http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf
A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV) will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a nutshell. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > That is a great link. Axil thanks. > > The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their > intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair > electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty > great up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite > spins. Many electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric > fields. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > please see > > > http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html > > *The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production* > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> David-- >> >> Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from >> empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? >> What is the mechanism that makes this happen? >> >> The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that >> are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the >> electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. >> Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of >> those new particles come from? >> >> Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the >> energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those >> particles? >> >> One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum >> is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is >> coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with >> negative energy. >> >> I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to >> linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed >> conservation of energy. >> >> D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion >> to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can >> be obtained at the following link: >> >> >> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdf&ei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABA&usg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasA&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU >> >> Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the >> conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and >> positron. >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into >> somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of >> this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he >> is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. >> That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor >> or something similar. >> >> With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the >> sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far >> evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force >> that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless >> drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far >> measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can >> accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be >> valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the >> vehicle and not due to outside influence. >> >> It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner >> suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you >> make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although >> the Dirac sea may not be that sink. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> David-- >> >> In your going and coming trip: >> >> The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each >> direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to >> somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that >> has left the space craft in going and coming back. >> >> The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and >> the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the >> spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a >> decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down >> that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do >> not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as >> negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum >> was conserved in the transfer. >> >> Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by >> conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear >> momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or >> positive--I sound like Rossi-- >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of >> the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two >> directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and >> velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative >> energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the >> energy? >> >> I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is >> the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our >> ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. >> We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can >> locate any of it. That is a long stretch. >> >> A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was >> active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while >> violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. >> But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains >> potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This >> is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up >> correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. >> >> There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as >> possible so far. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> David-- >> >> The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the >> amount of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. >> >> Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he >> cannot properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no >> sense to him. >> >> His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of >> real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which >> he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real >> particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of >> particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the >> negative sea--the Dirac sea. >> >> D. L Hotson >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the >> ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where he >> returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters the >> thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage >> of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally considered >> capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is >> important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play >> that card. >> >> The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using >> the reactionless drive. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> >> David-- >> >> You stated: >> >> <<<After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to >> rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one >> before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he >> is moving. >>> >> >> Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the >> window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed >> before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the >> microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that >> point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having >> anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship >> can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for >> the drive mechanism. >> >> After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to >> rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one >> before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he >> is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He >> sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it >> went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving >> relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the >>> obvious problems to offer their input. >> >> >> One thought here -- the "reactionless drive" that I am aware of being in >> the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of >> microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone >> other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But >> if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, >> e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. >> >> Eric >> >> >
