From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 00:49:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA00858; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:37:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:37:28 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000601153215.009dbd10 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:32:15 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: New paper from Fran De Aquino (gr-qc/0005107) In-Reply-To: <3935CC84.7F17A164 sinectis.com.ar> References: <3.0.6.32.20000530100644.009d34a0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000531101134.009dbde0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"A9jzh.0.FD.sAXDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35377 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Juan wrote: >John Winterflood wrote: > >> Can anyone read Spanish, maybe an email address can be >> obtained from the university web pages :- >> http://www.uema.br/ > >Sorry, it isn't spanish but portuguese. >I was not able to found any Aquino there though. Thanks Juan, but I was thinking there must be some contact email address for an administrative person in the physics department. They could then be asked what position an F. De Aquino held there - ie student, professor, junior workshop apprentice and joker, etc From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 01:41:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA15691; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:36:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:36:27 -0700 Message-ID: <3935EA26.43C700C sinectis.com.ar> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:44:23 -0300 From: Juan de la Cruz Barrios X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: es-AR,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: New paper from Fran De Aquino (gr-qc/0005107) References: <3.0.6.32.20000530100644.009d34a0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000531101134.009dbde0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000601153215.009dbd10@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Mec9u2.0.1r3.A2YDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35378 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi John, John Winterflood wrote: > Juan wrote: > >John Winterflood wrote: > > > >> Can anyone read Spanish, maybe an email address can be > >> obtained from the university web pages :- > >> http://www.uema.br/ > > > >Sorry, it isn't spanish but portuguese. > >I was not able to found any Aquino there though. > > Thanks Juan, but I was thinking there must be some contact > email address for an administrative person in the physics > department. They could then be asked what position an > F. De Aquino held there - ie student, professor, junior > workshop apprentice and joker, etc Yes, I know but there isn't a contact email address. Only the webmaster address: webmaster uema.br and another webadmin cnpq.br from one of the few working link there. www.cnpq.br is Develop and Technology National Counsel. Maybe someone could ask there or ask Aquino to give a contact himself. Hope that helps. Juan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 07:54:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA20668; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:48:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:48:07 -0700 Message-Id: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:42:46 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FLi0z2.0.s25.cUdDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35379 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A > I get the impression that the critics have missed the point that the "tail" > apparently does travel faster than light. According to what I've read, the 300c effect is not the forward velocity...it is supposed to be a wave that travels backwards from the far end of the chamber... The tail apparently travels at (or just below) c. Ranfagni's experiment sounds more interesting, but I am afraid it will probably be degenerated (by its own inventors, or others) into the old phase/group/front/signal/etc. velocity argument. > It would be interesting to see what happens if a second pulse is transmitted > before the first pulse could arrive at its destination travelling at c. Agreed. --Kyle From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 08:29:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07278; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:28:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:28:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3936820F.DC9D6DF3 bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:32:31 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Nature News on Transmutation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"29xLs3.0.cn1.44eDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35380 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The current issue (1 June 2000 Volume 405 No. 6786) of Nature has a news article titled: "Transmutation of nuclear waste branded 'Trojan horse' " Unfortunately, I have had to let my subscription lapse. If anyone here subscribes, could you summarize the item? TIA, Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 10:12:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21668; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:07:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:07:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3936995B.EF3AD558 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:12:09 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: RF Stimulation of Electrolytic CF Cells References: <392E93A4.984CA15F@bellsouth.net> <004a01bfc74c$77a44740$0c6cd626@varisys.com> < Status: O X-Status: 014001bfc7da$bb90f320$a2a8f1c3 vannoorden> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"L_U1c1.0.SI5.YXfDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35381 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Peter, I would like to suggest an explanation for your observations. It is easy to boil water using electrolysis if sufficient power is applied. Consequently, the boiling-dry effect has no meaning unless you use a calibrated calorimeter. The tiny spherical light emitting structures I suggest were caused by small bits of metal removed during arcing of the electrodes. These would provide sites for recombination of the D2 and O2 as these gases were expelled from the liquid. Since this recombination can only occur on a metal surface in the absence of sufficient energy to ignite the gas mixture, the small metal bits would suffer heating as they were exposed to the gas mixture and released the recombination energy. I suggest you were not seeing any evidence for the CF effect and would not expect any in such a cell. Much is now known about how to make the effect work so that much waste of time can be avoided. Ed Storms Peter van Noorden wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robin van Spaandonk > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 3:56 AM > Subject: Re: RF Stimulation of Electrolytic CF Cells > > > In reply to George Holz's message of Fri, 26 May 2000 15:56:22 -0400: > > [snip] > > >Perhaps Scott needs to tune his ringing to the proper frequency. > > >This might not actually be too hard to accomplish if we can > > >believe that 320 MHz is actually one of the desired frequencies. > > [snip] > > I think this may indeed be an NMR type phenomenon, so the actual optimal > > frequencies may depend on the local magnetic field strength. This in turn > > could depend on the magnetic stirrer etc. > > > > Regards, > > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > > > From Peter van Noorden > pjvannrd knmg.nl > > 27 may 2000 14:17 The Netherlands > > Hello, > > In 1989 I tried to replicate the Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, > thereby using a palladium kathode ( 10*10*2 mm) and a platinum anode. > During an extensive period of electrolysis of heavy water + LIOD (3 weeks > continously at 3 volts .5 Amps) I did neutroncount measuring. > There where no neutrons above the background. > Then I shortcut the platinum anode and palladium cathode to create sparks > under heavy water ( peaks of 10 amps where reached). > This had also no effect on the neutroncounts. > The following step was the introduction of a strong magnetic field created > by a solenoid ( +/- 1 Tesla) during under heavy water sparking. > What struck me was the formation of tiny spherical light emitting structures > which circulated above the heavy water surface ( like ball lightnings). > Also in a few occasions the scaler of the neutron counter was giving a high > countrate. > During this event , the heavy water solution boiled dry very fast. > Because the effect was not completely reproducible and due to the fact that > the neutroncounter which I was using was sensible for noise signals > electromagnetic noise, moisture etc) I doubted my neutron measurements. > Because my premier focus was on radiation measurments I did not concentrate > on the boiling dry effect and the formation of the " ball lightnings" > Now ten years after these results I think that the formation of these tiny > light emitting objects have something to do with resonance phenomenon and > could be related to heat forming reactions. > As for now I will try to replicate these old results. > > Peter From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 10:18:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25123; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:15:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:15:17 -0700 Message-ID: <39369B1A.733D80C9 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:19:36 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: RF Stimulation of Electrolytic CF Cells References: <392E93A4.984CA15F@bellsouth.net> <004a01bfc74c$77a44740$0c6cd626 varisys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Kkbx51.0.O86.YefDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35382 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Robin van Spaandonk > >To: > >Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 3:56 AM > >Subject: Re: RF Stimulation of Electrolytic CF Cells > > > > > >> In reply to George Holz's message of Fri, 26 May 2000 15:56:22 -0400: > >> [snip] > >> >Perhaps Scott needs to tune his ringing to the proper frequency. > >> >This might not actually be too hard to accomplish if we can > >> >believe that 320 MHz is actually one of the desired frequencies. > >> [snip] > >> I think this may indeed be an NMR type phenomenon, so the actual optimal > >> frequencies may depend on the local magnetic field strength. This in turn > >> could depend on the magnetic stirrer etc. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Robin van Spaandonk > >> > >> From Peter van Noorden > >pjvannrd knmg.nl > > > >27 may 2000 14:17 The Netherlands > > > >Hello, > > > >In 1989 I tried to replicate the Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, > >thereby using a palladium kathode ( 10*10*2 mm) and a platinum anode. > >During an extensive period of electrolysis of heavy water + LIOD (3 weeks > >continously at 3 volts .5 Amps) I did neutroncount measuring. > >There where no neutrons above the background. > >Then I shortcut the platinum anode and palladium cathode to create sparks > >under heavy water ( peaks of 10 amps where reached). > >This had also no effect on the neutroncounts. > >The following step was the introduction of a strong magnetic field created > >by a solenoid ( +/- 1 Tesla) during under heavy water sparking. > >What struck me was the formation of tiny spherical light emitting structures > >which circulated above the heavy water surface ( like ball lightnings). > >Also in a few occasions the scaler of the neutron counter was giving a high > >countrate. > >During this event , the heavy water solution boiled dry very fast. > >Because the effect was not completely reproducible and due to the fact that > >the neutroncounter which I was using was sensible for noise signals > > electromagnetic noise, moisture etc) I doubted my neutron measurements. > >Because my premier focus was on radiation measurments I did not concentrate > >on the boiling dry effect and the formation of the " ball lightnings" > >Now ten years after these results I think that the formation of these tiny > >light emitting objects have something to do with resonance phenomenon and > >could be related to heat forming reactions. > >As for now I will try to replicate these old results. > > ***{Did you do calorimetry in your earlier experiments? If not, be sure to > do it this time, so you can determine whether the neutron readings are > associated with "over unity" numbers. If they are, that will massively > strengthen the result, since it is unlikely that the same situation would > fool the calorimeter and the neutron counter at the same time. --MJ}*** All very good advice. However, many studies have shown that neutron emission from a heat generating P-F cell is very near the detection limit of very good detectors. I suggest it is a waste of time to add one more negative result to this large collection. The reaction simply does not emit neutrons! If you want to see evidence for a nuclear reaction during energy production, look for helium-4. Ed Storms > > > > > >Peter From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 11:51:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00833; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:48:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:48:29 -0700 From: HLafonte aol.com Message-ID: <75.4e4680c.266809ef aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:48:15 EDT Subject: Re:To Mike Connolly on pulse in wire To: mconnolly grainsystems.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com, energy21@listbot.com, vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 102 Resent-Message-ID: <"RBLGi1.0.sC.y_gDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35383 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike, I wrote a paper on this very subject 2 or 3 years ago. I wonder if it is in any archives? I will try to find it and repost it. It was titled thought experiment. If anyone has a copy of it please let me know. Butch From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 12:20:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14248; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:13:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:13:06 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:29:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: RF Stimulation of Electrolytic CF Cells Resent-Message-ID: <"jk-XO3.0.OU3.2NhDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35384 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:19 AM 6/1/0, Edmund Storms wrote: >> >> From Peter van Noorden >> >The following step was the introduction of a strong magnetic field created >> >by a solenoid ( +/- 1 Tesla) during under heavy water sparking. >> >What struck me was the formation of tiny spherical light emitting structures >> >which circulated above the heavy water surface ( like ball lightnings). >> >Also in a few occasions the scaler of the neutron counter was giving a high >> >countrate. >> >During this event , the heavy water solution boiled dry very fast. >> >Because the effect was not completely reproducible and due to the fact that >> >the neutroncounter which I was using was sensible for noise signals >> > electromagnetic noise, moisture etc) I doubted my neutron measurements. >> ***{Did you do calorimetry in your earlier experiments? If not, be sure to >> do it this time, so you can determine whether the neutron readings are >> associated with "over unity" numbers. If they are, that will massively >> strengthen the result, since it is unlikely that the same situation would >> fool the calorimeter and the neutron counter at the same time. --MJ}*** > >All very good advice. However, many studies have shown that neutron emission >from a heat generating P-F cell is very near the detection limit of very good >detectors. I suggest it is a waste of time to add one more negative result to >this large collection. The reaction simply does not emit neutrons! If you want >to see evidence for a nuclear reaction during energy production, look for >helium-4. > >Ed Storms I feel compelled to add my two cents worth. It seems prudent to follow up on leads like this to the extent possible and practical. The odds of success are small but the payoff could be very large. It is a cost/(expected benefit) decision. In my opinion (stepping up on soap box now) a problem with big science is that the probability portion of the expected benefit number has to be too high, and is too over scrutized in an overly socialized and politicized manner. The flaw in this approach is that the benefit part of the "expected benefit" is ignored, so no rational decision can be made on a cost/(expected benefit) basis. An appropriate amount of high risk small science should be done. For the time being this kind of research is mostly limited to individual spare time effort and private funding. I think Peter has a hunch about his old experiment, a deep felt feeling based on his professional experience, and that should not be lightly dismissed. He may have the first crumb of bread in a trail of bread crumbs that leads somewhere important. If he has the time and inclination I think he should be encouraged to follow up in any manner his intuition leads him. If nothing else, such an effort should improve his apparatus and experimental capabilites for future work, plus give him the satisfaction of nailing down the lose ends and freeing his mind to pursue other angles. I suspect Mitchell Jones and Ed Storms agree with the above, at least to some extent, so I'll get off my soap box for now. 8^) Personally, I think following up in the lowest cost order is most appropriate. In my opinion, if he has his old equipment, this would likely be (1) EM shield the neutron counter, or the experiment, (2) add good calorimetry, and (3) look for helium-4. However, that order could be all wrong depending on what access Peter presently has to the corresponding equipment or service. A neutron signature in a 1 T field low voltage spark/ark would be a very significant finding, not necessarily directly related to cold fusion. However, since the branching ratios change dramatically between CF and hot fusion, it is resonable to expect that in SOME regime there should be a detectable continum of branching ratio change. Perhaps Peter has found some corner of that regime, based in part on ambient magnetic field. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 12:40:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25367; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:37:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:37:44 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000601153732.007a0510 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:37:32 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: M. F. on H.A.D. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"7kOoo1.0.yB6.6khDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35385 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is the answer to a question posed by somebody in this group (I don't recall who). Fleischmann told me they observed heat after death many times at IMRA, including many events as spectacular as the published example. Several lasted for many hours and sometimes the heat actually increased long after power was turned off. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 13:24:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18042; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:22:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:22:42 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000601153732.007a0510 pop.mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:21:25 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: M. F. on H.A.D. Resent-Message-ID: <"jfB0i.0.pP4.HOiDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35386 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Here is the answer to a question posed by somebody in this group (I don't >recall who). Fleischmann told me they observed heat after death many times >at IMRA, including many events as spectacular as the published example. >Several lasted for many hours and sometimes the heat actually increased >long after power was turned off. > >- Jed ***{I was the one who raised the issue, in sci.physics.fusion. Here, between the lines of asterisks, is the relevant excerpt: ******************************* Jed Rothwell said: > Again, you should say you have no reason to distrust Mizuno, Akimoto, Pons, > Fleischmann, McKubre and the others who have observed the same thing. The > only reason Mizuno's heat after death was so powerful was because his > cathode is 100 to 200 times larger than anyone else's. ***{If you really, seriously, believe that there are a number of independent "heat after death" claims that are as clear-cut as Mizuno's, then I suggest that you collect the descriptions together in an article, and publish it in *Infinite Energy*. The reason for doing so is that, with the proper calculations, such information becomes a method of proof. If, for example, you find ten equally clear-cut reports from independent sources, and the empirical probability that a randomly chosen scientist will lie is .1, then the probability that ten such reports are all false is (.1)^10 = .0000000001--which means you would have a very strong argument that CF is real. Each such example, of course, must be so clear cut that the possibility of an honest mistake is precluded. Otherwise, such a method of proof will not work. --MJ}*** ******************************* Note that in the above I specifically referred to "independent 'heat after death' claims." By "independent," I meant *not* from the same person. The reason for that qualification is obvious: if a scientist will lie once, he will lie repeatedly. Thus the method of proof outlined above requires that the various "heat-after-death" claims be from different individuals. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 14:02:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04971; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:58:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:58:46 -0700 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Grand experiment .. Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute In-Reply-To: <6jqbjsk5jnoflbq8aqsv42om2gosvvmmsr 4ax.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iVpdy.0.ZD1.5wiDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35387 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., This is a grand experiment and is a technical challenge. To be able to do it at all is a big plus in favor of the investigators. I do not criticise the work. I do say, for the purposes of use, it may be too complex. J On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to John Schnurer's message of Wed, 31 May 2000 13:27:46 -0400 > (EDT): > > After you read the account, you judge.... this is a little bit of > >a stretch .... it may well show the effect, so I have no argument, per se, > >but it is not a grand method if you wanted to use it... > [snip] > http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physics-light.html > > I get the impression that the critics have missed the point that the "tail" > apparently does travel faster than light. > I suspect that what we are really seeing here is that FTL transfer of > information is possible, but not FTL transfer of energy. IOW the information > may be being transferred by a non-energy carrying mechanism, which relies > upon the receiver (in this case the activated caesium atoms) supplying it > with the necessary energy. > > It would be interesting to see what happens if a second pulse is transmitted > before the first pulse could arrive at its destination travelling at c. > > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 14:04:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06487; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:01:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:01:34 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute In-Reply-To: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"h6FbI1.0.Db1.kyiDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35388 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > According to what I've read, the 300c effect is not the forward > velocity...it is supposed to be a wave that travels backwards from the far > end of the chamber... The tail apparently travels at (or just below) c. This "tail" thing sounds like a kludge-concept that's being used to explain away the strange results. So, do all brief optical pulses have a leading edge which extends many yards in front of them, and which contains the same information that's in the actual pulse? How do these "tails" form? Are they well-known in the literature? ...a violation of causality might be the simpler explanation! > > It would be interesting to see what happens if a second pulse is > transmitted > > before the first pulse could arrive at its destination travelling at c. Or bounce the outgoing pulse back through the chamber, so it arrives at the light source before it has left! ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 15:23:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08924; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:19:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:19:40 -0700 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:20:31 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <200006012218.PAA16055 smtp.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"XxCq03.0.CB2.x5kDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35389 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:01 PM 6/1/2000 -0700, you wrote: >On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: >> > It would be interesting to see what happens if a second pulse is >> transmitted >> > before the first pulse could arrive at its destination travelling at c. > >Or bounce the outgoing pulse back through the chamber, so it arrives at >the light source before it has left! > There once was a lady named bright, Who traveled much faster than light. She went off one day in a relative way, And returned home the previous night. Author unknown (to me) --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 16:42:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07271; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:35:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:35:35 -0700 Message-ID: <3936F43C.FC2B8A47 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 16:39:46 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: RF Stimulation of Electrolytic CF Cells References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lyPnK3.0.Kn1.5DlDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35390 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > At 10:19 AM 6/1/0, Edmund Storms wrote: > > >> >> From Peter van Noorden > > > > A neutron signature in a 1 T field low voltage spark/ark would be a very > significant finding, not necessarily directly related to cold fusion. > However, since the branching ratios change dramatically between CF and hot > fusion, it is resonable to expect that in SOME regime there should be a > detectable continum of branching ratio change. Perhaps Peter has found > some corner of that regime, based in part on ambient magnetic field. This point is well taken. Conditions do exist which have been found to produce neutron bursts and sometimes a large steady emission. A transition region clearly exists. To be successful and to add any useful information to the subject, a study of past efforts needs to be made. Although random, home-made experiments can be useful, success is improved when what is already known is included in the experimental design. I was trying to suggest that plowing the same ground does not provide much excitement when the result is known to be negative most of the time. Ed Storms > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 17:14:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA20682; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:10:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:10:15 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:10:03 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"hUG12.0.335.djlDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35391 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill - At 2:01 PM -0700 6/1/00, William Beaty wrote: >This "tail" thing sounds like a kludge-concept that's being used to >explain away the strange results. So, do all brief optical pulses have a >leading edge which extends many yards in front of them, and which contains >the same information that's in the actual pulse? Sansbury seems to think so, and his Pockels cell experiments could be interpreted this way. And why not? If a double slit experiment has an electron or photon in several places at once,then why not several times/distances at once? His experiments seem to me to be the functional equivalent of a double slit experiment where the slits are in line with the trajectory and not in the traditional parallel configuration. >How do these "tails" >form? Are they well-known in the literature? ...a violation of >causality might be the simpler explanation! There is no violation of causality as far as I can tell. Violations seem to arise only when you assume c to be the 'speed of reality' and not just the speed of sound in the aether or whatever it is between source and target. Causality should have inherent priority here. I don't see how you could physically go back in time. I don't think we really "view the past" by looking at old light from distant stars any more than we view the past by looking at yesterday's newspaper or watching old 'Friends' re-runs. If you were looking through a telescope from a light-second away at a guy clicking a radio key, your reciever set beside you would click the same moment you saw him press the key (of course). But he clicked it a second ago by your clock. If you had a superluminal reciever set, you'd have heard the click a second ago (or somewhat less) already. Are there any GR paradox problems with this? Either he clicked it or he didn't. The rest is just news regarding that fact, and can go via e-mail or pony express. It won't affect the fact already occured - will it? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 17:21:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24823; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:17:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:17:45 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:17:26 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"WaUTi3.0.e36.cqlDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35392 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:01 PM -0700 6/1/00, William Beaty wrote: >Or bounce the outgoing pulse back through the chamber, so it arrives at >the light source before it has left! How can it go back in time to before it left? If it left at a vastly superluminal speed, it could only loop back a very small increment of time past the instant the original pulse left. Very little else might have occured in the entire universe in the small increment, but its leaving would still have occured. Could somebody please explain the paradox? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 18:03:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA04948; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:31 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Uncertainty principle misinterpreted? Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:47:57 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <2pvdjsg935g6otsk6d2elq4dg17ds49dg1 4ax.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id RAA04914 Resent-Message-ID: <"gLtCS.0.ED1.VHmDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35393 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, The uncertainty principle says delta x delta p >= h / 4PI. If we assume that delta p < p and delta x < x then we can substitute p and x in the above to get x p >= h / 4 PI, or x >= h / (4 PI p) . Since h / p is the De Broglie wave length, we now have x >= De Broglie wavelength / 4 PI. If we ignore the 4 PI for the moment, then this says that x >= the De Broglie wavelength. When we look at the case where it is equal then this is precisely the condition that Charles Cagle suggests is the condition that must be met for the inversion of the sign of the electrical force to change. IOW we could perhaps say that the uncertainty principle is really a description of the condition where the electrical force changes sign, leading to attraction converting to repulsion, which in turn would tend to keep particles apart, i.e. seeming to lend weight to the tenets of the uncertainty principle. As for the factor of 4 PI, well perhaps Charles is off by a factor of 4 PI, or perhaps it disappears if my hand waving derivation is done more rigourously. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 19:45:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15811; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:39:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:39:19 -0700 Reply-To: "Sparky" From: "Keith Nagel" To: Cc: Subject: RE: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:38:05 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"0MI0N3.0.vs3.MvnDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35394 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sansbury was mistaken. His error was misidentifying coupled signal from the pulse generator used to fire the pockels cell, they take pretty big pulses you know? Look at the data with this fact in mind.... I was in touch with their group briefly, Sansbury did the experiment using loaned equipment. Hence the confusion regarding the results, as someone would have to pony up the cash to reproduce the experiment to test various hypothesis. So no way to have them test my idea out. Not that it's the kind of thing they want to hear anyway ;^) I was surprised to see the article in the Times; I've seen papers regarding this particular effect 10 years ago. I wonder what made it news? But of course I've yet to read a serious account of the experiment; so perhaps some novel thing was done. It's a remarkable fact that you can have pulse shaping in an active medium, to be sure. Anyone know of an online source for more information besides that miserable Times article? Oh yeah, I second the notion regarding the time paradox. Theoretically minded folks may take me to task for this, but I don't see a problem here. A signal travelling round trip over a 10 foot length at 2C is gonna get back to me in 10ns. 4C will do it in 5ns. K. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Monteverde [mailto:rick highsurf.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:10 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Bill - At 2:01 PM -0700 6/1/00, William Beaty wrote: >This "tail" thing sounds like a kludge-concept that's being used to >explain away the strange results. So, do all brief optical pulses have a >leading edge which extends many yards in front of them, and which contains >the same information that's in the actual pulse? Sansbury seems to think so, and his Pockels cell experiments could be interpreted this way. And why not? If a double slit experiment has an electron or photon in several places at once,then why not several times/distances at once? His experiments seem to me to be the functional equivalent of a double slit experiment where the slits are in line with the trajectory and not in the traditional parallel configuration. >How do these "tails" >form? Are they well-known in the literature? ...a violation of >causality might be the simpler explanation! There is no violation of causality as far as I can tell. Violations seem to arise only when you assume c to be the 'speed of reality' and not just the speed of sound in the aether or whatever it is between source and target. Causality should have inherent priority here. I don't see how you could physically go back in time. I don't think we really "view the past" by looking at old light from distant stars any more than we view the past by looking at yesterday's newspaper or watching old 'Friends' re-runs. If you were looking through a telescope from a light-second away at a guy clicking a radio key, your reciever set beside you would click the same moment you saw him press the key (of course). But he clicked it a second ago by your clock. If you had a superluminal reciever set, you'd have heard the click a second ago (or somewhat less) already. Are there any GR paradox problems with this? Either he clicked it or he didn't. The rest is just news regarding that fact, and can go via e-mail or pony express. It won't affect the fact already occured - will it? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 20:54:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA09934; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:16 -0700 From: d-choma att.net Message-ID: <39372EA8.5BD1675D att.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 23:48:56 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: An Intellectual Challenge References: <200006020245.TAA18658 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4jcVv2.0.8R2.ywoDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35395 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't know how far your academic work has carried you into physics, chemistry, cosmology, and math but an absolutely spectacular intellectual shoot-out started on the Hydrino Study Group on 28 May. Things rapidly got quite intense but the quality of the on-going discussion has been extremely high. It really makes you appreciate the potential of the Internet to foster intellectual debate. Lots of interesting information has come out. For just one example see http://www.egroups.com/message/hydrino/413?&start=388 If you enjoy an intellectual challenge then it's well worth your time to study this scientific dialog. You may even have a contribution or criticism to make. I suggest that you start with the following post http://www.egroups.com/message/hydrino/328 You might want to glance at the ".../Concepts.htm" URL referenced in this particular post --- it gives a useful beginning context. Utilize the blue FORWARD ARROW at the top of each page to follow the thread. Great fun! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 05:47:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02744; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 05:46:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 05:46:10 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000602084605.00795710 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 08:46:05 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Nice freebei from ICCF8 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LQwXp1.0.kg.IowDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35396 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Free copies of a nice little book were distributed during ICCF8: W. Collis, ed., "Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals, 1997 Conf. Proc. Vol. 64", (Societa Italiana di Fisica, 1999), 97 pages. This has impressive papers by Cammarota & Collis, Dufoour, Focardi, Miley and others. The Italian Physical Soc. will also publish a peer-reviewed version of the ICCF-8 proceedings, in January, 2001. I will post a Preliminary Report on ICCF-8 in a couple of hours after I hear back from various people who are critiquing it for me. I am looking over these ICCF-8 Abstracts and . . . I don't see any copyright notice. Do you see one? Does anyone? Hmmm m m . . . Ah, and what have we here on my computer. Why, it's the latest version of Textbridge Pro Millennium OCR ready to rev up. Whattayaknow. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 06:47:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA22847; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:41:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:41:24 -0700 Message-ID: <001301bfcca0$59f18f60$86441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Deuterium-Potassium-Helium Discharge & Light Lepton Pair Production Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:39:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"99u8U1.0.va5.4cxDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35397 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: According to my calculations there should be Light Leptons (1.7 ev energy each)produced from ~ 3647 angstrom ( 3.4 ev) photons in a Deuterium-Potassium-Helium Discharge. This is based on a "Resonance" involving the QM Fine Structure Constant Alpha, 0.00729 729, and a resonance of (Ee*Alpha^2/n) where Ee is the 0.511 Mev rest energy of the electron (in this case n = 16). The Helium I discharge provides the most 3.4 ev photon spectra with the least amount of "noise" from other spectra, and the Potassium with it's low ionization potential, merely acts as a catalyst. The radius (kq^2/E) of the ~ 1.7 ev LLs (+/-) is about 8.0 angstroms, and when an LL is absorbed by a Proton or Deuteron it forms a composite Neutral entity, P* or D*, that can effect Fusion reactions such as: 1, D* + D ---> He4 + LL + ~ 24.0 Mev 2, P* + P ---> D + (e+) + Neutrino + LL + ~ 3.0 Mev The 3647 (near uv) angstom photon and the 7294 angstrom Near Infrared LL annihilation photons are invisible to the eye. Might explain the "Missing" Solar Neutrinos, too? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 07:10:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03374; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:09:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:09:32 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000602100928.0079d580 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:09:28 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Miles paper in J. Electroanal. Chem. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"b11LM2.0.aq.S0yDv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35398 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: www.elsevier.nl/locate/jelechem Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 482 (2000) 56---65 Calorimetric studies of Pd/D20 + LiOD electrolysis cells Melvin H. Miles * New Hydrogen Energy Laboratory, 3-5 Techno-Park 2 -Chome Shimonopporo, Atsubetsu-Ku, Sapporo 004, Japan Received 23 July 1999; received in revised form 7 December 1999; accepted 7 January 2000 Abstract New experiments in sensitive calorimeters displayed the characteristics of the excess power effect during seven different occasions. These measurements clearly show the anomalous increase in the cell temperature despite the steadily decreasing electrical input power during Pd/D20 + LiOD/Pt electrolysis. This strange behavior can be modeled by the use of an anomalous excess power term in the calorimetric equations. Two thermistors used in each calorimetric cell always show nearly identical temperature changes, thus errors due to temperature gradients within the cell are unlikely. The onset of the excess power apparently develops in a gradual manner. There were never any large, abrupt increases in the excess power. The addition of D2O with its sudden cooling of the cell generally dissipated the excess power effect. No clear triggering events for the excess power could be identified. Several possible chemical processes considered do not explain the excess power. Normal behavior was always observed for a similar experiment conducted as a control. Copyright 2000, Elsevier Science S.A. Keywords: Calorimetry; Excess power; Palladium cathode; Deuterium evolution; Galvanostatic * Present address: NAWC Weapons Division, Code 4T4220D, China Lake, CA 93555, melmiles ridgecrest.ca.us From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 13:24:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15151; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:19:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:19:25 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000602161859.007ccb30 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:18:59 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Preliminary Report on ICCF-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Wd99y.0.bi3.CR1Ev" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35399 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is a preliminary report on ICCF-8, May 21 - 26, 2000, in Lereci, Italy. The conference was sponsored by: ENEA - Italian Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and the Environment CNR - National Research Council (Italy) INFN - National Institute for Nuclear Physics SIF - Italian Physical Society The conference proceedings will be published by the Italian Physical Society in a peer reviewed version, in January 2001. There were no great surprises at this conference. A few researchers report steady, reliable progress. A few are still floundering around in the dark, making mistakes they should have learned to avoid years ago. This conference may have exploded two ideas that I have long suspected might be myths: 1. High loading is essential to all forms of cold fusion (see Storms and Warner); 2. Cold fusion experiments are inherently difficult to perform (Warner). High loading may not be needed at all, at least not with Ni, Ti and Pt, and while it may be required with Pd, that is probably the "worst choice" of metals, as Storms put it. The best news from this conference is that spectacular progress has been made in correlating helium-4 and helium-3 with excess heat, especially at SRI (McKubre, 29) and Osaka University (Isobe, 14). The bad news was turnout. As expected, only about 145 people showed up, the lowest number yet. The number of participants is asymptotically dropping to zero because almost no young people participate. Most of the researchers are retired professors, 65 to 75 years old. An actuarial table will show that unless young people join the researchers the final conference will take place in about ten years, after which most major participants will be incapacitated or dead. Most top researchers have already retired or died. The ICCF-7 Proceedings were dedicated to the memory of M. Okamoto, and ICCF-8 will be dedicated to the memory of G. Preparata, who died in April 2000. You would think that scientists understand statistics and mortality rates, but they act as if they have all the time in the world. When I said this, E. Storms responded, "This comment is not fair because, without money, we can only work so fast. I, myself, am very frustrated at the speed of the work." He misses my point. I am suggesting that goals must changed with a sense of urgency. Other scientists, particularly academic researchers, must reach out and encourage young people the way Mizuno and Dash have done. They must teach -- they must act as professors. If the field is to survive, they must devote less time to doing research in isolation and trying to publish in obscure journals, and much more efforts to bringing their results to the attention of the public. I suggested to conference chairman F. Scaramuzzi that an outreach program should be established, and this should be an urgent priority. We must entice more grad students and other scientists. He was incensed by the idea and dismissed it as "unprofessional," undignified and against the rules. He said "other scientists will read the journals" and the message will go out. I see no sign that is happening, and given the opposition to CF at the major journals, I do not see how it can happen. In any case, Scaramuzzi is flat out wrong. I do not know about Italy, but in the U.S. and Japan every scientific, academic, engineering and medical discipline has an advocacy group that vigorously acts to entice students and to educate other professionals and the general public. As it happens, the next conference may spell the end of the field, because it will be held in Beijing, China, in 2002. I am sorry to say this, as it may hurt the feelings of our Chinese colleagues, but China is a difficult, uninviting and expensive destination for most people. I suppose the conference will be held in a well-sheltered luxury hotel, but travel will still be a burden for most attendees. I do not speak for myself; apart from the cost, a trip to Beijing is no hardship to me. I am interested in Asia, used to traveling in difficult places, and I can probably read the restaurant menus and railroad platform instructions in Chinese at least as well as the ones in Italian (barely well enough to tell fish from fowl). Yet given the politics and pollution in China, I would never travel to Beijing without a compelling reason, any more than I would have gone to East Germany. Unless something happens to spur widespread interest in the field, turnout may be very low indeed -- I fear that only 20 or 30 people will attend, apart from the Chinese. A list of ICCF-8 authors is posted at: http://www.frascati.enea.it/ICCF8/programme.htm Most of the listed authors showed up. The conference organizers said they would make continued use of the web page to publish things like the list of participants. Several people at the conference called upon authors to make better use of the Internet. Much lip service has been paid to the advantages of the Internet in previous ICCF conferences, but little has been done so far. Ed Wall suggests that abstracts and author addresses should have been made available to participants before the conference, which would allow participants to study the abstracts in advance, prepare questions, and correspond with the speaker, "making it a much richer experience for all." The conference organizers videotaped the presentations. They will be selling the tapes at a "very reasonable" cost, they said. They displayed the video input on large screen televisions for who could not see the viewgraphs. Their cameras and microphones were well placed and professionally handled, so the video tapes should be good. Here is a brief look at the oral presentations, including abstract number, titles and some of my initial impressions and opinions. Please note this is a preliminary report and I reserve the right to be wrong -- and to change my mind. The abstract numbers listed next to the authors refer to the page numbers in the Book of Abstracts. They in no particular order (not alphabetical by author or title). I have nothing to say about theory, but I will report a few comments made by other people. The length of these descriptions is not necessarily proportional to the interest or importance of the papers, or audience reaction. I have not had time to absorb some of the most interesting papers. Some of the poster session presentations were noteworthy, and a few were appalling, but I do not have time to discuss them. F. Scaramuzzi, M. Fleischmann - Lectures in memory of Giuliano Preparata, centering on his contributions to theory. Scaramuzzi briefly described the Italian government initiative in cold fusion, and Fleischmann said the program may include work in other controversial areas such as the effect of magnetism on health, which, as he put it, "will make us even more enemies." This is a counterproductive thing to do, given the already perilous state of CF research. A. De Ninno, (abstract # 92) "The Fleischmann-Pons effect in a novel electrolytic configuration." Thin wire Pd deposited on glass. This is a miniature, or even microscopic, version of the electromigration in wire experiments which have been popular in Italy for several years. They are based on the theories of Fleischmann and Preparata. Some Americans, including Storms, do not think the electromigration can produce as much pressure as the Italians claim. The Italians may be putting too many eggs in one basket by concentrating so much on this approach. I need to examine this presentation more carefully, but on the face of it, I find the calorimetry unconvincing because the devices are so small and power levels so low: around 50 mW total (input plus apparent excess heat). The levels of material purity claimed are also suspiciously high. The wires are so fined, they