Re: [Vo]:Portion of Violante data as published in NET #34

At 09:51 PM 4/1/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Please note the correction statement. It refers to: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog//?p=113#comments Scroll down, to fifth received eMail: **

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 08:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > Only if potentials exist without fields, can it be said that time > dilation "doesn't depend in any way on *variations* in the *strength* of > the gravitational field." I thought what I said was pretty clear. Are you just trying to pick nit

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

On 04/01/2010 08:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > - Original Message >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 9:40:19 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick > > >> Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's >> bl

Re: [Vo]:Did I get this right?

On 04/01/2010 07:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction > > At 02:04 PM 4/1/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > >> But there is a limit suggested by this, that the maximum flattening is >> by one-half. This is false. There is no maximum.

[Vo]:Arrests made in Mallove Murder

Arrests made in Mallove Murder 4/1/10 - Rebecca Santillo Norwich, Conn. (WTNH) - "Two arrests have been made in a Norwich homicide that has gone unsolved for nearly six years. Eugene Mallove, 56, was found dead in the driveway of his boyhood Norwich home back i

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

At 08:45 PM 4/1/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 9:40:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick > Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's > blog, he'll never approve

[Vo]:Portion of Violante data as published in NET #34

>From Abd: ... > I didn't need to do a lot of higher math to notice that Krivit > bashing the ENEA researcher over supposedly changing his claim for > helium measurement from 10 x 10^n to 1 x 10^(n+1), excoriating him > for not issuing a retraction in the years since, was beyond the pale

Re: [Vo]:The non-problem of a "new reaction"

At 07:38 PM 4/1/2010, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > "The skeptics assumed that if helium were being generated, it would be easy to detect the associated gamma rays, so most ruled out helium from the start. That, simply, assumed deuteron fusion, D+D, tw

Re: [Vo]:Did I get this right?

There is no actual physical contraction. Relativistic compression is actually Terrell rotation. Here's a great vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 T On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction > > At 02:04

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 9:40:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick > Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's > blog, he'll never approve any of > your posts -- or at any rate that

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 5:55:08 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction > > On 04/01/2010 05:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message >> From:

Re: [Vo]:can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01

Can that specific info be condensed into a few pages and put on the Net for everyone? I can get the book via interlibrary loan for free. thanks, friend, Rich - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" To: "Rich Murray" ; Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]

[Vo]:The non-problem of a "new reaction"

-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > "The skeptics assumed that if helium were being generated, it would be easy to detect the associated gamma rays, so most ruled out helium from the start. That, simply, assumed deuteron fusion, D+D, two deuterons, one helium nucleus resulti

[Vo]:Did I get this right?

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction At 02:04 PM 4/1/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: But there is a limit suggested by this, that the maximum flattening is by one-half. That is, that the Lorentz contraction is limited to one-half of the original length (in the direction

Re: [Vo]:can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01

At 02:33 PM 4/1/2010, Rich Murray wrote: can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01 I'll do what I can, Rich. For a start, though, I'd read The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, by our friend Dr. Stor

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

At 02:05 PM 4/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Too much proof makes people doubt. Say what?!? Okay, I assume that's a joke. Well, psychologically he can be right. If you present piles of evidence, particularly if you do it unskillfully, people can and will assume you are

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Returns

At 01:59 PM 4/1/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: New promotional video: http://www.steorn.com/ New data on the older permanent magnet Orbo Where. Not the video! There is some data, though, linked from the orbo page, http://www.steorn.com/orbo/eorbo/5-calorimetric-tests.aspx Let's say that this is

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

At 01:54 PM 4/1/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: Too much proof makes people doubt. What we need is an indisputable proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days it would accumulate a sizable amount of He, wh

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 05:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > - Original Message >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:01:43 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction >> >> > > On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veed

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> > This becomes a real problem with the GPS >> > satellite clocks. > >> Well, not really a "problem", because the engineers who designed them >> knew about GR. > > Scott Chubb tells me they do not understand it very w

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Returns

Yes today is april 1st, but since most people would dismiss Orbo as either a joke or scam or a case of self-delusion then it seems like a smart move to anounce it today. Harry - Original Message > From: Harry Veeder > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 1:59:15 PM >

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > This becomes a real problem with the GPS > satellite clocks. Well, not really a "problem", because the engineers who designed them knew about GR. Scott Chubb tells me they do not understand it very well, and they have been experiencing unanticipated problems fr

[Vo]:Hoffman book discussion of helium tests

I wrote: That was not a blind test as far as I know. Hoffman knew perfectly well that the samples produced heat, but he did not want to talk about for political reasons. I just uploaded some of the Morrey paper. For the samples from F&P, it was double-blind during the helium measurement phas

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:01:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction > > On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message >> From:

[Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in this mailing list after this message. John Berry wrote: ... Hi All, Stephen and John posted an interesting discussion on this subject in 2007, which I can post if anyone is interested

