Archive for February, 2014

Patents for LENR

February 28, 2014

Good point, the hidden parts of a patent are usually the key components, like the recipe for Coca Cola As a Civil List Scientist I go by the rule that of there is the slightest chance of solving the energy crisis, then all effort must be put in to it. I condemn luddites who sit on their butts dong nothing.

Sent: 28/02/2014 18:14:33 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Patents for LENR

It would be important to know if in this patent the electrolyte (if any) is mentioned and all details are revealed. We know that Rossi hid this from the public.

Horst

Am 28.02.2014 19:09, schrieb EMyrone

Many thanks to Steve Bannister, I think we will see a flood of patents for LENR very shortly, and I am on the lookout for the first domestic LENR product.

To: emyrone
Sent: 28/02/2014 15:21:46 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Patent, maybe for LENR

Hello Myron. This sounds interesting.

https://plus.google.com/107190105791959392745/posts/1CBq8DNotsc

Very best,
Steve

Lindstrom msc thesis part a

February 28, 2014

Thanks I would like to post it on www.aais.us and the blog, there may be a connection because of the use of plasma theory. As Norman points out there is a lot of lateral mileage in Beltrami theory. It is a matter of merging it in to ECE theory.

In a message dated 28/02/2014 17:39:00 GMT Standard Time, writes:

I certainly have no problem posting the thesis if you think it merits posting, I will contact UBC and ask permission. It is somewhat astray from the focus of AIAS so I would certainly understand not posting it.

Doug

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:31 AM, <EMyrone> wrote:

Many thanks – interesting Thesis, for example on page 20 there is a term J x B. For a Beltrami field in the absence of the Maxwell displacement current this term vanishes. I am forwarding the Thesis to this group for study purposes. I am not posting on the blog due to copyright, unless both the University and yourself give permission.

Lindstrom thesis part b

February 28, 2014

Agreed completely with Doug Lindstrom, present day dogmatists have switched off the Baconian enlightenment. The all time low in physics was the lobbying of the Nobel prize committee for a theory with so many variables that you could fit a Jackson Pollock, drip by drip. The Thesis is clearly written and obviously the result of hard work, and honesty of thought.

Lindstrom thesis part b

Many thanks for the compliments. I became disillusioned with Physics after I completed my BSc. degree, and sought out a supervisor for my MSc. that was still working in the classical arena (preferably electromagnetics). Frank Curzon and I basically chose each other. He was a great supervisor with the Plasma Physics group at UBC. We still keep in contract occasionally.

My disillusionment was that theoretical physics seemed to be more and more like a religion of 1000+ years ago where knowledge was in the hands of the priesthood, because the commoners weren’t able to understand it and the priesthood maintained this stance to keep control. This is definitely my impression of physics of today. Experimentalists were considered a lower class of physicist, much like the commoner mentioned above.

At that time, the standard model had not been assembled, but quarks were the rage. Virtual particles were beginning to be discussed in connection with the weak and strong forces, yet no one could tell me what a virtual particle was. Similarly, quantum mechanics was leaning more and more to a Copenhagen interpretation as opposed to just the simple probability models relying on a Heisenberg interpretation of measurement limits due to wavelengths of the fields used to observe events with. Stochastic models weren’t ever mentioned and yet having taken four+ terms (two at graduate level) of quantum theory, I never did get the good and satisfied feeling that you feel in your gut when things are right. Today concepts like the multi-universe are great for science fiction, but they too don’t sit well in the gut (as with dark matter, string theory, and on and on), concepts invented to prop up a failing theory.

ECE came along and used the basic tenant that physics is equivalent to geometry. This feels good. It is understandable and workable and has experimental and engineering applications. (I think we have to write some primers now on the subject, so that the knowledge can be readily grasped by those new to the theory).

Enough ranting, I want to think about chaotic Beltrami models this morning. It seems to me that devices like the E-CAT that seem to have an energy instability issue perhaps driven by material properties, might fit somewhere in here. An unstable solution would be of the form

Exp[Wr *
t + I*Wi*t] with the real portion of the frequency

Wr> 0

If a resonant solution had this form, and the resonant frequency was an attractor as in chaotic theory, then instabilities such as the above with the E-CAT would almost be inevitable when Wr was in the range of variables where Wr was non-zero.

