----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
> > On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter (was Re: >> Deflation Fusion) >> >> >> ... >>>> Your argument below is flawed because >>>> >>>> E = grad (V) >>>> >>>> is the definition of V as much as it is the definition of E, so p1 >>>> and p2 cannot be fixed, as you imagined, independently of the real >>>> charges which determine the field: once you (the power supply) will >>>> have removed all N electrons from B1 and transferred them to B2, >>>> then the voltage difference will be as determined by the field >>>> created by the real charges. What would be idealized would be to >>>> imagine that a power supply can impose a given voltage difference >>>> across two bodies, regardless of the electrons those bodies can >>>> shed. >>> >>> >>> Guess what Michel, you are certainly right about the above. >> <snip> >> >> The above refers to voltage differences, so you now agree that only >> potential differences matter? > > Absolutely not. I'll repeat the part you deleted above: > > This brings us back to the main side issue, about which I still feel > the same. > > The veracity your subject statement under some conditions, or lack > of same, is irrelevant. It is well known that classical > electromagnetism is a gauge theory. However, it is unreasonable and > irrelevant to repeatedly note that fact when a gauge has been > specified. I never suggested changing the gauge. > Within the context of the deflation fusion topic, the > context in which you criticized changes to Figure 1, when gauge is > specified as I did, then *absolute* surface potential is an indicator > of electron fugacity. > I say once again that to suggest this effect > can be created by relative potentials and not absolute potentials > where potential is defined within the constraints I very clearly laid > out, is to miss the point entirely. It leads to nonsensical designs > and to the inability to understand why CF conditions may be so > difficult to achieve reliably. This is exactly what I dispute and call nonsensical myself. Only *relative* potentials of the cathode wrt the two anodes will determine the total excess negative charge on the cathode, and therefore the average excess electron density. Since total cathode charge is an important parameter for your scheme you will probably measure it in both versions, hopefully finding the same value will achieve what I failed to do: convince you. The fact of the subject line is well known to even first year EE students BTW, I don't know how versed you are in EE but have you ever seen a dependence on absolute voltage in the current or charge vs voltage laws of resistors, inductors or capacitors? In any case I wish you good luck with your interesting designs. Michel > The objective is immobilize conduction band electrons, to increase > their density such that the addition of more electrons compresses the > quantum waveform of the electrons such that the momentum and energy > of some electrons is increased via Heisenberg. This method of > momentum and quantum energy state (though not necessarily Newtonian > momentum or energy) increase is only possible when loading exceeds > 1-1 (assuming a metal is involved with 1 conduction band electron per > atom) in the metal lattice *and* there are excess charges added, i.e. > local electron fugacity is high. That is the only way to compress the > electron wave functions to a size where Heisenberg becomes > significant. The increase in quantum energy state permits Rydberg > orbital types that have vastly increased nucleus occupancy > probabilities. Inside a Faraday cage, or on the surface of the earth > with no faraday cage (and seeing no Faraday cage around the earth) > this initiating condition can be related to an absolute potential > defined in a context such as I did define it. The initiating > condition certainly can *not* be defined by relative potentials as > you seem to want to do. To attempt a design using only relative > potentials is to be designing with hit or miss techniques. You can > perhaps get away with it provided the earth is neutral or negative > potential as I defined that. > > One importance of this condition I have suggested is it creates an > aggregate behavior whereby group electron pressure results in > increased probability of individual electron waveform collapse > events. It is thus in some senses an energy focusing effect. It is > not possible to engineer this effect without consideration of the > effect of an absolute surface potential, using the defined gauge, on > electron fugacity. The changes to Figure 1 were well founded. > > On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > > > >> >> Your disbelief that only differences of potentials matter (which is >> a fact, a very fundamental one) affects many parts of your >> otherwise valuable work, not just your unfortunate changes to fig.1, >> >> > [snip] > > The changes to Figure 1 were not unfortunate but provided more > clarity as to the theory being advanced - without the need for the > comments that were located below Figure 1. The old Figure 1 might > make an interesting control experiment though. > > Now here's a an actually important point, to me anyway. Everything > in my paper is speculation. It could *all* be wrong. On the big > issues. It could be some is right, and could lead to some very > improved results. It is certainly true also that I have much more to > write. It makes no sense to waste time on this kind of side issue. > > > > > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > >