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

There is a lot of wisdom in Islam, Abd ul-Rahman. Many thanks for elaborating on the thought. Lawrence de Bivort On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 08:22 PM 3/31/2010, Terry Blanton wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax >> wrote: >> >> > Go

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > - Original Message >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 2:53:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction > > In short, acceleration >> does not slow

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's new claim, transcript of ACS Krivit Pop Quiz

At 08:15 AM 4/1/2010, Nick Palmer wrote: ABD wrote: > Eh? Have we fallen through the looking glass again? One of my favorite books, in which Carroll skewers knee-j

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

Steven , Thanks for the compliment but to be honest it wasn't meant to be philosophical and just reveals my rough edges regarding the scientific. I was hoping To find some parallels between SR in the macro world and what I think is going on inside the Casimir cavity. I am looking for

[Vo]:Morrey paper about helium

Morrey, J.R., et al., Measurements of helium in electrolyzed palladium. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 659. Mucho co-authors: Morrey, J. R. Caffee, M. W. Farrar IV, H. Hoffman, N. J. Hudson, G. B. Jones, R. H. Kurz, M. D. Lupton, J. Oliver, B. M. Ruiz, B. V. Wacker, J. F. van Veen, A. It is a s

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

At 08:22 PM 3/31/2010, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > God, protect me from false friends, who will agree with me when I'm astray, > and stoke the fires of my self-righteousness. . . . to further their agenda. Is that yours or a quote from an

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 2:53:15 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction In short, acceleration > does not slow down clocks. This is predicted theoretically and has, > IIRC,

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

http://ysc.kiev.ua/abs/proc13_11.pdf See item #5. T On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Relativistic compression is actually Terrell rotation.  Here's a great vid: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 > > T >

Re: [Vo]:BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First Commercial License in Europe

At 10:49 AM 4/1/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: FYI: I'm surprised Mr. Carrell has not yet alerted us to a recent BlackLight Power announcement: "BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First [seventh over-all] Commercial License in Europe with GEOENERGIE SpA, Energy Subsidiary of Geogreen

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

At 10:47 AM 4/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: They are two different facts, and we have a fair amount of helium data that is not correlated with heat. Hoffman reports a lot of helium data in his book, based on EPRI reports, without heat data. It's explicitly missing, an

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 03:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> >> Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements >> >> conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the >> >> surface of Earth. >> > >> > Gravity or acceleration slow down time

Re: [Vo]:can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01

Rich Murray wrote: can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01 Let me introduce you to the "instant" or cheat sheet method of doing this. Go to the main page of LENR-CANR: http://len

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements >> conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the >> surface of Earth. > > Gravity or acceleration slow down time. *WRONG* A momentarily comoving inertial observer who is col

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

Relativistic compression is actually Terrell rotation. Here's a great vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 T

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

I wrote: If you start with 2 atomic clocks synchronized together, and you move one up 10 m to another floor, that causes it speed up slightly . . . . . . distance is now a function of time (1 m = distance light travels in a vacuum during the interval of 1/299,792,458 s). This leads to the

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 02:29 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: >>From Jed: > >> Gravity or acceleration slow down time. They are one and the same in general >> relativity theory. >> >> If you start with 2 atomic clocks synchronized together, and you move one up >> 10 m to another floor, that cause

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 02:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Steven V Johnson wrote: > >> Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements >> conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the >> surface of Earth. > > Gravity or acceleration slow down time. *WRONG* A mom

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 02:06 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: >>From Mr. Lawrence > > ... > >> For example, if we dig a spherical chamber in the center >> of a planet, there will be *no* gravitational "field" >> within that chamber caused by the mass of the planet. >> However, the gravitational

[Vo]:can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01

can anyone send a link or full text for summary of the studies that correlate He and excess heat in LENR? Rich Murray 2010.04.01 Hello Vo, Since I notice Hagelstein and Lomax both citing about 10 reports of correlation of He production with excess heat in LENR, I am getting much more impress

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

>From Jed: > Gravity or acceleration slow down time. They are one and the same in general > relativity theory. > > If you start with 2 atomic clocks synchronized together, and you move one up > 10 m to another floor, that causes it speed up slightly, and diverge from > the one below. It is amazing

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

Steven V Johnson wrote: Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the surface of Earth. Gravity or acceleration slow down time. They are one and the same in general relativity theory. If you start wit

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

On 04/01/2010 01:54 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > 2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : >> Sent from my iPhone >> But when the helium findings >> correlate with excess heat, it all changes. The results confirm each other. > > Too much proof makes people doubt. In what way does that statement make sens

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

At 09:39 AM 4/1/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: It's the fact that there's no side to side contraction which leads to all the arguments over whether the contraction is "real". The fore-and-aft contraction is arguably just a "trick of the light". This whole universe is a "trick of the light."