frequently delaminate from the substrate. I do not see the point of making such tiny devices, but Hagelstein pointed out they have the advantage of loading quickly, and starting the CF reaction quickly. Perhaps, but as far as I know, the thin-film Pd devices do not turn on any faster than the Ni or Ti cathodes which have thousands of times more mass, and which make stronger, more easily measured excess heat. P. Hagelstein, (64) "A Model for Fast Ion Emission in Metal Deuterides." Theory. Hagelstein told me he has been working more closely with McKubre recently, and they have successfully designed experiments which address theoretical questions. Hagelstein sees significant progress both with theories (his own and the Chubbs' in particular) and he thinks there is better agreement between data and theory than in previous ICCFs. He seemed quite optimistic. F. Celani weighed in with the longest title I have seen: (96) "High Hydrogen Loading of Thin Pd Wires Through Alkaline-earth Carbonate Precipitation on the Cathode Surface: Evidence for New Phases in the Pd-h System. Unexpected Problematics Due to Bacteria Contamination in Heavy Water." In the final portion of the lecture Celani explained that they have discovered bacteria which survives remarkably well in heavy water, and which may be a previously unknown species. This is interesting but it is a distraction. Y. Iwamura, (59) "Nuclear Products and Their Time Dependence Induced by Continuous Diffusion of Deuterium Through Multi-layer Palladium Containing Low Work Function Material." Iwamura's already formidable experiment has been improved. His group now performs continuous *in situ* spectroscopic analysis of apparent transmutations in a multi-layer thin film metal sample. The apparatus is installed in a clean room, and the cell is sealed throughout the experiment. Deuterium gas is diffused through the diaphragm "cathode" by producing a vacuum on one side of it. (It is not strictly a cathode, or an electrode as far as I can tell, but that is what they call it.) The sample is not removed from the apparatus during the experiment, making contamination unlikely. Analysis *in situ* is performed with XPS (X-ray Photoelectronic Spectroscopy) and SIMS, and after the experiment with ICP-MS. With the Pd-D sample, Mg, Si and S appear in the Pd, and increase monotonically as the experiment progresses. The Si and S isotopic abundance is not natural. X-rays are observed. A Pd-H blank sample run in parallel shows no excess heat, significant element formation or X-rays. Iwamura works for Mitsubishi heavy industry, in their Advanced Technology Research Center. Several large Japanese companies are supporting research projects. Some are surreptitious. They sent representatives to the conference, but they do not want to go on record and I would not want to endanger the funding by naming them. Anyway, the researchers are grateful for the funding, and express their appreciation to their anonymous corporate benefactors, and so do I. Occasionally the behavior of these corporations is dumbfounding. After Toyota made a show of abandoning cold fusion research a few years ago, two other Japanese automobile companies jumped in. They explained to a startled Japanese researcher, "now the field is wide open" -- as if only one company can do research at a time. J. J. Dufour, (40) "Hydrex Catalyzed Transmutation of Uranium into Lead." Uranium hydrides were subjected to magnetic fields and electric currents. This seemed to increase the speed at which uranium converts to lead by a small but easily measured extent, and it produces commensurate excess heat. The samples are 500 to 900 mg, and they initially contain 1.5 to 2 ppm of lead, evenly deposited throughout the sample. After the treatment, the "periphery" of samples (presumably meaning the surface layers), contain 2000 ppm of lead, or 20 ppm for the entire sample. Gamma activity decreases by up to 1%. The lead is measured by dissolving the sample and measuring with ICP-MS. Dufour believes that cold fusion is caused by what he calls "HYDREX" (electromagnetic metastable proton electron resonance), and like most experimentalists with a pet theory, he always seems to find evidence for the theory. However, people with other theories were impressed by the care with which this experiment was performed, and some of them found support for their own ideas. There have been other reports of radioactive decay being sped up or enhanced. The first and most impressive example was in a series of experiments performed in the 1960s by O. Reifenschweiler. J. Warner, (6) "Effect of Cold Work on the Amount of Excess Heat Produced During Electrolysis of Heavy Water with Titanium Cathodes." Warner is a graduate student with John Dash at Portland state University. He gave a fine lecture. These results were described at the recent APS meeting. They continue to make progress. This experiment is relatively foolproof and it nearly always produces excess heat with high confidence. One of the reasons it works so well is because they stick to the "KISS" formula -- "keep it simple (stupid)" -- meaning they do not burden the experiment with complex instrumentation, or attempt to measure anything other than excess heat *in situ*. After the run they look for evidence of anomalies and transmutations with electron microscopy and EDX at Portland State, and with NAA at another Reed College. This simplicity is an advantage and a disadvantage. Storms pointed out that this method cannot reveal much about the reaction. You cannot measure electrochemical conditions and control parameters such as OCV (Open Circuit Voltage), or look for helium or x-rays with such simple equipment. When you add in on-line detectors, the experiment becomes complicated and difficult. Still, it would be nice if other researchers would master the art of generating excess heat and doing reliable calorimetry before they launch ambitious programs to measure helium or x-rays. Another problem with this experiment is that the acidic electrolyte erodes about 40% of the cathode, destroying most evidence of transmutation or interesting surface changes. On the other hand, this bolsters his contention that some spots on the surface metal are transmuted, because it is unlikely that contamination would stick to the metal. Warner does not think that loading is an issue with this experiment because the effect either turns on immediately or not at all, and the material does not appear to form a titanium deuteride. Our group at Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. (New Energy Research Laboratory, NERL) will soon attempt to replicate these titanium excess heat results with an identical Calvet calorimeter (Thermonetics, Inc.), and Storms will also try when he gets a chance. He has done a preliminary test of a sample provided by Warner, which showed no excess heat. Dash and Warner have been quite helpful. If other groups can replicate Warner et al., it will bolster the claims. Warner says he would be delighted, particularly if we can do it before his oral doctorate examinations. Compare his response to CETI's which threatened to sue anyone who attempted to replicate their bead cathodes. Multiple replications would prove that cold fusion is easier than most experts have claimed over the years, and the missing element has been good teaching, enthusiasm and the will to show other people how to do the work. Every summer for several years Dash has hired two or three high school students to perform cold fusion experiments. Every year after they fail at first, for prosaic reasons such as leaky seals, contamination or bad electrical connections. After a few failed attempts, the students learn how to produce excess heat. Dash's calorimetry has improved over the years. I doubt he is making a mistake, although one cannot be sure until he is replicated. Dash and Warner now use an advanced Calvet calorimeter along with an array of eight isoperibolic cells wired in series. They ignore excess heat under 100 milliwatts, or two or three sigma. This is a conservative estimate of the error margin with the Calvet calorimeter. Other cold fusion scientists should be as careful, summarily rejecting low Sigma results. It would give people more confidence in this field. M. McKubre, (29) "The Emergence of a Coherent Explanation for Anomalies Observed in D/Pd and H/Pd Systems." There is so much to say about this, it is hard to know what to squeeze into this preliminary note. McKubre has outdone himself with the Case and Arata replications, which are far better than the originals. The helium issue is now closed. Cold fusion produces helium "commensurate" with heat, meaning the helium-4 production rate is comparable to a hot fusion D-D reaction. The helium can only be a product of the reaction, not contamination, for several reasons, mainly because in 4 out of 16 cases it was measured at levels far above atmospheric concentration. (In other words, the helium may have leaked out of the cell, but it could not have leaked in.) The helium-3 and tritium results were also definitive. The ratio of helium-4 to helium-3 in nature is 1:800,000. With the Case replication it reaches 1:67, 12,000 times higher than in nature, and in the inner chamber of the Arata replication the ratio is 44,000 times higher than nature. McKubre thinks the helium-3 is mainly the product of tritium decay. Huge amounts of tritium were found in some cells. The researchers devised a machine to pierce the Arata double structured cathodes and extract a sample of the gas inside them while rigorously excluding outside contamination. Samples were tested at one of the world's most sensitive mass spectrometers, in a laboratory specializing in the detection of helium, hydrogen and other light elements at McMaster University. One sample of unknown contents from a newly opened cell turned out to have over 1000 times more tritium than anything previously submitted to that instrument. It put the instrument out of commission for three months. Here is a quote from McKubre's summary at the end of his talk: "These results obtained in three different metal sealed cells, by three different calorimetric methods, with both electrochemical and gas loading experiments. The helium-4 analyses have now been performed in four different institutions, helium-3 analyses in two different institutions." Helium has been detected for many years by different researchers, but never in such large amounts, at such high concentration. It has never been observed with such huge large signal-to-noise ratios, or produced so consistent and reliably. The Case cell works about two-thirds of the time at SRI, and the Arata DS-cathodes work every time. These are difficult experiments and it is extremely unlikely they would work as smoothly in laboratories with less skilled researchers. This is no claim of "easy replicability" such as Warner and Dash make. After the lecture, McKubre was asked about evidence of transmutations or other changes to the cathode material. He said it was too early to comment on this subject. Tom Passell, retired from EPRI, told me that he has acquired some of the use cathode material and he is conducting the analysis. He has subsidized, below-cost access to high-quality mass spectroscopy. In this research, SRI cooperated closely with Osaka University, McMaster University, Pacific Northwest Labs, ENEA, and individuals including L. Case, R. George, and T. Passell. This openness and wide-ranging collaboration is exactly what this field needs most. SRI, McKubre, Tanzella and Tripodi should be congratulated for these spectacular results. J. Kasagi, (71) "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in Solids." E. Storms (32) - This was originally slated to be about thin layers of Pd on inert substrates, but Storms has not have much luck with those cathodes, so instead he spoke about excess heat from Pt. These results have been discussed here, and they are presented in detail at: http://jedrothwell.home.mindspring.com/Pt-energy.htm http://jedrothwell.home.mindspring.com/Active-Pt-quattro-pro.htm Storms now has two active Pt cathodes. He had some interesting new things to say about this experiment which I will describe later. X. Z. Li, (62) "Nuclear Physics for Nuclear Fusion." Theory. G. G. Miley, (65) "Advances in Thin-Film Electrode Experiments." At first glance this looks impressive, but I have very strong doubts about the calorimetry which I will explain in detail elsewhere, and I think thin-film on glass is a poor choice of materials. The thin film pulls off to easily (delaminates) and it does not have much surface area. I helped arrange the funding for this research and frankly, I am very disappointed by the results so far. Miley and his students did good work a few years ago working with CETI, but unfortunately that partnership failed, the University is upset with CETI, and the graduate students who were working on that project graduated. The new crop of people made major errors. Apparently, Miley was so busy with his other commitments, including hot fusion projects and meetings, he did not adequately supervise the project, so it went badly off the track. Storms also has doubts about the Miley calorimetry and he is preparing to test Miley thin film cathodes when they can be delivered to him. U. Mastromatteo, (42) "An Energy Amplifier Device." At first glance I find this unconvincing. The author described a thin film device manufactured like a semiconductor. The only major indication of cold fusion is apparent excess heat, and the calorimetry is based on secondary or tertiary evidence from the metal melting point and loading behavior, even though the device is small and low powered, and could easily be installed in a conventional calorimeter. This research is well funded, so there is no reason for such inadequate instrumentation. I suspect the apparent excess heat may caused by stored energy in the melted substrate (a phase change which does not show up as a temperature increase). Mastromatteo is at SGS-Thompson Microelectronics, one of Europe's largest semiconductor companies. (http://us.st.com/stonline/index.shtml) The company has vast experience fabricating similar device, deep pockets, and they are seriously interested in developing a commercial heat source. That's wonderful, but why haven't they done proper calorimetry? The whole approach may be a dead end, which they could determine in a month or two. D. Garbelli, (52) "High Hydrogen/deuterium Loading and Thin Palladium Wires and Preliminary Calorimetric Results Obtained in Electrolytic Cells." Y. Arata, (18) "Definitive Difference among [Bulk-D2O], [DS-D2O] and [DS-H2O] Cells in the Deuterization and Deuterium-reactions." This was probably an important paper, and it may have been definitive, but alas I have no clue what Arata said. His English is so poor that despite thirty years of experience listening to Japanese-accented English, I cannot make out what he says. His viewgraphs do not help much either. They show of a tangle of graphs too small to read from a distance, and tables without headings. I will review the tape, but I will probably not understand what he has in mind until the proceedings are published. M. H. Miles, (58) "Calorimetric Studies of Pd Alloy Cathodes Using Fleischman-pons Dewar Type Cells ." A description of the research at the NHE laboratory, similar to the version published in I.E. issue 30. Y. E. Kim, (33) "Ultra Low-energy Nuclear Fusion for Bose Nuclei Confined in Ion Traps." Theory. V. Violante, (34) "Hydrogen Isotopes Interaction Dynamics in Palladium Lattice" a complex study performed in cooperation with SRI. T. Mizuno, (103) "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid." The tungsten glow discharge experiments described in I.E. and discussed here. Mizuno showed three new color photographs of the plasma that forms over the cathode. The form and color of the plasma changes as excess heat develops. I hope to publish a copy of the photos on a web page soon. An interesting positive replication of this experiment was reported informally by P. Mobberley He uses "long reach" tungsten spark plugs as the cathode. The outside electrode is cut off and a large stainless steel iron bar is used as an anode. That is an excellent choice of materials, because spark plugs are standardized, and made of rugged, well-tested alloys, and the ceramic packaging is ideal for this purpose. Mobberley reports ~70% excess heat. He uses crude instruments: a Variac and an analog three-phase electric meter. He is in the U.K. where the mains voltage is high, which is convenient for this experiment, which begins to work at 150 - 200 volts. Mobberley also discussed a variation of the experiment with a plasma formed in a ceramic separator placed between two electrodes, in highly concentrated (1 mole) electrolyte. We will attempt to replicate this soon M. Swartz, (70) "Metanalysis of Patterns of Success in LENR/CF." Swartz did not show up. A. Roussetskii, (75) "Application Cr-39 Plastic Track Detector for Detection Of DD and DT Reaction Products in Cold Fusion Experiments." E. Del Giudice, (92) "A Simple Model of the 'Cohn-Aharonov' Effect in Peculiar Electrolytic Configuration." This should be spelled "Coehn-Aharonov," meaning the electromigration effect that Fleischmann is so enamored of. Y. Isobe, (14) "Search for Coherent Deuteron Fusion by Beam and Electrolysis Experiments." A very impressive set of three experiments. In experiment 1, with conventional bulk palladium electrolysis, low levels of excess heat and up to 10 ^ 16 atoms of helium were detected. In experiment 2, a 3 KeV electron beam struck palladium and titanium deuterides targets, and charged particles and x-rays were detected. In experiment 3, highly loaded titanium deuterides was irradiated with a deuterium or proton beam. The lecture was not long enough to do justice to three experiments, but details were available during the poster sessions. G. Mengoli, (7) "Anomalous Effects Induced by D2O Electrolysis at Titanium." Titanium was electrolyzed in D2O 0.6M K2CO3 at a high temperature: 95 deg C, in an externally heated the cell. The calorimeter incorporates a Dewar cell and an external condenser. I have not looked at this closely, but water-based calorimetry at these temperatures is extremely difficult, because heat lost as water vapor is difficult to measure accurately. This research is well funded, and I do not understand why they do not employ something like a Calvet calorimeter. The authors claims the initial heat output was ~200 mW, and it later increased to ~2 W. they also claimed there were hours of heat after death when electrolysis power was turned off and external heeding continued. I find this very difficult to believe. It would be unprecedented for titanium. I find the calorimetry questionable, but Mengoli also showed surprisingly strong evidence for transmutation of titanium into scandium. (In most experiments calorimetry is more believable than spectroscopy.) A. Lider, (61) "Excess Heat Release upon Hydrogen Isotopes Electrolytic Saturation into Metals Covered by Porous Films." S. Chubb, (25) "Theoretical Framework for Anomalous Heat and Helium-4 in Transition Metal Systems." Theory. An enthusiastic performance. Chubb compared some aspects of CF to HTSC, the Mossbauer effect and other well-established phenomena, and ended by suggesting that in these effects, groups of atoms band together in what might be called a meta-particle (my term), and a change which affects one affects them all simultaneously, which explains how the heat manages to couple to the lattice at the speed of a nuclear reaction, without tearing apart the host metal. He thinks this is true simultaneity, or as one member of the audience called it, "superluminal electrolysis." H. Kozima, (46) "TNCF Model - A Phenomenological Approach." A highly unconventional theory, which postulates the existence of "quasi-stable thermal neutrons" or free neutrons floating around inside the lattice for indefinitely long periods of time. The theorists I spoke with felt this should have been relegated to a poster session. M. Fleischmann, (106) "'Case Studies' of Experiments Carried out with the ICARUS Systems." A closer look at some of the apparent mistakes made at the NHE. In I.E. issue 30, p. 31, we listed some of the reasons Fleischmann disputes the NHE's conclusions. Unfortunately he was pressed for time, and he reiterated these and other reasons in such detail and so rapidly that I expect few people in the audience were able to follow the discussion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 14:16:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA10019; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:14:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:14:29 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000602171415.007acaa0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:14:15 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Preliminary Report on ICCF-8 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000602161859.007ccb30 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wpKo-1.0.SS2.qE2Ev" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35400 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is my first revision. Regarding G. Mengoli et al., I wrote: The authors >claims the initial heat output was ~200 mW, and it later increased to ~2 W. >they also claimed there were hours of heat after death when electrolysis >power was turned off and external heeding continued. I find this very >difficult to believe. It would be unprecedented for titanium. That's inaccurate. I recall several reports of heat after death (H.A.D.) with gas loaded titanium, including some quality work at U.S. national labs in 1989 and 1990. I should have said this would be unprecedented for titanium aqueous electrolysis. But perhaps it is not so surprising. While I am on the subject of H.A.D., I see that Mitchell Jones wrote an obnoxious message: >Note that in the above I specifically referred to "independent 'heat after >death' claims." By "independent," I meant *not* from the same person. The >reason for that qualification is obvious: if a scientist will lie once, he >will lie repeatedly. Thus the method of proof outlined above requires that >the various "heat-after-death" claims be from different individuals. If Jones would read the literature, he would know that many researchers observed clear-cut cases of H.A.D., starting in 1989. They include everyone who has done gas loading or proton conductor experiments, by definition, and several researchers with aqueous electrolysis. Off the top of my head I recall claims by McKubre, Takahashi, Mizuno, Oriani, Arata and CETI/Motorola. I am sure there are others. H.A.D. is an iron-clad, intrinsic aspect of CF, along with excess heat in general and now, thanks to SRI, helium. There is no controversy here, and no reason to disbelieve Fleischmann, or to imply that he has "lied repeatedly." People like Jones, who make the same old tiresome, nonsensical ad hominem arguments and who deny reality are the only ones in this debate who "lie repeatedly." Instead of looking at the data, they spout on about "lie repeatedly," which adds nothing to the debate. The argument is unfalsifiable, in any case. You can as easily claim that McKubre, Takahashi and the others are in cahoots with Fleischmann, and they are all lying too for some unfathomable reason. To take a famous example of a similar empty argument, the Deity might have "lied repeatedly" by creating a world full of fossils, and I suppose She might be fooling with the instruments now to make artifactual excess heat in hydrides, but how would we know? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 15:00:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09584; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:58:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:58:16 -0700 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:59:59 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Josip.Milanovic physik.stud.uni-erlangen.de cc: Schnurer , Franz.J.Schmitt physik.stud.uni-erlangen.de, markus rommel.stw.uni-erlangen.de, Vortex Subject: Experiment Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"mZLYo.0.gL2.tt2Ev" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35401 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Josip, Franz and Markus, At your page: http://www.rommel.stw.uni-erlangen.de/~markus/antigrav/1.html I looked at your experiment and commend you for working with superconductors. It is not the easiest thing to work with liquid nitrogen. I abbreviate High Temperature Superconductor as HTC. HTC of 1.2.3 YBCO can be obtained as a Sintered product, abbreviated SP, and a product which has been "Melt-Textured, abbreviated MT. The MT is a very good material for showing the Meissner Effect. The SP is not as good at showing the Meissner Effect and is often much less costly. At first we thought the MT would be better for gravity work... but we were wrong. The HTC YBCO has two crystal forms, 1] the Ortho crystal structure...... sort of like a rectangular cage with all angles being 90 degree right angles and exhibiting super conduction at liquid nitrogen temperatures and 2] the Tetra crystal structure, much the same but leaning to one side with not all angles being 90 degree right angles ... the Tetra does NOT exhibit superconduction at liquid nitrogen temperatures. Dr. Podkletnov teaches there must be NCE, or Normal Conduction Electrons and SCE, or Superconduction Electrons in the same material at the same time for his discovery to work. He als teaches the method he uses to heat one face ofthe disk he uses to cause the phase change making a thin layer of the YBCO disk into the Tetra phase. This satifies his requirement for NCE and SCE in the same piece of material. The Sintered Material has both phases, not as nice as Dr. Podkletnov's methods but which does have NCE and SCE in the same material. I have some questions and comments. C: When we put the coils set alone in the liquid nitrogen, but no YBCO disk we do not get a lightening, bouyancy or levitation... nor does it sink. This is because the coils set is all open and there is not reason for it to go up or down. There are bubbles, but because all is open they just go to the surface. Q: Did you do this experiment? If your coils alone, or coils with a "dummy" non HTC show bouyancy or going down then you should change them to a more open configuration so this is not an artifact effect. Q: Have you tried to do this? C: When we do put the coils set in liquid nitrogen and use a piece of YBCO which is no longer a superconductor because it has been changed to the Tetra crystal form by heating to 1,200 C... there by destroying the superconductor property at liquid nitrogen temperatures we get no effect of up or down or bouyancy. Q: Did you do this experiment? NOTE: See description of crystal phases of 1,2,3 YBCO elsewhere in this discussion, please. C: We found that YBCO worked well but that BISSCO or bismuth type substituted, which has a higher Critical Temperature did not work at all. NOTE: Critical Temperature is the temperature at which the SCE exhibits the effects of zero resistance and Meissner Effects. Q: What type of HTC did you use? Q: How big was it? Q: What shape was it? C: We found the best material came from Mr. J. R. Gaines at Superconductive Components in Columbus Ohio, with their 1 inch sintered disk being quite satisfactory. OTC (SCCI) 1145 Chesapeake Ave. Columbus, Ohio 43212 (614) 486-0261 www.superconductivecomp.com 1-800-346-6567 The company also has a VERY fine Melt Textured part called LEVHEX and it is an hexagonal near perfect single crystal that shows a very very strong Meissner Effect. I feel it is important for people doing this work to be able to physically feel the Meissner Effect of a suspended magnet... sort of like a cross between the magnet being on springs and also being in a viscous material like maybe Jello [tm] or thick oil... except every thing is in air! C: We used "targets" of glass, non magnetic metal, wood and plastic..... with all of these we tried many types. Q: Did you do these experiments? C: The pivot in the wood balance beam we used was a smooth steel pin and the wires were Litz wire to reduce artifact as much as we could. I was not able to see the details of the wire or pivot in your experimental set up. Q: How were your pivot and wires set up? C: Our drive current was about 1 amp at 9 volts and there was a set of 3 coils in the assembly so as to create a rotating magnetic field. We used a simple method to determine the "size" of our magnets and field. 1] First we took the YBCO and chilled it to 77K and then used a series of small and than larger and larger permanent magnets until we found a field strength which JUST barely would overcome the ability of the YBCO to sustain a Meissner Effect. This is sort of trial and error method. Too strong a field and then you just kill the SC effect.... too small and the Gravity Modification, Abbreviated GM, is not as big as it can be. 2] We then wound a series of electromagnets. We matched the strength of the two by using a compass at a fixed distance and observed like deflections of 45 degrees of the needle. This is an old and useful method. C: The original work by Dr. Podkletnov used rotating disk. I used rotating fields. In a recent talk by Dr. Podkletnov in England he cited using BOTH rotating disk and my method of rotating the field as well. This only makes sense. With both methods he reported 5% GM. Q: How did you arrive at rotating fields? Q: How many magnet-sets did you use? Q: What was the strneth of the field and how did you arrive at the strength you used? Q: What current and voltage was used? C: We found good results with a field switching rate of about 3 revolutions per second. Q: How fast did you rotate your fields? Thank you for your work, I look forward to your answers to these many questions and thank you in advance for your valuable time Best Regards, John Schnurer Post Script: In the time since the airing of the German Television Show by Klaus Simmering several entities, individuals and groups have reported in confidence to the Gravity Society. Many have exhibited GM, or Gravity Modification in one form or another ans not all have used Super Conductors. I was amused by your web site wherein the text claims I describe myself as a complete failure. I must have overlooked the days I failed completely! In general I sometimes get things right. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 20:02:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA06696; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39387678.B4ED7FA7 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:07:36 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for May 19, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Tv-202.0.Xe1.-I7Ev" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35402 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for May 19, 2000 Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:50:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 19 May 00 Washington, DC 1. INTELLIGENT DESIGN: YOU AND ME BABY AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT MAMMALS. In last week's Capitol Hill bashing of Darwinism (WN 12 May 00), Nancy Pearcey, a writer for Charles Colson, spelled out what this debate is really about: Darwinism would replace religion with a new science-based cosmic myth. In fact, in "The Sacred Depths of Nature," biologist Ursula Goodenough points out that a science- based myth has deep religious potential. But Pearcey contends it undercuts morality. To make her point, she quoted the lyrics of a popular song by the Bloodhound Gang: "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel." So much for the pretense that this debate is over the science. House sponsors of the briefing included Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Charles Canady (R-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D- TX), Thomas Petri (R-WI), Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Mark Souder (R- IN), and Charles Stenholm (D-TX). Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) was on hand to introduce several of the speakers. 2. EQUATION OF STATE: SECRETARY ALBRIGHT SEEKS A SCIENCE ADVISOR. "Whether the issue is countering weapons of mass destruction, dealing with infectious diseases or expanding the global economy while protecting the global environment, if we are to get our international strategies right, we must get our science right." The State Department is counting on the scientific community to support a reorganization based on a study released by the National Academy of Sciences last fall. Secretary Albright's first step will be to appoint a science advisor, but this late in the Clinton Administration, an advisor may be hard to find. 3. MISSILE DEFENSE: AMIDST COVER-UP CHARGES, ANOTHER TEST DELAY. Wiring problems with the interceptor have postponed the June 26 test by two weeks, but the Pentagon has a bigger problem on its hands. Ted Postal, who exposed the bloated claims made for the Patriot missile in the Gulf War (WN 20 Mar 92), now demonstrates that sensor data from a 1997 test clearly shows that the system was incapable of distinguishing a weapon from a decoy. Another expert who has examined the 1997 data tells WN Postal is right. The Pentagon counters that a new system is now being used, but Postal insists that no existing technology is capable of making the distinction. Postal also charges that the Pentagon and its contractors have deliberately sought to obscure the truth. 4. SPEAKING OF DELAYS: ATLANTIS IS HEADED FOR THE SPACE STATION. Which space station you ask? The uninhabited one that is running out of batteries, falling out of orbit, and on which the noise is deafening and the air is foul. Atlantis, which has been grounded by its own troubles, will give the station an orbital boost and replace its failing batteries and leave it again uninhabited. Next week: The Impact of Selling the Federal Helium Reserve. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 20:04:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17873; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:02:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:02:16 -0700 Message-ID: <393876E0.77ADE732 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:09:20 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for May 26, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Kf36x2.0.5N4.mK7Ev" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35403 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for May 26, 2000 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:11:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 26 May 00 Washington, DC FLASH!! PHYSICIST FRANCIS SLAKEY REACHES THE TOP OF THE WORLD. May 24, at 10:51 a.m. Nepal time, Slakey, a member of the What's New team, joined two other members of an environmental expedition at the Everest summit. "Slake" inspires much of the wit in WN. 1. NIF: RICHARDSON IS FURIOUS AS WAR BREAKS OUT BETWEEN LABS. The cost of the humongous laser facility at Livermore is up from a 1997 estimate of $1.2B to $2.1B. Now, the General Accounting Office says the real cost may be $3.6B. That prompted Sandia Labs VP Tom Hunter to issue a statement warning that delays and cost overruns will "disrupt the investment needed at the other [weapons] labs by several years." Energy Secretary Richardson exploded: "Mr. Hunter's views will be totally disregarded." Like ballistic missiles, press releases can't be called back, but Sandia's Director, Paul Robinson, says they're sorry: "We regret Sandia's inadvertent action in releasing an internal document." An accompanying note states: "Sandia plans no further public comment, and no Sandia official is available to elaborate on it." 2. DOE: NOMINEE TO HEAD SCIENCE OFFICE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. In her confirmation hearing, Mildred Dresselhaus warned the Senate Energy Committee against overreaction to spy scares: "The defense labs must have contact with the rest of the world." And she took exception to a call by Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) for "benchmarking" basic research projects. Dresselhaus patiently explained that you can't set a schedule for basic discoveries. MIT Institute Professor of physics and electrical engineering, Dresselhaus was President of the American Physical Society in 1984. 3. HELIUM: THE IMPACT OF SELLING THE HELIUM RESERVE. The 1996 Helium Privatization Act ordered the Interior Department to begin liquidating the Federal Helium Reserve by 2005. However, an amendment added at the urging of the APS, called for the National Academy of Sciences to study the consequences first. On Tuesday, an NRC panel convened to examine the impact, released its long- awaited report. The finding: "The committee believes that the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 will not have a significant impact on helium users." Ever? Well, not over the next two decades anyway. One reason is the pricing formula, set at the urging of the helium producers, which comes out about 25% above the current commercial price. Nobody's going to buy the stuff in the Reserve until the cost of extracting it from natural gas goes up as the major fields are depleted. But that day is coming, and physicists, who tend to view helium with a certain reverence, may not feel reassured by this report. A 1995 statement by the APS Council actually calls for enhancing the helium reserves. 4. STAR WARS: BUSH WANTS A MUCH LARGER MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM. And a much smaller nuclear arsenal. More next week. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 2 20:15:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA18685; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:04:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:04:38 -0700 Message-ID: <39387780.8BC3BF35 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:12:00 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jun 02, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cZD403.0.aZ4.1N7Ev" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35404 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for Jun 02, 2000 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:10:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 2 Jun 00 Washington, DC 1. **COMPTON: NASA REFUSES TO CONSIDER LAST MINUTE APPEALS.** The final maneuver that will send the venerable Compton Gamma Ray Observatory into the Pacific Ocean is set for Saturday midnight. The most spectacular discovery of this remarkable satellite, which was launched nine years ago, is that giant gamma ray bursts originate outside the galaxy. NASA says the satellite is being scuttled for safety reasons. It's down to its last gyro, and NASA headquarters feared it would tumble out of control, creating a hazard on reentry. But scientists say it didn't have to come to this; engineers at Goddard had devised a procedure that they believed would permit a controlled reentry with no gyro. But NASA refused to allow a test of the idea. The safest thing, a NASA official said, is to deorbit as soon as possible. Sure, and it would be even safer not to launch in the first place. 2. MISSILE DEFENSE: EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT PLAN. The position of the APS Council www.aps.org/statements/00.2 is that a decision on deployment should not be made until a system can be shown to be effective against reasonable countermeasures. Last week, in a speech at the National Press Club, Gov. George W. Bush was also calling for a delay, but for a different reason. He said that as President he would build a much larger missile defense to protect not only the US, but its allies and overseas interests as well. At the same time, Bush said he would unilaterally make deep reductions in the nuclear arsenal. This week, President Clinton sought to reassure allies by promising that, if an NMD system is built, the technology would be shared with "civilized" countries. No one seemed very reassured. While there is little prospect of a major arms control agreement at the Moscow summit this weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin is floating a proposal that the US and Russia jointly develop a shield against "rogue" states. 3. NMD II: "WHERE WILL YOU BE WHEN THE MISSILES ARE LAUNCHED?" So begins a scary 30-second TV ad that runs during local news in the Washington, DC area. "America has no defense against missile attacks--Clinton and Gore have left us unprotected. Nearing the election, they admit maybe we do need a missile defense, but only a limited defense and only with Russia's permission." The ads are paid for by the Coalition to Protect America Now. 4. NMD III: YES, BUT WILL IT WORK? Skeptics of the proposed missile defense system showed that they too can deliver a sound bite. Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, summed it up Wednesday on ABC World News Tonight: "I'd like to have the country protected by technological means. I would also like a cure for cancer. I'd like a really good light beer, but some things are beyond our technological capabilities." Next week: The Asian-American boycott of federal laboratories. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 3 09:36:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA06220; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:34:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:34:13 -0700 Message-ID: <000501bfcd81$aa66c3c0$3d441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Titanium, Nickel, or Tungsten Rods in a H2 - D2 - Potassium Discharge Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:13:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"soZIv3.0.0X1.4EJEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35405 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: Rather than loading the Titanium or Nickel with H2 or D2 it might be prudent to "load" the Hydrogen or Deuterium Gase Discharge with Ti, Ni or W ions and see if the plethora of 2000 to 4000 angstrom (~ 6.0 ev to ~ 3.0 ev) photons in the emission spectra of these metals will create Light Lepton Pairs, and thus effect the Fusion reactions. Vince had one hit using a Tungsten-Rod Cathode, but AFAIK, he hasn't had a repeat. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 3 09:47:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA10105; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:46:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:46:30 -0700 Message-ID: <39393829.DBBC3E28 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 09:54:01 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Park's What's New & ICCF-8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"U8DeE3.0.lT2.bPJEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35406 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 3, 2000 Vortex, I have been cross posting Robert Park's 'What's New' comments from APS for some time now. I just came back from an extended trip from the ICCF-8 in Italy yesterday. Park's commentaries were accumulated for the period just before and after the ICCF-8 Convention. His comments were interesting for the absence of any mention of the ICCF-8. He has been consistent in keeping track of cf activities over the years and was sure to make a negative remark on time on the CF international conferences. It may be that he has cut that activity loose along with Zimmerman although his voodoo book has been published. -AK-. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 3 22:00:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA07752; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:59:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:59:53 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 14:59:19 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> In-Reply-To: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id VAA07647 Resent-Message-ID: <"G_euG2.0.mu1.99UEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35407 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Kyle R. Mcallister's message of Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:42:46 -0500: [snip] >According to what I've read, the 300c effect is not the forward >velocity...it is supposed to be a wave that travels backwards from the far >end of the chamber... The tail apparently travels at (or just below) c. The point is that this "backward travelling" wave which meets the forward going wave at the beginning of the chamber, and cancels it, had to start it's own journey at a point in time that is less than d/c after the initial signal was produced (d being the total distance travelled), i.e. something had to travel from the generation point of the original signal to the origin of the backward travelling wave much faster than c, otherwise the backward travelling wave has no way of knowing at which point in time it is supposed to start it's journey. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 3 22:05:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA09830; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:03:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:03:47 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 15:03:13 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <8jojjs4vckds2u0ug9g3hgi40qgpgl3jqr 4ax.com> References: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id WAA09797 Resent-Message-ID: <"c_TOC3.0.RP2.oCUEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35408 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to William Beaty's message of Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT): [snip] >Or bounce the outgoing pulse back through the chamber, so it arrives at >the light source before it has left! [snip] This implies time travel, which I don't believe is relevant in this case. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 3 22:07:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA10841; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:06:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:06:24 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Too complex ...Re: Superluminal experiment at NEC Institute Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 15:05:52 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006011447.KAA04348 fh105.infi.net> <200006012218.PAA16055@smtp.asu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006012218.PAA16055 smtp.asu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id WAA10822 Resent-Message-ID: <"nfZnf3.0.Jf2.GFUEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35409 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Lynn Kurtz's message of Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:20:31 -0700: [snip] >There once was a lady named bright, >Who traveled much faster than light. >She went off one day in a relative way, >And returned home the previous night. > >Author unknown (to me) > >--Lynn Or so she says...certain witnesses claim it was actually the next morning ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 4 03:21:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA27611; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:21:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:21:03 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for May 19, 2000] Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:20:33 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <39387678.B4ED7FA7 ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <39387678.B4ED7FA7 ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id DAA27590 Resent-Message-ID: <"uy3lx1.0.Ll6.FsYEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35410 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Akira Kawasaki's message of Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:07:36 -0700: [snip] >hands. Ted Postal, who exposed the bloated >claims made for the >Patriot missile in the Gulf War (WN 20 Mar >92), now demonstrates >that sensor data from a 1997 test clearly >shows that the system >was incapable of distinguishing a weapon from >a decoy. Another [snip] Why would anyone bother with a decoy? If you have to send up two missiles, you might as well put warheads in both, and double your chances. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 4 10:30:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23532; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:24:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:24:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000602171415.007acaa0 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000602161859.007ccb30 pop.mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:21:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: M. F. on H.A.D. Resent-Message-ID: <"VqNXA3.0.cl5.73fEv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35411 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: >While I am on the subject of H.A.D., I see that Mitchell Jones wrote an >obnoxious message: > >>Note that in the above I specifically referred to "independent 'heat after >>death' claims." By "independent," I meant *not* from the same person. The >>reason for that qualification is obvious: if a scientist will lie once, he >>will lie repeatedly. Thus the method of proof outlined above requires that >>the various "heat-after-death" claims be from different individuals. > >If Jones would read the literature, he would know that many researchers >observed clear-cut cases of H.A.D., starting in 1989. They include everyone >who has done gas loading or proton conductor experiments, by definition, >and several researchers with aqueous electrolysis. Off the top of my head I >recall claims by McKubre, Takahashi, Mizuno, Oriani, Arata and >CETI/Motorola. I am sure there are others. ***{If Rothwell were capable of remembering facts that did not support his preconceptions, he would recall that he recently put forth the above fallacies (in April), on sci.physics.fusion, and I responded to them there, in detail. (That's right, folks: he recently returned to spf to defend his venomous and unjustified verbal assaults agains Miles, Newman, and others, from criticisms that I had posted there. In the ensuing debate, he allowed himself to be lured into other threads, one of which concerned "heat after death.") In order to convey to vortex readers why, for example, Russ George's gas loading experiments do not qualify as "clear-cut cases" of heat after death, I need to first restore the comments that Jed snipped--to wit: ******************************* > Jed Rothwell said: > > > Again, you should say you have no reason to distrust Mizuno, Akimoto, Pons, > > Fleischmann, McKubre and the others who have observed the same thing. The > > only reason Mizuno's heat after death was so powerful was because his > > cathode is 100 to 200 times larger than anyone else's. > > ***{If you really, seriously, believe that there are a number of > independent "heat after death" claims that are as clear-cut as Mizuno's, > then I suggest that you collect the descriptions together in an article, > and publish it in *Infinite Energy*. The reason for doing so is that, with > the proper calculations, such information becomes a method of proof. If, > for example, you find ten equally clear-cut reports from independent > sources, and the empirical probability that a randomly chosen scientist > will lie is .1, then the probability that ten such reports are all false > is (.1)^10 = .0000000001--which means you would have a very strong > argument that CF is real. Each such example, of course, must be so clear > cut that the possibility of an honest mistake is precluded. Otherwise, > such a method of proof will not work. --MJ}*** ******************************* Note the last comment in the above: "Each such example, of course, must be so clear cut that the possibility of an honest mistake is precluded. Otherwise, such a method of proof will not work." What that means is that the example must be one where, if the experimenter is honestly reporting the facts as he sees them, the CF effect must be real. In other words, "clear cut" means there must be no possibility that the report could be the result of one or more honest mistakes. Either CF is real, or the experimenter is lying. Those must be the only choices permitted by the claim. As I pointed out above, Rothwell has already suggested that gas loaded cells were clear-cut instances of heat after death, and I have already responded to it. Here, from an April 19 post to spf, is the proof: ******************************* > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Not to the people at SRI, Los Alamos and BARC. And why is the gas-loaded > > calorimetry less convincing than the bucket evaporation method? I don't get > > it. Calorimetry is calorimetry; it is just as convincing at 1 watt as >100 or > > 1000. > > ***{More disingenuous rhetoric. You know perfectly well what the > difference is between a cell that sits in a bucket and evaporates 37.5 > liters of water over a two week period, and a cell that produces complex > and arguable effects that require sophisticated instrumentation to detect. > Once again, you are graphically illustrating the behavior that has caused > me to distrust you: you ignore the little voice inside that tells you that > you are exceeding the limits of what is reasonable, when you feel it will > assist you to make a point. If you were an ordinary run-of-the-mill idiot, > of course, you would get a free pass. However, because you are very > bright, you have no excuse for your behavior. Frankly, you should be > ashamed of yourself. --MJ}*** > > --MJ}*** ******************************* Here is yet another post from spf which deals with the same point: ******************************* > In article <8dl2m1$h3u$1 slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jed Rothwell" > wrote: > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > > In my view, this experiment flatly proves one of two things: either >the CF > > > effect is real, or Mizuno is an out-and-out fraud. > > > > That's not quite right. You should say: > > > > . . . either the CF effect is real, or Mizuno, Akimoto and the graduate > > students who claim they saw the heat after death incident are frauds, along > > with everyone else who has observed and reported heat after death including > > macabre, Pons, Fleischmann, Storms, the people at Motorola and several >dozen > > others. > > ***{That's what you say today. Here's what you said in the introduction of > Mizuno's book: > > "It is a terrible shame that Mizuno did not call in a dozen other > scientists to see and feel the hot cell. I would have set up a 24-hour > vigil with graduate students and video cameras to observe the cell and > measure the evaporated water carefully. This is one of history's > heartbreaking lost opportunities. News of this event, properly documented > and attested to by many people, might have convinced thousands of > scientists worldwide that cold fusion is real. This might have been one of > the most effective scientific demonstrations in history. Unfortunately, it > occurred during an extended national holiday, and Mizuno decided to > disconnect the cell from the recording equipment and hide it in his > laboratory. He placed it behind a steel sheet because he was afraid it > might explode. He told me he was not anxious to have the cell certified by > many other people because he thought that he would soon replicate the > effect in another experiment. Alas, in the seven years since, neither he > nor any other scientist has ever seen such dramatic, inarguable proof of > massive excess energy in a cold fusion experiment." > > Bottom line: I no longer trust you, Jed. Your credibility with me has > crashed to zero. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, exaggerate, > employ ad hominems, twist other people's words, make dizzying logical > leaps, and basically behave as if any means is acceptable to reach the end > that you desire--which, apparently, is to convince the world that the CF > effect is real whether it is real or not. > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > All reports of nuclear effects from cells taken off line for > > analysis, such as x-rays and gamma rays, are also out-and-out fraud, > > including the autoradiographs from SRI and BARC, both photographic and with > > electronic detectors. Also, all claims of heat and nuclear effects from > > gas-loaded cells and ion beam loading are out-and-out fraud. > > ***{More Rothwellian exaggeration and logical leaping. These types of > results lack the stark clarity of the Mizuno "heat-after-death" claim, > because they arise in a complex welter of detail that allows many grounds > for doubt which have nothing to do with outright fraud. --MJ}*** > > > > > That makes maybe 500 to 1000 papers out-and-out fraud. There have been many > > reports of non-electrochemical loading that successfully produced the CF > > effect. All of these are, in effect, heat after death, since there is no > > input energy, only sustained heat output and nuclear effects. No power > > supplies to worry about either; only pumps, which are shut off. Jones is > > either ignoring these reports or he dismisses them as out-and-out fraud. > > ***{Rubbish. I repeat: in most of these instances, there are numerous > grounds for doubting that CF was at work which have nothing whatever to do > with suspicions of outright fraud. Many results of this type, in fact, > have been discussed in this very group, and most of the criticisms were > focused on various possibilities for substantive errors in the protocols. > --MJ}*** > > > Since these other methods have been known to work since 1989, it comes >as no > > surprise that electrochemically loaded Pd occassionally produce a strong CF > > reaction long after loading. Indeed, it would be puzzling if gas loaded > > cells do this yet electrochemically loaded ones do not, because > > electrochemistry is a fantastically effective way to put hydrogen into > > metal. > > ***{As has been discussed here, and elsewhere, ad nauseam, the case for > fusion in the gas loaded cells (e.g., the Russ George cell) has not been > proven. In those extensive discussions, virtually the entire focus was on > holes in the argument and ways that those holes could have been filled in, > not on fraud. --MJ}*** > > Also, most of the surface chemical reactions which people believe may > > trigger CF, such as H2 (or D2) formation, continue long after the current > > goes off. > > ***{Stated, but not proven. --MJ}*** > > > > > You might also posit that all of these people are involved in a conspiracy, > > or they are all crazy. > > ***{Nope. In most cases, CF claims could be wrong without requiring that > the persons making them be dishonest. The Mizuno heat-after-death claim, > however, is an exception: either CF is real, or Mizuno is an out-and-out > fraud. Therefore, since I have no evidence that Mizuno is dishonest, I am > slightly inclined toward the opinion that CF is real. However, until I > know enough about the man to nominate him for Sainthood, that's as far as > I'm willing to go. --MJ}*** > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, the > > > empirical probability that this is a made up tale is comparable to the > > > empirical probability of a power supply fault in a cell that has not been > > > disconnected from its power source . . . > > > > Oh right, of course. All these people have been making things up. It IS a > > conspiracy! > > ***{More false logic. In most cases, these experimenters can be wrong > without being dishonest, as noted above. --MJ}*** > > > > > (The power supply in this case was a half-kilometer away from the cell > > during most of the event.) > > ***{Irrelevant. --MJ}*** > > > > > - Jed ******************************* Bottom line: Rothwell has had a vast amount of information sent his way, indicating with crystal clarity (a) that gas loaded and similar non-electrolytic types of CF do not qualify as "clear-cut instances of heat after death" as I have used the term (and I am the one who introduced it into the discussion, and thus what I meant by it is the point at issue) *unless* the claims cannot possibly be attributed to honest mistakes; and (b) that I have made no charges intended to impugn the integrity of anyone making a heat-after-death claim. Unfortunately, Rothwell *wants* to charge me with leveling ad hominem attacks against CF scientists, because I have charged him with leveling such attacks against them. The difference, however, is that his charges against me are palpable falsehoods motivated by spite, whereas my charges against him are verifiable facts, proven here and on spf, in spades. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >H.A.D. is an iron-clad, intrinsic aspect of CF, along with excess heat in >general and now, thanks to SRI, helium. There is no controversy here, and >no reason to disbelieve Fleischmann, or to imply that he has "lied >repeatedly." ***{And I did not. To the contrary, as you well know, and as the quotes I have supplied here massively demonstrate, I repeatedly stated that I was merely talking about a method by which an ironclad proof of CF might be constructed. I made it crystal clear that I had no specific reason to distrust Mizuno, Fleischmann, or any other person in particular. It is possible to recognize that the probability of an abstract experimenter lying is greater than zero, without having to hurl an accusation against any specific individual. And it is possible to talk in the abstract about how an ironclad proof of CF might be constructed, using clear-cut heat-after-death episodes, without claiming to have any specific reasons to doubt the integrity of Fleischmann, Mizuno, or anyone else. Moreover, you know that--or you would know it if you would take your fingers out of your ears--and that's why, if anyone is lying here, it is you. --MJ}*** People like Jones, who make the same old tiresome, nonsensical >ad hominem arguments and who deny reality are the only ones in this debate >who "lie repeatedly." ***{That is what *you* are doing. I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly, that I did not intend to impugn the integrity of any specific person making heat-after-death claims. Here, from our earlier exchange on spf, is the proof: ******************************* > Jed Rothwell said: > > > I meant another dozen professors -- someone besides Akimoto and the grad > > students holding the hot towels. I did not mean to give the impression that > > NOBODY else saw it. He says right in the book, on page 77 that Akimoto was > > there, and he warned other people not to fool with the thing. I spoke with > > Akimoto and others who were there, and who confirm the account. They would > > have to be conspiring with Mizuno if this is fraud. > > ***{I'm not saying it is fraud. I'm saying what I said from the beginning: > that this report rests on the veracity of one man--Mizuno. The reason that > is true is that Mizuno did not do what you routinely denounce others > (e.g., Newman) for not doing--to wit: he did not invite skeptical experts > in and permit them to do what was necessary to prove that the effect was > real. Instead, he kept the cell behind a steel screen, in his laboratory, > and "warned other people not to fool with the thing." Result: there is no > way be be sure that, for example, there were no hidden wires or other > sources of power. As I have said, I have no specific reason to distrust > Mizuno, and so I am inclined to place some credence in his report. > However, your claim that it rests on anything more substantial than his > own veracity is belied by your own words. --MJ}*** ******************************* Instead of looking at the data, they spout on about >"lie repeatedly," which adds nothing to the debate. ***{It adds nothing to the debate, when a method of proof is identified that has the potential to settle the issue once and for all? Wow! Pull your fingers out of your ears, fool, and listen to what I am saying: all you need to do is find roughly a dozen clear-cut, independent heat after death claims from reputable scientists--i.e., claims that are so robust that there is no possibility of an honest mistake--and you will be in the position to fashion a probabilistic argument that will settle this tiresome debate once and for all. Got it? (No, of course you don't! Duh!) --MJ}*** The argument is >unfalsifiable, in any case. You can as easily claim that McKubre, Takahashi >and the others are in cahoots with Fleischmann, and they are all lying too >for some unfathomable reason. To take a famous example of a similar empty >argument, the Deity might have "lied repeatedly" by creating a world full >of fossils, and I suppose She might be fooling with the instruments now to >make artifactual excess heat in hydrides, but how would we know? ***{Since you are a closet atheist, the above is just another example of your willingness to create false implications in order to manipulate the opinions of others. --MJ}*** > >- Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 5 13:55:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03531; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:47:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:47:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:46:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: David Jonsson To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: I want to call you In-Reply-To: <20000530174800.76576.qmail hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"sBr3m2.0._s.E71Fv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35412 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Can I call you? I'm living in Sweden but I can call for free through http://www.dialpad.com I would like to speak to someone dealing with rotating intertial system, Schauberger vortecii in air, electrodynamic explanation of gravity or maybe some other topic. Just give me your number. Internet telephony is really fantastic. The world is shrinking... David David Jonsson US Fax +1 (305) 946-7851 Stockholm Phone +46-703-000370 E-mail David Bahnhof.se Sweden http://www.bahnhof.se/~david Postgiro 499 40 54-7 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 5 14:25:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21602; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:22:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:22:48 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000605172227.007bde20 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:22:27 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Hear Chubb, Gingrich discuss CF briefly Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"X2gxE3.0.SH5.de1Fv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35413 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For a short time a video will be available on line. See: http://cspan.org/ Search for: Gingrich Select: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 "Science on the Campaign Trail" Watch Washington, DC American Geophysical Union Annual Spring Meeting Speakers: Newt Gingrich; Michael Rodemeyer, House Science Committee; George Frampton, Gore Campaign; Representative from the Bush campaign Go to end of talk, at minute 41. Scott Chubb asks about cold fusion. QUOTE from Gingrich: I don't know whether cold fusion exists or doesn't exist yet, but it is not abnormal for very large breakthroughs to be controversial and to be a running fight. Science is not about people meekly getting together in a back room to reach some judgement without passion. I think there are a lot examples in the history of science where people either thought they were right and turned out to be wrong, or were accused of being wrong and turned out to be right . . . - JR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 05:24:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA23432; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:23:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:23:13 -0700 Message-ID: <393CEEF6.EA7E7228 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 05:30:47 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: ICCF-8 misc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sv8y21.0.-j5.mqEFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35414 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 6, 2000 Vortex, Remember Steven Jones of Utah? He was listed in the Participant List. In checking at the Conference, he did not appear for the Convention. But since being registered, he will be receiving the published Proceedings later. He is active in cold fusion. -ak- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 06:36:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16455; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 06:33:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 06:33:25 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000606093311.007a0470 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:33:11 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "vortex-l@eskimo.com" From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: ICCF-8 misc In-Reply-To: <393CEEF6.EA7E7228 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"-jzXx3.0.014.asFFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35415 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: >Remember Steven Jones of Utah? . . . >But since being registered, he >will be receiving the published Proceedings >later. Anyone can buy them. They will come out in January. > He is active in cold fusion. Is he? What is he doing? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 07:49:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23605; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:48:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:48:15 -0700 Message-ID: <393D10F3.A5034078 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 07:55:47 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF-8 misc References: <3.0.6.32.20000606093311.007a0470 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"db14w2.0.gm5.kyGFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35416 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 6, 2000 Vortex, Jed Rothwell wrote: . . . > Anyone can buy them. They will come out in January. He bought the open right to attend ICCF-8. Correct, you can buy the Proceedings. But receiving it becomes automatic when you are listed a Participant. > > He is active in cold fusion. > > Is he? What is he doing? He's not saying much is he. But his university staff was aware that he was still into cold fusion to the extent at least of having a Cold Fusion label on his office/lab door --- or did he forget to take it off after 1989? This was sometime last year. Now when ICCF-8 finally makes available a detailed Participant's List (with addresses and other contact details), you can question him directly. I believe they announced this will be on the ICCF-8 website later. I missed Mitchell Swartz of Cold Fusion Times at the Conference. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 07:56:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27982; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:54:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:54:24 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000606105405.007a1b30 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:54:05 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: ICCF-8 misc In-Reply-To: <393D10F3.A5034078 ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000606093311.007a0470 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"EoW742.0.8r6.V2HFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35417 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: >Now when ICCF-8 finally makes available a detailed >Participant's List (with addresses and other contact >details), you can question him directly. I could question him directly anytime. I have his e-mail address somewhere. But I would not trust the answers. I do not think he is good at chemistry or electrochemistry. I was never impressed by his experiments or his attitude, and his last paper about recombination was a travesty. He might be skilled at particle detection, which is his specialty. I can't judge that. >I believe they >announced this will be on the ICCF-8 website later. Yes, they did. It isn't there yet. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 10:51:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA08297; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:43:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:43:46 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:49:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex Subject: Bounce Gene Mallove Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9x9WX2.0.L12.HXJFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35418 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Folks, Does anyone have a current address for Gene Mallove? I just tried to write him a letter and I cot an aol-compuserve bounce... Please and thanks... J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 11:21:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26549; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:20:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:20:12 -0700 X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Bounce Gene Mallove Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:34:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20000606183419171.AAA315 mail.lcia.com@lizard> Resent-Message-ID: <"xwmo01.0.kU6.S3KFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35419 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Dear Folks, > > Does anyone have a current address for Gene Mallove? I just tried >to write him a letter and I cot an aol-compuserve bounce... > > Please and thanks... Try this one John, editor infinite-energy.com Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 11:48:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05949; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:44:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:44:46 -0700 Message-ID: <393D4862.4BAE7046 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:52:18 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" CC: Akira Kawasaki Subject: ICCF-8 Proceedings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Vgd3_1.0.pS1.SQKFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35420 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 6, 2000 Vortes, To help answer some inquiries: I do not know exactly when and how much the Proceedings will cost when issued. It will certainly be after late in July at the earliest since they will be collecting manuscripts until June 30, 2000. To obtain details, contact the ICCF-8 organizers by e-mail at <>. Or visit their website at <> for all information related to the ICCF-8 including the future availability of their official videotaped copies of the Conference. I made my own archival copy (with official permission) and am in the process of transferring it from Digital Video to SVHS and VHS formats. Sure loses a lot of resolution in the process. I will buy their copy just to see differences in recording techniques and qualities. Their tapes should be better at least from the standpoint of not having to record a lot of aging balding pates (gets to be recognizable after a while) and passerby flashing past the camera. If they used it all, I believe they had use of four video cameras, two on each side. I did not ascertain if they were Sony beta or digital formats. This Conference, unless there is a dying need, I do not feel there is need to make my copy available so my tapes will be only for my library, which is fine. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 11:50:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA07719; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:48:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:48:25 -0700 Message-ID: <001501bfcfef$e57bea60$8d441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: , Subject: Re: Mercury Enhanced Fusion? Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:45:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"bZcCe1.0.Xu1.uTKFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35421 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: The most favorable resonance point for Light Lepton Pair Production in the ultraviolet, is ~ 2737 angstroms or about 4.54 ev (1.02E6*alpha^2/n, where n =12) this is also close to the work function values of the metals used in the CF experiments, which implies that return of an electron to the metal may produce a uv photon with concurrent LL Pair production. The 2537 angstrom (4.88 ev) uv line of a minute quantity of Mercury in the gas discharge which has an intensity of 15,000, swamps the total of the lessor spectra energy/noise, and might be capable of producing the ~ 4.54 ev LL Pair in a gas discharge of D2 or H2 along with the catalytic contribution of Potassium. The presence of LLs in Fluorescent Tubes might explain why they are so readily "excited" into fluorescence when rubbed by a cloth, etc. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 11:57:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA12137; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:55:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:55:46 -0700 Message-ID: <008701bfcfe8$4f9e4d00$cd637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <393D4862.4BAE7046 ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: ICCF-8 Proceedings Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:52:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"VNeTn1.0.Gz2.naKFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35422 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I heard it was next January from Gene. Don't ask me why. Maybe they're being copied by monks in monasteries. Ed Wall ----- Original Message ----- From: Akira Kawasaki To: Cc: Akira Kawasaki Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 2:52 PM Subject: ICCF-8 Proceedings > June 6, 2000 > > Vortes, > > To help answer some inquiries: > > I do not know exactly when and how much the > Proceedings will cost when issued. It will > certainly be after late in July at the > earliest since they will be collecting > manuscripts until June 30, 2000. > To obtain details, contact the ICCF-8 > organizers by e-mail at > <>. > Or visit their website at > <> for > all information related to the ICCF-8 > including the future availability of their > official videotaped copies of the Conference. > > I made my own archival copy (with official > permission) and am in the process of > transferring it from Digital Video to SVHS > and VHS formats. Sure loses a lot of > resolution in the process. I will buy their > copy just to see differences in recording > techniques and qualities. Their tapes should > be better at least from the standpoint of not > having to record a lot of aging balding pates > (gets to be recognizable after a while) and > passerby flashing past the camera. If they > used it all, I believe they had use of four > video cameras, two on each side. I did not > ascertain if they were Sony beta or digital > formats. > This Conference, unless there is a dying > need, I do not feel there is need to make my > copy available so my tapes will be only for > my library, which is fine. > > -AK- > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 12:24:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24263; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:22:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:22:38 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000606152220.007c5c10 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:22:20 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: ICCF-8 Proceedings In-Reply-To: <008701bfcfe8$4f9e4d00$cd637dc7 computer> References: <393D4862.4BAE7046 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"791Xm2.0.zw5.zzKFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35423 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed Wall wrote: >I heard it was next January from Gene. Don't ask me why. Maybe they're >being copied by monks in monasteries. It is because the papers will be sent around for peer review and then published by the Italian Physical Society. Not a bad idea, but it takes a long time. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 6 15:07:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05794; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:05:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:05:54 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000606180537.0079bb90 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:05:37 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: R. Stringham ICCF-8 Abstract Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"RwCyy3.0.MQ1.1NNFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35424 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is a promising experiment from the ICCF-8 poster sessions, by Roger Stringham. I'm going to cop the Abstract because it is one of the few well-written Abstracts that tells the whole story. This is a continuation of Roger Stringham's work with cavitation sonofusion. Stringham has produced a much smaller, cheaper version of his device using off-the-shelf parts. It is designed to be small enough to fit into an SRI flow calorimeter. This experiment was not quite ready for prime-time, because the sonofusion device produces so much RF noise, it interferes with the calorimeter, however preliminary results show 10 watts total power going into the device and 12 watts coming out. This is remarkable, because most of the energy going into the ultrasound generator is wasted, and only a tiny fraction of it is focused on the metal sample. Russ George worked with Stringham years ago and probably deserves some credit for this. For years I have been trying to convince Stringham to make several of his cavitation devices to be tested by other people. He refuses to do this, for the usual reasons. This device is the cheapest and smallest one he has made yet, costing about $600. When I suggested he might make 10 of them he declined because he fears the device would make "a good bomb" in the hands of an inexperienced person. He means a chemical bomb. I'm not sure how pressure can build up from cavitation reactions, since I assume the free hydrogen and oxygen readily recombines, and only a fraction of the hydrogen remains absorbed in the metal, leaving a slight surplus of oxygen. Incidentally, I have been wondering why the metal targets load mainly with hydrogen and not much oxygen, since the collapsing bubble injects a plasma made of water. Stringham says the larger oxygen atoms do not penetrate very far down, and there quickly released from the metal surface. The damage described in this abstract is interesting, but the experts disagree about what it means. I hope Stringham publishes a comprehensive paper in the Proceedings. I wish I could get him to sell me a dozen of those machines! Perhaps some qualified readers of this forum living in the Northwest could contact him and sweet talk him into handing over one or two. Stringham is a mellow fellow, and helpful in many ways, but stubborn. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R. Stringham, (First Gate Energies), Mass Flow Calorimetry of a Cavitation Process Authors: R. Stringham, H. Wallace, F. Tanzella and M. McKubre Abstract # 50 The collapse of cavitation bubbles in acoustic fields is not always destructive. The bubble collapse is physically understood until its last moments when the high densities and temperatures of the contents are produced along with UV photon emission. Near the end of its adiabatic collapse a bubble in an acoustic field produces a jet, and if the acoustic amplitude is large, the jet will accelerate through the bubble and self-destruct in one acoustic cycle. The dissociated bubble contents that make up the jet are accelerated at velocities of several Mach into either metal surfaces or liquid D20. In these experiments metal foils provide the surface entry for the jet produced deuterons. The jet events time frame is in picoseconds and produces heat by a mechanism with no detectable long range radiation. Accurate calorimetric measurement of total power in and out of these cavitating systems is difficult. A collaborative effort between SRI and First Gate Energies focused on better cavitation calorimetry to demonstrate over unity heat production. Measurements of power in and heat out during the cavitation of several foils were made. The combination of the SRI calorimeter and the First Gate cavitation system measured the DC input power (Wi) and output heat (Wo). The partition of Wi between the reactor (R4) and the power supply for the oscillator (P4) was converted to watts via their respective steady-state delta temperatures. The experiment employed two labyrinth mass-flow calorimeters in stainless steel dewars with a constant flow of a calorimetric fluid (water) whose mass was measured with time. The two dewars were submerged in a 200 L constant temperature water bath that was the source of the input water for R4 and P4. In their separate calorimeters, the circuitous water flow removed the heat as it was produced, and the calorimeters for R4 and P4 reached steady-state temperatures after several hours. As the water exited each dewar, the output water temperature was measured. The steady-state delta temperature of R4 and P4 converted to watts was measured with the sum equal to Wo. To calibrate the heat loss in each calorimeter, a variable DC Joule heater was placed in each calorimeter and run with no cavitation. The P4 used a resonance feedback system to drive the R4 opposed piezos at their resonant frequency. The reaction chamber of R4 held 10 cc of D20 and a 100 micron thick foil. The foils exposed to pulsed cavitation were Pd, Ag, Cu and stainless steel for about 24 hours with the average Wi varying between 20 and 90 watts for each run. In an experiment the number of runs per foil depended on its composition and grain size. Any positive difference between Wo and Wi was a measurement of the foils production of excess heat, Q(x). These experiments in the less robust R4 used lower temperatures and pressures to be compatible with the SRI mass flow calorimeters. We expected to see Q(x) at levels extending from zero to several watts. Different foils produced a different Q(x) for the same parameters. A unique source of SEM micrographic evidence found frozen in exposed foils identified events in and on the foil that cannot be explained by normal heat and cavitation damage. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 7 10:40:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA11529; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:37:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:37:31 -0700 X-Sender: knuke mail.lcia.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: R. Stringham ICCF-8 Abstract Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:51:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20000607175133890.AAA357 mail.lcia.com@lizard> Resent-Message-ID: <"XeT3f2.0.2q2.RXeFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35425 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Here is a promising experiment from the ICCF-8 poster sessions, by Roger >Stringham. I'm going to cop the Abstract because it is one of the few >well-written Abstracts that tells the whole story. I would characterize Stringham's work as definitive rather than merely promising. The quality of proof that he has offered that cold fusion is a reality is staggering. He 4 and He3 production both verified by SRI, LANL and Rockwell labs, SEM photos, excess heat. And no neutron production when done properly. What exactly does the academic need? >This is a continuation of Roger Stringham's work with cavitation >sonofusion. Stringham has produced a much smaller, cheaper version of his >device using off-the-shelf parts. It is designed to be small enough to fit >into an SRI flow calorimeter. This experiment was not quite ready for >prime-time, because the sonofusion device produces so much RF noise, it >interferes with the calorimeter, however preliminary results show 10 watts >total power going into the device and 12 watts coming out. This is >remarkable, because most of the energy going into the ultrasound generator >is wasted, and only a tiny fraction of it is focused on the metal sample. > >Russ George worked with Stringham years ago and probably deserves some >credit for this. > >For years I have been trying to convince Stringham to make several of his >cavitation devices to be tested by other people. He refuses to do this, for >the usual reasons. This device is the cheapest and smallest one he has made >yet, costing about $600. When I suggested he might make 10 of them he >declined because he fears the device would make "a good bomb" in the hands >of an inexperienced person. He means a chemical bomb. I'm not sure how >pressure can build up from cavitation reactions, since I assume the free >hydrogen and oxygen readily recombines, and only a fraction of the hydrogen >remains absorbed in the metal, leaving a slight surplus of oxygen. With all the evidence of nuclear reactions, I don't think he meant a chemical bomb. >Incidentally, I have been wondering why the metal targets load mainly with >hydrogen and not much oxygen, since the collapsing bubble injects a plasma >made of water. Stringham says the larger oxygen atoms do not penetrate very >far down, and there quickly released from the metal surface. There is no such thing as a plasma made of water. Hydrogen or Deuterium would swirl to the inside of the vortex created by the type of bubble collapse that his reactor produces. As I recall, he was using heavy water. The Deuterium would have not only a high velocity, but also a very high temperature. If it did reach a plasma state of course, then you would be talking a whole 'nother box of rocks. >The damage described in this abstract is interesting, but the experts >disagree about what it means. Has he looked for transmutation on the surface of that target material as Mizuno has done? Has he tried remediating nuclear waste? >I hope Stringham publishes a comprehensive paper in the Proceedings. I wish >I could get him to sell me a dozen of those machines! Perhaps some >qualified readers of this forum living in the Northwest could contact him >and sweet talk him into handing over one or two. Stringham is a mellow >fellow, and helpful in many ways, but stubborn. > >- Jed He is just being sensible, in my opinion. If he passed these things out and started waving his arms around too much, or if someone did get blown up, he would lose all access to the equipment he needs to do his work. The reactor vessel doesn't look that difficult or expensive to build, so realistically, if anyone did feel like replicating, they could. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 7 13:01:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16386; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:58:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:58:35 -0700 Message-ID: <393EC6AC.421B bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 15:03:24 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: R. Stringham ICCF-8 Abstract References: <3.0.6.32.20000606180537.0079bb90 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"g8I0N.0.y_3.hbgFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35426 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > R. Stringham, (First Gate Energies), Mass Flow Calorimetry of a Cavitation > Process > > Authors: R. Stringham, H. Wallace, F. Tanzella and M. McKubre > > Abstract # 50 > > The collapse of cavitation bubbles in acoustic fields is not always > destructive. The bubble collapse is physically understood until its last > moments when the high densities and temperatures of the contents are > produced along with UV photon emission. Did they specify the energy of the UV photons? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 7 13:51:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03724; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:49:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:49:39 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000607164921.0079b430 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:49:21 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham ICCF-8 Abstract In-Reply-To: <20000607175133890.AAA357 mail.lcia.com@lizard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"u1Lap.0.6w.ZLhFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35427 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >With all the evidence of nuclear reactions, I don't think he meant a >chemical bomb. I am pretty sure he did. He did not elaborate, but we were talking about the chemistry. I'll ask him. >There is no such thing as a plasma made of water. I meant plasma starting from water, with both hydrogen and oxygen ions. >Has he looked for transmutation on the surface of that target material as >Mizuno has done? Yes. >Has he tried remediating nuclear waste? No. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 7 14:51:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA30016; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:49:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:49:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:49:17 -0400 Message-Id: <200006072149.RAA32037 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: R. Stringham ICCF-8 Abstract Resent-Message-ID: <"IKAxC3.0.rK7.ZDiFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35428 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed writes: >I meant plasma starting from water, with both hydrogen and oxygen ions. My understanding was that he was only achieving positive results with heavy water. This was from a report in 1995. Is he getting the same results now with light water? Also, when you talk to him next, you might suggest that he try adding potassium to the mix. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 09:54:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA30210; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:47:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:47:02 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:03:16 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Big EM storm on way Resent-Message-ID: <"DXP_t3.0.yN7.5uyFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35429 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts vorts! Watch out for false positives in excess energy measurements the next few days! 8^) There is a whopping electromagnetic storm headed our way. X class flare photos: ELF Pulses: Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 11:06:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19492; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:01:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:01:33 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000608135905.007a2b80 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:59:05 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: SETI Home project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"V0PGy.0.Tm4.yzzFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35431 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The largest computerized research project in history has underway for about a year, running on more than 2 million computers worldwide. It is the SETI project at Berkeley, called "SETI Home" which makes use of free time on personal computers connected by Internet. See: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu See: The New York Times, June 8, 2000, "The Secret Life of the Home Computer - While You Sleep, Your PC Might Be Doing Higher Math, Finding Aliens or Even Making Money," by J. D. Biersdorfer Quote: "After a participant downloads the free screen saver program, packets of data recorded at a radio telescope in Puerto Rico are sent to the user's computer via the Internet. The participant's computer analyzes a packet when it is not handling other tasks, then sends the data back to the SETI Home server and receives another packet." I have been meaning to recommend this for some time. The SETI screen saver is a lot of fun to watch. This is food for thought. A serious, large scale supercomputer projects can now be run world-wide at practically zero cost. Many claims about the Internet are hype, but this is amazing. It may portend what will happen with other distributed, incremental small-scale technology, such as cold fusion. This looks like good science, and it is superb public relations for the SETI researchers. It also illustrates the power of parallel processing, which many people (including me) have predicted will dominate future computer design. It is being held back by software problems. Projects like SETI Home will give people experience with distributed and parallel processing, and help solve these problems. In the future, a desktop computer will have millions of processors working together, were MPP (massively parallel processor) architecture. Individually they may be much smaller with less memory than today's Pentiums, and each will have only a little dedicated memory, but together they will solve problems such as voice input interpretation or editing high-definition video far faster than any computer today. Problems like voice input will become the dominant type in the future. Progress in artificial intelligence will be stalled until MPP can be developed. The statements relating to energy and space travel on the SETI Home site are absurd. See: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/about_seti/radio_search_1.html They estimate the energy cost of sending a few people to Alpha Centauri with today's energy at $30 quadrillion. That may be accurate, but no space-faring civilization would depend upon such primitive technology! Instead of looking at the cost of fossil fuel energy, they should consider the total output and cost per watt of the energy from the sun. A civilization which could tap a few percent of one sun-power could afford to send an entire planetfull of people to other stars just for the heck of it. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 11:07:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19205; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:01:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:01:22 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000608132300.007a07f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:23:00 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI In-Reply-To: <200006072149.RAA32037 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"yUp181.0.jh4.lzzFv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35430 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >Jed writes: >>I meant plasma starting from water, with both hydrogen and oxygen ions. > >My understanding was that he was only achieving positive results with heavy >water. I meant light or heavy hydrogen ions. I asked Roger to clarify his statement about "a good bomb." He made a muddled reply contradicting himself, "As soon as there is a buildup of these gases, they are converted back to D2O. Very safe system." I asked him what he meant by saying it was a potential bomb, and was he thinking of a nuclear bomb, by any chance. He has not responded. I suspect he was just making excuses and he simply does not want to have the device tested and verified by many people outside of SRI. Well, at least he is working with SRI. Speaking of people who do not want to see independent verification, at ICCF-8 I had a long talk with Jim Redding of CETI. Actually it was more a shouting match, with me doing most of the shouting. He adamantly refuses to consider selling beads or allowing independent verification. He expresses complete confidence in the business plan which has bankrupted the company, and he will not consider any alternatives. This may be the stupidest business strategy I've ever seen, and I have seen a lot! Think of the early days of the microcomputer software business and today's dot-com mania. I also spoke with Patterson. I asked whether it is true they have run out of effective beads and they cannot make more. He denies that. He says he is an expert and he can make as many more beads as he likes, anytime. He has the equipment, which is not sophisticated. He says, "we ran out of money, not beads." I have heard otherwise from other people associated with the company, but who knows where the truth lies. It makes little difference to me. They could have tons of beads and all the money in the world if they would just make a moderate effort to promote their product and convince the world that their claims are true, by helping independent confirmation. At least Mills, for all his faults, is working in this direction. None of the other CF people grasp this, because, in my opinion, the whole gang of them combined has less business sense than God gave geese. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 11:52:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02728; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:49:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:49:06 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000608144718.007c4180 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:47:18 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI SECOND TRY Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"3cnbK1.0.Sg.Xg-Fv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35432 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >Jed writes: >>I meant plasma starting from water, with both hydrogen and oxygen ions. > >My understanding was that he was only achieving positive results with heavy >water. I meant light or heavy hydrogen ions. I asked Roger to clarify his statement about "a good bomb." He made a muddled reply contradicting himself, "As soon as there is a buildup of these gases, they are converted back to D2O. Very safe system." I asked him what he meant by saying it was a potential bomb, and was he thinking of a nuclear bomb, by any chance. He has not responded. I suspect he was just making excuses and he simply does not want to have the device tested and verified by many people outside of SRI. Well, at least he is working with SRI. Speaking of people who do not want to see independent verification, at ICCF-8 I had a long talk with Jim Redding of CETI. Actually it was more a shouting match, with me doing most of the shouting. He adamantly refuses to consider selling beads or allowing independent verification. He expresses complete confidence in the business plan which has bankrupted the company, and he will not consider any alternatives. This may be the stupidest business strategy I've ever seen, and I have seen a lot! Think of the early days of the microcomputer software business and today's dot-com mania. I also spoke with Patterson. I asked whether it is true they have run out of effective beads and they cannot make more. He denies that. He says he is an expert and he can make as many more beads as he likes, anytime. He has the equipment, which is not sophisticated. He says, "we ran out of money, not beads." I have heard otherwise from other people associated with the company, but who knows where the truth lies. It makes little difference to me. They could have tons of beads and all the money in the world if they would just make a moderate effort to promote their product and convince the world that their claims are true, by helping independent confirmation. At least Mills, for all his faults, is working in this direction. None of the other CF people grasp this, because, in my opinion, the whole gang of them combined has less business sense than God gave geese. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 12:45:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13133; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:32:54 -0400 Message-Id: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Resent-Message-ID: <"yANVH1.0._C3.wJ_Fv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35433 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed writes: >I asked Roger to clarify his statement about "a good bomb." He made a >muddled reply contradicting himself, "As soon as there is a buildup of >these gases, they are converted back to D2O. Very safe system." I asked >him what he meant by saying it was a potential bomb, and was he thinking of >a nuclear bomb, by any chance. He has not responded. I suspect he was just >making excuses and he simply does not want to have the device tested and >verified by many people outside of SRI. Well, at least he is working with SRI. I think that he probably feels that it might be unwise to speculate or even test the possibility that a radioactive substance could have its decay rate accelerated, especially given the fact that our Air Force has been graciously delivering depleted Uranium in substantial quantities to Iraq and Kosovo. They have flown approximately 12,000 missions per year over each country, and killed over a million people in two separate, but ongoing, undeclared wars. Our Navy has been delivering depleted Uranium to our "protectorate" Puerto Rico as well, mostly for practice but sometimes for sport, and our arms manufacturers have been selling it to everyone in the world with a World Bank credit card, or they have been having Clinton give it away at tax payers expense to countries with undeveloped oil fields. It is especially disturbing, considering that the parts are obtainable anywhere to make something like this type of bomb work. I know you rant about people's lack of business sense, but there are other common senses that should have taken priority before this situation was allowed to take place. Unfortunately, the idiotic, profiteering arms manufacturing community combined with the "bugger your neighbor" zeitgeist of the rest of the US business community has turned the US into the most hated and distrusted country in the history of mankind. It is probably too late to say this, but if Stringham's device or any other device can remediate nuclear waste, then I think that it would be not only a profitable thing to pursue, developing and using it might also give an indication to the rest of the world that the US is not going to continue pursuing an insane energy strategy that will in effect, enslave the rest of the world. Stringham's device is exactly the kind of thing that could have been brought before Congress years ago, and demonstrated to Gingrich and the rest of his New World Order crowd, and it could have been opened up the flood gates of funding for Cold Fusion research. It works every time, and the nuclear reactions are undeniable. Somebody has to make it clear to those people that they can no longer avoid the facts. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 14:24:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24041; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007601bfd186$46bbd140$1d637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:14:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"h38Ps2.0.Cs5.Bs0Gv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35434 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Knuke wrote: > > Stringham's device is exactly the kind of thing that could have been brought > before Congress years ago, and demonstrated to Gingrich and the rest of his > New World Order crowd, and it could have been opened up the flood gates of > funding for Cold Fusion research. It works every time, and the nuclear > reactions are undeniable. Somebody has to make it clear to those people > that they can no longer avoid the facts. > Unfortunately, anything is deniable, if one has enough education. Kirk Shannahan was not impressed with the EQuest work, preferring to consider it probable that the explanation is anything but nuclear, even if he does not explain how heat of fusion can develop from the combination of ultrasound cavitation and hydrogen desorption can possibly produce those craters. And, of course, the anomalous elements must be contamination, even if they do not occur in control runs. And don't tell me about no stinking anomalous isotope ratios! Almost all scientists are extremely (painfully) conservative. They do not change their beliefs about the physical world unless they have absolutely no other choice. That is the politically safest choice. If you don't rock the boat, you'll remain respectable and well liked, and considered 'smart.' They are as Machievellian as you are, Jed. They're just in a different line of work. Fortunately, there are exceptions. Ed Wall (engineer) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 15:18:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA17798; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:11:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:11:22 -0700 Message-Id: <200006082213.RAA31531 cablecom.pearlriver.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:05:40 CST From: John N Reply-to: John N To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3) Subject: Mechanism again Resent-Message-ID: <"bTFRC1.0.0M4.Ae1Gv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35435 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, In keeping with my quest for CF reliability ... Jed Rothwell wrote about ICCF-8 (snip) ... a 3 KeV electron beam struck palladium and titanium deuterides targets, and charged particles and x-rays were detected. (1) I thought I would double check the term deuteride, implying compound, as contrasted to present deuterated (D2 molecules) P&F samples. Is the term deuteride, implying compound, used accurately? I ask because the experiment allows one to conclude that the Pd-D site is the active location (exactly like the abnormal Mills bond). This means that any apropos deuterium compound (reasonably high atomic number) used as electrodes in a P&F type cell has the greatest chance of CF reliability serendipity because of the natural occurrence of the active site. Again, this contrasts with the natural blocking at the Pd-D active site due to Pd-D2 Regardless, an apropos deuteride compound gives best access to the active site. Excerpted From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Preliminary Report on ICCF-8 (1) Y. Isobe, (14) "Search for Coherent Deuteron Fusion by Beam and Electrolysis Experiments." A very impressive set of three experiments. In experiment 1, with conventional bulk palladium electrolysis, low levels of excess heat and up to 10 ^ 16 atoms of helium were detected. In experiment 2, a 3 KeV electron beam struck palladium and titanium deuterides targets, and charged particles and x-rays were detected. In experiment 3, highly loaded titanium deuterides was irradiated with a deuterium or proton beam. Thanks for a very helpful summary of the conference. It seems that cold fusion has had its best year ever. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 16:28:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06931; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:26:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:26:09 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000608161546.0079ea60 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:15:46 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Big EM storm on way In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qM5rq3.0.8i1.Gk2Gv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35436 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Watch out for false positives in excess energy measurements the next few >days! 8^) There is a whopping electromagnetic storm headed our way. During the closing remarks at ICCF-8, someone discussed this. According to several theories and a few observations, CF may be triggered by high energy particles from space. Mizuno noted 24 hour oscillations in power, even in the underground lab. Anyway, the sun has an 11-year cycle and the last peak was in 1989, when CF was announced and replicated rather quickly at several labs like TAMU. The speaker speculated that it might have become harder to replicate 5 or 6 years later. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 16:28:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07052; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:26:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:26:24 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000608163641.007a2e60 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:36:41 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI In-Reply-To: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"omqBw.0.hj1.Ok2Gv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35438 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >I think that he probably feels that it might be unwise to speculate or even >test the possibility that a radioactive substance could have its decay rate >accelerated . . . No, he thinks it is highly unlikely, and not worth testing. He said, "I have thought of modifying radioactive material but did not want the mess. I agree with your [Jed's] evaluation." I called these claims "dubious." >. . . especially given the fact that our Air Force has been >graciously delivering depleted Uranium in substantial quantities to Iraq and >Kosovo. They have flown approximately 12,000 missions per year over each >country, and killed over a million people in two separate, but ongoing, >undeclared wars. If you are suggesting that the U.S. has killed over a million people per year, you are out of your mind. I am not sure what else that statement could mean . . . but the idea is preposterous. We would have heard about it! There is no news blackout, and plenty of people roam around these countries who hate the U.S. and who have cameras. They would love to broadcast news of such atrocities. The Iraqis would not keep it secret. In any case it is extremely difficult to kill that many people with conventional weapons, even if you target population centers instead of factories and power plants. The U.S. probably did not kill that many people in a year-long, full-scale, all-out offensive against Japan -- the biggest air-war in history. People are not fools. They get out of the way when you drop bombs, even smart bombs. >Stringham's device is exactly the kind of thing that could have been brought >before Congress years ago, and demonstrated to Gingrich and the rest of his >New World Order crowd, and it could have been opened up the flood gates of >funding for Cold Fusion research. Yup. Probably. Now try to convice Roger. But don't mention any crazy ideas about hidden wars with a million people being killed! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 8 16:31:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06970; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:26:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:26:14 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:48:22 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI In-Reply-To: <007601bfd186$46bbd140$1d637dc7 computer> References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_f6BQ.0.di1.Jk2Gv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35437 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed Wall wrote: >And, of course, the anomalous elements must be contamination, even if they >do not occur in control runs. And don't tell me about no stinking anomalous >isotope ratios! Actually, after seeing some of the many ways spectroscopy can go haywire, I don't care to hear about anomalous ratios much either. Not unless they are certified by several different labs in close agreement, and very large. I do not know how it comes about, but a great deal of dubious research has been presented in this area, which makes me think it is very easy to make a mistake. See, for example, ICCF-8 poster session paper, #1 by I. P. Chernov, "Change of Lithium Isotopic Composition during Hydrogen Charge of Titanium." The author claims lithium shifted 30 to 40%, which might be plausible since it is so light, but he also said he saw massive isotope shifts in copper merely by stretching out a plate of Ni - Cu with a 1 kg weight in a 700 deg C furnace. I assume that is a mistake, which means it is easy to screw up Cu isotope ratios. If it is true, it means there are revolutionary ways to separate isotopes. Monoisotopic samples of most elements are worth a fortune, so Chernov et al. may be sitting on a gold mine. >They are as Machievellian as you are, Jed. I wish! They might win a few rounds if they were. As Francis Bacon said, Machiavelli did a great service by describing man not as we would wish him, but as he really is. Machiavelli was the first great anthropologist. People think he approved of behavior merely because he described it, but I do not see that. His famous quote about idealism seems to me to be modern and quite correct: Many have dreamed up republics and principalities that have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 02:41:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA20160; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:40:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:40:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 05:40:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200006090940.FAA26346 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Resent-Message-ID: <"LWBO-1.0.ww4.dkBGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35439 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Michael T Huffman wrote: > >>I think that he probably feels that it might be unwise to speculate or even >>test the possibility that a radioactive substance could have its decay rate >>accelerated . . . > >No, he thinks it is highly unlikely, and not worth testing. He said, "I >have thought of modifying radioactive material but did not want the mess. >I agree with your [Jed's] evaluation." I called these claims "dubious." Considering the fact that he is melting Pd with very little input power, and considering that cavitation bubble collapse is said to produce local temps of up to millions of degrees, and considering that he himself is claiming fusion, and considering that Putterman has a patent for fusion and considering that I have already performed the experiment, I don't think the claims are dubious. It is kind of contradicting to claim that a nuclear reaction that he likes can be produced, but that a nuclear reaction that he doesn't like cannot. >>. . . especially given the fact that our Air Force has been >>graciously delivering depleted Uranium in substantial quantities to Iraq and >>Kosovo. They have flown approximately 12,000 missions per year over each >>country, and killed over a million people in two separate, but ongoing, >>undeclared wars. > >If you are suggesting that the U.S. has killed over a million people per >year, you are out of your mind. I am not sure what else that statement >could mean . . . but the idea is preposterous. I meant exactly what I said, which you can read above. Read it again. I did not claim that we killed over a million people per year. We have killed at least a million people in Iraq since the implementation of the State Department's "Food for Oil Program", and this is well documented. Credible estimates put the figure at closer to 2 million people. The 12,000 missions per year applies to Iraq, and another 12,000 missions per year were flown over Kosovo accompanied by well documented war crimes committed by NATO forces on land. You are correct that the idea is preposterous, but not that I am out of my mind. We would have heard about >it! There is no news blackout, and plenty of people roam around these >countries who hate the U.S. and who have cameras. They would love to >broadcast news of such atrocities. You are correct again about the number of people with cameras, etc., but not about the news blackout in the US. It is being widely reported elsewhere. You can find the information published here in the US, but not on any corporate owned media. There is a movie that was done by a British reporting team that documents all of this. I'm scanning my files for the title. It is reported to be quite well done. The Iraqis would not keep it secret. In >any case it is extremely difficult to kill that many people with >conventional weapons, even if you target population centers instead of >factories and power plants. The U.S. probably did not kill that many people >in a year-long, full-scale, all-out offensive against Japan -- the biggest >air-war in history. People are not fools. They get out of the way when you >drop bombs, even smart bombs. You are correct again about people not being fools. Over a million people fled Kosovo to escape the bombing there. You are not correct about the number of people that can be killed over the time periods that I have referring to. You have to remember that over 12 million were starved to death in Ethiopia just during the Reagan administration without firing a shot. That was also not reported in the US media, but it did happen. I saw it. When you fly 12,000 missions per year over a country, bombing their hospitals, food distribution channels, power stations and leave depleted Uranium all over the place for years, you can quite easily kill millions. That is a fact. Simply destroying the infrastructure of a country kills people. That has been the cornerstone of the World Bank initiatives. It forces the third world country to rely on outside, first world corporations for everything from food and water, to medicines and products. The pattern with smaller countries has been to buy the government, reduce it in size, and then exploiting both the natural and human resources of the country. Once the government is "in the pocket", the existing pollution controls and human rights laws are thrown out the window. The government is armed and trained by the US military to slaughter anyone who opposes. This pattern is turning up all over the place. In Puerto Rico for example, there were five online newspapers before the outcry resulting from the Navy's killing of civilians. Four of those newpapers were taken offline immediately, and the Puerto Rican government told the people not to read the country's largest daily newspaper because it reported on the story. Only after the number of protesters reached over 100,000 did the US newspapers do any reporting on the subject, and that was just mere mention that there was a problem there. They didn't mention at all the depleted Uranium in any of the corporate owned newspapers, but it was used there as well, and the Navy has decided not to clean it up. I happened to know about it from the beginning because I was researching Puerto Rico as a possible place for a business for someone. Puerto Rico is nothing more than a US slave state. >>Stringham's device is exactly the kind of thing that could have been brought >>before Congress years ago, and demonstrated to Gingrich and the rest of his >>New World Order crowd, and it could have been opened up the flood gates of >>funding for Cold Fusion research. > >Yup. Probably. Now try to convice Roger. But don't mention any crazy ideas >about hidden wars with a million people being killed! > >- Jed Why not? Anything less would be a lie. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 07:30:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04918; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002e01bfd21d$08f32420$a5637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:14:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"1Citg.0.iC1.CpFGv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35440 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: > >They are as Machievellian as you are, Jed. > > I wish! They might win a few rounds if they were. As Francis Bacon said, > Machiavelli did a great service by describing man not as we would wish him, > but as he really is. Machiavelli was the first great anthropologist. People > think he approved of behavior merely because he described it, but I do not > see that. His famous quote about idealism seems to me to be modern and > quite correct: > > Many have dreamed up republics and principalities that have never in > truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and > how one does live is so wide that that a man who neglects what is > actually done for what should be done learns the way to > self-destruction rather than self-preservation. > > - Jed Everyone has some redeeming qualities. While not claiming to be an authority on Machiavelli, I have observed behavior of people who ascribe to a political philosophy (perhaps secretly) that has become assigned to Machiavelli. Knowing that powerful people act in ways that would not be tolerated, were it not for their social status and intimidating power, ought we believe that such behavior is abhorrent? Western political philosophy has been largely built on the idea that no one should be able to claim political priviledge because of genetics, wealth or other prestige ranking. Political power and its priviledges should be contingent on the merits of the individual, as demonstrated by character and performance, not merely by the skill with which one might hoodwink and swindle (which seems to win public approval, judging by Clinton's approval ratings). The main theme of Machiavelli's major work, _The Prince_ is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means of expediency to accomplish this end, including deceit. It is often taken to mean that traditional virtues are hinderances to success and must be shunned. I fully acknowledge that there is a huge gulf between the way we are and the way we ought to be. However, can we afford to be content with the way we are, and belittle those who insist on becoming more like what we ought to be (regardless of their political successes)? http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/machiave.htm Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 07:45:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14230; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:44:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:44:07 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609104309.007a3a50 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:43:09 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI In-Reply-To: <200006090940.FAA26346 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"SyZ9n2.0.9U3.rAGGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35441 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >Considering the fact that he is melting Pd with very little input power, and >considering that cavitation bubble collapse is said to produce local temps >of up to millions of degrees, and considering that he himself is claiming >fusion, and considering that Putterman has a patent for fusion and >considering that I have already performed the experiment, I don't think the >claims are dubious. I see no connection between the claims for fusion and the claims for fission remediation. CF is definitely real, and remediation may be real, but one does not prove the other. If both turn out to be real I suppose there must be a underlying theoretical link, but there is no theory yet, so that is empty, useless speculation. Anyway, I have seen very few credible remediation claims, and no single method has ever been replicated as far as I know, so I am not ready to believe any of these claims. It is kind of contradicting to claim that a nuclear >reaction that he likes can be produced, but that a nuclear reaction that he >doesn't like cannot. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. Stringham and I demand high sigma, widely replicated proof before we believe things. For that matter, Stringham has never been independently replicated so I am many miles away from believing his claims. I don't reject them, obviously. I just don't know yet. >You are correct again about the number of people with cameras, etc., but not >about the news blackout in the US. It is being widely reported elsewhere. Nonsense. I get my news from Tokyo unfiltered every morning, in Japanese. If U.S. airplanes were still bombing and strafing, it would be front page news. They are very sensitive about that in Japan, and always ready to portray the U.S. military in a bad light. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 09:06:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19655; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609120242.007a9e00 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:02:42 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC: Machiavelli and J. D. Watson In-Reply-To: <002e01bfd21d$08f32420$a5637dc7 computer> References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ps59V3.0.po4.5LHGv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35442 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed Wall wrote: >While not claiming to be an authority on Machiavelli, I have observed >behavior of people who ascribe to a political philosophy (perhaps secretly) >that has become assigned to Machiavelli. Knowing that powerful people act >in ways that would not be tolerated, were it not for their social status and >intimidating power, ought we believe that such behavior is abhorrent? This is way off target. Point by point: "ways that would not be tolerated . . ." They were tolerated! Encouraged, even! We are talking about a book written in 1525! People had different standards then. You cannot force our morality and our standards on a different culture, in a different world. Even in 1600, Queen Elizabeth did things that would horrify modern-day English people, but they do not go around today claiming she was a tyrant, or an inhuman monster. ". . . ought we believe that such behavior is abhorrent?" If someone acted that way today, of course we would! If you had a time machine you would probably find pretty much every era in every culture prior to 1865 "abhorrent," and also inhuman, filthy, ignorant, tragic and boring. But it isn't fair to judge people in the past by our standards. They did the best they could. In 500 years people will probably think *we* were barbarians. Anyway, the purpose of reading the book is not to endorse or appreciate its values. That would be like saying you should read Hamlet so you will be in favor of monarchy instead of democracy. You read "The Prince" to learn about Renaissance Italian government and society, not in the ideal form it is usually portrayed, but in a searing realistic portrayal of how it actually was. >Western political philosophy has been largely built on the idea that no one >should be able to claim political privilege because of genetics, wealth or >other prestige ranking. Western philosophy had hardly begun doing that in 1525. Seventy-five years later, Shakespeare still wrote as if genetics, wealth and prestige made all the difference. All of his plays are about the aristocracy. >The main theme of Machiavelli's major work, _The Prince_ is that princes >should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any >means of expediency to accomplish this end, including deceit. It is often >taken to mean that traditional virtues are hinderances to success and must >be shunned. It should be taken as a realistic portrayal of what people said and thought in private in 1525. It should be take as a description, not an endorsement. (Some scholars say it was a satire, others think it was an endorsement, but you can read it as a description.) Telling the truth and portraying things as they are is a service to humanity. In 1968, James Watson wrote the first realistic portrayal of how modern research is done, "The Double Helix." He described the backbiting, the betrayals, the politics and dirty tricks. The book caused an outrage, and for a long time he could not even get published. I have a collection of essays about the book written soon after it was published. They sounds like it was written 1868 instead of 1968. Scientists apparently prefer saccharine myths about themselves to the truth. Here is a prime example: This is a saddening book, for it reminds us of that which we would rather forget---that in homo Sapiens brilliance need not be coupled with compassion, nor ambition with concern. In reality this is two books. One is an account -- lucid, honest, suspenseful---of the scientific events that led to the deduction of the molecular structure of DNA, which at one stroke provided a clear chemical basis for the results of 50 years of genetics . . . The second book, however---interwoven with the first---is a description of the private world of J. D. Watson during these historic events. And this is unbelievably mean in spirit, filled with the distorted and cruel perceptions of childish insecurity. It is a world of envy and intolerance, a world of scorn and derision. This book is filled with character assassination, collective and individual, direct and indirect. Even worse is the evidence that Watson believes the rest of humanity---save for the muddle-headed---sees this same world. It is a world of intense ambition---for the mundane prize, not the advancement of truth nor the service of humanity. . . . - R. L. Sinsheimer, "Science and Engineering" >I fully acknowledge that there is a huge gulf between the way we are and the >way we ought to be. However, can we afford to be content with the way we >are, and belittle those who insist on becoming more like what we ought to be >(regardless of their political successes)? Who said anything about belittling or being content? What does this have to do with Italian society 1525?!? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 10:27:18 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01318; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:25:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:25:22 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609130459.0079d200 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 13:04:59 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: More from Stringham Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"sTUU52.0.WK.1YIGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35443 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here are some clarifications about this "bomb" quote. As I said, the topic came up when we were discussing the mechanical and chemical aspects of the machine itself, not the results. The latest machine, as I said, is much smaller and more reliable than the previous ones. It was designed to fit inside an SRI flow calorimeter, and be envoloped with cooling water. Roger ( X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Machiavelli Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 13:48:35 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"kOQmf3.0.kf.emJGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35444 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I thought the discussion was applying "Machiavellian" ideals to modern society... not modern ideals to history. Or maybe you guys just didn't connect, and were never talking on the same topic. Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 11:55:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04533; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:53:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:53:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20000609184519.48701.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: DU info? Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 13:45:19 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"dtmWH2.0.l61.QqJGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35445 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Can someone out there tell me approximately how dangerous (chemically toxic and radioactive) Depleted Uranium actually is as used in modern warfare?? Merlyn BTW how chemically toxic is lead (standard bullets) by comparison? ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 12:19:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18533; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:18:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:18:34 -0700 Message-ID: <006101bfd246$ff263160$a5637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <20000609184835.97292.qmail hotmail.com> Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Machiavelli Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:14:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"NIFG53.0.VX4.9CKGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35446 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I was wondering if anybody else was actually going to read these posts. I was certainly under the impression that Jed and I were talking about ideas attributed to Machiavelli regarding cold fusion scientists. I claimed that the scientists were concerned with the political survival concerns involved in working for large institutions, like the government, where being liked and being considered to possess good scientific judgement are paramount concerns. I said this in response to Jed's stating that the reason that suitable support for cold fusion does not exist is scientists do not have the sense that "God gave geese" to demonstrate their discoveries. In any event, I really don't have time for this discourse (or history course, as interesting as it might be). Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Cox To: Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:48 PM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Machiavelli > I thought the discussion was applying "Machiavellian" ideals to modern > society... not modern ideals to history. > > Or maybe you guys just didn't connect, and were never talking on the same > topic. > > Merlyn > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 12:24:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20233; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:21:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:21:39 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609151110.007ac8a0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 15:11:10 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Scott Little's method of preparing image files Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"n4tfp1.0.-x4._EKGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35447 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is some handy advice from Scott Little about preparing images for web pages. I dug this up from an old letter using dtSearch 5.11, which I recommend. (See www.dtsearch.com). - JR 1. Open the .jpg in Microsoft Photo Editor 2. Increase the contrast until most of the gray background was gone 3. Save as a .gif, which makes a smaller file IF the image is mostly large areas of basic color. .jpg is the best way to go for color photographs. You can usually use a pretty high compression on .jpgs. Each image software handles this differently. For example, in the Epson Image software that comes with their camera, I always choose LOW quality (HIGH compression). In Microsoft Photo Editor, I use a .jpg quality of about 35% (on their 0-100% scale). The results are essentially perfect for screen presentation, which is what the web IS. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 12:28:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23769; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:26:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:26:51 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609142453.007aa290 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:24:53 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Viewgraphs from Mizuno Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"nW1BF.0.Ep5.xJKGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35448 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mizuno sent me high-res printouts of his ICCF-8 viewgraphs. The one showing different kinds of plasma is interesting. This is awkward, but I think I will scan them and put them on my web page, by and by. Scott Little told me how to do this to produce the smallest file size. I'll have to try to remember his technique. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 12:52:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02569; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:50:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:50:07 -0700 Message-ID: <01BFD211.66E369C0 istf-1-90.ucdavis.edu> From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Scott Little's website? Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:51:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VXQt01.0.3e.kfKGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35449 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Does anybody know what happened to Scott Little's website? When I try http://www.eden.com/~little/ I get the message: "Forbidden - You don't have permission to access /~little/ on this server." Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 13:20:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11470; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:16:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:16:11 -0700 Message-ID: <394151A0.993BF3 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:20:48 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scott Little's website? References: <01BFD211.66E369C0 istf-1-90.ucdavis.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KkUTW2.0.7p2.92LGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35450 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dan Quickert wrote: > > Does anybody know what happened to Scott Little's website? > > When I try http://www.eden.com/~little/ > I get the message: "Forbidden - You don't have permission to access /~little/ on this server." > > Dan Quickert Try: http://www.earthtech.org Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 14:09:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25787; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:06:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:06:43 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000608152553.0135543c earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:25:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Scott Little's website? In-Reply-To: <394151A0.993BF3 bellsouth.net> References: <01BFD211.66E369C0 istf-1-90.ucdavis.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wH3tW3.0.rI6.ZnLGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35451 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:20 PM 6/9/00 -0400, Terry Blanton wrote: >Dan Quickert wrote: >> >> Does anybody know what happened to Scott Little's website? >> >> When I try http://www.eden.com/~little/ >> I get the message: "Forbidden - You don't have permission to access /~little/ on this server." >Try: > >http://www.earthtech.org Terry's right, the earthtech.org address is the one we're moving to...but it came as a rude surprise to me that the eden.com address is now defunct. eden.com used to be an Austin-based ISP...but then they got swallowed up by infohwy.com in Houston. Now it appears that they have sold the eden.com name to a new company, Eden Communications (http://www.eden.com), and that company's server is rejecting requests for anything that starts out www.eden.com/~little! Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 15:05:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18879; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609174037.007ac2a0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 17:40:37 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Machiavelli In-Reply-To: <006101bfd246$ff263160$a5637dc7 computer> References: <20000609184835.97292.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qMVPN.0.rc4.FbMGv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35453 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed Wall wrote: I claimed that >the scientists were concerned with the political survival concerns involved >in working for large institutions, like the government, where being liked >and being considered to possess good scientific judgement are paramount >concerns. I said this in response to Jed's stating that the reason that >suitable support for cold fusion does not exist is scientists do not have >the sense that "God gave geese" to demonstrate their discoveries. Most of the people remaining in this field are fat, dumb and happy. They are comfortable institutions where no one opposes them. They are politically naive, which is why I wish they would learn something from hard-nosed realists like Machiavelli and Watson. They are not bothered by the opposition. No one is stopping them from demonstrating or doing an "outreach" PR campaigns, or teach-ins, the way politically savvy scientists in other fields do. When I suggested to Scaramuzzi that we need an outreach, and we need web pages promoting the field, and he should publish some of the outstanding papers on the web, he was quite upset. He said scientists don't engage in politics, and it is only a matter of time before the major journals publish CF papers. Everything is going wonderfully, according to him. H. Kozima began his lecture by saying: "Cold fusion was first attacked as mad science, but after ten years, nobody denies the existence of this phenomena . . ." At ICCF-7 when the chairman announced in his closing remarks that no members of the press were present, and no science writers, the audience applauded. They should have been upset! If you were to say a thing like that at the close of a hot fusion conference, or an AIDS or cancer research conference, your comments would be met with shock and outrage, not applause. These people may be good scientists, but they do not have a clue what is happening. They honestly believe they are on the verge of success. I see them on the verge of oblivion. They are living in an idealized dream world in which the weight of peer-reviewed papers, logic and high sigma evidence decides the issues. As Machiavelli said, when you "neglect what is actually done for what should be done" it leaves you defenseless against political animals like Robert Park. A high government official once said to Miles, "you people are nothing but a footnote to science history." He is right so far, and he will be right as long as Scaramuzzi and the others keep a low profile and refuse to meet with the press or publicize their results. It is just a matter of time -- 10 or 15 years -- before the last research retires or drops dead, and the field dies with him. The technical progress reported at ICCF-8 was splendid, but the political situation has never been grimmer. Cold fusion is still at the theoretical, impractical stage. It is being funded by the taxpayers in Italy and Japan. It cannot survive without public support, which means it must have carefully crafted propaganda and press exposure. These people owe their daily bread to the taxpayers, so they damn ought to respect the taxpayers and strive to justify their work to the public. Some would call it "pandering." I call it answering to your boss. When I see scientists express contempt for the press and the public -- as many CF scientists have done -- it makes my blood boil. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 15:07:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11369; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:00:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:00:15 -0700 Message-ID: <39415C79.D871EE5E ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:07:05 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jun 09, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rNQ0Q2.0.Un2.kZMGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35452 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for Jun 09, 2000 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:30:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 9 Jun 00 Washington, DC 1. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE: HOW TO STAND OUT IN A CROWD. What do you do if your interceptor can't tell the warhead from the decoys? Redesign the decoys. A Pentagon test plan, obtained by Ted Postol of MIT and revealed in a front page story in today's New York Times, calls for using less realistic decoys in an effort to achieve a successful intercept prior to the deployment decision. Balloon decoys were painted with stripes to simulate a tumbling warhead. The interceptor didn't have a clue. Solution? Take off the stripes. In its April 29 Council statement on NMD feasibility (www.aps.org/statements/00.2.html), the ability to deal with countermeasures was identified as the key factor. 2. ALTERNATIVE MISSILE DEFENSE? PUTIN PROPOSES PLAUSIBLE PLAN. Although the Moscow summit never came close to an agreement on missile defense, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that the US and Russia jointly develop a defense against rogue states. His alternative would rely on boost phase interception, which many American arms control advocates favor. There is no way to hide a launch. Boost phase interceptors could be deployed on ships near the Korean peninsula, for example. You might think this would please everybody: a plausible defense targeted just at rogue states. No way. There is a certain nostalgia for the arms race in some quarters. On Wednesday at a meeting of the DC Science Writers Association this week, a senior majority staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, speaking on the condition that he not be quoted by name, said there is support on the Committee for a resumption of nuclear testing. 3. SPY HYSTERIA: FEDERAL JUDGE WITHDRAWS FROM WEN HO LEE CASE. Just a month ago, without explanation, the lead prosecutor, who had pursued the case aggressively from the very beginning was abruptly replaced with an experienced prosecutor who is reputed to be even more hard line (WN 12 May 00). This week, the federal judge who was scheduled to preside over the trial announced he was dropping out of the case to go into semi-retirement. Each change further delays the trial, while Lee remains incarcerated under unusually harsh conditions (WN 21 Apr 00). Meanwhile, the Association for Asian American Studies called on Asian-American scientists to boycott federal labs by not applying for jobs. 4. YAWN: PAPERS REPORT THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT HAS BEEN BROKEN. Whoa, is this the old phase-velocity stuff that has confused generations of physics students? Recent experiments, cleverly contrived to give the appearance of superluminal transmission, have been hyped by, among others, the Sunday Times of London, which a year ago had RHIC at Brookhaven devouring the world (WN 23 Jul 99). Actually, you can see the same thing at the beach: the intersection of incoming and outgoing waves travels down the beach far faster than the wave velocity. Causality is preserved. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 22:05:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA01289; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:01:37 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> <007601bfd186$46bbd140$1d637dc7@computer> <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30 pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id WAA01236 Resent-Message-ID: <"lJHAt1.0.zJ.RlSGv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35454 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:48:22 -0400: [snip] >Titanium." The author claims lithium shifted 30 to 40%, which might be >plausible since it is so light, but he also said he saw massive isotope >shifts in copper merely by stretching out a plate of Ni - Cu with a 1 kg >weight in a 700 deg C furnace. I assume that is a mistake, which means it >is easy to screw up Cu isotope ratios. If it is true, it means there are >revolutionary ways to separate isotopes. Monoisotopic samples of most >elements are worth a fortune, so Chernov et al. may be sitting on a gold mine. [snip] You may remember that a year or so ago, when I was touting my CF theory based on triclinic crystal lattices that I suggested that a severely deformed lattice would have the same effect. I also pointed out that it would be strongest just below the melting point, or possibly at phase transition points. It would appear that both of these conditions are met in the above experiment (i.e. very hot, and distorted lattice due to stretching). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 23:02:52 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA14901; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:01:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:01:34 -0700 Message-ID: <01BFD266.D2FEE300 istf-1-63.ucdavis.edu> From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Scott Little's website? Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:02:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BFD266.D2FEE300" Resent-Message-ID: <"PrG_A.0.le3.zcTGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35455 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ------ =_NextPart_000_01BFD266.D2FEE300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Terry Blanton wrote: >Try: > >http://www.earthtech.org Ah, yes, that does it. Thanks! Dan ------ =_NextPart_000_01BFD266.D2FEE300 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ii0GAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAqAEAAAEAAAARAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAARQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2lt by5jb20AU01UUAB2b3J0ZXgtbEBlc2tpbW8uY29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAD MAEAAAAUAAAAdm9ydGV4LWxAZXNraW1vLmNvbQADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAWAAAA J3ZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20nAAAAAgELMAEAAAAZAAAAU01UUDpWT1JURVgtTEBFU0tJTU8u Q09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAADAHE6AAAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFAAAAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2lt by5jb20AAgH3XwEAAABFAAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAdm9ydGV4LWxAZXNraW1v LmNvbQBTTVRQAHZvcnRleC1sQGVza2ltby5jb20AAAAAAwD9XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB9g8BAAAA BAAAAAAAAAK4VgEEgAEAHAAAAFJFOiBTY290dCBMaXR0bGUncyB3ZWJzaXRlPwB4CQEFgAMADgAA ANAHBgAJABcAAgAkAAUAKAEBIIADAA4AAADQBwYACQAWADcAHgAFAFYBAQmAAQAhAAAARENFNjVF Mzk5MjNFRDQxMTlBM0NGOERCNUIwMDAwMDAAMAcBA5AGAPwDAAAiAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAA AAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5ANBKEnqh0r8BHgBwAAEAAAAcAAAA UkU6IFNjb3R0IExpdHRsZSdzIHdlYnNpdGU/AAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG/0qF6Dzle5t0+khHUmjz4 21sAAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAXAAAAZGVxdWlja2VydEB1Y2Rhdmlz LmVkdQAAAwAGEBfd6qADAAcQRgAAAB4ACBABAAAARwAAAFRFUlJZQkxBTlRPTldST1RFOlRSWTpI VFRQOi8vV1dXRUFSVEhURUNIT1JHQUgsWUVTLFRIQVRET0VTSVRUSEFOS1NEQU4AAAIBCRABAAAA 5QAAAOEAAABVAQAATFpGdZ1J55x3AAoBAwH3IAKkA+MCAGOCaArAc2V0MCAHE00CgH0KgAjIIDsJ bzLMNTUCgAqBdWMAUAsDgQtgbmcxMDMzCqCVA2B0BZB0C6YgVASQUHJ5IEITgXQCICCadxQiOgqi CoA+VBVAqxZGFwZjAEF1AyBoAkAgcDovL3cY0C5lTQrAdBhgBZBoLgWwZ/8YIQFAFBUaERZyF+Ea Fxq1Pxo6CzEUJRfyGjYP8GgsXCB5B5AekBlAYQVAZGJvB5FpdC4VAA+AbthrcyEb1hZyRABwIFoF EHEAIkAAAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgBCEAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAMAgBD/////QAAHMEBMBHyg 0r8BQAAIMEBMBHyg0r8BCwAAgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAADAAGACCAGAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFKFAADzFQAAHgAD gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUAAAEAAAAFAAAAOC4wNAAAAAADAASACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwAGgAggBgAA AAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAAeACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4A CIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAmACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAKgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAA AAAAAB4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AAAIqg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BFD266.D2FEE300-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 10 00:24:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA26170; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:24:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:24:07 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:23:52 -0400 Message-Id: <200006100723.DAA05467 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: DU info? Resent-Message-ID: <"5DsOB1.0.qO6.LqUGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35456 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Merlyn writes: >Can someone out there tell me approximately how dangerous (chemically toxic >and radioactive) Depleted Uranium actually is as used in modern warfare?? > >Merlyn > >BTW how chemically toxic is lead (standard bullets) by comparison? Well, they are both very toxic if you are directly hit with either one, of course. They both cause holes to open up in the skin which causes all of your blood to run out. The US military has issued statements to the effect that lead from bullets does not pose an environmental threat, but this is just not true. The US military is notorious for being filled with murderous liars, as everyone knows. It is their job these days to kill for corporations, and lie about it. Lead from bullets causes the same type of neurological disorder and genetic damage that lead from batteries or leaded paint or fishing sinkers do. Lead is Lead. Depleted Uranium is also dangerous as well, although the danger is much more severe. It is radioactive, has a long half life, produces daughter products, many of which also have long half lives, and eventually produces Radon gas. Radioactive materials cause genetic damage and cancer. Both lead and DU are more dangerous when ingested into the body via the lungs or the digestive system, as the body tends to retain both elements longer. Both are more dangerous once they get into water, especially flowing water, as that makes ingestion by water or any food containing water a higher possibility. I used to have a lot of reference links bookmarked to back up these statements, but somehow they nearly all disappeared from my hard drive. You can do websearches though, and I think the information is still out there. The MSDS databases are a good place to start. I still have all the references archived, and I hope to put them back online at some point. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 10 02:37:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA17502; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:36:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:36:46 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> <007601bfd186$46bbd140$1d637dc7 computer> <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30 pop.mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:36:35 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"fh7nk2.0.NH4.kmWGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35457 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin - At 3:01 PM +1000 6/10/00, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >It would appear that both of these conditions are met in the above >experiment (i.e. very hot, and distorted lattice due to stretching). Maybe when running dull canon borers too. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 10 05:54:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA23037; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:54:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:54:11 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:54:06 -0400 Message-Id: <200006101254.IAA04059 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI Resent-Message-ID: <"CbWL41.0.pd5.pfZGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35458 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed writes: >I see no connection between the claims for fusion and the claims for >fission remediation. CF is definitely real, and remediation may be real, >but one does not prove the other. If both turn out to be real I suppose >there must be a underlying theoretical link, but there is no theory yet, so >that is empty, useless speculation. You yourself, have worked with and/or published quite a lot of factual and theoretical information on the Stringham/George device, the so called Griggs device, the Potopov device, the Perkins/Pope device, my device, and some of the sonoluminescence devices. To say that there is no theory yet is a ridiculous assertion. You probably know more about cavitation theory than I do. >Anyway, I have seen very few credible remediation claims, and no single >method has ever been replicated as far as I know, so I am not ready to >believe any of these claims. Isn't your business and publishing partner, Gene Mallove, a science advisor for one of the remediation companies? >It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. Stringham and I demand high >sigma, widely replicated proof before we believe things. For that matter, >Stringham has never been independently replicated so I am many miles away >from believing his claims. I don't reject them, obviously. I just don't >know yet. That is not true, according to an article in your I.E. Vol. 1 issue 1, so you should know that. His test results for nuclear ash have been verified by both LANL and Rockwell International. His SEM work was done at Portland State University in Oregon. They are all independent of SRI. >>You are correct again about the number of people with cameras, etc., but not >>about the news blackout in the US. It is being widely reported elsewhere. > >Nonsense. I get my news from Tokyo unfiltered every morning, in Japanese. >If U.S. airplanes were still bombing and strafing, it would be front page >news. They are very sensitive about that in Japan, and always ready to >portray the U.S. military in a bad light. > >- Jed Well, I guess you must believe that getting your news from the corporate owned Tokyo media qualities you as an authority on world events. I won't try to cure you of your delusion, but I did find the title of the film that mentioned earlier, and in the process, found another documentary of the events in Iraq, as well as a very detailed anthology. The British film is called "Paying thePrice: The Killing of the Children of Iraq" by British filmmaker John Pilger. It aired on commercial TV (ITV) on March 16th and was reviewed by about 15 publications. It caused a bit of an uproar over there. There were some efforts being organized to bring it to the States, but I haven't seen a mention of it yet being shown in the US. The other film is entitled "Three Kings" by David Russell which opened to 2,900 theaters in the US as of March of this year. The anthology is entitled "Iraq Under Seige" and is published by South End Press. For more information you can read this interview http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm Denis Halliday was the UN's Humanitarian Coordinator who was in charge of the so called "food for oil" program. He, his successor, Hans von Sponeck, along with the UN's World Food Program representative in Iraq, Jutta Burghart, have all resigned in horror over the slaughter of the civilian population that has taken place in just the last couple of years. As for the bombings and strafings in Puerto Rico, they have resumed and like I said, the Navy is refusing to cease using or clean up the depleted Uranium. In Kosovo, I don't know what the current situation is, but I do know that the Europeans are pretty upset about the depleted Uranium usage, as it is at such close proximity to them. BTW, there is no need to apologize for calling me crazy, or saying that my ideas were dubious and nonsensical. It wouldn't make any difference. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 10 06:34:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA04105; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:33:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:33:52 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000609120242.007a9e00 pop.mindspring.com> References: <200006081932.PAA01785 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> <3.0.6.32.20000608174822.007c3b30 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000609120242.007a9e00 pop.mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:33:17 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Machiavelli and J. D. Watson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"kSizu2.0.301.0FaGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35459 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Friday evening I love these off topic discussions as they delve into natural philosophy. > > >I fully acknowledge that there is a huge gulf between the way we are and the > >way we ought to be. However, can we afford to be content with the way we > >are, and belittle those who insist on becoming more like what we ought to be > >(regardless of their political successes)? > >Who said anything about belittling or being content? What does this have to >do with Italian society 1525?!? > >- Jed What this has to do with is man's evil and sinful nature manifesting itself even among the most intelligent and cultured segment . Wishing all of my fellow Vortexians a happpy Shavuot and Sabboth day peace, I am Sincerely Yours Thomas Malloy From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 10 13:05:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15524; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:04:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:04:39 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:09:53 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Michael T Huffman cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: DU info? In-Reply-To: <200006100723.DAA05467 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9gswR2.0.Uo3.MzfGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35460 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: DEAR FOLKS, SOME OTHER PROPERTIES OF D URANIUM 1] it is toxic in and of itself as a heavy metal and can and does kill your elimination and clean up organs like your kidneys and liver.... 2] it is an emitter and can easily get in your lungs and if it lodges there, bad news.... 3]... looking to item [2] ... U is "Pyrophoric" .... this means tiny particles caused by impact are capable of bursting into flame... the smoke of U... from this of other means... is easy to get in lungs, nasal and other mucus bearing and wet tissues... such as the eyes... This can go on... but you get the point... NOW: We also see a lot of posts where it is suggested for new energy, and-or other reasons persons use radioactive material from smoke detectors, from thorium sources and so on.... THIS TOO IS VERY DANGEROUS If you work with radioactive materials professionally and-or you respect their long lived lethal and poisoning properties you have a respect founded in fear.... There is almost no worse horror to realize you have MADE A MISTAKE AND ACCIDENTALLY INGESTED A RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL !!! Until the experts in clean up get to you and check you out there is no worse hollow, deadening fear and terror than to think you may be poisoned. Be careful. do not do work with these things unless you have been trained and are in a proper facility.... Ask yourself.... if you have some "left over material' ... what do you DO with it? Where do you throw it away...???? J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 10 14:51:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08443; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:50:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:50:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3942B132.B8093C39 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:20:50 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "E.F. Mallove" , "vortex-l eskimo.com" CC: "jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com" Subject: ICCF-8 Press coverage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WUuBT3.0.r32.RWhGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35461 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 9, 2000 Jed. 'Gene and Vortex, I noticed that ICCF-8 had TV coverage at one point. I took a picture of the video cameraman as he trained his camera on the reporter making his comments attending on a balcony adjacent to the conference room. The TV crew also caught some scenes and interviews with, i guess, vip's of the Conference. As IE was there in force with four, are there any details gathered on the press situation? Who, what, when, and where? -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 02:47:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA12479; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:46:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:46:17 -0700 Message-ID: <002701bfd392$037be380$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:44:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"aRD5a1.0.q23.e_rGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35462 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: The 253.6 nanometer uv (4.886 ev)in a mercury discharge tube represents 60% of the energy as photons. A 5 watt quartz bulb in a Eprom Eraser shining on plastic sheeting builds up an electrostatic charge in a few minutes indicating that Light Lepton Pairs are produced on the surface in abundance. Fluorescent tubes with quartz bulbs without a phosphor are commercially available for use as ozone generators and germicidal lamps. It seems to me that circulating H2O or D2O (With K2CO3)over the bulbs while doing calorimetry and checking for Helium would be well worth a try. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 03:52:31 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA19029; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:51:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:51:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:51:44 -0400 Message-Id: <200006111051.GAA09869 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"4OU_p1.0.Ff4.4zsGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35463 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred writes: >It seems to me that circulating H2O or D2O (With K2CO3)over the bulbs >while doing calorimetry and checking for Helium would be well worth a try. > >Regards, Frederick Hi Fred, I thought doing something like this when you suggested silvering an electret, and collecting the charge. I was wondering if running water over that would heat the water or if it would just carry the charge away without heating it. I was also wondering if you thought that the electret would have to be air dried for it to work again. If it did, I wouldn't think it would be worthwhile, but with flourescent tubes it might be different. We had an old, non-operational UV system on the Polar Bear, BTW. The water from the evaporation style desalinator was so pure that the UV wasn't necessary. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 04:14:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA22134; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:13:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:13:42 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:13:38 -0400 Message-Id: <200006111113.HAA12629 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"9bzLo1.0.hP5.cHtGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35464 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >Hi Fred, > >I thought doing something like this when you suggested silvering an >electret, and collecting the charge. I was wondering if running water over >that would heat the water or if it would just carry the charge away without >heating it. I was also wondering if you thought that the electret would >have to be air dried for it to work again. If it did, I wouldn't think it >would be worthwhile, but with flourescent tubes it might be different. We >had an old, non-operational UV system on the Polar Bear, BTW. The water >from the evaporation style desalinator was so pure that the UV wasn't necessary. > >Knuke I read this over after sending it, and realized that I meant charged particles, rather than just charge. I was thinking about running that water through my cavitator after it was full of charged particles to see if there was a difference, actually. As an aside, there is a guy on the FreeNRG Group that picked up a collection of letters written by Michael Faraday. In it he read that you can attach one lead from a power supply to a copper pipe, and the other lead to the water running out of the pipe, and the water will carry a current. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 05:10:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA29120; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 05:10:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 05:10:02 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:45:29 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Coniferous Forests on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"AVrww1.0.w67.Q6uGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35465 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Check out the photos at http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0006/04mgsdunes/, which appear to show forests near Mars' southern polar icecap. The scale is extraordinarily fine, at about 300 meters per 1.4 cm, and shows what appears to be a forest consisting of objects that are about the size and shape of redwoods, intermingled with other objects of similar shape but smaller sizes. (Despite the comments in the article, I see nothing small enough to be described as "bushes.") I, for one, find it perfectly plausible that, at one time, Mars was a planet on which life flourished, and that, as it gradually cooled down, life adapted, producing, for example, gigantic trees near the poles--the only large source of above-ground water--which go dormant in the lengthy Martian winter and then, in the brief Martian summer, resume metabolic activity. It has been known for more than a hundred years that Mars tends to turn green in areas that are experiencing summer, but this is explained away by various rather implausible speculations. The question is, how are these most recent and vastly more detailed images to be explaned away? :-) --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 06:49:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA17268; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:48:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:48:03 -0700 Message-ID: <39439929.7EAD701D home.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:50:33 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Coniferous Forests on Mars? References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2065B121A0B4EC3CFA231CAF" Resent-Message-ID: <"gxUwl3.0.kD4.JYvGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35466 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2065B121A0B4EC3CFA231CAF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitchell Jones wrote: > > Check out the photos at http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0006/04mgsdunes/, > which appear to show forests near Mars' southern polar icecap... > implausible speculations. The question is, how are these most recent and > vastly more detailed images to be explaned away? :-) --Mitchell Jones Greetings, The evidence for life on Mars (and many other planetary bodies) is overwhelming. Michael Malin just released 25,000 new high resolution images of Mars, on which many, from random sampling, show clear evidence of a vast civilization there, which was/is mostly underground. Just look, but not just a cursory look-- do it as a spy satellite photo analyst would--zoom in, look at shadows, if you see a ground track, follow it to the end and zoom in there; ask yourself if what you see makes any sense geologically. According to astronomer Tom VanFlandern (http://www.metaresearch.org/cydonia/homepage.htm), Mars had a major catastrophe 3.2 megayears ago, so much of the construction is highly eroded. Pyramids abound, as well as tunnel entrances, pipelines, rectilinear buildings, possible pumping stations at the bottoms of craters, hexagonal craters, and general evidence of vast cities, largely decimated by the catastrophe and time. >From the Pathfinder ground images (with near millimeter resolution), there is abundant evidence of past life, some like ours and some very bizarre, and in a few cases, motion implying extant macro-life. The animals are mostly encrusted or camouflaged to look somewhat like rocks, but one can see they are really animals from the commonality of shapes, faces, trails of animal debris, appendages, sometimes motion. Pathfinder also shows civilization debris in abundance, as if it landed in the middle of a junk yard. Pipes,often coaxial, equipment, box beams, trapdoors underground, rectilinear sewer gratings etc. There are some truly bizarre things such as the "strings of pearls" which appear as hovering white (sometimes black) spheres in straight lines sometimes draped across arroyos as if under tension, but there's no evidence of the cable supporting them (visible only in the analglyph 3D images such as TwinPeaksGlyph). If all that isn't enough, check out Europa, Callisto, Venus, Our Moon. Other URL's: http://disc.server.com/Indices/8728.html http://www.netside.net/~tbeech http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/narrowangles.html http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/zelazny/212/ http://mars.sgi.com/mpf/stereo-arc.html http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/ops/photojournal.html http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/anaglyph-arc.html http://www.homestead.com/hiddenhistory/index.html and my own page: -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------2065B121A0B4EC3CFA231CAF Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------2065B121A0B4EC3CFA231CAF-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 06:55:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19235; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:54:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:54:25 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000611135422.0090305c pop.voyager.net> X-Sender: estrojny pop.voyager.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:54:22 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"TfeA8.0.Ti4.GevGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35467 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:44 AM 6/11/00 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote: >To Vortex: > >The 253.6 nanometer uv (4.886 ev)in a mercury discharge tube represents 60% of >the energy as photons. A 5 watt quartz bulb in a Eprom Eraser shining on >plastic sheeting builds up an electrostatic charge in a few minutes indicating >that Light Lepton Pairs are produced on the surface in abundance. > >Fluorescent tubes with quartz bulbs without a phosphor are commercially >available for use as ozone generators and germicidal lamps. > >It seems to me that circulating H2O or D2O (With K2CO3)over the bulbs >while doing calorimetry and checking for Helium would be well worth a try. > >Regards, Frederick > I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to atomic H. I want to use it to dissociate H2 in the presence of K+ and Pd to see if the Mills type of reaction takes place. Can these small lamps be purchased somewhere? Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 07:08:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23226; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:07:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:07:37 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:07:31 -0400 Message-Id: <200006111407.KAA06786 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"0zAGt3.0.lg5.fqvGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35468 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed writes: >I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry >for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. >The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to >atomic H. I want to use it to dissociate H2 in the presence of K+ and Pd to >see if the Mills type of reaction takes place. > >Can these small lamps be purchased somewhere? > >Ed I looked for these as well, years ago, and all the ones I could find were rated at ~400 nm on up. They weren't cheap, either. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 07:17:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA25582; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:16:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: <004e01bfd3b7$944096c0$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <200006111113.HAA12629 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:13:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"enfNq1.0.eF6.zyvGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35469 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael T Huffman To: Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 4:13 AM Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Knuke wrote: > > I wrote: > >Hi Fred, > > > >I thought doing something like this when you suggested silvering an > >electret, and collecting the charge. I was wondering if running water over > >that would heat the water or if it would just carry the charge away without > >heating it. The electret was suggested for collecting LLs (or other) charges from the air, ie., the LLs created from sunlight in the atmosphere/ionosphere. But, in this case the uv photons that escape through the bulb should create them in the water (in situ). also the 254 nanometer (and 185 nm)photons can dissociate the water molecules into H-OH, H, and O, which can take up the LL- and form a neutral entity which should give off heat as it is being formed. With D2O the reaction D* + D ---> He4 + LL- + ~24 Mev or P* + D ----> Tritium or He3 + LL- + ~3.0 Mev should occur which leaves the LL- free to effect more reactions until it annihilates with an LL+. > > We had an old, non-operational UV system on the Polar Bear, BTW. The water > >from the evaporation style desalinator was so pure that the UV wasn't > necessary. Pure water, but not sterile. :-) > > > >Knuke > > As an aside, there is a guy on the FreeNRG Group that picked up a collection > of letters written by Michael Faraday. In it he read that you can attach > one lead from a power supply to a copper pipe, and the other lead to the > water running out of the pipe, and the water will carry a current. Sure, but pure water can carry a current because of "autoionization" which might also be LLs attached to the highly polar molecules, rather than H3O+ and OH-. :-) Regards, Frederick > > Knuke > Michael T. Huffman > Huffman Technology Company > 1121 Dustin Drive > The Villages, Florida 32159 > (352)259-1276 > knuke LCIA.COM > http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 07:21:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26823; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:20:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:20:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3943A0C1.36207A80 home.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:22:57 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: UV lamps Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------9A24C1E3246227C674737B25" Resent-Message-ID: <"tvZXp2.0.zY6.i0wGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35470 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9A24C1E3246227C674737B25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edwin Strojny wrote: > > >Fluorescent tubes with quartz bulbs without a phosphor are commercially > >available for use as ozone generators and germicidal lamps. > > You can buy a standard mercury vapor light bulb at most hardware stores, and break the outer bulb. The quartz discharge tube inside will still work fine. Best Regards, Hoyt Stearns Phoenix -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------9A24C1E3246227C674737B25 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------9A24C1E3246227C674737B25-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 07:22:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28001; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:21:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:21:56 -0700 Message-ID: <005c01bfd3b8$8430d820$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000611135422.0090305c pop.voyager.net> Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:19:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"NOMzX2.0.Rr6.32wGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35471 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Edwin Strojny To: Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 6:54 AM Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Ed Strojny wrote: > At 03:44 AM 6/11/00 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote: > >To Vortex: > > > >The 253.6 nanometer uv (4.886 ev)in a mercury discharge tube represents 60% of > >the energy as photons. A 5 watt quartz bulb in a Eprom Eraser shining on > >plastic sheeting builds up an electrostatic charge in a few minutes indicating > >that Light Lepton Pairs are produced on the surface in abundance. > > > >Fluorescent tubes with quartz bulbs without a phosphor are commercially > >available for use as ozone generators and germicidal lamps. > > > >It seems to me that circulating H2O or D2O (With K2CO3)over the bulbs > >while doing calorimetry and checking for Helium would be well worth a try. > > > >Regards, Frederick > > > > > I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry > for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. > The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to > atomic H. I want to use it to dissociate H2 in the presence of K+ and Pd to > see if the Mills type of reaction takes place. > > Can these small lamps be purchased somewhere? I bought the Eprom Eraser from Newark Electronics www.newark.com several years ago and there was a listing for the replacement bulbs. Grainger carries the Phillips uv fluorescents in various sizes and the electronic ballasts as well. Regards, Frederick > > Ed > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 07:49:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02432; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:48:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:48:55 -0700 X-Sender: rmuha mail Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200006100723.DAA05467 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:48:45 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: ralph muha Subject: Re: DU info? Resent-Message-ID: <"uGi4s3.0.rb.NRwGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35472 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > 2] it is an emitter and can easily get in your lungs and if >it lodges there, bad news.... > Ask yourself.... if you have some "left over material' ... what do >you DO with it? Where do you throw it away...???? the Arsenal Mall, in Watertown, MA, was built on land formerly occupied by the US Army Materials Research Laboratory. The parking lot is mildly radioactive, due to the large amount of DU that was disposed of, a byproduct of research into DU projectiles... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 08:34:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA14334; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:33:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:33:13 -0700 Message-ID: <008f01bfd3c2$79d54780$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Philips Lighting - Search Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:31:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD387.C7143820" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"lDW4i.0.uV3.v4xGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35473 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD387.C7143820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You can find the Philips uv data here, Ed. Keyword uv. http://www.lighting.philips.com/search/search.shtml ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD387.C7143820 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Philips Lighting - Search.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Philips Lighting - Search.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.lighting.philips.com/search/search.shtml [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.lighting.philips.com/search/search.shtml Modified=A0305226C2D3BF019D ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD387.C7143820-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 09:18:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25340; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:16:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:16:58 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: RE: Coniferous Forests on Mars? Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:05:09 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"1BSEu1.0.oB6.wjxGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35474 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Mitchell, Thanks for pointing out these images. The explanation on the NASA site is a fine piece of double talk and appears to be intended to head off discussion that the images might be just what they appear to be. As you say, the scale means that these are not "bushes" but large trees. And the time of year is right. I have to say that Hoyt's images, on the other hand, appear fanciful to me. But maybe I just haven't looked hard enough :-) Regards, Fred > > > Check out the photos at http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0006/04mgsdunes/, > which appear to show forests near Mars' southern polar icecap. > The scale is > extraordinarily fine, at about 300 meters per 1.4 cm, and shows what > appears to be a forest consisting of objects that are about the size and > shape of redwoods, intermingled with other objects of similar shape but > smaller sizes. (Despite the comments in the article, I see nothing small > enough to be described as "bushes.") I, for one, find it perfectly > plausible that, at one time, Mars was a planet on which life flourished, > and that, as it gradually cooled down, life adapted, producing, for > example, gigantic trees near the poles--the only large source of > above-ground water--which go dormant in the lengthy Martian winter and > then, in the brief Martian summer, resume metabolic activity. It has been > known for more than a hundred years that Mars tends to turn > green in areas > that are experiencing summer, but this is explained away by > various rather > implausible speculations. The question is, how are these most recent and > vastly more detailed images to be explaned away? :-) --Mitchell Jones > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 10:56:18 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17716; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:53:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:53:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3943EF69.7F4B bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:58:33 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Coniferous Forests on Mars? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lyR2M3.0.kK4.08zGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35475 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred Epps wrote: > > Hi Mitchell, > > Thanks for pointing out these images. The explanation on the NASA site is a > fine piece of double talk and appears to be intended to head off discussion > that the images might be just what they appear to be. As you say, the scale > means that these are not "bushes" but large trees. And the time of year is > right. > I have to say that Hoyt's images, on the other hand, appear fanciful to me. > But maybe I just haven't looked hard enough :-) What I find impressive is, this is just where you might expect a limited treeline! Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 11:34:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA27608; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:34:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:34:00 -0700 Message-ID: <00a801bfd3db$bb632a00$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Germicidal UV Lamps Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:31:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD3A0.F7B62240" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"dusFG3.0.El6.NkzGv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35476 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD3A0.F7B62240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This one covers it nicely, Ed. FJS http://www.light-sources.com/germ.html ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD3A0.F7B62240 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Light Sources Germicidal Lamp Catalog.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Light Sources Germicidal Lamp Catalog.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.light-sources.com/germ.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.light-sources.com/germ.html Modified=A0460E72DBD3BF01D4 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD3A0.F7B62240-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 14:22:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20430; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:20:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:20:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3943FEB9.845ABA53 telus.net> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:03:53 -0700 From: AL & Jan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD TELUS.NET_x86_NCom (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Motor/generator References: <002701bfd392$037be380$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AMU6g2.0.8_4.RA0Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35477 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello all, I have had a major computer crash due to some problems that were unexspected a couple of days ago. We have just got the system up and running again but have lost all emails, book markes, and all information related to correspondence with the generator/motor development that I have. I feel that it was intentional and I am not happy with what happend at all, I won't get into it any further then that for now. However, I have been in contact with several people regarding the subject of motor/generators and have lost all messages of comunication. Could all those people who have been in contact with me in the last 10 days, please send me a copy of the last email exchange (to me privately) that we may of had. This way we could continue where we left off to further our comunications. Sorry for the delay in my rely to all those interested. For it took two full days to fix the attack, with the cost of the lost of valuable information. I am looking forward to continuing our discussions. Thankyou Alan L Francoeur Researcher/Inventor Penticton, BC. Canada From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 14:44:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28916; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:42:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:42:51 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000611214244.0090daf0 pop.voyager.net> X-Sender: estrojny pop.voyager.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:42:44 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Germicidal UV Lamps Resent-Message-ID: <"istSp2.0.g37.RV0Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35478 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thank you for your help Fred; I am looking into these sources. Light Sources looks promising. Ed At 12:31 PM 6/11/00 -0700, you wrote: >This one covers it nicely, Ed. > >FJS > > http://www.light-sources.com/germ.html > >Attachment Converted: c:\program files\eudora\attach\Light Sources Germicidal Lamp Catalog.url > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 15:10:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02376; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:08:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:08:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000611170815.012b5d10 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:08:15 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000611135422.0090305c pop.voyager.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"GMeju2.0.2b.qt0Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35479 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:54 AM 6/11/2000 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: >I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry >for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. >The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to >atomic H. To my knowledge the straightforward dissociation of H2 into two ground state H atoms is forbidden by some QM exclusion rule (which I don't understand). The classic experiment to determine the dissociation energy of H2 using UV light (originally performed by Beutler in the 1930's and later by the great Herzberg himself in 1960 and again in 1970 with an enormous 10.5 meter spectrograph) is done with 85 nm light, which has an energy of 14.7 eV. This is just enuf to split the H2 molecule (4.5 eV) and raise one of the H atoms to the first excited electronic state (10.2 eV). In a fairly thorough search for ways to dissociate H2 molecules, I found one reference that mentioned that you could do it with >=4.5 eV photons PROVIDED a third body was present to participate in some QM rule I don't understand. The reference mentioned that Hg vapor in the H2 gas would do it. I could not find any further information on that. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300 Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 512-346-3017 (FAX) http://www.earthtech.org From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 15:34:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12211; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:32:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:32:13 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:37:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: CAUTION WARNING UV LAMP Warning... hazard.. In-Reply-To: <3943A0C1.36207A80 home.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"RjxnH.0.i-2.iD1Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35480 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Folks, Regardingthe suggestion below... If you break the protective envelope to get UV... Please note some of the following... this is not, by the way, an inclusive list of hazards...... 1] quartz UV light can BLIND you and can also cause VERY VERY pain full and sometimes permanent damage to eyes and skin and all wet tissue and mucus membranes. 2] the SW UV is carcinogen 3] SW UV can easly cause dangerous levels of ozone... and quick, too! 4] CHILDREN ... make sure they can not be be exposed and-or turn on the light.... and be careful of pets!!! ---------------- EXPLOSION AND BURN HAZARD!!!! -------- Be careful to not damage the quartz envelope or it may explode and send flying quartz... at a temperature of 1,100 or 1,200 C... not F.... 1,100 Centigrade!!! 1] The smallest tineyist scratch can do it... even if it is invisible with the un aided eye 2] The samllest amount of physical contamination of the outer envelope ... skin oils, dust... even the contamination of the footprints of a fly can do it.... REALLY! This can anddoes lead to a "hot-spot" on the quartz envelope. 3] Start with new bulb....and determine the orientation of operation, ie, horizontal, vertical... etc.... Then burn lamp in this position, with envelope intact for about 5 or 10 minutes.... Then break the envenople WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY COOL!!! Break by scribing the glass outer envelope with glass cutter, or hard scribe such as diamond, silicon carbide.... scribe in circle near the ends... and also do a little 'basket shaped' scribe.... WEAR EYE protection ... then ... !!!!Gently !!!! Tap with hard rigid tool at the scribe lines... 4] remeber to burn in same orientation as the start up.... 5] _____ Be CAREFUL ______ 6] USE eye protection ... for ALL parties... 7] USE shatter protection to protect ALL parties J On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: > > > Edwin Strojny wrote: > > > > > >Fluorescent tubes with quartz bulbs without a phosphor are commercially > > >available for use as ozone generators and germicidal lamps. > > > > > You can buy a standard mercury vapor light bulb at most hardware stores, > and break the outer bulb. The quartz discharge tube inside will still > work > fine. > > > Best Regards, > Hoyt Stearns > Phoenix > -- > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 15:41:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15362; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:40:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:40:25 -0700 Message-ID: <00d501bfd3fe$24d424e0$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000611170815.012b5d10 earthtech.org> Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:38:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"J_a593.0.yl3.PL1Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35481 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Little To: ; Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Scott wrote: > At 09:54 AM 6/11/2000 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: > > >I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry > >for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. > >The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to > >atomic H. > > To my knowledge the straightforward dissociation of H2 into two ground > state H atoms is forbidden by some QM exclusion rule (which I don't > understand). The classic experiment to determine the dissociation energy > of H2 using UV light (originally performed by Beutler in the 1930's and > later by the great Herzberg himself in 1960 and again in 1970 with an > enormous 10.5 meter spectrograph) is done with 85 nm light, which has an > energy of 14.7 eV. This is just enuf to split the H2 molecule (4.5 eV) and > raise one of the H atoms to the first excited electronic state (10.2 eV). Wouldn't this be where the 4.34 ev ionization energy of the Potassium "catalyst" comes into play? Then K+ + H2 ---> KH + H+? > > In a fairly thorough search for ways to dissociate H2 molecules, I found > one reference that mentioned that you could do it with >=4.5 eV photons > PROVIDED a third body was present to participate in some QM rule I don't > understand. The reference mentioned that Hg vapor in the H2 gas would do > it. I could not find any further information on that. The H2 can dissociate to 2 H on tungsten which has a ~ 4.53 work function that is obviously generating some 4.53 ev photons when the emitted electrons "fall back" to the bulk metal. This would make it a "three body" effect. Regards, Frederick > > > Scott Little > EarthTech International, Inc. > 4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300 > Austin TX 78759 > 512-342-2185 > 512-346-3017 (FAX) > http://www.earthtech.org > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 15:54:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA20733; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:53:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:53:11 -0700 Message-ID: <394418E0.A5A6B40D home.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:55:28 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CAUTION WARNING UV LAMP Warning... hazard.. References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3D5EFF86EBDDD4C4ED256756" Resent-Message-ID: <"P2SRf3.0.o35.LX1Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35482 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3D5EFF86EBDDD4C4ED256756 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Thanks for posting the hazards. When I've done this, I've put a 100 watt incandescent bulb in series with the arc tube as a ballast. This limits the power to a small fraction of the normal operating condition, and the arc tube barely gets warm, however it does produce enough UV to do what I want (and does make smellable ozone). At this power, I've had no problem with orientation, handling, etc. John Schnurer wrote: > > Dear Folks, > > Regardingthe suggestion below... > > If you break the protective envelope to get UV... > > Please note some of the following... this is not, by the way, an > inclusive list of hazards...... -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------3D5EFF86EBDDD4C4ED256756 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------3D5EFF86EBDDD4C4ED256756-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 16:30:52 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA01805; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:29:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:29:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:29:35 -0400 Message-Id: <200006112329.TAA28713 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: CAUTION WARNING UV LAMP Warning... hazard.. Resent-Message-ID: <"cjzLn3.0.7S.i32Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35483 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John writes: > Be careful to not damage the quartz envelope or it may explode and >send flying quartz... at a temperature of 1,100 or 1,200 C... not F.... > 1,100 Centigrade!!! > > 1] The smallest tineyist scratch can do it... even if it is >invisible with the un aided eye > 2] The samllest amount of physical contamination of the outer >envelope ... skin oils, dust... even the contamination of the footprints >of a fly can do it.... REALLY! > This can anddoes lead to a "hot-spot" on the quartz envelope. Hi John, That is a pretty good list of safety considerations. You can get throw-away, cotton gloves at many good photo supply stores, the kind of stores that cater to people who develop their own film. That is what I always used when handling those types of bulbs. I never did consider the fly footprints, though.... Those guys never wipe their feet when they come in your house, I've watched. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 11 17:22:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15674; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:20:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:20:59 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:17:48 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: HSG: Helpful information Cc: , , Resent-Message-ID: <"j0x6y.0.mq3.gp2Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35484 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ***{Here is the first message of mine that was rejected by Luther Setzer in the HSG group. I have sent a carbon copy to David. If he wishes, he can respond on vortex. --MJ}*** >In a message dated 6/10/00 10:57:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time, >mjones jump.net writes: > > >But, if that is the case, why did you snip out the entire > > content of my remarks about the Aspect experiment without comment? Wasn't > > it you, after all, who claimed that the experiment was not amenable to > > deterministic interpretations, and, thus, validated the QM worldview? If my > > remarks were so thoroughly wrong--if, for example, the idea implicit in my > > "thought experiment" cannot, in fact, be used to establish that there is no > > statistical test which can distinguish between causal determinism and > > "entanglement" (Jones' Theorem! :-)--then why did you refrain from shooting > > me down? --MJ}*** > >Your remarks on the Aspect experiment did not require comment because I have >already stated that Bell's inequality does precisely that--it distinguishes >between causal determinism and entanglement. Bell's inequality clearly >distinguishes between the case where: > >a) The particles have the property when they are emitted from the process and >before measurement. In this case Bell's inequality is satisfied. >b) The system is in a superposition of states and each particle does not >have the property until measurement, i.e. nonlocality holds. In this case >Bell's inequality is violated. > >Once again, I will say that experiment shows without a doubt that b is the >case, bell's inequality is violated. Therefore your argument is disproven by >experiment. ***{The idea implicit in my thought experiment, which was grasped immediately by my opponent in the "argument on the plane," was that since causal determinism is conceded to rule the macrocosm, it follows that if we can create a macrocosmic situation which generates the same data as an entanglement experiment, we will effectively demonstrate that the data in question do not distinguish between determinism and "entanglement." Since we can obviously do that vis-a-vis the Aspect experiment, your position is clearly incorrect. Moreover, since we can also do that for the data collected by *any conceivable* entanglement experiment, it follows that there is no statistical test which can distinguish between causal determinism and entanglement. Q.E.D. