@Znidarsic, Welcome to the forum.  In my opinion, you're doing a very good work.  Thanks for sharing.
@Quarktoo, Thanks for joining the discussion.

@All, I've been debating if I should post this video or not in this thread, because it's speculation on my part at this time.  However, this video may be showing a quantum transition on a macroscopic scale where the water is acting as a single atom or one big water molecule.  The entire bowl of water will very quickly begin spinning at the critical speed when acoustically stimulated with the appropriate frequency.  Also, take note when the rotation direction of the "wand" moving around the bowl is reversed, all of the water will very quickly reverse it's direction of rotation simultaneously and reach it's critical speed almost instantaneously as if it was one big water molecule or atom undergoing a single quantum transition. This behavior is similar to the quantized vortices in a superfluid.

Here's the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUvbBK9fGrw

GB

What would happen if we substituted the water in the "singing bowl" with a superfluid, such as helium-4 or helium-3?  Just a thought.

GB

be interesting to see. does water with a different specific gravity behave the same? does fluid viscosity matter? i guess comparing helium-3 or 4 to water would answer that. what effect, if any, infinite thermal conductivity would have would be interesting as well.

Hi Frank! I'm very glad to see you posting here and hope to learn more about your work. I am inspired by Lane's videos which seems I cannot get enough of. I really didn't even think much of quantum physics and also thought it was much too complicated to ponder until it was put into a perspective that I think most people like me can digest. Thank you!

Are you experiencing any rejection from your peers? I have tried recently to find anyone willing to discuss this topic in other forums and with friends, but, I don't get much response or all too often the topic moves to unrelated banter. It is my guess that you will have to go through the three phases of truth to get the recognition you deserve. Well, we all deserve it really...

So, now the question for me is, how can I use this information to further my research outside of technologies such as cold fusion? I first became interested in this stuff when Wilby and I discussed lightly the works done by Patterson and his power cell some years ago. As I studied, I came across a gentleman known as Stanley Meyer who successfully ran a dune buggy from water along with Paul Pantone who invented a fuel reformer that works on the same principals, although not as advanced as Meyer's. The difference I see between cold fusion and fuel reformation is the transmutation part. It appears the palladium goes through transmutation while the fuel reformers transmute the medium(water/heavy water) instead of the electrode material. My thoughts on that may be off, but, I am still learning and my math skills are not up to snuff quite yet.

Thanks again for sharing and I hope to see more of you and Lane in the public eye with success. Let's just hope your traveled path is not like the road Pons and Fleishman went down in the beginning.

Cheers!

I'm in the beginning process of compiling a list of all empirical constants or equations that have been injected ad-hoc into physics.  The purpose of this list is to derive the empirical constants or equations from first principals.  I suspect, Znidarsic's constant for the quantum transitional speed will allow us to derive some of these other empirical constants from first principals (hopefully it will have a cascading effect).  If you know of any, please let me know and I will add them to the list.

Example:

1)  Balmer formula, an empirical equation discovered by Johann Balmer in 1885.  B is a constant with the value of 3.6456×10^-7 m or 364.56 nm.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series

Thanks,

GB

Frank,

This is a hard road to travel, don't lose hope.  I have a simple question.  Plugging 1.094 x 10⁶ m/s² into WolframAlpha gives a corresponding quanity of 1.094 x 10⁶ N/kg, which is the gravitational field strength and a unit conversion of 111,557 g, which is the standard acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.094%C3%9710%5E6+meters+per+second+squared&lk=1

Is the quantum transitional speed of 1,094,000 m/s a constant everywhere, or is the quantum transitional speed a variable according to the distance from the surface of the earth?

[Edit:]  My interpretations of the WolframAlpha results was totally incorrect as a basis for the quantum transitional speed being a variable according to the distance from the surface of the earth.

Thanks,

GB

Deleted.

GB

Deleted.

GB