changes in Cavity QED where we can suddenly exploit differences in inertial frames without the need for near luminal velocity...in fact what "velocity" there is to move the h1 and h2 between frames is provided gratis by the constant motion of gas[ZPE]. If you add in the "relativistic" interpretation of Casimir effect the "frequency" of these disassociations suddenly scales at an almost unlimited rate [terahertz +] based on A/a^4 [plate area over separation^4] . That's why I was trying to find a form of the time dilation formula[Gamma] already solving for force so I could make it directly equal to the Casimir formula and get an idea for just how much acceleration and how dynamically it changes inside the array of geometry created by "real" Casimir materials. Once the formulas for positive changes in energy density [Gamma] seen in near luminal objects are related to negative changes seen in nano geometry [Casimir] it becomes possible to solve in terms of each other's variables. I think rapid changes in equivalent acceleration [jerk] occur due to Casimir geometry and are responsible for the property we call catalytic disassociation. The time dilation would locally mask the equivalent acceleration we calculate outside the cavity BUT the accumulating velocity would rapidly sling shot the gas between an array of different inertial frames formed by the tapestry where the gas momentum would keep finding itself in violent opposition to the changing magnitude and vector of the negative acceleration [quantum blender]. I don't expect you to agree but still argue it is a valid possibility. Regards Fran Jones Beene wrote on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:40 PM [snip]To put this all into the average vortician's perspective, Fran and a few others on vortex believe that the Casimir force and therefore ZPE are intimately involved in both the Mills' reaction and in "lattice assisted nuclear fusion" and in the Rossi effect. "Nano" is the key word. Or "FRET" if you are a bit more sophisticated on the theoretical end. That would be LANR, in contrast to LENR, but the two are essentially the same animal from different perspectives. The zero point field can provide a force which can provide net thermal energy under certain narrow conditions, if at high repetition rate. But for the long term, the excess energy must be replaced periodically by a nuclear process. The Mills' reaction can be reconciled with this, if one accepts that he cuts short the progression intentionally. CANR or "chemically assisted" is another way of saying the same thing- that valence electrons (i.e. chemistry) can influence nuclear reactions, especially when there is cavity confinement so that interactions with valence electrons are accelerated; and to the extent that the "improbable become probable" due to the extreme number of sequential transactions (terahertz). The key to all of it is hydrogen going from molecular to atomic and back. H2 is tightly bound. A spillover catalyst breaks that bond catalytically and actually extracts heat to do it. That is not in dispute. A net energy asymmetry in this process is only possible when there is a nuclear process which can provide the "makeup". (That is the dispute) The best way that I can verbalize the 'Rossi effect', but others have their own perspectives on it - is that it is a hybrid ZPE/nuclear process. [/snip]