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >David McMahon >BS Math & EE >Phd student physics From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 06:43:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA25778; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:41:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:41:44 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000612134140.008f515c pop.voyager.net> X-Sender: estrojny pop.voyager.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:41:40 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"CfLIW3.0.iI6.NYEHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35485 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The only reference I have is a text book, Introduction to Inorganic Chemistry by Durrant and Durrant (1962) which states..."Atomic hydrogen may be prepared ... (3) By exposing a mixture of hydrogen (up to 1/2 atmosphere pressure) and mercury vapour to the resonance radiation (lambda=2537 Angstroms) of a mercury arc....." Ed At 05:08 PM 6/11/00 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 09:54 AM 6/11/2000 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: > >>I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry >>for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. >>The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to >>atomic H. > > >In a fairly thorough search for ways to dissociate H2 molecules, I found >one reference that mentioned that you could do it with >=4.5 eV photons >PROVIDED a third body was present to participate in some QM rule I don't >understand. The reference mentioned that Hg vapor in the H2 gas would do >it. I could not find any further information on that. > > >Scott Little >EarthTech International, Inc. >4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300 >Austin TX 78759 >512-342-2185 >512-346-3017 (FAX) >http://www.earthtech.org > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 06:58:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA32366; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:57:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:57:16 -0700 Message-ID: <001701bfd47e$3d20f0c0$098e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000612134140.008f515c pop.voyager.net> Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:55:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"Nl6aK.0.ev7.ymEHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35486 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Edwin Strojny To: Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 6:41 AM Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Ed Strojny wrote: > The only reference I have is a text book, Introduction to Inorganic > Chemistry by Durrant and Durrant (1962) which states..."Atomic hydrogen may > be prepared ... > > (3) By exposing a mixture of hydrogen (up to 1/2 atmosphere pressure) and > mercury vapour to the resonance radiation (lambda=2537 Angstroms) of a > mercury arc....." > > Ed Going by that, Ed, you could bleed a few millitorr of H2 into any standard fluorescent light bulb and you would be home free. :-) Regards, Frederick > > At 05:08 PM 6/11/00 -0500, Scott Little wrote: > >At 09:54 AM 6/11/2000 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: > > > >>I have been waiting for a reply from Jelight Company, Inc about my inquiry > >>for a small Hg lamp so when I read your post I nearly fell out of my chair. > >>The 253.6 nm wavelength has more than enough energy to dissociate H2 to > >>atomic H. > > > > > >In a fairly thorough search for ways to dissociate H2 molecules, I found > >one reference that mentioned that you could do it with >=4.5 eV photons > >PROVIDED a third body was present to participate in some QM rule I don't > >understand. The reference mentioned that Hg vapor in the H2 gas would do > >it. I could not find any further information on that. > > > > > >Scott Little > >EarthTech International, Inc. > >4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300 > >Austin TX 78759 > >512-342-2185 > >512-346-3017 (FAX) > >http://www.earthtech.org > > > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 07:04:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02348; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:02:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:02:39 -0700 Message-ID: <002501bfd47e$f6198a60$098e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Electron Bombardment Activation of Pd and Nickel Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:00:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"2vDx1.0.ba._rEHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35487 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: One that Ed Storms might want to try. I'm not gonna say why, just yet. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 07:04:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02380; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:02:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:02:41 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612100101.007cc6c0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:01:01 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: R. Stringham / CETI In-Reply-To: <200006101254.IAA04059 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"YlCpX1.0.3b.1sEHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35488 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >You yourself, have worked with and/or published quite a lot of factual and >theoretical information on the Stringham/George device, the so called Griggs >device, the Potopov device, the Perkins/Pope device, my device, and some of >the sonoluminescence devices. To say that there is no theory yet is a >ridiculous assertion. I do not know of any theory that can explain the apparent excess heat from these device, or any theory which ties them together. At this stage they are separate phonomena. There is probably some connection between CF and the Stringham gadget, because both produce metal deuterides. As far as I know, the Potapov and Perkins/Pope devices do not work at all. >You probably know more about cavitation theory than I do. Then you know less than nothing. >Isn't your business and publishing partner, Gene Mallove, a science advisor >for one of the remediation companies? He may be, but as far as I know, none of the remediation gadgets has been independently replicated, so I do not believe them. Claims of remediation or transmutation should be backed up by independent replication and multiple sources of evidence, such two or three different methods of spectroscopy (preferably performed at different labs), plus excess heat, plus an autoradiograph showing clear signs of radioactivity. A few people have met such high burdens of proof, so I think the transmutation claims are probably correct, but I am not 100% convinced. >>For that matter, >>Stringham has never been independently replicated so I am many miles away >>from believing his claims. I don't reject them, obviously. I just don't >>know yet. > >That is not true, according to an article in your I.E. Vol. 1 issue 1, so >you should know that. His test results for nuclear ash have been verified >by both LANL and Rockwell International. His SEM work was done at Portland >State University in Oregon. They are all independent of SRI. Right, but they did not independently replicate the device. That is to say, the people at LANL did not build one themselves, operate it, and test it without Stringham's help. As far as I know, they have only tested with Stringham or George operating the machines. That is a good first step. This halfway-to-replication state is not unusual or harmful. J. Folkman's claims for a cancer breakthrough with endostatin are still not replicated. Outside scientists have visited his lab and helped replicate the results there, but they have not been able to do it again at their own labs independently. It may never be done; the results might be an artifact, or the technique may be too difficult for others to replicate. We may never know. Many other CF claims, such as Piantelli's Ni-H gas loading, remain unreplicated and stuck in limbo. At ICCF8, Piantelli and Focardi said they have reproduced the device and shown excess heat at two universities and at the Fiat research laboratory, and they have improved the calorimetry. That's good news, but it does not meet the gold standard, of independent replication yet. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 07:15:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07274; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:13:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:13:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:13:01 -0400 Message-Id: <200006121413.KAA19710 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"eDgzg3.0.an1.y_EHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35490 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred writes: > >Going by that, Ed, you could bleed a few millitorr of H2 into any standard >fluorescent light bulb and you would be home free. :-) > >Regards, Frederick This would happen naturally over time in any low pressure, glass vessel. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 07:15:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07222; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:13:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:13:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:12:58 -0400 Message-Id: <200006121412.KAA19683 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"rHA0d3.0.mm1.q_EHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35489 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred writes: >The electret was suggested for collecting LLs (or other) charges from the air, ie., >the LLs created from sunlight in the atmosphere/ionosphere. >But, in this case the uv photons that escape through the bulb should create them >in the water (in situ). also the 254 nanometer (and 185 nm)photons can dissociate the water >molecules into H-OH, H, and O, which can take up the LL- and form a >neutral entity which should give off heat as it is being formed. Hi Fred, Yes, I think I am beginning to understand a bit more the details of the concepts that you are proposing, and I think they are quite good. You might also be pleased to know that someone has made the effort to organize all of your posts into a Sparberino file, and it is under review at the moment in another forum. I think the electret idea still might work too, if engineered properly. The LL's obviously, are able to go through thin quartz glass, as well as UV from the sun, some smaller charged particles might get through as well, so there still could well be a low power way to both heat and sterilize slowly flowing water over properly constructed, quartz covered electret plates without exposing the water to additional airborne pathogens, or having to use the more costly and dangerous bulbs. >With D2O the reaction D* + D ---> He4 + LL- + ~24 Mev or >P* + D ----> Tritium or He3 + LL- + ~3.0 Mev should occur which >leaves the LL- free to effect more reactions until it annihilates with an LL+. Yes, and I think that this may be related to some of the work done by Shoulders, the Brown's Gas people and others. If your proposed reaction were found to work better with a Hg bulb, then we have something of a pattern. Shoulders evidently is saying that his Charge Clusters are held together in a lattice. This could be a construction made possible by an LL attachment to the electrons, balancing out their individual charges to the degree that they are able to occupy a smaller space without being mutually repulsed. What is interesting is that he uses Hg in his experiments. Todd Knudtsen, who has worked extensively with Brown's gas, told me that the Brown's gas was being held together by a lattice of some sort. It was the only way that he could explain some of the behavior of the gas, such as its compressability without recombining. Those guys use Al plates I believe, in their devices which I have learned, probably contains some trace quantities of Hg from the processing of the Al. The third instance of this inexplicable lattice formation is with cavitation microbubbles. Those bubbles, which normally should all combine and rise to the surface within minutes, somehow remain in a state of mutual repulsion and suspension for periods recorded to exceed 18 months. I usually threw my samples out after a week, but Dr. D'Arrigo has run thousands of samples and observed this with 100% reliability for 18 months before seeing any significant lessening of the number of bubbles in his solutions. This is simply unheard of in nature. A LL lattice may explain it. A preparatory treatment configuration which increases the LL content of the water, prior to cavitating it, may also increase the phenomenon, and again without resorting to using Hg or Al, both of which have been shown to be health risks if ingested. >> > We had an old, non-operational UV system on the Polar Bear, BTW. The water >> >from the evaporation style desalinator was so pure that the UV wasn't >> necessary. > >Pure water, but not sterile. :-) Well, I'm not so sure. The input pressure to the vacuum tank was around 65PSI, and of course, the vacuum tank was maintained at a 29" vac, so there are not too many pathogens that can survive that kind of instaneous transition from a high pressure atmosphere to that low of an atmosphere. There are additional indications as well. We had to have the water sampled and tested monthly at the all the taps, and in every case, no matter where we had it tested, the report would come back that it was the purest water that they had seen from any tap, and especially from any boat tap which normally would use a Reverse Osmosis system. This was all done without any Chlorine or any other additives, as well. This system had plenty of air exposure too, so the few particles per million that did show up on the tests could have easily come from that. Another interesting thing is that Royer, the port engineer, had installed the tanks for that system a couple of years before I got there. He welded 1/4" steel plates to construct the tanks, and put a gasketed access hatch on the side of each one so that we could get into to them. He painted the walls and inner hatch cover suface with a liquid rubber paint, buttoned the thing up, and called it good. He never opened it back up before I got there, and I never opened it until 7 years after I started, for a total of nine years. We decided to inspect them one day, and found just a couple of very small (1" or 2" diameter) bubbles under the paint where rust had formed. There was not one speck of mold on any of the surfaces from the floor to the ceiling, nor did we find anything like discolored areas which would have indicated that mold had formed and been killed. Not bad for nine years, eh? I love "no maintenence" systems. >> As an aside, there is a guy on the FreeNRG Group that picked up a collection >> of letters written by Michael Faraday. In it he read that you can attach >> one lead from a power supply to a copper pipe, and the other lead to the >> water running out of the pipe, and the water will carry a current. > >Sure, but pure water can carry a current because of "autoionization" which >might also be LLs attached to the highly polar molecules, rather than H3O+ and >OH-. :-) > >Regards, Frederick Yes, and this may also be one of the reasons for the purity of the water on that boat. There were very few days when I wasn't welding something, somewhere on that crate, so there was probably some ionization going on that helped keep the water pure. There may also be a connection with LL's and the vacuum tank that may have made a difference as well, since the LL's would be able to pass through just about anything. Their density or number may be higher in a vacuum chamber. In fact, a low pressure atmosphere may be necessary for this lattice structure to be formed in which Shoulder's EV's are created. If the very low pressure area is due to a vortex formation in the gas, then LL's and any free electrons would fill that inner space, allowing the LL+'s to attach to the electrons and form a stable macroformation that he is calling a Charge Cluster. It would also account for its shape, perhaps. Bill Beaty has seen helical shaped formations in Hg gas when charged with HV, but I don't think that the Hg is necessary for a vortex to be formed. I would hope that it in not, at any rate. I think that a mechanical or electrically induced, rotary stirring motion may be enough for a gas to form a low pressure area. This is apparently feasable with the dual panel Roth design. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 07:35:10 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA16063; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:31:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:31:55 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:30:40 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"m4XlY3.0.vw3.RHFHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35491 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ***{Worthwhile commentary about world economic events may be obtained for free by subscribing to Bill Bonner's daily e-mail newsletter. See http://www.dailyreckoning.com for details. Highly recommended by yours truly. An excerpt from the current missive appears below. --MJ}*** > "Putin's Adviser Extols Ayn Rand" says The Moscow > Times. "Newly appointed presidential economics adviser > Andrei Illarionov showed his economic colors Tuesday as he > vociferously supported the ideas of one of the > most influential shapers of Western thought on free > markets, Ayn Rand," said the paper. Then, quoting Mr. > Illarionov: "Every import tariff and every limit on > foreign-exchange transactions is a blow to > our consciousness. Every tax acts against our freedom." The > new economics advisor to President Putin made the remarks > at a news conference Tuesday dedicated to the launch of > Rand's work in the Russian language. Illarionov cited > Chile's economic plan under the dictatorship of General > Augusto Pinochet as an ideal example of good economic > programming. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 07:41:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA19825; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:39:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:39:35 -0700 Message-ID: <3944F73D.ADCC8B2 bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:44:13 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"QHcVv.0.cr4.dOFHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35492 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > > ***{Worthwhile commentary about world economic events may be obtained for > free by subscribing to Bill Bonner's daily e-mail newsletter. See > http://www.dailyreckoning.com for details. Highly recommended by yours > truly. An excerpt from the current missive appears below. --MJ}*** > > > "Putin's Adviser Extols Ayn Rand" says The Moscow > > Times. "Newly appointed presidential economics adviser > > Andrei Illarionov showed his economic colors Tuesday as he > > vociferously supported the ideas of one of the > > most influential shapers of Western thought on free > > markets, Ayn Rand," said the paper. Then, quoting Mr. > > Illarionov: "Every import tariff and every limit on > > foreign-exchange transactions is a blow to > > our consciousness. Every tax acts against our freedom." The > > new economics advisor to President Putin made the remarks > > at a news conference Tuesday dedicated to the launch of > > Rand's work in the Russian language. Illarionov cited > > Chile's economic plan under the dictatorship of General > > Augusto Pinochet as an ideal example of good economic > > programming. Not too surprising. Ayn Rand was, after all, born in St. Petersburg! :-) Terry Russians: "We *invented* capitalism!" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 08:35:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07942; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:30:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:30:26 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612112821.0079d890 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:28:21 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Let's blame Canada Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"94O9s2.0.rx1.F8GHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35493 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Conspiracy theory alert: The Canadians are probably holding back CF and "free energy" development. See the attached extracts from today's New York Times, and draw your own conclusions. - Jed New York Times, June 12, 2000 Oil Industry Rebounds in Canada as It Becomes Top U.S. Supplier By JAMES BROOKE CALGARY, Alberta -- As this summer's driving and air-conditioning season unfolds, Americans may watch gasoline meters spin and utility bills soar and be tempted to think bad thoughts about energy princes in faraway Arabia. But, as the ditty dictates, why not blame Canada? Or, more precisely, blame Alberta. With the deferential surreptitiousness that some Americans now associate with their northern neighbor, Canada in the last decade nearly doubled its oil exports and nearly tripled its natural gas exports to the United States. Now Canada has definitively emerged as the No. 1 energy supplier to the United States, the world's largest energy importer. . . . On the natural gas front, growing American demand and higher prices are pushing Canada's production frontier north of the Arctic Circle. For years, bad economics, local American Indian reluctance, and environmental opposition blocked development of massive reserves in the Mackenzie River delta and Beaufort Sea area. The deposits, some of the largest in the world, were only viable for development when natural gas prices surpassed $2.50 per million British thermal units. But now with North American gas prices hovering around $4, everyone here is looking north. . . . "The U.S. and Canadian utilities are running scared now, almost everybody has overestimated supply and underestimated demand," Mr. Molyneaux, the energy analyst, said. He noted that in the last five years 75 percent of new electricity generation in the United States went to natural gas. "If your energy bills go up by 30 percent, you are not going to be happy about it," he added. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 09:47:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03963; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:45:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:45:19 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:45:10 -0400 Message-Id: <200006121645.MAA07575 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"4KabC1.0.lz.UEHHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35494 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >***{Worthwhile commentary about world economic events may be obtained for >free by subscribing to Bill Bonner's daily e-mail newsletter. See >http://www.dailyreckoning.com for details. Highly recommended by yours >truly. An excerpt from the current missive appears below. --MJ}*** > >> "Putin's Adviser Extols Ayn Rand" says The Moscow >> Times. "Newly appointed presidential economics adviser >> Andrei Illarionov showed his economic colors Tuesday as he >> vociferously supported the ideas of one of the >> most influential shapers of Western thought on free >> markets, Ayn Rand," said the paper. Oh noooo.... Then, quoting Mr. >> Illarionov: "Every import tariff and every limit on >> foreign-exchange transactions is a blow to >> our consciousness. Every tax acts against our freedom." Braindead Ayn Rand Dogma. I hope the Russians don't turn into zombies. The >> new economics advisor to President Putin made the remarks >> at a news conference Tuesday dedicated to the launch of >> Rand's work in the Russian language. Illarionov cited >> Chile's economic plan under the dictatorship of General >> Augusto Pinochet as an ideal example of good economic >> programming. Pinochet is not what I would call a shining example of anything except a CIA funded and assisted, mass murderer according to the copious evidence and testimony presented in his trial in Britain. His well documented CIA assisted massacre in the Santiago main football arena is legendary. It was obvious from the verdict that Britain was the wrong place to hold such a person on trial, since he is now free and sunning himself at his coastal villa in Chile. Too many ties to the US, and to high ranking US officials. If his trial would have been in Spain, they would have hung him in a heartbeat for what he did. His predecessor, Allende, was no sweetheart either however, from the stories that I got from friends living there. Many of them had their houses ransacked, and were deported at gunpoint immediately after his victory. I spent a summer there in 1969, just before Allende was democratically elected. I traveled all the down to a place just south of Temuco, and spent time with the Indians there. I watched a football game in Santiago in the same arena where the Pinochete massacre later took place, and lived for a time in the home of the former CEO of LanChile airlines, the official Chilean spy pipeline to the States. Allende was democratically elected because his predecessor was so corrupted by the US business/political machine that the people finally got fed up with it. I landed there just moments before Rockefeller flew in, and escaped the ensuing riot just in time to watch on TV the water cannons hosing the tens of thousands of protestors that were tearing down the barricades and trying to turn over his limo. Allende probably would have lasted a bit longer if he hadn't cut off his diplomatic relationships with the US, and hadn't nationalized the US owned banks and coppermines. He did though, and the CIA went in and took over the country in yet another bloody covert action, setting up Pinochete as their strongarm, goon squad puppet leader. I still get second hand reports every now and again from friends that I made there and who are still living there via the ones that left. You can move to Russia if you want, Mitch. It might be perfect for you. All those happy people, gloriously living and working in a free market place... ;) Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 11:12:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA07264; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:09:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:09:25 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F8F xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:04:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"31U663.0.Mn1.LTIHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35495 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is relevant to cold fusion. I understand the rates of loading into a metal hydride (Pd, Ti, Mg) is different for various isotopes of hydrogen. Someone once said that heavier isotopes load faster than ligher isotopes, contrary to other diffusions. Would anyone care to comment on this subject please? Steve Lajoie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 11:42:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19972; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:34:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:34:35 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F90 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:29:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"gs7r-3.0.-t4.xqIHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35496 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Metal Cost/gram(1) grams/mole Cost/Mole Pd $22.68 104.40 $2,368. Ti $ 0.526 47.88 $ 25.18 Mg $ 0.0396 24.31 $ 0.962 Problems with loading Mg include Mg's low vapor pressure at around 300 C, and it's highly famable when exposed to oxygen.(2) I am also concerned that if kept at 300 C, the Mg may anneal and cold fusion appears to have a dependence upon lattice defects. (3) Problems with Ti would include that it forms a flaky powder on hydriding.(2) To me, Mg seems to be the material of engineering choice for cold fusion, if it has good cold fusion properties. Anyone care to comment on this? Or point to Mg cold fusion studies? Steve Lajoie -- (1) Fisher scientific web site try http://www.fishersci.com (2) Sandia Labs data base http://hydpark.ca.sandia.gov/default.html (3) Los Alamos Study http://www.nde.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 11:48:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25051; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:44:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:44:20 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612144409.0079fbd0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:44:09 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F90 xch-evt-10.ca.boe ing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LCoDY1.0.L76.3-IHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35497 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: LaJoie, Stephen A wrote notes that the price is right with Ti and Mg compared to Pd (or Pt for that matter). But they have well-known limitations: >Problems with Ti would include that it forms a flaky powder >on hydriding.(2) It falls to pieces in J. Dash's experiments, but that is probably the electrolyte attack. It holds together okay in Storms' recent experiments, but it produces no excess heat. Way back in 1989 people reported sporadic excess heat from gas loaded Ti shavings. >To me, Mg seems to be the material of engineering choice >for cold fusion, if it has good cold fusion properties. I have never heard of anyone trying magnesium! I can't imagine doing ordinary electrochemistry with it. It burns at the slightest provocation. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 11:54:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA28052; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:49:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:49:47 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Let's blame Canada In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000612112821.0079d890 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"cMomy1.0.As6.A3JHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35498 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Conspiracy theory alert: The Canadians are probably holding back CF and > "free energy" development. See the attached extracts from today's New York > Times, and draw your own conclusions. > > - Jed > > > New York Times, June 12, 2000 > > Oil Industry Rebounds in Canada as It Becomes Top U.S. Supplier > > By JAMES BROOKE [snip story about Canadian oil sales to U.S.] Is anyone in Canada doing government funded CF research? I would think that only the findings of these people could be 'held back". Privately funded research has the same problem that it does any where; people hold back so they can patent and develop proprietary processes and get a positive rate of return on their research investment. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 12:04:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32476; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:59:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:59:31 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F91 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:54:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"zfdzB2.0.Mx7.ICJHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35499 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Jed Rothwell[SMTP:JedRothwell infinite-energy.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 11:44 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com; 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' > Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. > > LaJoie, Stephen A wrote notes that the price is right with Ti and Mg > compared to Pd (or Pt for that matter). But they have well-known limitations: > > >Problems with Ti would include that it forms a flaky powder > >on hydriding.(2) > > It falls to pieces in J. Dash's experiments, but that is probably the > electrolyte attack. It holds together okay in Storms' recent experiments, > but it produces no excess heat. Way back in 1989 people reported sporadic > excess heat from gas loaded Ti shavings. > > > >To me, Mg seems to be the material of engineering choice > >for cold fusion, if it has good cold fusion properties. > > I have never heard of anyone trying magnesium! I can't imagine doing > ordinary electrochemistry with it. It burns at the slightest provocation. > It could be loaded in a sealed container, exposed to D2 gas only, with no oxygen in the chamber. Mg vapor would be allowed to reach it's partial pressure. Loading would be similar to that done by Case and Russ George, gas only. No electrolyte. But in having a Mg gas, I would think that the lattice defects would be "filled". I have doubts about using Mg for this reason. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 12:11:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04433; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:08:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:08:54 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F92 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Boron-11 + hydrogen in a Farnsworth Fusor. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:04:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"HbAuI2.0.851.5LJHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35500 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anyone ever try using Boron-11 and simple hydrogen in a Farnsworth fusor? If it could be tuned as in a colliding beam reactor, it may directly produce considerable electrical energy directly. Just wondering... Steve Lajoie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 12:37:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16074; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612153250.0079ac70 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:32:50 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Let's blame Canada In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000612112821.0079d890 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ih5PG2.0._w3.phJHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35501 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lajoie wrote: >Is anyone in Canada doing government funded CF research? I would think >that only the findings of these people could be 'held back". There were some interesting reports at ICCF-7, in Vancouver. I didn't see much gov't sponsored research. McMaster U. is doing great stuff in a collaboration with SRI. McKubre said he owes them a big apology for putting their mass spec. out of business for three months with an unexpected blast of tritium from a newly opened cell. Anyway, my comment was a joke. I wasn't seriously suggesting the Canadians are involved in a plot to suppress CF. For that matter they are not members of OPEC as far as I know. Maybe they should join, now that they are Numero Uno exporting to the U.S. I think many people would like to suppress CF. Many take credit for suppressing it, but the only group that has seriously hurt the field is the CF scientists themselves. >Privately funded research has the same problem that it does any where; >people hold back so they can patent and develop proprietary processes and >get a positive rate of return on their research investment. Yeah, well, they don't hold back stuff in other fields as much as people do in CF. People in HTSC or sheep-cloning business do not keep secrets to this extent. The problem is that the researchers & venture capitalists involved with CF think it has not yet reached the point where it can be sold at a profit. I think they are wrong, but everyone reading this forum has heard what I think ad nauseam, so I won't repeat it. I don't know how we will cut this Gordian knot. I should say though, CF is wide-open compared to most lunatic-fringe "free-energy" claims. And at least it does not poison people, like this latest fad with "natural" herbal "remedies"! That seems about as sensible as a summer salad made of randomly selected wild mushrooms and wildflowers from Adams county, PA. (Hint: the prettiest ones are poisonous.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 12:43:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20158; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:13 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000612144409.0079fbd0 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_8_fY3.0.pw4.SoJHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35502 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jed Rothwell wrote: > LaJoie, Stephen A wrote notes that the price is right with Ti and Mg > compared to Pd (or Pt for that matter). But they have well-known limitations: > > >Problems with Ti would include that it forms a flaky powder > >on hydriding.(2) > > It falls to pieces in J. Dash's experiments, but that is probably the > electrolyte attack. It holds together okay in Storms' recent experiments, > but it produces no excess heat. Way back in 1989 people reported sporadic > excess heat from gas loaded Ti shavings. Did Dash get excess heat? Ti can be loaded up to 1.97 H/Ti fairly easily. Pd can be loaded to .77 H/Pd. I've heard that .85 H/M is about the fusion threshold. Other people, you being one I believe, think it is not the loading but the defects in the metal that is related to fusion. Perhaps Ti doesn't turn to mush at .85, and fusion will occur when loaded to less than capacity. Given that Ti is a practical solution and Pd too scarce and costly, it seems worth investigating to find out. [snip] Steve Lajoie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 13:21:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04875; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:17:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:17:30 -0700 Message-ID: <39454666.737385F8 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:22:21 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F8F xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AFfcj.0.5C1.PLKHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35503 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve, To answer this question, some background is necessary. First of all, the magnitude of the chemical bond between palladium and the various isotopes is different. The bond with H is strong, the bond with D is weaker and the bond with T is the weakest. This means that at the same temperature and composition, H will have the lowest pressure, D will be higher, and T will be the highest. The rate of loading depends, among other things, on the diffusion constant and the activity gradient that can be developed. In general, the diffusion constant is highest for H and lowest for T. The activity gradient depends on a complex interaction between the internal and external activities. In general, H will displace D, and D will displace T from Pd. Consequently, the result of loading will depend on the gas mixture present, on the nature of the surface, and on the temperature. It is not possible to say, as a general rule, that the heavier isotope loads faster. Regards, Ed Storms "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > This is relevant to cold fusion. > > I understand the rates of loading into a metal hydride (Pd, Ti, Mg) is different for > various isotopes of hydrogen. > > Someone once said that heavier isotopes load faster than ligher isotopes, contrary > to other diffusions. > > Would anyone care to comment on this subject please? > > Steve Lajoie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 13:23:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05885; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:20:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:20:05 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:19:53 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"q_yk4.0.mR1.qNKHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35504 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://jedrothwell.home.mindspring.com/ Files Mizuno-ICCF801.GIF through Mizuno-ICCF825.GIF It is rather a pain in the butt viewing them with a browser, but I don't feel like making a document. It is faster to download all with FTP. #23 is interesting. Let me know if some images are scanned too small, or if the meaning is not clear from context. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 13:37:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14243; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:35:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:35:51 -0700 Message-ID: <39454AB0.3D28F972 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:40:41 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F90 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"CZ4iN1.0.RU3.acKHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35505 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen, I think a choice of material is premature at this point. We do not know what properties are important or even if the metal of the cathode plays any role in the nuclear activity. For example, EP can be obtained using Pt as the cathode, but this metal does not react with hydrogen. On the other hand, energy can be obtained using Ti, but this material can form a very stable hydride, much more stable than PdH. As yet, there is no indication that the hydride actually forms under the electrolytic conditions. Mg forms a hydride, but it is an ionic compound rather than a metallic compound like PdH and TiH2. As yet, no one has claimed EP using Mg. Positive claims have been made for Pd, Pt, Ti, Ni, Nb, Zr, Au and carbon when used in an electrolytic cell at normal voltages. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe the nuclear-environment is a deposited layer which can form on any material, as long as the material is stable and does not allow too much D to leak out the back, as does Pd. Generally the work is too poorly done to know what to believe. Ed Storms "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > Metal Cost/gram(1) grams/mole Cost/Mole > Pd $22.68 104.40 $2,368. > Ti $ 0.526 47.88 $ 25.18 > Mg $ 0.0396 24.31 $ 0.962 > > Problems with loading Mg include Mg's low vapor pressure > at around 300 C, and it's highly famable when exposed to > oxygen.(2) I am also concerned that if kept at 300 C, the Mg > may anneal and cold fusion appears to have a dependence > upon lattice defects. (3) > > Problems with Ti would include that it forms a flaky powder > on hydriding.(2) > > To me, Mg seems to be the material of engineering choice > for cold fusion, if it has good cold fusion properties. > > Anyone care to comment on this? Or point to Mg cold fusion > studies? > > Steve Lajoie > -- > (1) Fisher scientific web site > try http://www.fishersci.com > > (2) Sandia Labs data base > http://hydpark.ca.sandia.gov/default.html > > (3) Los Alamos Study > http://www.nde.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 13:42:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16619; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:39:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:39:31 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F94 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:34:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"rPYnp.0.a34.2gKHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35506 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:22 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? > [snip] > In general, H will displace D, and D will displace T from Pd. > Consequently, the result of loading will depend on the gas mixture present, on the > nature of the surface, and on the temperature. It is not possible to say, as a general > rule, that the heavier isotope loads faster. > Thank you for the information. This would explains a lot. I was wondering why Russ George's control vessel did not produce helium-4 when he pumped out the hydrogen and pumped in deuterium. D doesn't replace H, as I would expect. I've been unable to locate Ortman's 1990 paper on commercial tritium separation using Pd. To me, it now sounds like if I want to make my own enriched deuterium at home, I can do it with a metal hydride. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 13:47:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19725; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:44:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:44:00 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612164353.007a0e70 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:43:53 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Los Alamos lost WHAT?!? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qrXvU.0.7q4.GkKHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35507 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From the New York Times; and no, I did not make this up: Secret Nuclear Weapons Data Missing from Los Alamos Lab By JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON, June 12 -- Investigators at Los Alamos National Laboratory have discovered that computer hard drives containing nuclear weapons data and other highly sensitive material stored in a vault at the laboratory have disappeared, according to several United States Government officials. The hard drives were stored in locked containers inside a vault in the nuclear weapons division of the national laboratory. Officials reported that the hard drives were missing on June 1 after officials went to search for them following the forest fires in the area. The containers remained in the vault, but the hard drives were gone. The material, stored in the vault of the laboratory's X Division, where nuclear weapons are designed, contained what officials described as nuclear weapons data used by the government's Nuclear Emergency Search Team . . . The material includes all the data on American nuclear weapons that the team needs to render nuclear devices safe in emergencies. In addition, the missing material included intelligence information concerning the Russian nuclear weapons program, law enforcement officials said. . . . [Three senior energy department officials, Larry, Joe and Curly], stressed that it is too soon to determine if the disappearance is anything more than an internal foul-up. The fact that many lab employees dispersed around the country after the forest fire has complicated the investigation. "This could still be a situation where the hard drives could be misplaced or lost in the labs," the official said. "In my opinion it is premature to call this a security breach." [Note the interpolation in the last paragraph. There was only one "senior official" but he did say that the drive could be lost but that's not a security breach. No kidding.] - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 14:01:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25085; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:57:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:57:45 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F95 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:52:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"lraW22.0.q76.8xKHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35508 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If Mg is not a cold fusion catalyst, it is interesting because it can be used to produce deuterium gas and would be fairly cheap at doing so. I think Ti would be a good candiate for study. The Los Alamos study I noted before (1) found that annealed Pd produced 1/3 the tritium that work hardened Pd produced in what I think may be - should be a cold fusion reaction. Ti can hold almost double the hydrogen as Pd. I think and suspect that the lattice defects are locations where Bose-Einstein condenstates formed from Deuterons are located (Someone at Perdue suggested this and his name escapes me right now), and these BECs are what allows fusion to occur. Or, something else is going on at the lattice defects; the Los Alamos results did show a dependence upon them. To me, the existance of Cold Fusion is a done deal and Pd has been shown to do it. Too bad Pd isn't cheap and plentiful; as someone said here before, there is so little of it that if it was the only cold fusion catalyst the finding of cold fusion would be moot. Besides, I can't afford a lot of Pd. I >think< I have a cheap way of getting titanium. If it doesn't work, not much would be lost. :-) Steve Lajoie -- (1) Los Alamos Study http://www.nde.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm > ---------- > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:40 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. > > Stephen, > I think a choice of material is premature at this point. We do > not know what properties are important or even if the metal of > the cathode plays any role in the nuclear activity. For > example, EP can be obtained using Pt as the cathode, but this > metal does not react with hydrogen. On the other hand, energy > can be obtained using Ti, but this material can form a very > stable hydride, much more stable than PdH. As yet, there is no > indication that the hydride actually forms under the > electrolytic conditions. Mg forms a hydride, but it is an > ionic compound rather than a metallic compound like PdH and > TiH2. As yet, no one has claimed EP using Mg. Positive claims > have been made for Pd, Pt, Ti, Ni, Nb, Zr, Au and carbon when > used in an electrolytic cell at normal voltages. On the other > hand, there are reasons to believe the nuclear-environment is a > deposited layer which can form on any material, as long as the > material is stable and does not allow too much D to leak out > the back, as does Pd. Generally the work is too poorly done to > know what to believe. > > Ed Storms > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 14:03:56 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26811; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:01:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:01:33 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000612170120.007a1140 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:01:20 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000612144409.0079fbd0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"NHK7d.0.fY6.j-KHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35509 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lajoie wrote: >Did Dash get excess heat? Yup. It looks good so far, anyway. See J. Warner in my ICCF-8 review, and Dash & Warner in the American Chemical Soc. 1999 meeting. Warner told me he will try to move a sample from one cathodes used in the 8-call array isoperibolic calorimeter to the Seebeck calorimeter. He has positive results with both, with similar power (200 to 500 mW), but he has not run the very same metal sample in both, sequentially. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 14:42:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11891; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:38:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:38:54 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:35:50 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DsAQ-.0.jv2.kXLHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35510 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:19 PM 6/12/00 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Let me know if some images are scanned too small, or if the meaning is not >clear from context. Nice work, Jed. In looking at all the data Mizuno presents, I am struck by the "noisy" appearance of the excess heat signal. For example in #20, the excess heat period has the out/in ratio varying between 0.85 and 1.25. But another thing bothers me more: In #24, there is a huge excess heat peak that occurs between 3000 and 3400 seconds...i.e. for about 7 minutes. During this period, the cell is apparently producing up to 3 times more heat output power than the electrical input power. But look at the Electrolyte temperature plotted above! It shows no sign of an increase during this period. It runs along at about 90C steady as you please. Basically, that is just impossible. Even if most of the excess heat went into boiling the electrolyte, you would just HAVE to observe a SIGNIFICANT increase in the electrolyte temperature when the total power being dissipated in the cell changed suddenly from 50 watts to 150 watts. Mizuno's plot is coarse but I am sure we could detect a 2 or 3 degree rise in temperature on it. Do you see something I'm missing here? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 14:56:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17964; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:53:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:53:39 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:10:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. Resent-Message-ID: <"KZ19k2.0.bO4.ZlLHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35511 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:29 AM 6/12/0, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: >Metal Cost/gram(1) grams/mole Cost/Mole >Pd $22.68 104.40 $2,368. >Ti $ 0.526 47.88 $ 25.18 >Mg $ 0.0396 24.31 $ 0.962 > >Problems with loading Mg include Mg's low vapor pressure >at around 300 C, and it's highly famable when exposed to >oxygen.(2) I am also concerned that if kept at 300 C, the Mg >may anneal and cold fusion appears to have a dependence >upon lattice defects. (3) > >Problems with Ti would include that it forms a flaky powder >on hydriding.(2) > >To me, Mg seems to be the material of engineering choice >for cold fusion, if it has good cold fusion properties. > >Anyone care to comment on this? Or point to Mg cold fusion >studies? I think the focus on pure elemental substances has probably held back progress in CF. This approach was probably deemed useful for the pupose of trying to obtain reproducible results, in that experiments can be reproduced to a high level of purity. However, all indications are (to me) that the positive results are due to impurities and deformities and that pure elements are not the way to go. At this point it appears the way to results is to improve the signal, not reduce the noise, and that requires an Edisonian approach to testing. I feel (at this point) that the best lattices will likely be alloys, or possibly geodesic molecules, custom designed using QM based design programs. Some sub-problems are to avoid hydrogen embrittlement, to maintain lattice integrity, to provide corrosion resistance, to distribute the energy of fusion reactions throughout the lattice instead of letting it focus on local bonds, to simultaneously provide sufficient diffusion and reaction rates, and to provide methods for helium (ash) removal. This is a tall order in that known approaches to the various objectives are mutually opposed. Probably all the goals cannot be met at once. Alternative measures must be found, like using a one-time lattice that self-destructs and is cheaply recycled. I think iron has been overlooked to a large degree. This is doubly unfortunate in that deuterium bonding is mostly magnetic, so there may be advantages to loading magnetic lattices. At very least, the effect of magnetic fields across a wide range should be examined. Carbon is another element that requires some looking into (e.g see work of Les Case with Pd on carbon catalysts.) Carbon nanotubes is an area ripe for investigation. Sulfated polymers may be worth examining, based on discussion here of the CETI cells. An Fe-C-x-x steel alloy of some kind might be designed with the required properties, but that is pure speculation. Loading of nano-powders (Pd black) under extreme pressure has been tried, but the concept has not been applied to a broad enough scope of powders IMHO. And then there is the matter of lattice stimulation. Once the lattice is loaded, what exactly is the best thing to do to it to (help) trigger the reactions? Driving current (laterally) through the cathode, loading/stimulating with high voltage, electro-spark shocking, magnetic shocking, cryogenic thermal shocking, stimulation with x-rays or energetic particles, or even uv, have all been suggested or tried, but of course could not be investigated in concert with all the various choices of lattice material, etc. One approach to lattice construction is co-depostion. This approach involves building a lattice by electrolysis. The hydrogen is layered right in with the metal at the time of deposition by electrolysis. The active layer is deposited upon a substrate. This is a method of "alloy" making that seems to me to have some utility for amateurs in that it is readily affordable in comparison to other methods of alloy formations. It seems to me that a mix of large atoms and small atoms is likely to be required to get just the right interstitials, and this might be achieved by codepostion. A trace amount of some impurity is probably important and maybe that impurity can be identified by serendipity. The problem is degrees of freedom, and applying your intuition to cut through all the permutations to find a route to a solution. You are already doing that, and it may be worthwhile to consider broadening your scope of choices. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 17:42:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17276; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:40:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:40:15 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002701bfd392$037be380$1e8e1d26 fjsparber> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:38:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id RAA17233 Resent-Message-ID: <"FWb8q.0.nD4.lBOHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35512 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ***{Hi, Fred. I've pretty much ignored your "light lepton" stuff in the past, because I haven't had the time to engage in trench warfare on the subject. (I have been too busy engaging in trench warfare on other subjects. :-) Today, however, I happened on this post, and decided to respond. There is a lot of arithmetic, and a lot of assumptions, in the argument that follows, so you are advised to check everything twice. Caveat emptor. --MJ}*** >To Vortex: > >The 253.6 nanometer uv (4.886 ev)in a mercury discharge tube represents 60% of >the energy as photons. A 5 watt quartz bulb in a Eprom Eraser shining on >plastic sheeting builds up an electrostatic charge in a few minutes indicating >that Light Lepton Pairs are produced on the surface in abundance. ***{If that were so, the ionosphere would be a gigantic fusion reactor, and, as hydrogen atoms were swept up from the solar wind due to Earth's orbital speed of 18.6 miles per second, we would get the following: [H+] + [LL-] --> [H*] (Note to lurkers: in the above, [H*] does not symbolize an excited hydrogen nucleus as standard conventions would imply, but rather represents a hydrogen nucleus that has been rendered electrically neutral by the presence of a negative "light lepton" as per Fred's "quasineutron" hypothesis.) Seventy nine percent of the time (since the atmosphere is about 79% nitrogen), we would get the following: [H*] + 7N14 --> [8O15-] Each [8O15-] would quickly acquire an electron (e.g., from the solar wind), after which half would disappear every 2 minutes via 8O15 --> 7N15 + [beta+]. Since we are, by your theory, burning 7N14 at a rate of 8(3.82x10^24) = 3.06x10^24 atoms/sec, it follows that we have converted roughly (3.06x10^24)(5x10^9)(365.25)(24)(60)(60) = 4.82x10^42 atoms of 7N14 into 7N15 in the 5 billion years that the Earth has existed. The question is, how many atoms of 7N15 are in the atmosphere now? Well, at present the 7N14 in the atmosphere exerts a partial pressure of (.79)(14.7) = 11.61 psi, or 8.18x10^-4 g/cm^2. Since the area of the Earth's surface is 4¼[(6.4x10^8)^2] = 5.15x10^18 cm^2, it follows that the weight of the 7N14 in the atmosphere is 4.2x10^15 grams. Since 28 grams of 7N14 contains 6.02x10^23 atoms (Avogadro's number), there are 4.65x10^-23 grams/atom, and thus there are 9.05x10^37 atoms of 7N14 in the atmosphere at the present time. Since the percentage abundance of 7N15 is a mere .36%, compared to 99.64% for 7N14, a rough-and-ready estimate is that there are (.0036)(9.05x10^37) = 3.26x10^35 atoms of 7N15 in the atmosphere at the present time. Needless to say, that is considerably less than the 4.82x10^42 atoms of 7N15 which your theory seems to imply ought to be in the atmosphere. Where, therefore, are the missing atoms of 7N15? Frankly, the only way I see to save your theory from this objection would be to claim that the magnetosphere deflects virtually all of the solar wind away from the ionosphere, thereby reducing the rate at which hydrogen is swept up and, thus, the rate at which 7N14 is burned. However, that seems like a bit of a stretch, since the magnetosphere would have to deflect [(4.82x10^42 - 3.26x10^35)/4.82x10^42]x100 = 99.999993% of the incident solar wind to achieve the reduction that you need. And in that case, how would we explain the auroras? Moreover, it gets worse: note that 8O15 decays by energetic positron emission. Result: each and every positron (beta+) quickly finds an electron (e-) and goes out in a burst of glory, as follows: [beta+] + [e-] --> Gammas The gammas carry away *all* of the energy of the pair annihilation--to wit: the 2.25 MeV of the positron, and the annihilation energy of the electron, which is .51 MeV. Total gamma energy per annihilation: 2.76 MeV. Since the solar wind contains an average of about 8 hydrogen atoms per cc, and since the Earth sweeps a volume of {¼[(6400)(1000)(100)]^2}(18.6)(5280)(12)(2.54) = 3.82x10^24 cc/sec, it follows that the sunward half of the ionosphere would, via the above reaction, generate (8)(.79)(.5)(3.82x10^24)(2.25) = 2.75x10^25 MeV/sec = 4.4x10^12watts = 4.4 TW. Now the increment to solar insolation would be not be large: 4.4x10^12/[4¼(6.4x10^12)] = .055 watts/m^2--but that's 4.4 *Terawatts* of gamma radiation, coming straight down onto our heads. Result: if the light lepton theory were true, we would all be dead. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Fluorescent tubes with quartz bulbs without a phosphor are commercially >available for use as ozone generators and germicidal lamps. > >It seems to me that circulating H2O or D2O (With K2CO3)over the bulbs >while doing calorimetry and checking for Helium would be well worth a try. > >Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 19:04:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA14722; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:53:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:53:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:53:49 -0400 Message-Id: <200006130153.VAA24205 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Production of Light Lepton Pairs and Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"5Dx5X1.0.xb3.sGPHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35513 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitch writes: >[H+] + [LL-] --> [H*] > >(Note to lurkers: in the above, [H*] does not symbolize an excited hydrogen >nucleus as standard conventions would imply, but rather represents a >hydrogen nucleus that has been rendered electrically neutral by the >presence of a negative "light lepton" as per Fred's "quasineutron" >hypothesis.) My understanding Mitch, is that when the H+ picks up a LL-, it does not completely neutralize the H+ charge, but merely reduces the quantity of charge. Particles of like charges would be able to get closer together than normal (condensing or clustering), but would still feel a mutual repulsion. I don't know how this would affect your calcs. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 19:07:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA18483; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:04:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:04:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:03:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Cc: hydrino egroups.com, , , Resent-Message-ID: <"ywmzv1.0.fW4.dQPHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35514 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I received a rather uncivil message today from a fellow who apparently read my claim, in the now blocked debate on the HSG group, and who apparently *still* did not comprehend the point I was making. I am therefore going to try one more time. I assert flatly that there is no statistical test--no analysis which may be applied to a set of data--by which it is possible to distinguish between classical determinism and quantum mechanical indeterminism. To understand why that is the case, it is necessary to comprehend how one might attempt, experimentally, to test such a distinction. Here is the way to do it: (1) A proponent of "quantum mechanics" does an experiment (such as the Aspect experiment) in which he collects data intended to distinguish between entanglement and determinism, and, after much analysis, he contends that he sees characteristics in those data which are incompatible with the deterministic hypothesis, and he publishes those characteristics. (2) At that point, a software engineer comes forward and asserts that he can program the quintessentially deterministic machine known as a digital computer to generate data with the same characteristics as the data which have been alleged to demonstrate indeterminism. (3) A test is then arranged in which the engineer and his computer are in one room, the QM dork with his "entanglement" experiment are in another, and in a third room is a computer programed to run a data analysis based on the criteria set forth by the QM dork to prove "entanglement." (4) The QM dork fires up his experiment in room #1, and begins generating data points; and the software engineer in room #2 fires up his computer and does the same thing, using his emulation software. The resulting data streams are then fed into the data analysis computer in room #3, to see if the claimed criteria do, in fact, suffice to identify which data stream is coming from the deterministic machine, and which is coming from the "entanglement" experiment. The question is: does the QM dork have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding? The answer: obviously not, since the software engineer in room #2 will simply copy the software in room #3, add a randomizing algorithm to feed data points into it, and pass on to room #3 the data points that passed the tests. Since every data point from room #2 will have already been through the data analysis software in room #3, we know with 100% certainty, in advance, that they will pass with flying colors if they are sent through a second time. Conclusion: it is flatly impossible to formulate criteria that can distinguish between determinism and entanglement. Q.E.D. Duh! --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 19:10:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA19476; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:05:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:05:39 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:05:33 -0400 Message-Id: <200006130205.WAA29196 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page Resent-Message-ID: <"rPlsL1.0.Em4.oRPHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35515 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott writes: >Basically, that is just impossible. > >Even if most of the excess heat went into boiling the electrolyte, you >would just HAVE to observe a SIGNIFICANT increase in the electrolyte >temperature when the total power being dissipated in the cell changed >suddenly from 50 watts to 150 watts. Mizuno's plot is coarse but I am sure >we could detect a 2 or 3 degree rise in temperature on it. > >Do you see something I'm missing here? If the calorimeter was designed similar to yours, then there is a chance that the UV escaping the quartz cell itself would ionize the water in the outer vessel. The cell temp would remain basically the same, but the water bath temp would rise. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 19:20:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA26013; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:18:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:18:48 -0700 Message-ID: <39459AB8.7F292672 home.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:21:45 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Some experiments to try References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------9A997BBAD29EC81D5CE9EA93" Resent-Message-ID: <"0bsXG2.0.NM6.8ePHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35516 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9A997BBAD29EC81D5CE9EA93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, A few years ago, I posted some things I did with my Pd/D20/LiC03 cell on sci.physics.fusion, sometimes with bizarre results. Some of these I'd like to see done with better equipment, as I don't have the resources to do so. (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263/fusion.jpg). I have some theoretical basis for some of these things, based on Larson's Reciprocal System (http://www.interpres.cz/sr/rs/dimmot/index.htm). 1. Raise the entire cell to a high negative voltage ( I used 40KV) while running it in normal loading mode, then switch to a high positive voltage. (It's very difficult to instrument a cell in this case). The half-baked idea being to increase the electron density in the material (more space in RS), then remove them. The bizarre effect (see picture) was that the rubber stopper, which was very tightly in the hygrometer bottle slid down a large fraction of an inch into the bottle. I couldn't have forced it in normally that far without fear of breaking the bottle, which is very strong 1/4" thick pyrex. I have no explanation for that. The bottle was already evacuated, containing a Hydrocap recombiner, and constantly ran in a near vacuum and had for hundreds of hours before. 2. Rotate the entire cell, or a Pd rod as fast as possible. (I do have some theoretical hypotheses about this I won't get into now.) I couldn't do this at all. Variation: mount the Pd rod in two bearings, slightly skewed so the Pd is alternately under tension and compression on any given side. 3. I did put a 40KHz ultrasonic transducer into the cell. The effect was to make the normal electrolysis bubbles few and large. No spectacular results though (I'm really only interested in spectacular results). 4. I have a large bank of oil filled capacitors (~200uF) that I can charge to 1000 volts and discharge quickly through an SCR. I've run the cell with a coil of wire around it being pulsed every few seconds with this energy. Nothing spectacular. I've normally run several amperes longitudinally through the Pd rod while doing this. 5. I've dicharged the capacitor bank periodically directly between the anode and cathode in the cell (on top of normal low loading current). Now this is spectacular. It makes a loud noise, making me concerned about exploding the bottle, and a beautiful red spherical plasma under the D20. This created a black residue in the bottom of the bottle, but I don't know what it is (there is a check valve on the bottle for venting). I don't have the instrumentation for any subtle measurements, and was looking for something obvious such as boil-away. That didn't happen. 6. Here's a fun one: Load up a Pd ingot as much as possible, then take it out and hit it with a sledge hammer. It makes quite a bang :-) ! Think what a high explosive compressive shell could do to it. Disclaimer: Kids, don't do this at home unless you are aware of the dangers. Questions I've never seen answered: The supports inside the cell are polyethylene (teflon insulated Pt wires, though). Does the D20 exchange D with H to any significant degree with the polyethylene (or the rubber stopper for that matter)? It's not clear to me to what degree DHO forms. Is that a common contaminant of D20? Best Regards, Hoyt Stearns Phoenix -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------9A997BBAD29EC81D5CE9EA93 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------9A997BBAD29EC81D5CE9EA93-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 19:32:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA30165; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:28:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:28:41 -0700 Message-ID: <39459D07.68AC9713 home.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:31:35 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Infinite Energy References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E19F65BC68927BB6598E5EBD" Resent-Message-ID: <"wGZGe.0.DN7.OnPHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35517 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E19F65BC68927BB6598E5EBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, A few years ago, Infinite Energy Magazine solicited ideas about what would happen if energy were free on sci.physics.fusion, and I sent in my own dozen or so ideas (e.g. living in a perpetually aloft hot air baloon; warming the sidwalks and streets in snow country). If you have the final list, will you forward it to me? Thanks. Hoyt Stearns Phoenix -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------E19F65BC68927BB6598E5EBD Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------E19F65BC68927BB6598E5EBD-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 19:50:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06342; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:49:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:49:36 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612214859.012ba0e8 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:48:59 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <200006130205.WAA29196 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"3iL6x1.0._Y1._4QHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35518 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:05 PM 6/12/2000 -0400, Michael T Huffman wrote: >If the calorimeter was designed similar to yours, then there is a chance >that the UV escaping the quartz cell itself would ionize the water in the >outer vessel. The cell temp would remain basically the same, but the water >bath temp would rise. That doesn't wash, Knuke. The source of this UV is presumably the cathode. In order for that UV to get to the water in the outer vessel, it has to first travel through the water (electrolyte) in the inner vessel. If it's going to ionize the water in the outer vessel, it should also ionize the water in the inner vessel and deposit MORE energy there since it travels through that water first. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300 Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 512-346-3017 (FAX) http://www.earthtech.org From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 20:56:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA32278; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:55:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:55:09 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:55:04 -0400 Message-Id: <200006130355.XAA01100 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page Resent-Message-ID: <"8Eowo3.0.Gu7.T2RHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35519 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott writes: >That doesn't wash, Knuke. > >The source of this UV is presumably the cathode. In order for that UV to >get to the water in the outer vessel, it has to first travel through the >water (electrolyte) in the inner vessel. If it's going to ionize the water >in the outer vessel, it should also ionize the water in the inner vessel >and deposit MORE energy there since it travels through that water first. You are probably right about that. The cathode is inside the anode, and UV doesn't travel well in water or electrolyte. The light is so bright through the viewport though, that I thought that maybe there still might be some UV making it out to the outer vessel. I don't recall if there was any analysis of the light spectrum coming through the inner cell, but that would answer the question. Mizuno's goofy readings could also be something along the lines of what you experienced with the plasma panel. Some kind of temporary electrostatic disturbance in the instrumentation itself. I haven't looked at the graph yet so I don't know the slope of the rise and fall of the spike. If it was slow and steady, then it would indicate that there was actually a climb in temperature. If it was fast and steep, then it might indicate an instrument problem. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 21:07:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA04092; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:05:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:05:56 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.20000613040653.008fa4d4 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: vinny pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:06:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Vinny Pinto Subject: RE: Cold fusion in more common, less costly metal hydrides. Resent-Message-ID: <"i5G482.0.s_.ZCRHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35520 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Folks: Just a few quick thoughts, in random order. Titanium is quite cheap, and easily available in wire from or flat sheet form. The wire form is sold by McMaster-Carr (they have a web page. . .), several sizes, I have some 16 gauge, and it is dirt cheap for a 1/4 lb. or 1 lb. roll. The sheet form is available from Titanium Corporation (also on web, but do not try to use their web-quote/ordering feature -- it will drive you crazy; use their phone number. Their minimum order is $150, and for that price you can get at least 4 to 6 square feet cut to any sizes you wish. Their sheet comes in various gauges/thicknesses, and the stuff around 26 gauge and thinner cuts easily with good tin snips and shears. Mg in bulk form (as opposed to powder or granules) is not quite so flammable as many folks believe, and rather stable in air or under water. However, the real problems are that: 1) the conditions used (high amperage, moderately high voltages) and created (arcing, sparking, plasma) in light-water nuclear electrochemistry are almost ideal for igniting it nontheless, 2) once ignited, it LOVES water, and in the presence of same will cause hydrogen flames and H explosions, and the explosions can cast bits of red-hot magnesium all over the place! How stable is Mg? I have a couple of pounds of Mg in bar form. Bought it as ingot ends cheaply from AEE (but FEDEX gets a pretty penny for Hazardous shipments), and for a few bucks a local specialty metals machine shop (with tons of experience with exotic metals) cut it into approximate 0.6" x 0.6" x 4" bars for me, using a bandsaw (no fires, no problems!). Just for paranoia's sake, I store the unused bars in a stainless steel double-wall vacuum thermos bottle with a dessicant pouch, and store that in a surplus ammo can partly filled with dry sand. However, most of my fellow researchers scoff at my precautions, store their Mg much more carelessly than I, and even cut and machine it at their garage work benches. None of them have had problems to date. My research involves leaving bars of Mg underwater in vessels -- very stable, but I shudder at the thought of performing electrochemistry with serious voltages or current with the same Mg! And, of course, if anyone wants tungsten (W) cheaply, all welding shops sell W rod; also sell thoriated W rod. Some sell Zirconium rod as well. Well, enuf random babbling for one night! It is my bedtime! --Vinny At 01:52 PM 6/12/00 -0700, you wrote: >If Mg is not a cold fusion catalyst, it is interesting because it can >be used to produce deuterium gas and would be fairly cheap at >doing so. > >I think Ti would be a good candiate for study. The Los Alamos >study I noted before (1) found that annealed Pd produced 1/3 >the tritium that work hardened Pd produced in what I think may >be - should be a cold fusion reaction. Ti can hold almost double >the hydrogen as Pd. I think and suspect that the lattice defects >are locations where Bose-Einstein condenstates formed from >Deuterons are located (Someone at Perdue suggested this and >his name escapes me right now), and these BECs are what allows >fusion to occur. Or, something else is going on at the lattice >defects; the Los Alamos results did show a dependence upon >them. > >To me, the existance of Cold Fusion is a done deal and Pd has >been shown to do it. Too bad Pd isn't cheap and plentiful; as someone >said here before, there is so little of it that if it was the only cold >fusion catalyst the finding of cold fusion would be moot. > >Besides, I can't afford a lot of Pd. I >think< I have a cheap way >of getting titanium. If it doesn't work, not much would be lost. >:-) > >Steve Lajoie > > Vinny Pinto vinny mindspring.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 12 22:27:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA29107; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:26:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:26:01 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:20:42 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"apPCQ2.0.j67.fNSHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35521 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: >I assert flatly that there is no statistical test--no analysis which may be >applied to a set of data--by which it is possible to distinguish between >classical determinism and quantum mechanical indeterminism. To understand >why that is the case, it is necessary to comprehend how one might attempt, >experimentally, to test such a distinction. Here is the way to do it: > >(1) A proponent of "quantum mechanics" does an experiment (such as the >Aspect experiment) in which he collects data intended to distinguish >between entanglement and determinism, and, after much analysis, he contends >that he sees characteristics in those data which are incompatible with the >deterministic hypothesis, and he publishes those characteristics. > >(2) At that point, a software engineer comes forward and asserts that he >can program the quintessentially deterministic machine known as a digital >computer to generate data with the same characteristics as the data which >have been alleged to demonstrate indeterminism. However the software dork has to make a correct simulation of the experiment, otherwise garbage in => garbage out. If he just wants to reproduce some output data, then a photocopier will do instead of a computer! So he needs at least three separate computers (or separate software modules if you prefer) - one (C) to generate pairs of messages which simulates the generation of pairs of photons, and the other two (A and B) to receive one message each and generate a binary result each depending on the message received and an input parameter representing the orientation of each of the polarisation detectors. The data analysis then uses the binary results generated from A and B, together with the input parameters representing the orientation settings for A and B, to try to duplicate the results of the QM physicist. The important ingredient here is that the polariser setting for module A is different from and UNKNOWN to the polariser setting for module B. In the real experiment this is done by ensuring that there is no way for information on the setting of A to reach B and vice-versa at anything less than superluminal velocities - for instance by flicking the polarisation angle around AFTER the photons are already well on their way. >(3) A test is then arranged in which the engineer and his computer are in >one room, the QM dork with his "entanglement" experiment are in another, >and in a third room is a computer programed to run a data analysis based on >the criteria set forth by the QM dork to prove "entanglement." > >(4) The QM dork fires up his experiment in room #1, and begins generating >data points; and the software engineer in room #2 fires up his computer and >does the same thing, using his emulation software. The resulting data >streams are then fed into the data analysis computer in room #3, to see if >the claimed criteria do, in fact, suffice to identify which data stream is >coming from the deterministic machine, and which is coming from the >"entanglement" experiment. And lo and behold the data analysis of the QM physicist indicates that by some unimaginable means, the photon orientation detected at A is mysteriously correllated with the orientation detected at B, *proving* by mathematical statistics that there must have been some superluminal connection or communication between the detection process at A and that at B - thus "entanglement" and "spooky action at a distance". Meanwhile the poor SW dork can do nothing better than generate the correlations expected for separately resolved detections - ie matching Bell's inequality. >Conclusion: it is flatly impossible to formulate criteria that can >distinguish between determinism and entanglement. >Q.E.D. > >Duh! Your comments probably suggest (to others at least :-)) that you haven't really understood the Aspect type of experiments. If this is the case then you probably deserve an uncivil message or two :- >I received a rather uncivil message today from a fellow who apparently read >my claim, in the now blocked debate on the HSG group, and who apparently >*still* did not comprehend the point I was making. I am therefore going to >try one more time. However Mills seems to have gone beyond understanding the experiment and is picking fault with the detection apparatus - since it is less than 100% efficient in its detection of photons. I think there is a good chance that he is right and there is no "spooky action at a distance". I have heard a classical explanation before using inefficient detection and vacuum noise coming through the dark port of the polarising beam splitter to explain the correlation. However he seems not to have come across this explanation and has either independently arrived at it or come up with a new one along similar lines. As I recall, it required that EM radiation was not quantised in itself (ie photons don't exist), rather only its interactions with matter (ie absorbtion, emission, reflection) are quantised due to the quantum nature of matter (ie atoms do exist). So maybe you have the right answer but the wrong reason! (I remember a maths exam in which I got a right answer but had the wrong working. As a result I got zero for that question. So having the right answer is not necessarily useful !) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 05:27:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA12738; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:26:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:26:45 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:23:40 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qIbQi1.0.t63.4YYHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35522 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:20 PM 6/13/00 +0800, John Winterflood wrote: >Mitchell Jones wrote: John Winterflood is right on the mark. Data which violates Bell's Inequality cannot be generated by a computer unless you write the code so that what happens at one "detector" affects what happens at the other. Sure that can be done in software but, in so doing, you have made the algorithm "non-local". Because of speed-of-light limitations, such an algorithm can NOT duplicate the observed results in actual non-locality experiments. In the real experiments that have been conducted the "information" appears to move from one detector to the other instantly, a behavior that Jones' software dork would be UNABLE to duplicate. I also agree with John's feeling that the existing experiments may not constitute proof of QM's spooky action at a distance. For a sense of the raging debate over this issue go to xxx.lanl.gov and search the quantum physics archive for "inequality" or "entanglement". Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 07:17:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA22143; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:13:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:13:27 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:13:11 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> References: <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"V84vE3.0.rP5.66aHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35523 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >But another thing bothers me more: In #24, there is a huge excess heat >peak that occurs between 3000 and 3400 seconds...i.e. for about 7 minutes. >During this period, the cell is apparently producing up to 3 times more >heat output power than the electrical input power. But look at the >Electrolyte temperature plotted above! It shows no sign of an increase >during this period. It runs along at about 90C steady as you please. Well, it would be a decrease, because total output declines slightly at 3000 seconds. But your point is the same . . . electrolyte temperature does not track output power closely. Output power fluctuates slightly from 100 watts down to 50 watts briefly at around 3000 seconds, but you see only a tiny, delayed downward change in the electrolyte temperature. It's maybe 5 deg C. Also at the beginning of the run, from 0 to 300 seconds, output power peaks at 200 watts before glow discharge electrolysis begins, but you see no sudden change in electrolyte temperature. It rises gradually. After 3400 seconds power falls back to 50 watts and stays, but the electrolyte takes a long time to cool. I think this is because the mass of cooling water is large, and well stirred, and the thermocouple is far from the cathode. Look at Fig 15, showing calibration with a joule heater in electrolyte. The heater power changes abruptly several times, but there is no corresponding rapid change in electrolyte temperature. This is the flow calorimetry. With the well-insulated "bomb" calorimetry he has been using more recently, minor changes in power levels quickly register in electrolyte temperature. The rate of temperature increase fluctuates; the temperature never drops as long as the power is on. With the example shown in Fig. 24 the temperature drops very slightly because the cooling water removes heat so quickly. >Basically, that is just impossible. Well, if it is impossible, it has nothing to do with glow discharge, since there is no close tracking or sudden change in electrolyte temperature in the initial ~100 seconds before glow discharge turns on, and there is no tracking from 100 to 300 seconds before input power begins rapidly declining, and the heater calibration shows no close tracking. I think if you put a small heater in a liter of well stirred water you would see similar behavior. >Even if most of the excess heat went into boiling the electrolyte, you >would just HAVE to observe a SIGNIFICANT increase in the electrolyte >temperature when the total power being dissipated in the cell changed >suddenly from 50 watts to 150 watts. It didn't change from 50 to 150 watts. It started at 100, fell to 50, and then climbed back up, then jumped to 150 briefly. > Mizuno's plot is coarse but I am sure >we could detect a 2 or 3 degree rise in temperature on it. I think I see a corresponding ~5 degree fall, delayed. >Do you see something I'm missing here? I think you need to consider the first 100 seconds, sans glow discharge. No jump in electrolyte temperature. There would be no RF or other noise which might upset the thermocouples or hold down the temperature readings. (Glow discharge noise depresses temperature readings.) Also consider Fig. 15. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 07:30:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26456; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:24:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:24:19 -0700 Message-ID: <39464520.46B8E8D0 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:28:51 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F94 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0FkLY3.0.ET6.IGaHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35524 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > > ---------- > > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:22 PM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? > > > [snip] > > > In general, H will displace D, and D will displace T from Pd. > > Consequently, the result of loading will depend on the gas mixture present, on the > > nature of the surface, and on the temperature. It is not possible to say, as a general > > rule, that the heavier isotope loads faster. > > > Thank you for the information. This would explains a lot. I was wondering > why Russ George's control vessel did not produce helium-4 when he pumped > out the hydrogen and pumped in deuterium. D doesn't replace H, as I would > expect. This is a situation of chemical equilibrium. The amount of displacement depends on the ratio of partial pressures, D/H. If the ratio is large, much of the H will be replaced by D. If this flush is done several times, essentially all of the H can be removed. I do not know how much care Russ used in displacing the H, nor if the sample was clean enough to make EP even if all of the H were replaced. > > I've been unable to locate Ortman's 1990 paper on commercial tritium > separation using Pd. To me, it now sounds like if I want to make my own enriched > deuterium at home, I can do it with a metal hydride. With some difficulty, you can achieve a slight enrichment. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 07:35:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA29700; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:33:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:33:19 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F97 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:28:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"JCCYj.0.xF7.jOaHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35525 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I am confused now. Do lighter isotopes displace heavier ones, or is loading of isotopes only dependent upon their partial pressures? I know isotopes must have some effect. > ---------- > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 7:28 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? > > > > "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > > > > ---------- > > > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:22 PM > > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > > Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? > > > > > [snip] > > > > > In general, H will displace D, and D will displace T from Pd. > > > Consequently, the result of loading will depend on the gas mixture present, on the > > > nature of the surface, and on the temperature. It is not possible to say, as a general > > > rule, that the heavier isotope loads faster. > > > > > Thank you for the information. This would explains a lot. I was wondering > > why Russ George's control vessel did not produce helium-4 when he pumped > > out the hydrogen and pumped in deuterium. D doesn't replace H, as I would > > expect. > > This is a situation of chemical equilibrium. The amount of displacement depends on the ratio of partial > pressures, D/H. If the ratio is large, much of the H will be replaced by D. If this flush is done > several times, essentially all of the H can be removed. I do not know how much care Russ used in > displacing the H, nor if the sample was clean enough to make EP even if all of the H were replaced. > > > > > I've been unable to locate Ortman's 1990 paper on commercial tritium > > separation using Pd. To me, it now sounds like if I want to make my own enriched > > deuterium at home, I can do it with a metal hydride. > > With some difficulty, you can achieve a slight enrichment. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 07:52:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04179; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:51:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:51:07 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612094804.01362ff4 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:48:04 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"2ybXQ2.0.D11.QfaHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35526 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:13 AM 6/13/00 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Well, it would be a decrease, because total output declines slightly at >3000 seconds. Are we looking at the same graph, #24!? 3000 sec (center of graph) marks the beginning of the big excess heat peak. Pin is relatively constant in that region so the total output begins sharply increasing at the 3000 sec mark. >Also at the beginning of the run, from 0 to 300 seconds, output >power peaks at 200 watts before glow discharge electrolysis begins... that's because the input power was ~300 watts shortly before that >but you see no sudden change in electrolyte temperature. It rises gradually. OK, but the application of 200-300 watts of input power DOES warm up the electrolyte, even slowly. I maintain that it is suspicious that the electrolyte temperature does not reflect in the least the reported ups and downs in output power. Further, I now notice that the event that really sent the output signal to its maximum value is apparently coincident with the step reduction in voltage from 200 to 100, occurring at about 3100 seconds. Note the abrupt change in the appearance of the Telec trace at that point. >From my experience with this experiment, I would bet that, at 200 volts, there is considerable intereference with the T sensors, which results in the "hash" you see on the Telec trace in the 2000-3000 sec region. When the voltage is reduced to 100, this noise problem goes away abruptly. >Also consider Fig. 15. Thank you, it demonstrates my point pretty well. When you change the input power, the electrolyte temperature changes. Yes, there is a significant time constant....about 2000 seconds, I'd guess...which blurs things. However, every time the total cell power is changed abruptly, an inflection is clearly visible in the Telec trace. Maybe M's results are just fine. I'm just picking at details. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 08:42:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA21826; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:40:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:40:29 -0700 Message-ID: <001901bfd555$a19fbcc0$f8441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:32:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZAKLJ2.0.yK5.iNbHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35527 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 7:13 AM Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page Jed wrote: > Scott Little wrote: > > > >But another thing bothers me more: In #24, there is a huge excess heat > >peak that occurs between 3000 and 3400 seconds...i.e. for about 7 minutes. > >During this period, the cell is apparently producing up to 3 times more > >heat output power than the electrical input power. But look at the > >Electrolyte temperature plotted above! It shows no sign of an increase > >during this period. It runs along at about 90C steady as you please. 