Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force is measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent with observation or logic.
First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to the ZPE. Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed to produce an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy can be extracted. This assumption is based totally on mathematical theory without any observable evidence. As you correctly note, many observations can be explained several different ways, with the correct explanation sometimes overwhelmed by the popular explanation. I suggest the Casimir effect falls into that class. I suggest the measured force is no more and no less than an unexpected chemical attraction between two surfaces. Can anyone provide a rational answer to this challenge? Ed Storms On Mar 9, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > When a large part of any argument is semantics - it usually requires only > one definitive and rock-solid example to prove a contention... unless there > is a valid alternative explanation. > > From: David Roberson > > In the free electron laser ... the wavelength should be > approximately equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that > distance is effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the > electrons in motion. The shortening factor directly enters into the > determination of the radiation frequency. A radio wavelength structure of > magnets is employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz > contraction. > > ... is there an alternative explanation - other than LC? > > If not, and if there is no valid alternative to Lorentz contraction then we > must face the unavoidable conclusion. It is as simple as that. This could be > a rare case of "either/or" where only one outcome is possible based on a > physical phenomenon. > > In LENR this is why the appearance of tritium is so important for ultimate > proof of the phenomenon. Tritium is rock-solid proof of one type of LENR. > Unlike helium, which is rare but ubiquitous in air, tritium is completely > unexpected, and moreover: unambiguous to measure. There is no good > alternative explanation other than a low energy nuclear reaction. > > When tritium is seen, at least one type of LENR is proved. Period. When that > one type is proved, other types are easier to justify based on a solid > foundation. Since tritium has been seen for over twenty years in experiment, > critics and skeptics have been wrong for that long, but they still continue > to whine and interfere with progress. > > The reason that this is brought up in cross-connection to the x-ray laser is > that Roarty has assembled a decent argument which implies free electron > motion in nanocavities which implies Lorentz contraction and x-rays. This is > based on the Casimir force and can be called DCE, or the dynamic Casimir > effect. This relates not to another kind of LENR per se, but to an energy > amplification mechanism which can be harnessed by LENR of any of the major > types. > > For the record, some of the most intense radiation which has been documented > by Randell Mills is in the 10 nm soft x-ray spectrum. He has an alternative > explanation, but this exact spectrum is seen in the free-electron x-ray > laser. Now we have a good explanation for this radiation showing up in the > LENR experiments via LC - which does not require Mills' theory. > > Given Mills has been incapable of building a working device for public > demonstration after 24 years and $100 million, and has reverted to modifying > a crude seam welder to amaze his fans and devotees - LOL - and given that > the free-electron x-ray laser has been in operation for some time - this is > not looking promising like a promising future for Mills and BLP. > > I'm just glad BLP did not go with an IPO many years ago, since I would have > invested back then and it would likely be belly up by now. > > Jones > > > > <winmail.dat>
