Fran-- Thanks for that nice description of the effects of 5D space. Do you have a reference to Calvert’s ideas?
Does the theory have any parameter(s) associated with the 5th dimension that are akin to those in 4D space-time? It seems that 5th D may have a metric like dB/dz where B is the magnetic field vector and z is the space metric of the vector B. It may also merely have the dimension of angular momentum. I wonder if the spin quanta of a virtual particle moving from 5D to 3D changes or is conserved. It sure seems that the various LENR dots are being connected—SPP’s, intense magnetic fields, nano geometry and Casimir effects, anomalies in gravitation, changes in radioactive isotopic decay rates-- all seem to crop up in LENR. The LENR may happen via the connection to the 5th dimension, through interaction of real particles with virtual particles. The question of how the energy released in LENR turns up as heat with little or no high energy EM in 3D still needs an explanation IMHO. The flow of virtual particles may somehow allow (catalyze) the change of mass potential energy of nuclei to vibrational kinetic energy of many particles in the macroscopic 3D realm. This may be a transformation of mass into individual spin energy quanta associated with intrinsic spin angular momentum and/or electron orbital angular momentum. Vorts may have anticipated this later comment(: ). Bob Cook From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 3:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement Axil, I am glad you included the tachyon because it embraces relativistic effects and would explain some of the odd radiation measurement claims made a short distance from the reactor while not detectable at or within the reactor wall as mentioned in a recent thread. Jones recently cited http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm which taken in conjunction with your suggestion of tachyons would provide a 5D vector “around” the reactor wall that seemingly contracts and then re-expands in our 3d exactly opposite of the virtual particles which very briefly “bend” into our 3d then back out into 5d.. IMHO gravitational force on the macro and Casimir force on the nano are both virtual particle density. We have established open space /dirac sea as 0 gravity which is the isotropic density of our 3d plane BUT just like the atmosphere you can create a vacuum where that density is even lower such as Casimir effect. Going negative by breaching the isotropy with nano geometry is radically different than near C spatial displacement and unrelated to the squared Pythagorean relationship between V and C. I shudder every time I talk about time dilation and contraction because we are so ingrained with the near luminal velocities and energies required for a particle to achieve these effects on a macro scale –there is also the square law effects that we also wrongly assign to Casimir effects, the gravitational effects achieved do not have to effect all the surrounding 3d space in the conventional square law nature we assume for “equivalent” acceleration. We have to assume “equivalent” decleration for the same reason we would select equivalent acceleration for a space craft – because the energy the particle or spacecraft are reacting to are not self contained, a black hole gravity well enlarges what Calvert calls a “ window” between our 3d and 5d and the bending virtual particles stream slows down in a ventorii like effect we perceive as negative time dilation. In the case of a Casimir cavity we accelerates this particle flow by suppressing the window that increases the pressure and flow rate around the visiting hydrogen atoms in the cavity – with Casimir suppression positive time dilation occurs which we loosely perceive as catalyzation or in the extreme decay rate anomalies. So far no substantiated claims of gravity anomalies beyond the EM drive are known and even attempts to stack Casimir cavities by Italian researchers in the early 2k failed to prove the gravitational connection between Casimir effect and gravity I am convinced this will all change soon. A relativistic effect in a confined space means both extreme differences in inertial frames and linkage with the cavity walls creating the field are already established – something that is excluded in “equivalent” near C Lorentzian effects where the square law would place a spaceship in a gravity well too distant and diluted to exploit from outside the well despite the huge difference in equivalent gravity of the ship and stationary observer outside the well. IMHO the anomalous energy in LENR is based upon this interaction with 5D and we will discover gravitational anomalies are already present immediately after we engineer a robust sustained LENR reaction. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 7:49 PM To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement That is what the Rossi says I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from various ENP theories including the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause of LENR behaves. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: That is what the Rossi says! Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured. Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is the situation. When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in his writings. I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that mentioned. In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case. My models are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information accurate. Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is actually written by Rossi? Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement 1. Joseph November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM Dr Andrea Rossi, Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You are unique. J. 2. Andrea Rossi November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM Joseph, Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions on the battlefield. Warm Regards, A.R. Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted. Do you see anything within the patent that fits into this form? Rossi is required to supply information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is to have value. It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver module that is different for the other modules. Please point that out within the written patent. Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank! There is nothing like this in the patent that I have seen. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement 1. Hank Mills December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM Dear Andrea, The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full reports, it gives us something to think upon. 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode? 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable? 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in self sustain mode. 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage? 2. Andrea Rossi December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM Hank Mills: 1- no 2- confidential 3- no 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when the Mouse is turned on Warm Regards, A.R. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be stimulated. I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements field coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because the ENPs can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors. The question is whether or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices. Where did you see anything about a special type of driver device among the other 15? Did Rossi state this or is it entirely your assumption? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement Roland Bob • 17 hours ago Hi Bob, Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups were published. From: Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power Plants of Any Size On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger? I do not recall any reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors is a powered activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction. http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency. Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water. That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions. The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours. If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour of the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates. The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to the way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy pumping will result in the E-Cat going critical. The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings it to the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional EMF input. The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not requiring external heat or EMF simulation to be applied. The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it requires heat and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is "over stimulated" it begins to meltdown since it has become independent from externally applied stimulation. The ENP can live as long as it can catalyze energy production from the material around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in energy from the environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes. Magnetic confinement increases efficiency of the reaction. Such confinement saves the externally applied energy that produced the ENP from being wasted. The ENP can leave the reactor if the material that makes up the reactor enclosure is transparent to the optical and magnetic nature of the ENP. This might be why electrolytic cells have difficulty in sustaining powerful LENR reactions. In this case, the ENPs escape the glass beaker reactor enclosure and all the input energy that was pumped into the ENP is wasted to the environment. outside the electrolytic cell. If the cell is made of material that can contain the ENP both optically and magnetically, the reactor will be efficent. Alumina is antiferromagnetic and will confine magnetic particles thy to escape the reactor shell. Another method of ENP confinement that Rossi might use is a solenoidal confinement coil that keeps the ENPs away from the reactor walls in the center axis of the reactor.