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

Michel Jullian wrote: Too much proof makes people doubt. Say what?!? Okay, I assume that's a joke. What we need is an indisputable proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days it would accumulat

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

>From Mr. Lawrence ... > For example, if we dig a spherical chamber in the center > of a planet, there will be *no* gravitational "field" > within that chamber caused by the mass of the planet. > However, the gravitational potential is lower in that > chamber than it is on the surface, and clocks

[Vo]:Steorn Returns

New promotional video: http://www.steorn.com/ New data on the older permanent magnet Orbo and the newer electric Orbo: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/ Seems they are also building a solid state-Orbo. Harry PS. If Steorn has achieved what they claim, then perhaps CF also works by side-stepping CoE.

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : > Sent from my iPhone Not a valid excuse ;-) > On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production >> alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it? > > A familiarity with the history o

Re: [Vo]:BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First Commercial License in Europe

Agreements like these (unproved technology) generally involve a low up front licensing fee with a significant per unit royalty. I would guess it to be something like Tesla's agreement with Westinghouse. If it was truly free and you can sell a 10 kilowatt hours for a buck, it would not be unreason

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 04/01/2010 01:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Stephan, > > Your reply actually answers my reply to Stevens answer. You > are saying that I will never be able to test this hypothesis because the > axis of contraction is never going to present itself to the stationary > observer –

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

>From Fran I see that Horace has already spoken definitively on the subject of "shrinkage." ... > ... so say I widen one dimension of the eye large enough > for the basketball but keep the other dimension just > wide enough for the pancake to slip through – assuming > I got my orientation dead o

Re: [Vo]:BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First Commercial License in Europe

Any hints as to what, if anything, the license cost? So far there's been no clear indication that any power company has actually *bought* a license from BLP, as far as I know. (I'll be happy to be corrected on this.) On 04/01/2010 10:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > They are starting to play in the

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

Stephan, Your reply actually answers my reply to Stevens answer. You are saying that I will never be able to test this hypothesis because the axis of contraction is never going to present itself to the stationary observer - I liked your "silhouette" analogy. You mentioned this concep

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On Mar 31, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Francis X Roarty wrote: Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass through the eye of a stationary needle? No. The basketball appears to contract only in its axis of motion, which in this case must be through the eye of the needle. This

Re: [Vo]:OT (very): U.S. warship captures suspected pirate mother ship

Steven V Johnson wrote: A US War ship ... "...came under fire..." Right... . . . Ah, come on over guys! Free biscuits and doughnuts in the mess hall! Jed, I think u wuz a pirate in a former life. Whadaya think? I am sure I can explain this. Our family may or may not have descended from Pira

Re: [Vo]:BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First Commercial License in Europe

They are starting to play in the big leagues. Quoting the press release: Cranbury, NJ (March 23, 2010)­BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) today announced its seventh commercial license agreement, and first in Europe with GEOENERGIE SpA, Energy Subsidiary of Geogreen. In a non-exclusive agreement,

[Vo]:BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First Commercial License in Europe

FYI: I'm surprised Mr. Carrell has not yet alerted us to a recent BlackLight Power announcement: "BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces First [seventh over-all] Commercial License in Europe with GEOENERGIE SpA, Energy Subsidiary of Geogreen Non-Exclusive License to produce up to 750 MW of continuous p

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: They are two different facts, and we have a fair amount of helium data that is not correlated with heat. Hoffman reports a lot of helium data in his book, based on EPRI reports, without heat data. It's explicitly missing, and it seems that the helium measurements we

RE: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:14:50 -0700IOW, Steven Vincent Johnson said "the basketball would appear visually to look more and more like a flattened pancake." Steven, My mistake in not limiting the question to only the dimension in the direction of Travel -spaceship crossing our line of

Re: [Vo]:glabal warming conference

I wrote: However, unless the palladium transmutes into some other element it can be recycled and remanufactured. If it transmutes and nothing can be done to prevent that, then all bets are off. In that case, I suppose cold fusion will only be useful for niche applications such as satellites,

Re: [Vo]:glabal warming conference

Nick Palmer wrote: The one thing Australia has is gigantic quantities of sun and vast spaces of "outback" I think it would be uneconomical to use this for a massive desalination project. It would be good for ordinary levels of electricity. If the solar array can be constructed near the ocean

Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

On 03/31/2010 11:52 PM, Francis X Roarty wrote: > Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass through > the eye of a stationary needle? > No. The basketball is contracted fore-and-aft, but not side-to-side, as viewed by an observer sitting next to the needle. So, it's going

RE: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction

>From Francis: > Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass > through the eye of a stationary needle? That's a new one for me. I'm not a definitive expert on relativity, other than reading a lot of popular books on the most obvious effects relativity produces, but it was my u

Re: [Vo]:glabal warming conference

The one thing Australia has is gigantic quantities of sun and vast spaces of "outback" - so vast that the biggest concentrating solar power plants (focusing mirrors) would have effectively no significant impact on habitat or species, so just about all greenies would support them. However, dist

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's new claim, transcript of ACS Krivit Pop Quiz

ABD wrote: > Eh? Have we fallen through the looking glass again? Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Susta