Doug

Many thanks again! These experimental methods are impressive, especially as you designed and built the apparatus yourself. This is what is expected of a graduate student, even an undergraduate in some experiments.

Patents for LENR

February 28, 2014

Many thanks to Steve Bannister, I think we will see a flood of patents for LENR very shortly, and I am on the lookout for the first domestic LENR product.

To: emyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/02/2014 15:21:46 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Patent, maybe for LENR

Hello Myron. This sounds interesting.

https://plus.google.com/107190105791959392745/posts/1CBq8DNotsc

Very best,
Steve

Antenna Structures from Beltrami Solutions

February 28, 2014

This is an excellent idea form Horst, and there is currently a lot of interest in the ECE Engineering Model. i will proceed shortly to write up my sections of UFT258, which can refer to the spectacular new animations.

Criteria for “Marquis Who’s Who”

February 28, 2014

These are position and noteworthy achievements of value to society. Wealth and social position are not criteria. of the active AIAS Fellows the following are in Marquis Who’s Who in the World at present. This is the top ranking edition. If they are not in the World edition, but in another edition, please let me know.

1) Myself in thirty editions since 1998, born 1950.
2) Horst Eckardt, Physicist and Computer Scientist, Munich, born 1954.
3) Sean MacLachlan, Boise, Idaho.
4) Douglas Willard Lindstrom, born 1948, Nanaimo British Columbia.
5) Victor Eugene Riecansky, Cambridge, born 1944.
6) Raymond W. J. Delaforce Stirling Heights Michigan, born 1960.
7) Jose Ramhalo Croca, Lisbon Portugal, born 1944.
8) Kerry Richard Pendergast Abertillery, born 1956.

All the biographies can be looked up online. These are the biographies I could find online today. There are seven or eight non active or retired Fellows in Marquis. They can all be looked up using google.

Congratulations to Franklin Amador

February 28, 2014

I have added Franklin Amador to the list of Fellows who are or have been in “Marquis Who’s Who”, sixteen of them in all.

LIST OF AIAS FELLOWS AND OTHERS IN ▀MARQUIS WHOŘS WHO¨.docx

Gravitation in ECE Theory

February 28, 2014

I behaves in exactly the same way as electromagnetism, the equations are all given in the Engineering Model. It is up to the graduate student or researcher to apply the equations. It is difficult to think of anything that cannot be described by geometry

In a message dated 27/02/2014 21:59:45 GMT Standard Time, writes:

There are people out who argue that gravitation is a special
polarization effect of matter in a certain high-frequency range. This
would explain that it does not play a role in microscopic and highly
macroscopic dimensions. By ECE theory we have a good basis to support
such a model. The only thing I do not understand is how this can depend
on the frequency.

Horst

Am 27.02.2014 21:34, schrieb Norman Page:
> In thinking about all this it is more and more apparent that
> gravitational effects are only of interest over a very small span of
> space.At the particle level
> they must be insignificant. At galactic levels they are only of
> interest over small parts of the galaxy hence the divergence re
> rotation curves. and at extragalactic distances – galaxy clusters etc
> they are again likely insignificant.Only for tiny humans in a star
> system do gravitational effects seem of great importance.
> This should be immediately obvious from first principles.seeing that
> the electric force is 10^39 times more powerful than gravity.

Fine Structure Constant

February 28, 2014

The wavenumber kappa must have units of inverse metres, it may be related to the fine structure constant alpha but the latter is unitless.The constant alpha enters into “The Enigmatic Photon” for example in many ways, and also use keywords “fine structure constant” in the box above the UFT papers to find all the UFT papers that deal with alpha. The Alpha Institute is named after alpha.

