Here's a nice paper brought to my attention by Hank Mills, which provides some theoretical underpinning for the EVO story.
And a more accessible paper on the nature of Ball Lightning.
Holmlid Et al have found that metallic hydrogen is superconducting and also is super-fluidic, LENR is a partner with superconductivity. Superconductivity comes from the nature of the polariton in that its preferred state is bose condensation because of strong coupling, it always seeks its lowest energy level through interference, and entanglement. The posess is called non-equilibrium bose condesation.
Non-Equilibrium Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dissipative EnvironmentQuote
Solid state quantum condensates can differ from other condensates, such as Helium, ultracold atomic gases, and superconductors, in that the condensing quasiparticles have relatively short lifetimes, and so, as for lasers, external pumping is required to maintain a steady state. In this chapter we present a non-equilibrium path integral approach to condensation in a dissipative environment and apply it to microcavity polaritons, driven out of equilibrium by coupling to multiple baths, describing pumping and decay. Using this, we discuss the relation between non-equilibrium polariton condensation, lasing, and equilibrium condensation.
I love everything that you say and those voicings are all very cool...but are they truth?
That (if I might say so) is a rather naive question. Any results that a 'proper scientist' reports when he has performed experiments (whether real or conceptual) using some version of the scientific method are, we hope, the best explanation that can be reached . It does not mean the results are guaranteed to be absolutely accurate, and the description of observed phenomena may change over time due perhaps to equipment upgrades or new insights contributed by others.
So forget any ideas about 'absolute truth'. Even Newton's laws of motion were shown to require modification under some circumstances which resulted eventually in celestial mechanics taking account of Einstein's discoveries. Currently this is the closest approximation to absolute truth we have.
Never forget, a scientific theory is to a greater or lesser extent a tested and testable hypothesis. A hypothesis in essence is a plausible explanation for a phenomenon. Only when this explanation has been tested against the evidence many times and in many ways, and is still supported by these repeated tests can it be considered both true and proven. This proof is of course always subject to further revision or refutation as new evidence arises. And round we go again!
If you want to know more about this topic, I suggest that you look at a classic case, the very long-running argument between Newton and Leibnitz over the fundamental nature of light. It is truly a fascinating argument for which evidence has been preserved in the form of letters etc.
Do simple though experiment to answer the question why these small back holes if they were what they are are not growing?
Maybe it is just a form of matter which simply absorbs light?
All this claims of CERN scientist about black holes are nothing but a PR stunts. Or they have a safe ways to prevent their HOLElittos to escape the accelerator and eat entire facility and then eventually Earth?
What Sonic Black Holes Say About the Real Deal
The concept of the black hole has been abstracted into a collection of behaviors, properties, and mathematical laws that are applicable to many diverse non gravitational system such as systems involving liquids, sound, light, and bose condensates.
The EVO is one of those systems that demonstrate behavior consistent with the concept of the black hole.
In more detail, the polariton soliton as an EVO personifies black hole behavior when this particle forms a Bose Condensate. One of the behaviors that all analog black holes share is Hawking's radiation. Hawking's radiation is thermal radiation and this ability of the EVO to produce Hawking's radiation is the reason why gamma radiation does not appear in LENR. Gamma radiation enters the EVO as a Bose condensate and is converted by the EVO black hole mechanism into thermal radiation.
Polaritons in a condensate are an example of a dissipative systems. There have been cases where gamma radiation has been seen coming out of a LENR reaction. But these instances are cases where the LENR reaction was weakly pumped. The individual EVOs in a weakly pumped system is strong enough to catalyze the LENR reaction but is not pumped strongly enough to produce a Bose condinsate. In this weakly pumped case, Gamma radiation is not thermalized as Hawking's radiation.
Virtual black holes?
How awkward it may get if you accidentally abstract an abstraction and then observe it in an experiment?
Virtual black holes?
By a combination of quantum field theory and general relativity, black holes have been predicted to emit Hawking radiation. Observation from an actual black hole is, however, probably extremely difficult, so attention has turned to analogue systems in the search for such radiation. Here, we create a narrow, low density, very low temperature atomic Bose–Einstein condensate, containing an analogue black-hole horizon and an inner horizon, as in a charged black hole. We report the observation of Hawking radiation emitted by this black-hole analogue, which is the output of the black-hole laser formed between the horizons. We also observe the exponential growth of a standing wave between the horizons, which results from interference between the negative-energy partners of the Hawking radiation and the negative-energy particles reflected from the inner horizon. We thus observe self-amplifying Hawking radiation.
Black Holes and Wormholes in spinor polariton condensates
We propose a new system for the study of event horizons and black holes - a Bose-Einstein condensate of exciton-polaritons. Hawking radiation from a closed horizon in 2D is observed in numerical experiments. We simulate inter-Universe and intra-Universe wormholes capitalizing on the spinor nature of polariton condensates and on the spin dependence of polariton-polariton interactions.
On the rexresearch.com website there's a nice summary of information about EVs from Shoulders' patents:
I'm aware that voltage is always relative to a reference point but I just noticed that Shoulders always states that a negative voltage should be used for EV generation. Is this important? EDIT: I guess it might be if one is using a high voltage source.
