On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:40 AM, francis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday June 6th Harry said **** > > Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start > **** > > with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. > **** > > I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes*** > * > > as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local > **** > > fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well.**** > > ** ** > > Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum > effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE > must be balanced by a “diluted” region outside the cavity walls that > responsible for this “segregation” of vacuum pressure… although vacuum > wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear > slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE > violation..you aren’t getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply > segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself > won’t give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and > roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas > motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you > also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that > can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the > random motion of gas is unusable energy that can’t be considered under > conservation of energy –They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from > cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits > different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a > back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, > you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You > have Ed’s energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity > where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model > of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by > the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a > single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces > go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on > vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current > moving gas atoms while the other is a locally accumulated pressure – a > small gravity hill with a concentrated peak in the cavity and a wide valley > extending out from the cavity walls that segregates the pressure we > consider isotropic out here in the macro world. Anomalous cooling and > retarded radioactive decay of gases are harder to detect but have both > been reported..just not as concentrated or as frequently as anomalous heat > and accelerated decay. My posit is that beyond diffusion the random motion > of gas is harnessed to keep Ed’s hydrotron resonanting or pushing my near > disassociation f/h over the threshold so it can form another molecule. *** > * > > Fran**** > Would you agree that a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is equivalent to violating conservation of momentum while still obeying conservation of energy? Harry Harry