Subj: Re: Kappa

Myron If kappa is indeed the fine structure constant then it would be of interest to see what values of B would produce verystable standing waves equivalent to the relative masses and charge of the proton,electron and photon. For the electron see Fig 6 at
http://electric-cosmos.org/BirkelandFields.pdf

On 2/27/2014 12:49 PM, EMyrone wrote:

Norman Page is not so far off the mark here because kappa can also be thought of as mc / h bar of the fermion equation under certain circumstances. The quantum theory comes out of classical geometry, one of the triumphs of ECE theory, i.e. the fermion or chiral Dirac equation comes out of the tetrad postulate. We should certainly think about a classical theory of particle structure.

In a message dated 27/02/2014 14:37:26 GMT Standard Time, writes:

Norman,
kappa is a wave number coupled to the frequency of the wave. We are doing pure classical theory here, no quantum theory. Such connections as you suggest, however, could come out when we investigate further the geometrical charge current. My hope is that this can lead to a classical description of elementary particles, at least to a certain extent. Properties like quantized spin will certainly require a picture based on quantum geometry.
Horst

> Norman Page hat am 27. Februar 2014 um 15:28 geschrieben:
>
>
> Myron Horst
> Does it make any physical sense if Kappa is actually the fine structure
> constant and feed it back into the Reduced Compton length,
> Schrodingers equation for the electron, the Rydberg constant etc and
> masses of the electron and proton ??. Or do I have an over active
> imagination.? Regards Norman.

Zero Magnus Force

February 28, 2014

They are called “force free” because the vorticity (curl v) and velocity (v) vectors are parallel, so there is no Magnus force as described in Reed Section 5. As described by Reed on his page 538 similar Lorentz force free structures exist in electrodynamics. I agree that the solution of the free field equations is given by multiplying the Beltrami solution by exp (i omega t). The Beltrami solution may contain exp (- i kappa Z), so multiplying the two gives exp (i (omega t – kappa Z)).

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/02/2014 09:21:42 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Beltrami Solutions

In the appendix of the Marsh book, eq. A1.1 could be of intereset, but this seems to be a plane wave propagating in Z direction which we have already considered.

Two other points perhaps deserve discussion:
1. Beltrami fields are called force-free fields. What is the background of this statement? E and B are “force fields”, a test charge in such a field experiences a force, even in a Beltrami field. Only the vacuum can be force-free (potential without E/B fields).

2. As Marsh points out, multiplying a vector field by a factor exp(i omega t) describes a standing wave. So Beltrami fields defined in this way are standing waves. On the other hand we have considered plane waves with the factor exp( i (omega t – kappa Z)). These are not standing waves. Obviously both types of waves can constitute a Beltrami field. In particular it is possible to generate standing waves at “one end”, in mechanics you need two fixed ends to obtain a standing wave. Is this true and an important result?

Horst

EMyrone@aol.com hat am 27. Februar 2014 um 19:55 geschrieben:

Good point, the previous literature may well be wrong, yet again.

In a message dated 27/02/2014 14:59:15 GMT Standard Time, mail@horst-eckardt.de writes:

PS: as shown in paper 257 the “chaotic solution” is only a Beltrami field for A=B=C.

Horst

EMyrone@aol.com hat am 27. Februar 2014 um 11:00 geschrieben:

It would be very interesting to animate these solutions. The first one is the most general solution (3) already graphed in stills by Horst Eckardt, where a is any constant vector and where psi is a scalar solution of the Helmholtz wave equation. In general psi is involves the spherical harmonics, and it possible that Maxima and Mathematica provide tables of solutions of the Helmholtz equation. Reed, Marsh and Wikipedia do not give sufficient information about the complete solution. The Reed solution already animated is a cylindrically symmetric solution. There are very many solutions possible and all are possible solutions of the free field ECE equations which used to be known as the Maxwell Heaviside equations. In this note the general solution is reduced to a plane wave solution. In fact it would be interesting to animate the plane waves and B(3). Secondly the Lundquist type solution is given in eqs. (26) to (28). It would be interesting to check that these equations are actually correct, then animate them. Thirdly a chaotic solution is given in eqs. (29) to (31). The relevant references to Marsh are given. All if this refutes Higgs boson theory entirely, and the large cuts to particle physics mean that legislators are beginning to smell a bad kipper on Friday afternoon in Swansea market, a kipper known as a boson.