Very good. Thanks Ed for the insight.
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Jack, you would have more success and not waste your time if you applied > some basic chemistry. More hydrogen does not result in more loading. Only > the pressure and temperature determine the amount of loading. In addition, > Constantan does not dissolve much H in any case. Addition of aluminum will > do nothing to the Constantan. Cold fusion may be hard to understand but it > does not mean the laws of chemistry have creased to function. > > Ed Storms > > On May 18, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > > As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try: > Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with > KOH. It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode. > I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil. Seems like it > can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know > that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell. > > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > >> Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time... >> but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen! >> -m >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) >> >> Mark, >> >> A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for >> "free" energy. >> >> Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real >> >> >> http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht >> ml >> >> Is it only a matter of time... ? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint >> >> Let's put some numbers to it... >> >> From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation: >> >> F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4) (force per unit area, Casimir original >> derivation in 1948) >> >> F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um. >> Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom. >> >> -mark >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) >> >> Hi Ed, >> >> I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds >> here >> and helping to focus some of the discussions. I have been too busy to >> participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately >> too >> busy so as to avoid others! ;-) Most of the regular-posting Vorts are >> open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism. We also are >> not >> concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying' >> topics. >> >> I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very >> specific questions about the NAE; please look for it. Now on to your >> question... >> >> RE: "I assume its "normal" EM radiation?" >> Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered >> normal EM radiation. >> >> I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the >> experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL). The LANL Directory >> shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area, >> and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail? >> >> Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you >> want a >> more accurate explanation: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM >> "Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum >> Computing" >> >> http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf >> "Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details" >> (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) >> >> http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf >> "Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials" >> (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) >> >> http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf >> "... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause >> drag in a superfluid moving at any speed." >> >> >> -Mark Iverson >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56 AM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Cc: Edmund Storms >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) >> >> Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions. >> I'm >> sure all of these issues have been addressed. >> >> I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher >> frequency >> than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes through a >> material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material, >> or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the >> material. Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a >> fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction. In other >> words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls >> of the gap. The other photons pass right through the material without >> interacting or producing a force. >> >> What produces the force? The photons that are captured by the gap pass >> through the material without interacting until they reach the gap. Only at >> the gap is their presence felt by the material, but in the form of heat >> energy. For a force to be felt by the material, the photons must interact >> and transfer momentum. Does this mean all vacuum photons change direction >> when passing through a material and the gap simply removes a momentum >> vector >> such that a net force remains perpendicular to the gap? >> >> If this is the explanation, we have still another assumption - a photon >> can >> bounce off an atom without changing its energy (frequency) and in the >> process transfer momentum to the atom while the photon goes in a different >> direction. Normally, a photon interacts with an electron, sending it in a >> different direction but at the same time ionizing the atom to which the >> electron was attached. Why does this process not occur when the vacuum >> photons interact with matter? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> On May 17, 2013, at 11:22 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: >> >> > Ed: >> > Two things... >> > >> > 1. I don't think Fran's explanation adequately explained the Casimir >> > effect... (sorry Fran). >> > Theory posits that the vacuum is made up of almost an infinite range >> > of frequencies (some have proposed a cutoff frequency, probably >> > approaching the Plank frequency). Closely spaced, parallel conducting >> > plates will ONLY exclude vacuum frequencies LARGER than the spacing >> > between the plates. This is what creates the unbalanced forces which >> > want to push the plates together. All vacuum frequencies are pushing >> > on the outside surfaces of the plates, but a limited range of >> > frequencies are between the plates, so forces pushing plates apart is >> > less than outside forces pushing plates together. >> > This effect only becomes significant for very small plate separation. >> > >> > 2. Empirical evidence for the Casimir effect is now fairly well >> > established, and has been tested by several groups, including Steve >> > Lamoreaux from your old stomping ground of Los Alamos. It has also >> > become a practical issue now that nanotechnology has reached the >> > commercialization stage. The following is from the Wikipedia article: >> > ------------- >> > One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay >> > at Philips in Eindhoven, in 1958, in a delicate and difficult >> > experiment with parallel plates, obtaining results not in >> > contradiction with the Casimir theory,[22][23] but with large >> > experimental errors. Some of the experimental details as well as some >> > background information on how Casimir, Polder and Sparnaay arrived at >> > this point[24] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with Marcus >> > Sparnaay. >> > >> > The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. >> > Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,[25] and by Umar Mohideen >> > and Anushree Roy of the University of California at Riverside.[26] In >> > practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require >> > phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the >> > experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a >> > part of a sphere with a large radius. >> > >> > In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and >> > Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded >> > in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using >> > microresonators.[27] >> > --------------- >> > >> > -Mark >> > >> >> [deleted rest of thread history] >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
