zero point energy is what keeps helium from freezing at 0 K, It also causes gas atom to have random motion but we are told this energy would require the fictional “Maxwellian Demon” to rectify . Prof Moddel wrote a very plain language paper how this can occur “a Demon. A Law, and the quest for virtually free Energy”<http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf> when DCE [dynamic Casimir Effect] meets ZPE, Random motion of gas is the baseline for vacuum engineering that occurs everywhere the same for every inertial frame. Vacuum engineering was coined by Hal Puthoff to describe things like Casimir effect where vacuum density can be caused to vary without the need for relativistic velocities. People like Lyne and Mohler claimed anomalous heat with a theory related to the atomic vs molecular state of hydrogen inside their reactor tubes. IMHO they were on to something but stopped far short.. their devices may have produced some thermal anomaly but we are only recently approaching the next level where this underlying bootstrap energy can fuel the types of reaction Jones and Axil are discussing.. I think the fact that these anomalies only occur inside the catalyst or nano powders [inverse catalyst] makes a strong case for the catalyst being the rectifier causing hydrogen atoms to change inertial state by changing vacuum density when the normally unrectifiable random motion of gas causes the gas atoms to move to a different size of confined geometry – unlike cancellation of spatial vectors in 3d, the tapestry inside Casimir geometry doesn’t require a specific direction, any motion that causes atoms to move into a less or more confinement qualifies as dynamic Casimir effect. IMHO molecular bonds try to prevent the individual atoms from contraction and thereby discount the energy needed to disassociate…if the molecules are already at a an ambient near the threshold temperature this reversible reaction could provide anomalous heat [OU] and either be the power source or more likely bootstrap power for any of the multiple theories being discussed in this forum. I guess my point is that ultimately the energy has to be derived from the geometry working on something and if that something is vacuum density then yes I think it is fair to call the source as being derived from ZPE. Fran
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium Fran, are you thinking that this is a form of zero point energy? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2015 7:21 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium I think confusion will continue to reign for as long as researchers continue to attribute the energy levels solely to the atom instead of in combination with the dynamic Casimir environment through which it is randomly moving. IMHO molecular bonds formed in these regions have a non spatial component proportional to the inverse of confined spacing ^3 and become spring loaded when the molecule moves to a different confinement level which discounts their disassociation threshold. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net?>] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent. I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over. From: Mark Jurich FYI: All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper: http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels back in early 2014. Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0). It was thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero. The picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various apparent spin states of H(0). Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the latest findings suggest. Reading more of literature should help clear up the current understanding of H(0). Mark Jurich