So, I started reading the documents present in this page in the chronological order they appear.
Interesting statements in the first one (also attached in this comment).
* * *
In the lingo of charge cluster technology, a strike is what an EV does when it hits a target. The effects produced can be very dramatic if the conditions are right. One mystery that had to be resolved early on is the difference between a spark and an EV. It was found that there is none. A spark is simply the visible, ionized gas trail left by an EV, although in some sparks the EV is so weak that it is barely detectable in the trash surrounding it. Every spark made has an EV running out in front of it. In addition, the EV has electron feelers running ahead of it to tell it what to do.
To demonstrate the above-mentioned point, an ordinary spark in air, produced by an induction coil, can be used to strike a foil of aluminum. What is seen under magnification is a mark that is characteristic of an EV strike. Fig. 1 shows the front side of a 6-micrometer thick aluminum foil that has been struck by a spark carrying an EV.
Fig. 2 is the backside of the same foil. It is clear that a well-organized energy form has penetrated the foil. There is no lateral motion showing and this is a definite indication that the energy form was short and was not a long string of current with a tendency to meander over the surface. Metals are hard for an EV to cope with, as the electron supply from the metal is too great for the EV order to continue. As a result, the range of penetration is only several micrometers in a good conductor.
Dielectrics and semiconductors is another matter entirely and a penetration range of over a millimeter per kilovolt is common. One convenient configuration for penetrating a dielectric with an EV is to lap the edges of two dielectric plates that are about ½ millimeter thick and press the lapped edges together. This gives a nice cross section view when EVs strike the micro-crack produced by joining the edges. The plates are then placed on a grounded foil of aluminum and an induction coil sparked to the crack on the side of the dielectric away from the grounded aluminum. Fig. 3 shows an example of this method applied to aluminum oxide having a melting point of 2,050 degrees centigrade.
As can be seen, there are 7 distinct trails showing in the center of the edge view of the alumina plates. There is a slight taper on the top and bottom of the plate that makes the plates touch in the center and not at either the top or the bottom. Such a tapering technique gives control over the entry and exit angles for the EV. This is important, as it has been found that an EV must be terminated in its characteristic impedance just like any fluid flow or electromagnetic wave. When the flow encounters a discontinuity, a reflection occurs. In order to have the EV make just one pass through the material it is necessary to taper the output side as a small horn. If this is not done, sloshing will occur for both the EV and the material it propels.
* * *
I think the arrangement for the small experiment he describes above is something like this:
Supposedly, those apparently unusual marks caused by EVs would appear where the alumina plates meet. It sounds like a simple experiment to try, but I don't have the materials/equipment to check it out. Alan Smith ?
I couldn't help myself trying to replicate the experiment with zero-cost material, which were:
- 2 transparent polycarbonate rulers
- Aluminium foil
- A piezoelectric lighter (estimated voltage: 12000-13500V)
But I don't have a microscope at disposal and didn't manage to notice by eye any EV borehole through the "micro-crack" formed as per instructions above (to be fair though the rulers edges probably weren't planar and smooth enough). After a few tries the affected area started smelling like oddly burnt plastic though, so it was having an effect, I think. EDIT: maybe I managed to see some tiny marks on a smoother area.
Polycarbonate starts melting at just 150°C. Supposedly these EV (electric sparks are the visible manifestation of an EV according to the description above) should be able to carve "boreholes" through alumina sheets or other high melting point dielectric materials arranged in a similar manner.
The sparks always traveled into the gap along the surface of the rulers, by the way.
Way cool experiment can!
To be fair though, at this stage with polycarbonate I might have just seen a very small hint of a Lichtenberg figure.
Perhaps the most commonly available high(-ish) melting point dielectric to try this experiment with is glass, but I didn't have it in a suitable form at disposal a zero-cost.
Microscope slides are a good starting point perhaps.
If one already has an optical microscope at disposal, microscope glass slides would be a convenient source of a suitably shaped dielectric material, but aren't the cheap ones usually rather thin? For best results, their edges would have to be tapered a bit according to Shoulders in the paper above. Not that I'm purchasing some since that would contravene my self-imposed zero-cost experimentation rule.
BTW, after actually polishing the sides of the polycarbonate rulers with dry 1000 grit sandpaper (but without paying attention to taper the edges) and repeating the 'experiment' again I could actually see marks all the way through even after just one spark strike. However I think they are more like burn marks rather than boreholes in this case (which would explain the smell).
EDIT: below is a photo of the high-tech equipment used.
Eventually I realized that the piezoelectric igniter appears to produce positive HV pulses, so I'm not sure if the simple experiment described actually replicated that of Shoulders.
As far as I'm aware of, physically speaking in a DC circuit electrons actually move from the negative to the positive potential. Shoulders always wants a negative high potential at a sharp cathode (-), from which the EV would get emitted. So I guess that in my case they would have formed from the grounded aluminum foil and went to the tip of the igniter.
So if electric field concentration is important for these EV to arise one might at the very least want to have a sharp cathode (-) rather than the other way around (+), I guess?
Shouldn't EVO theory proponents be the ones doing these simple experiments, anyway?