OK, I will fess up - the labels are up to the task but I am not. Even if I were able to find an accepted relationship between the Casimir and Gamma dilation formulas the Lorentzian translations would for the most part be an even wash and I would have to concentrate only on the asymmetries where chemical reactions occur and are then reversed in different vacuum energy density regions meaning that the same matter would be bound in different ionic or covalent forms on the return trip and effect the Lorentzian translation/scaling. The sort of sling shot orbits you once discussed would be able to convert the change in relativistic frames into real spatial velocity as they disassociate while discounting the thermal levels needed - sometimes even below the energy cast off upon association at the start of runaway.
Regards Fran RE: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview Jones Beene Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:30:12 -0700 From: francis * I agree the core is hotter and the Casimir regions where the heat anomaly is born may be even hotter yet. I know Jones Beene posits these areas can be considered "cold" due to confinement but myself being of a relativistic perspective think these "hot" and "cold" labels are not up to the task. You may not be seeing the complete picture, Fran. These labels could indeed be up to the task, once you tie-up the loose ends into a coherent package. If there is a dynamical Casimir effect (DCE) in any anomalous-energy system, such that "force" is converted into energy (or negative energy) in an ongoing process, then it can be either hot or cold (or net neutral) relative to an external observer. Since ZPE (in the guise of the Dirac 'sea of negative energy') can operate as both heat source, or heat sink, relative to our 3-space this all fits together at the interface to the Dirac sea, which apparently exists *only* at Casimir dimensions (2-12 nm) perhaps in some kind of 'wormhole' which surprisingly goes away (closes) below 2 nm. In fact, unpublished experiments have demonstrated both active cooling and active heating in similar nano-materials to what Rossi is using. This is most likely a function of geometry at the nano scale. Publication of results from a submitted report will come from EPRI, hopefully soon. This bifurcation of results by thermal gain or loss is presumably due to the fact that the Casimir force can be either attractive or repulsive. That too is dependent on geometry. 'Cavities' are more likely to provide heating, due to the Scharnhorst effect; whereas open-ended 'pits' (surface features) may provide active cooling. This is simply the working hypothesis, so far. The next best option relates to fractional hydrogen. The breakthrough of Rossi, assuming it is real and the robust results hold, could be the due to his good fortune in his finding an active combination of cavities and pits such that synergy emerges in see-saw dynamics. Thus, protons, heated in the cavity (by Scharnhorst-type acceleration) are expelled to the pits (via temperature differential) which operate as nano-accelerators, since they have an open end. The result could be net heat given up to the bulk hydrogen in the reactor, even though the underlying DCE cancels out. The thermal gain that results will not violate CoE, in principle, since it can be made up via depletion of non-quark protonic mass, as previously explained here - but there is the distinct likelihood that small levels of radiation and/or transmutation will be found when any experiment is run for an extended period. Obviously, this description above is in complete conflict with Rossi's concept as to the M.O. Even the next best explanation (Mills' hydrino) is in completely conflict. Unfortunately for AR, either of them fits with the results better than his own absurd explanation of nickel transmuting to copper; not to mention this BS about using nickel isotopes, which will be shown to eventually to be what it is: complete bogosity (the George Kelly syndrome). [snip] Jones