90C (194 F) is the boiling point of water at an elevation somewhere between 7,000 and 7,500 ft above sea level. About the same as Los Alamos. :-) > > >Basically, that is just impossible. > > >Do you see something I'm missing here? > Regards, Frederick > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 08:46:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23354; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:43:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:43:50 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:42:22 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"1-hLx2.0.ci5.nQbHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35528 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>I assert flatly that there is no statistical test--no analysis which may be >>applied to a set of data--by which it is possible to distinguish between >>classical determinism and quantum mechanical indeterminism. To understand >>why that is the case, it is necessary to comprehend how one might attempt, >>experimentally, to test such a distinction. Here is the way to do it: >> >>(1) A proponent of "quantum mechanics" does an experiment (such as the >>Aspect experiment) in which he collects data intended to distinguish >>between entanglement and determinism, and, after much analysis, he contends >>that he sees characteristics in those data which are incompatible with the >>deterministic hypothesis, and he publishes those characteristics. >> >>(2) At that point, a software engineer comes forward and asserts that he >>can program the quintessentially deterministic machine known as a digital >>computer to generate data with the same characteristics as the data which >>have been alleged to demonstrate indeterminism. > >However the software dork has to make a correct simulation >of the experiment, otherwise garbage in => garbage out. ***{Incorrect. The hypothesis being tested is whether the criteria permit us to decide whether the data generator is determinate or indeterminate in nature. Technically, therefore, room #1 could be eliminated completely. All you really need to determine is whether, by copying the data analysis program in room #3 onto the computer in room #2, and adding a subroutines (a) that feed a variable data stream into it, and (b) that select data points which meet the criteria and pass them on to room #3, it is possible to convince the computer in room #3 that the data are coming from an indeterminate situation. Since it obviously *is* possible to do that, this is quite literally a no brainer. No statistical test exists, or ever can exist, by means of which we can tell whether a set of data was produced by an indeterminate or a determinate situation. --MJ}*** >If he just wants to reproduce some output data, then a >photocopier will do instead of a computer! ***{John, before you can argue that the Aspect experiment--or any experiment--produces data that are incompatible with determinism, you have to have criteria by means of which you can reliably sort data sets into "determinate" and "indeterminate" categories. The purpose of my thought experiment is to test the hypothesis that such criteria are possible, even in principle. --MJ}*** > >So he needs at least three separate computers (or separate >software modules if you prefer) - one (C) to generate pairs >of messages which simulates the generation of pairs of >photons, and the other two (A and B) to receive one message >each and generate a binary result each depending on the >message received and an input parameter representing the >orientation of each of the polarisation detectors. The data >analysis then uses the binary results generated from A and B, >together with the input parameters representing the >orientation settings for A and B, to try to duplicate >the results of the QM physicist. ***{I repeat: we aren't trying to duplicate the results of the "QM physicist." We are trying to test his claim that he can reliably decide whether data was produced by a deterministic source. To do that, all we really need to do is program a computer to apply his criteria, and then see if, using another computer, we can generate data that will be labeled as coming from an indeterminate source. If we can do that, then, since the computer is a determinate machine, we will have proven that the criteria do not work. Since we can *obviously* do that in all cases whatsoever, it follows that there are no statistical criteria by which data sets may be reliably sorted into "determinate" and "indeterminate" categories. And, once that notion is shorn away, it becomes obvious that all claims to have demonstrated "quantum indeterminism" are wrong, including the claim made by Alain Aspect. --MJ}*** > >The important ingredient here is that the polariser setting >for module A is different from and UNKNOWN to the polariser >setting for module B. In the real experiment this is >done by ensuring that there is no way for information >on the setting of A to reach B and vice-versa at anything >less than superluminal velocities - for instance by >flicking the polarisation angle around AFTER the photons >are already well on their way. ***{Nope. The details of Allain Aspect's various experiments are irrelevant here. We don't care whether he, or anyone, can explain why his data fit P = cos A better than P = (90 - A)/90, because the situation is complex, and may not be understood for a thousand years. What we do care about, however, is the implied claim, by anyone who alleges that Aspect's experimental data could not be due to a deterministic process, to be able to reliably sort data into "deterministic" and "indeterministic" categories. I say it is impossible even in principle to do that, and I have flatly proven that assertion. Result: it is now *obvious* that Aspect's data could have been produced deterministically, whether we can explain how that happened in his specific situation or not. --MJ}*** > >>(3) A test is then arranged in which the engineer and his computer are in >>one room, the QM dork with his "entanglement" experiment are in another, >>and in a third room is a computer programed to run a data analysis based on >>the criteria set forth by the QM dork to prove "entanglement." >> >>(4) The QM dork fires up his experiment in room #1, and begins generating >>data points; and the software engineer in room #2 fires up his computer and >>does the same thing, using his emulation software. The resulting data >>streams are then fed into the data analysis computer in room #3, to see if >>the claimed criteria do, in fact, suffice to identify which data stream is >>coming from the deterministic machine, and which is coming from the >>"entanglement" experiment. > >And lo and behold the data analysis of the QM physicist indicates >that by some unimaginable means, the photon orientation detected >at A is mysteriously correllated with the orientation detected at B, >*proving* by mathematical statistics that there must have been some >superluminal connection or communication between the detection >process at A and that at B - thus "entanglement" and "spooky action >at a distance". ***{How can you allege that the data must have been produced by an indeterministic process, unless you have a statistical test by which you can reliably detect such processes? Surely you can see that you must have such a test, before you can rationally claim to have proven that Aspect's data could not have been generated deterministically! --MJ}*** > >Meanwhile the poor SW dork can do nothing better than generate the >correlations expected for separately resolved detections - ie >matching Bell's inequality. ***{No. The software engineer is not concerned with emulating the experiment, but with emulating the allegedly indeterministic characteristics which the experimental data are said to contain. The idea is to produce a data stream having those characteristics, using a deterministic machine, thereby proving that those characteristics do *not* indicate that the data were produced indeterministically. --MJ}*** > >>Conclusion: it is flatly impossible to formulate criteria that can >>distinguish between determinism and entanglement. >>Q.E.D. >> >>Duh! > >Your comments probably suggest (to others at least :-)) that you >haven't really understood the Aspect type of experiments. If this >is the case then you probably deserve an uncivil message or two :- ***{Actually, it is those who allege that the data of the Aspect experiment could not have been produced by a deterministic process who do not understand, but that does not mean that they deserve to be treated with sarcasm or condescension, and I apologize to anyone who felt offended by my rather heavy-handed post. Frankly, I was highly ticked off, both by the condescending attitude which David McMahon took toward Randell Mills from the beginning, and by the bubbleheaded ineptitude of the "moderator" of the HSG group, who obviously hasn't a clue as to how to oversee a reasoned discussion--or who to consult with to obtain useful advice, for that matter. --MJ}*** > >>I received a rather uncivil message today from a fellow who apparently read >>my claim, in the now blocked debate on the HSG group, and who apparently >>*still* did not comprehend the point I was making. I am therefore going to >>try one more time. > >However Mills seems to have gone beyond understanding the >experiment and is picking fault with the detection apparatus >- since it is less than 100% efficient in its detection of >photons. I think there is a good chance that he is right and >there is no "spooky action at a distance". I have heard a >classical explanation before using inefficient detection and >vacuum noise coming through the dark port of the polarising >beam splitter to explain the correlation. However he seems >not to have come across this explanation and has either >independently arrived at it or come up with a new one along >similar lines. ***{I repeat: whether it is presently possible to explain why P = cos A is a better fit to Aspect's data than is P = (90 - A)/90 is irrelevant. (Do you allege that everything which is unexplained must be attributed to indeterminism?) --MJ}*** As I recall, it required that EM radiation was >not quantised in itself (ie photons don't exist), rather only >its interactions with matter (ie absorbtion, emission, >reflection) are quantised due to the quantum nature of matter >(ie atoms do exist). > >So maybe you have the right answer but the wrong reason! ***{Or, alternatively, maybe it is you who has the right answer for the wrong reason. :-) --MJ}*** > >(I remember a maths exam in which I got a right answer but had >the wrong working. As a result I got zero for that question. >So having the right answer is not necessarily useful !) ***{Yup. That's why you get zero here. :-) --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 08:54:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26832; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:52:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:52:33 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F98 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:47:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"HQrB31.0.7Z6.1ZbHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35529 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Scott Little[SMTP:little earthtech.org] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:23 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > At 01:20 PM 6/13/00 +0800, John Winterflood wrote: > >Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > John Winterflood is right on the mark. Data which violates Bell's > Inequality cannot be generated by a computer unless you write the code so > that what happens at one "detector" affects what happens at the other. > Sure that can be done in software but, in so doing, you have made the > algorithm "non-local". Because of speed-of-light limitations, such an > algorithm can NOT duplicate the observed results in actual non-locality > experiments. In the real experiments that have been conducted the > "information" appears to move from one detector to the other instantly, a > behavior that Jones' software dork would be UNABLE to duplicate. > There is no speed of light limitation on the particles because even though measurments on one particle affect the other, you cannot devise a communication scheme using this effect, thus no information is sent, thus nothing was sent faster than light. You can, after the fact, get the information from partcle 1 and determine that particle 2 was affected, but that cannot be done faster than light. Only if you were able to make a commuication system out of it which sent information faster than light would you violate locality. > I also agree with John's feeling that the existing experiments may not > constitute proof of QM's spooky action at a distance. For a sense of the > raging debate over this issue go to xxx.lanl.gov and search the quantum > physics archive for "inequality" or "entanglement". > > > > Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org > Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA > 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 09:27:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08379; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:24:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:24:40 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613122417.007c4130 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:24:17 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000612094804.01362ff4 earthtech.org> References: <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"rpg75.0.o22.71cHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35530 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >Further, I now notice that the event that really sent the output signal to >its maximum value is apparently coincident with the step reduction in >voltage from 200 to 100, occurring at about 3100 seconds. The "output signal" did not change much. The ratio jumped. That's what Mizuno has been saying all along: the glow discharge maintains itself even when the input power is reduced, in a kind of self-sustaining, heat-after-death mode. You push the discharge up to a certain level, and it stays there. It does not usually rise by itself. >From my experience with this experiment, I would bet that, at 200 volts, >there is considerable interference with the T sensors, which results in >the "hash" you see on the Telec trace in the 2000-3000 sec region. When >the voltage is reduced to 100, this noise problem goes away abruptly. Yes, there is a great of noise. It depresses the temperature readings, as noted previously. >>Also consider Fig. 15. > >Thank you, it demonstrates my point pretty well. When you change the input >power, the electrolyte temperature changes. Yes, there is a significant >time constant....about 2000 seconds, I'd guess...which blurs things. >However, every time the total cell power is changed abruptly, an inflection >is clearly visible in the Telec [temperature electrolyte] trace. I don't see that. It would be the red line in the top graph. Look what happens at second 7400 when power is increased abruptly from 100 to 200 watts. There is no corresponding jump in the red line, even though the temperature scale (from 0 to 150 deg C) is much finer than in Figure 24. The temperature begins rising gradually. 1500 seconds later it is still gradually rising, having gone up about 20 deg C, a rate of ~0.8 deg C per minute. The power increase in Fig. 24 is smaller and it is maintained for only about 400 seconds, so the temperature would not rise more than ~4 deg C by the time it reaches the peak at 3200 seconds. You could barely see such a small change in this graph, especially mixed in with all the RF noise. There might even be one . . . Essentially, the output line in Fig. 24 fluctuates from 1000 to 3300 seconds, but it keeps coming back to ~80 watts. The fluctuations are too short lived to show up in the electrolyte temperature, based on the calibration graph Fig. 15. The electrolyte temperature stays at around 90 deg C the whole time. It cannot rise much farther because boiling would ensue, and additional heat would be lost as vapor. (If Mizuno saw that was happening, he would adjust the flow rate, which can be anything from 1 to 20 g/s. I do not know if it was changed in this excess heat example or not; the flow rate is not shown. It was not changed in the calibration runs.) >Maybe M's results are just fine. I'm just picking at details. I do not see you picking at anything. Where is the evidence for abrupt changes in Fig 15? Even at the beginning of the calibration run under extreme conditions the rate of change is sedate. The power is turned up to 400 watts, which is much higher and more abrupt than any glow discharge run, and the starting temperature is lower, yet you see only a slow change. At 2100 seconds when the power drops from 400 W to zero, the temperature gradually falls 25 deg C in 1800 seconds, a rate of ~0.8 deg/minute. That means the smaller power level changes in Fig 24 would be too small to detect after only 400 seconds. As far as I can see that's what it means. What rate of change do you estimate? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 10:05:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25394; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:03:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:03:46 -0700 Message-ID: <003e01bfd561$6ff16be0$f8441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Steam Properties Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:58:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD526.57E59340" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"dnibe2.0.iC6.nbcHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35531 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD526.57E59340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Handy http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwfmo/tools/steam.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD526.57E59340 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="UCONN A&E SERVICES Steam Properties.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="UCONN A&E SERVICES Steam Properties.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwfmo/tools/steam.htm [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwfmo/tools/steam.htm Modified=801B55E560D5BF01CA ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFD526.57E59340-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 10:46:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA06615; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:42:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:42:10 -0700 Message-ID: <39467374.352F43D4 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:46:42 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F97 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ErgUk2.0.6d1.k9dHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35532 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To determine the displacement effect in the real world, two quantities must be known. These are the relative concentration in the surrounding gas and the relative energy difference between the two species within the solid. The latter quantity is isotope sensitive while the former is not. In brief, at the same partial pressure in the surrounding gas mixture, more H than D will be found in Pd at equilibrium. Ed "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > I am confused now. Do lighter isotopes displace heavier ones, or is loading of > isotopes only dependent upon their partial pressures? I know isotopes must > have some effect. > > > ---------- > > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 7:28 AM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? > > > > > > > > "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > > > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:22 PM > > > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > > > Subject: Re: What is the rates at which various isotopes of hydrogen load into a metal hydride? > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > In general, H will displace D, and D will displace T from Pd. > > > > Consequently, the result of loading will depend on the gas mixture present, on the > > > > nature of the surface, and on the temperature. It is not possible to say, as a general > > > > rule, that the heavier isotope loads faster. > > > > > > > Thank you for the information. This would explains a lot. I was wondering > > > why Russ George's control vessel did not produce helium-4 when he pumped > > > out the hydrogen and pumped in deuterium. D doesn't replace H, as I would > > > expect. > > > > This is a situation of chemical equilibrium. The amount of displacement depends on the ratio of partial > > pressures, D/H. If the ratio is large, much of the H will be replaced by D. If this flush is done > > several times, essentially all of the H can be removed. I do not know how much care Russ used in > > displacing the H, nor if the sample was clean enough to make EP even if all of the H were replaced. > > > > > > > > I've been unable to locate Ortman's 1990 paper on commercial tritium > > > separation using Pd. To me, it now sounds like if I want to make my own enriched > > > deuterium at home, I can do it with a metal hydride. > > > > With some difficulty, you can achieve a slight enrichment. > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 10:57:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA11547; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:54:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:54:07 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612125054.01367e80 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:50:54 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613122417.007c4130 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000612094804.01362ff4 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"UmnrU.0.Lq2._KdHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35533 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:24 PM 6/13/00 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >That >means the smaller power level changes in Fig 24 would be too small to >detect after only 400 seconds. As far as I can see that's what it means. Judging from the 7400 second event in Fig 15, I guess we should expect the Telec to rise by almost 2 degrees during the 400 second excess heat event in Figu 24. I agree that would be impossible to detect given the noise on the Telec trace. Thanks Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 11:05:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15647; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:02:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:02:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612125912.0136c750 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:59:12 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Mizuno: sample temp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"w4J8Y1.0.Iq3.fSdHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35534 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, On some of the plots (e.g. 21, 22), there is an orange trace labelled Sample Temperature, which appears to be the cathode temp. Did he explain how that measurement was obtained? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 11:29:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26139; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:24:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:24:11 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613142335.007a2100 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:23:35 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000612125054.01367e80 earthtech.org> References: <3.0.6.32.20000613122417.007c4130 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000612094804.01362ff4 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"JJPtD1.0.HO6.8ndHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35535 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >Judging from the 7400 second event in Fig 15, I guess we should expect the >Telec to rise by almost 2 degrees during the 400 second excess heat event >in Figu 24. > >I agree that would be impossible to detect given the noise on the Telec trace. Let's ask him for the full data set spreadsheet and see if we can spot it. It's labeled W90908$2. Even with the noise, there should be a discernable upward trend during the 400 seconds (7 minutes). >On some of the plots (e.g. 21, 22), there is an orange trace labelled >Sample Temperature, which appears to be the cathode temp. Did he explain >how that measurement was obtained? Goodness! I have never seen this. It can't be the sample temperature; it is only 75 deg C. That's W91012$1. I'll ask him. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 12:31:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA16102; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:25:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:25:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613152453.007a2e20 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:24:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613122417.007c4130 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000612094804.01362ff4 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"GoxJd.0.Tx3.XgeHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35536 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >It cannot rise much farther because boiling would >ensue, and additional heat would be lost as vapor. (If Mizuno saw that was >happening, he would adjust the flow rate, which can be anything from 1 to >20 g/s. . . . To clarify, I do not think he changes the flow rate midway through a run. He adjusts it beforehand to reach a high electrolyte temperature without much boiling. He can usually predict or control the maximum output power. The reason he can predict it is interesting. You might think of "excess heat" as being an upward blip in the output curve. It is, sometimes, but in many experiments it shows up as quiescence, a "non-blip," or a kind of hysteresis when you expect to see a change. During excess heat events, the cell is in a weird state in which you can turn down the input power and the cell temperature lags behind, and sometimes starts an upward excursion when it should be cooling. (See the recent Miles paper.) In other words, what is surprising in Fig 24 is not the output power so much as the green input line which continues to drop, while the rest of the cell does what it was doing, ignoring the change. The disconnect does not appear until the input power is withdrawn. That's typical of CF, which I suppose is tenuous evidence that glow discharge excess heat may be CF, assuming it is real. With a conventional CF cell, as excess heat fades, you can sometimes boost it back up to a given level, and it sticks. Stan Pons described this as a "memory." When he said that during a lecture, D. Morrison made a rude noise meaning "what nonsense!" It did not seem nonsensical to me. When an ordinary chemical reactions like fire is driven to a given reaction rate with a blowtorch, it often stays at roughly that rate -- or at some corresponding rate. You make it burn fast, it stays burning fast for a while, even after the blowtorch is withdrawn. There are fairly simple physical causes for this: exposed, ignited surface area, temperature of the whole sample, and so on. I suppose there are equally simple reasons for CF cathode stasis. It is well known that CF is triggered and to some degree controlled by temperature. Probably, at a given temperature, some number of tiny spots in the cathode are excited and begin a steady state reaction, generating a fixed level of heat. You raise the temperature of the whole sample, turn on more spots, and when leave it alone by backing off the external heat source, it stays at the new higher temperature. One thing is for sure. That kind of behavior is not what you expect from instrument error or drift. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 16:59:10 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23684; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> References: <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:23:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"6lEh23.0.-n5.BeiHv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35537 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 01:20 PM 6/13/00 +0800, John Winterflood wrote: >>Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >John Winterflood is right on the mark. Data which violates Bell's >Inequality cannot be generated by a computer unless you write the code so >that what happens at one "detector" affects what happens at the other. >Sure that can be done in software but, in so doing, you have made the >algorithm "non-local". Because of speed-of-light limitations, such an >algorithm can NOT duplicate the observed results in actual non-locality >experiments. In the real experiments that have been conducted the >"information" appears to move from one detector to the other instantly, a >behavior that Jones' software dork would be UNABLE to duplicate. ***{As I said to John, the software engineer is not concerned with emulating the experiment, but with emulating the allegedly indeterministic characteristics which the experimental data are said to contain. The idea is to produce a data stream having those characteristics, using a deterministic machine, thereby proving that those characteristics do *not* indicate that the data were produced indeterministically. What this means is that the details of Allain Aspect's various experiments are irrelevant here. We don't care whether he, or anyone, can explain why his data fit P = cos A better than P = (90 - A)/90, because the situation is complex, and may not be understood for a thousand years. What we do care about, however, is the implied claim, by him or anyone else who alleges that their experimental data could not be due to a deterministic process, to be able to reliably sort data into "deterministic" and "indeterministic" categories. I say it is impossible even in principle to do that, and I have flatly proven that assertion. Result: it is now *obvious* that Aspect's data could have been produced deterministically, whether we can explain how that happened in his specific situation or not. What the proponents of "quantum mechanics" are doing in the case of the Aspect experiment, and in all experiments by which they purport to "prove" the microcosm is indeterminate, is to postulate *magic* (e.g., "spooky action at a distance") to "explain" some situation for which a real explanation is not yet available. After doing that, they then challenge the proponents of classical mechanics--who are mostly engineers--to provide a real (i.e., causal) explanation. If the engineers cannot presently do that, then the "quantum physicists" smile, brush their hands together, and claim to have demonstrated "quantum indeterminism." The implied premise, however, is absurd--to wit: that anything which we cannot presently explain is to be attributed to magic. This is the mindset of primitive men--men who lived in caves, and attributed natural phenomena to the actions of gods, spirits, and demons--rather than the mindset of scientists. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >I also agree with John's feeling that the existing experiments may not >constitute proof of QM's spooky action at a distance. For a sense of the >raging debate over this issue go to xxx.lanl.gov and search the quantum >physics archive for "inequality" or "entanglement". ***{By the way, Scott: your e-mail program tends to put flaky time notations on your messages. They can be off by *years*, and I have messages from you to prove it. Most e-mail programs, including mine, sort by date, and only display the taglines of the last 50 messages or so on the screen. Result: when a message is received with a date that is too old, it won't show up on the chronological display, and, to the recipient, it is as if the message were never received. Why do I mention this? Because the date on your message, above, was June 12, at 7:23 a.m., which is about 14 hours--and from my perspective more than a hundred messages--before the message from me to which you were responding. As a result, your message got queued up in a position that had already rolled off the page, and I would have never seen it, if Steve Lajoie had not responded to you. --MJ}*** > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 19:46:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA18084; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:45:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:45:10 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:45:07 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Science rejects new ideas? In-Reply-To: <39464520.46B8E8D0 ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"q_R2Z3.0.QQ4.s6lHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35538 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's an interesting paper. Besides the usual plate tektonics, germ theory, etc., the author offers a long list of major discoveries which met with years of resistance. The Plight of the Obscure Innovator http://fls.cll.wayne.edu/isp/mnissani/PAGEPUB/HISTORY.HTM ABSTRACT The extent of resistance to original contributions of obscure scientists is controversial. One view holds that such resistance is rare, and hence that it requires little study or remediation. A second view holds that, although not widespread, such resistance happens often enough to merit study and reform. A third view holds that this resistance is common, that it constitutes the single most formidable block to scientific advances, and that its disturbing regularity calls for a partial restructuring of the modern scientific enterprise. After documenting this crucial controversy and arguing that it cannot be resolved through citation analysis, this note tests one implication of the third view, viz., that even a cursory search of the historical and biographical literature should reveal many cases of bitter struggles for publication and recognition besides the ones which are customarily cited in discussions of this subject. Such a search has been carried out, yielding over fifty names of scientists and scholars who, by all counts, made decisive contributions to their respective fields, but who nonetheless had to struggle to have their results published or recognized. In most instances the original sources from which these cases have been culled are directly quoted, thereby showing that most historians and biographers of science tend to view the struggles they describe as rare and as owing to the peculiar circumstance of the case in question. Most likely, such struggles are traceable to many interdependent sociological, political, and psychological causes. Instead of providing a comprehensive causal analysis, this note highlights one psychological factor which may merit greater attention from social science theorists. Given these diverse roadblocks against obscure innovators, the surprising thing may well be that some unrenowned innovators, in science at least, have escaped the struggle, not that so many haven't. This note urges a systematic historical study to estimate the incidence of resistance. If such a survey shows that obscurity plus originality often lead to temporary or permanent oblivion, the case for structural reforms in science will become immeasurably stronger than it is now. http://fls.cll.wayne.edu/isp/mnissani/PAGEPUB/HISTORY.HTM ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 13 23:21:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA21165; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:20:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:20:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20000614061954.95811.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.60] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:19:54 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"4X6xm3.0.UA5.fGoHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35539 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ain't it the truth. :) >From: William Beaty >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Subject: Science rejects new ideas? >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:45:07 -0700 (PDT) > > >Here's an interesting paper. Besides the usual plate tektonics, germ >theory, etc., the author offers a long list of major discoveries which >met with years of resistance. > > The Plight of the Obscure Innovator > http://fls.cll.wayne.edu/isp/mnissani/PAGEPUB/HISTORY.HTM > > ABSTRACT > > The extent of resistance to original contributions of obscure scientists > is controversial. One view holds that such resistance is rare, and hence > that it requires little study or remediation. A second view holds that, > although not widespread, such resistance happens often enough to merit > study and reform. A third view holds that this resistance is common, > that it constitutes the single most formidable block to scientific > advances, and that its disturbing regularity calls for a partial > restructuring of the modern scientific enterprise. After documenting > this crucial controversy and arguing that it cannot be resolved through > citation analysis, this note tests one implication of the third view, > viz., that even a cursory search of the historical and biographical > literature should reveal many cases of bitter struggles for publication > and recognition besides the ones which are customarily cited in > discussions of this subject. Such a search has been carried out, > yielding over fifty names of scientists and scholars who, by all counts, > made decisive contributions to their respective fields, but who > nonetheless had to struggle to have their results published or > recognized. In most instances the original sources from which these > cases have been culled are directly quoted, thereby showing that most > historians and biographers of science tend to view the struggles they > describe as rare and as owing to the peculiar circumstance of the case > in question. Most likely, such struggles are traceable to many > interdependent sociological, political, and psychological causes. > Instead of providing a comprehensive causal analysis, this note > highlights one psychological factor which may merit greater attention > from social science theorists. Given these diverse roadblocks against > obscure innovators, the surprising thing may well be that some > unrenowned innovators, in science at least, have escaped the struggle, > not that so many haven't. This note urges a systematic historical study > to estimate the incidence of resistance. If such a survey shows that > obscurity plus originality often lead to temporary or permanent > oblivion, the case for structural reforms in science will become > immeasurably stronger than it is now. > http://fls.cll.wayne.edu/isp/mnissani/PAGEPUB/HISTORY.HTM > > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) >William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website >billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com >EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science >Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 00:04:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA00467; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:02:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:02:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006121645.MAA07575 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:00:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"3oLwx2.0.C7.FuoHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35540 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>***{Worthwhile commentary about world economic events may be obtained for >>free by subscribing to Bill Bonner's daily e-mail newsletter. See >>http://www.dailyreckoning.com for details. Highly recommended by yours >>truly. An excerpt from the current missive appears below. --MJ}*** >> >>> "Putin's Adviser Extols Ayn Rand" says The Moscow >>> Times. "Newly appointed presidential economics adviser >>> Andrei Illarionov showed his economic colors Tuesday as he >>> vociferously supported the ideas of one of the >>> most influential shapers of Western thought on free >>> markets, Ayn Rand," said the paper. > >Oh noooo.... > > Then, quoting Mr. >>> Illarionov: "Every import tariff and every limit on >>> foreign-exchange transactions is a blow to >>> our consciousness. Every tax acts against our freedom." > >Braindead Ayn Rand Dogma. ***{Not exactly encouraging a civil discussion today, eh? Does the wife have you sleeping on the couch, perhaps? --MJ}*** I hope the Russians don't turn into zombies. ***{The Russian people have had fascist or socialist parasites sucking their blood throughout their history, and you begrudge them a shot at freedom? Why? --MJ}*** > > The >>> new economics advisor to President Putin made the remarks >>> at a news conference Tuesday dedicated to the launch of >>> Rand's work in the Russian language. Illarionov cited >>> Chile's economic plan under the dictatorship of General >>> Augusto Pinochet as an ideal example of good economic >>> programming. > >Pinochet is not what I would call a shining example of anything except a CIA >funded and assisted, mass murderer according to the copious evidence and >testimony presented in his trial in Britain. ***{Whether elected or unelected, fascist governments do less damage to their victims than socialist ones. The reason is simple: under socialism, the citizens retain no rights at all, whereas under fascism, they at least retain the hollow form of rights. And, so long as the judicial system of a nation retains at least a facade of rights, some market based economic activity will continue. That's why Pinochet, despite his faults, undoubtedly saved Chile from a far worse fate, which would surely have been visited upon it if Allende, a self-admitted communist, had retained power. --MJ}*** His well documented CIA >assisted massacre in the Santiago main football arena is legendary. It was >obvious from the verdict that Britain was the wrong place to hold such a >person on trial, since he is now free and sunning himself at his coastal >villa in Chile. Too many ties to the US, and to high ranking US officials. >If his trial would have been in Spain, they would have hung him in a >heartbeat for what he did. ***{Every government on this planet, with the exception of a handful of socialist abattoirs such as North Korea and Cuba, is fascist. Under fascism, minorities tend to be slaughtered (if you doubt this, ask a Branch Davidian, if you can find one), and there are more than a hundred fascist governments on this planet right now the leaders of which have killed enough of their own citizens to make Pinochet look like a saint by comparison. Given that state of affairs, by what logic do you see fit to bitch about him? He is an old man, and a better fascist than most. Go after the real butchers first, starting with socialist dirtbags such as Castro and Kim Joon Il, and work your way down. If you do so, you will get to Clinton and Bush long before you get to Pinochet. --MJ}*** > >His predecessor, Allende, was no sweetheart either however, from the stories >that I got from friends living there. Many of them had their houses >ransacked, and were deported at gunpoint immediately after his victory. ***{And it was just beginning. Based on what happened in other nations where communist governments took power, the streets would soon have been red with blood, if Pinochet had not done what he did. For that reason, it is *very* likely that, in the net, his coup save lives. --MJ}*** I >spent a summer there in 1969, just before Allende was democratically >elected. I traveled all the down to a place just south of Temuco, and spent >time with the Indians there. I watched a football game in Santiago in the >same arena where the Pinochete massacre later took place, and lived for a >time in the home of the former CEO of LanChile airlines, the official >Chilean spy pipeline to the States. > >Allende was democratically elected because his predecessor was so corrupted >by the US business/political machine that the people finally got fed up with >it. ***{Actually, Allende was democratically elected because the majority of the people, in every nation on Earth, is comprised of unreasoning, other-directed, functionally illiterate fools. Allende was the beast from hell that most Chileans deserved, and Pinochet was the man who prevented them from being consumed by the flames which they had ignited. Naturally, since he prevented their illusions from being shattered, most of them look with nostalgia at "what might have been," and resent Pinochet for saving them from themselves. --MJ}*** I landed there just moments before Rockefeller flew in, and escaped the >ensuing riot just in time to watch on TV the water cannons hosing the tens >of thousands of protestors that were tearing down the barricades and trying >to turn over his limo. ***{Which Rockefeller? Nelson? David? Was this before Allende was overthrown, or after? --MJ}*** > >Allende probably would have lasted a bit longer if he hadn't cut off his >diplomatic relationships with the US, and hadn't nationalized the US owned >banks and coppermines. ***{Typical move of a stupid communist thug. They all think they can run companies better than their owners, but they never succeed. All they do is destroy the economies of the nations that they control, and consign the citizenry to lives that are short, miserable, and for the most part richly deserved. --MJ}*** He did though, and the CIA went in and took over the >country in yet another bloody covert action, setting up Pinochete as their >strongarm, goon squad puppet leader. I still get second hand reports every >now and again from friends that I made there and who are still living there >via the ones that left. > >You can move to Russia if you want, Mitch. It might be perfect for you. >All those happy people, gloriously living and working in a free market >place... ;) ***{So far, it's just talk. Putin is pushing a 13% flat tax which, if implemented (likely) will give the Russian federation a tax rate *vastly* lower than that of the U.S. That's a good start, but much more is needed--to wit: a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sanctity of private property rights, the selling off of the remaining state enterprises, cold-turkey economic deregulation, the elimination of tariffs, and so on. The road from socialist slavery to capitalism and freedom is a long one, and, unfortunately, passes through fascism--which is where Russia is right now. The good news, however, is this: communism consumes an economy down to the bare walls, thereby leaving little for a transitional fascist government to steal. Result: the possibility exists that Russia will not linger in the fascist phase very long, before moving on to laissez faire capitalism. If they do, then they will dominate the 21st century the way the United States dominated the 20th, and Putin will be honored by future historians as the father of his country. I hope it happens because, as a very wise man said long ago, "Where freedom is, there is my country." --MJ}*** > >Knuke >Michael T. Huffman >Huffman Technology Company >1121 Dustin Drive >The Villages, Florida 32159 >(352)259-1276 >knuke LCIA.COM >http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 05:38:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA24834; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:36:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:36:49 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:33:45 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"j0Gi3.0.y36.WntHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35541 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:23 PM 6/13/00 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote: >***{As I said to John, the software engineer is not concerned with >emulating the experiment, but with emulating the allegedly indeterministic >characteristics which the experimental data are said to contain.... >What we do care >about, however, is the implied claim, by him or anyone else who alleges >that their experimental data could not be due to a deterministic process, >to be able to reliably sort data into "deterministic" and "indeterministic" >categories. I say it is impossible even in principle to do that, and I have >flatly proven that assertion. Your "proof" is invalid. In effect you have simply demonstrated that it is possible to duplicate ANY desired set of experimental data by simply fabricating it...i.e. by cheating. That's obvious...and proves nothing. For example, if I fed you these pairs of force and acceleration values (1,1), (2,4), (3,9), (4,16) and told you they were observed when accelerating a unit mass, you would be forced to conclude that F = ma^2. This erroneous conclusion is wholly a result of my fabrication of the data set. Entanglement experiments are rather subtle. The main point of interest is that two spatially separated detectors produce paired observations that look as if superluminal communication is going on. I call your attention to "Violation of Bell's Inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions", Weihs et al (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9810080). This recent effort succeeded in removing one of the most important objections to other entanglement experiments. They arranged to randomly select (using a physical random number generator) the polarizer angle at one detector only after the photons were well on their way towards the detectors, far too late for any knowledge of the angle to be somehow communicated at lightspeed to the other detector. Still they observed the expected super-correlation, matching the predictions of QM closely. The authors of this paper opoenly admit that, since their detection/collection efficiency is only about 5% in this experiment, it is possible that somehow, the photons they detected do not fairly represent the whole ensemble emitted by the source. They do not, however, dismiss their results out of hand simply because some dork with a pencil and paper could sit in a room by himself and write down an identical set of results. P.S. Thanks for telling me my clock was off by 1 day. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 07:06:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA20974; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:05:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:05:14 -0700 Message-ID: <39479151.6A2BA7B1 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:06:10 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: McKubre: Chubb: Forsley: He in activated C 6.14.00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AlFuE.0.a75.Q4vHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35542 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subject: Re: Murray: activated C source of helium in Arata & in Case cells? 6.13.00 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:34:45 -0700 From: "Michael C H McKubre" Organization: ERC SRI To: Rich Murray Rich - In this instance I am grateful for your repost. I had forgotten this argument and it furnishes me with literature for me to explain something that I had once puzzled and troubled over. What we see in the most active cells is, after high temperature cleaning and soaking in H2, a period of no 4-He increase (up to a week), a period of rapid 4-He increase (perhaps 2 weeks) followed by a long period in which the [4-He] slowly declines (as long as you like, but declining towards zero, NOT towards the ambient value). This last is possibly associated with the effects described in your references, and we have measured this effect in independent experiments. That the carbon catalyst we use has no substantial amount of pre-existing 4-He has been easily and well established. Large samples have been subject to vacuum, H2 and D2 exposure, at temperature, for long periods, with no evidence of substantial 4-He release. Individual pieces of catalyst (randomly selected) have been heated at temperatures up to 2300°C to liberate all gas species (in two laboratories). Whatever process produces catalyst does not result in any significant absorbed or adsorbed 4-He, neither does normal handling in air. If there is a problem of pre-existing 4-He in our measurements, it is due to spot contamination (by some unknown species), and is not a general property of carbon or carbon catalyst materials. I have not ruled out the possibility of a mysterious spot contaminant but I think it unlikely, particularly in view of the apparent correlation between the observed release of heat and 4-He. Please pass this on to your mailing list. Mike McKubre ****************************************************** Subject: Re: Murray: activated C source of helium in Arata & in Case cells? 6.13.00 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:12:25 -0400 From: chubb ccsalpha3.nrl.navy.mil To: Rich Murray Rich, At ICCF8, Mike McKubre provided detailed information about finding 3He in the Arata cells at levels that simply can not be explained as being the result of a leak. In particular, he found amounts of 3He, relative to 4He, originating in the bulk and Pd Black portions of the double-structure cathodes cells that are 8000 to 10000 times larger than occur naturally. This simply can not be explained by the normal laws of chemistry. He also found significant amounts of tritium (although it is not clear how much of the 3He occurs as a residual by-product of tritium decay). In the Case cells, he reported time correlation between the excess heat and 4He and provided a Q-value of 31 +/- 13 MeV per reaction, based on redundant, differential measurements. The precision and repeatability continue to improve. The ICCF8 organizers have video-taped his talk. You might find it useful to look at it. SCOTT ******************************************************** Subject: Re: Murray: activated C source of helium in Arata & in Case cells? 6.13.00 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:08:00 EDT From: LPGForsley aol.com To: rmforall earthlink.net Very nice work, Rich! I appreciate the care and digging this took. I have wondered, since, I believe, you first brought to our attention possible "self contamination" in the Case cell. These papers and their successors do the community a great service. Larry Forsley ****************************************************** Murray: activated C source of helium in Arata & in Case cells? 6.13.00 June 13 2000 Hello, I've noticed that McKubre and others are still claiming helium production in the Arata and in the Case cells. Has the issue of possible helium contamination from the activated carbon been resolved? Rich Murray rmforall earthlink.net ******************************************************** Murray: 9.53 ug He adsorbed per gm activated carbon 6.23.99 June 23, 1999 Hello, Luckily, the world-class library at LANL is only 45 minutes away, and a very beautiful drive, too. A computer search on "helium adsorption carbon" gave dozens of abstracts from Chemical Abstracts per year in recent years, and I was able to zerox some reports in full. "Adsorbent helium density measurement and its effect on adsorption isotherms at high pressure," P. Malbrunot, D. Vidal, J. Vermesse, Laboratoire d'Ingenierie des Materiaux et des Hautes Pressions, CRNS, Universite Paris-Nord, 93430 Villetaneuse, France, and R.Chahine, T. K. Bose, Institut de Recherche sur l'Hydrogene, Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada G9A 5H7: Langmuir 1997, 12, 539-544. Chemical Abstracts 126: 148921 The density of porous adsorbents is measured by "helium density", based on displacement of an equivalent helium volume. Helium has normally been assumed to have negligible He adsorption at room temperature, but as soon as 1960 Maggs gave evidence that this is a doubtful assumption. Malbrunot et al initially emptied each adsorbant: "The previous regeneration of the adsorbant was carried out at a temperature of 400 deg C under a vacuum of 10XE-3 Pa for 12 h." Activated carbon, 1030 m2/gm, (GAC 250, CECA-ELF-ATOCHEM,France) was found at 25 deg C and 1 atm to adsorb 2.38XE-6 mol He per gm C, which at 4.003 gm/mole, gives 9.53XE-6 gm He -- about the same value found by F.A.P. Maggs, P.H. Schwabe, J.H. Williams, "Adsorption of helium on carbon: influence on measurement of density," Nature June 18, 1960, p. 956-8, at 25 deg C and 1 atm. Meggs outgassed his adsorbants at 357 deg C for 24 h. Malbrunot studied a theoretical model: "We conclude that the validity of Monte Carlo simulations for adsorption, and of the hard sphere model as representative of the interaction between helium and various types of adsorbents, is fairly good." Thus, high levels of helium adsorption are not majorly explanable by subtle quantum effects or unique catalytic spots, but must be common to most activated carbons, as in the Ac-C studied by Maggs. If the various catalysts used by Case to produce He have the same adsorption capacity as the above, then 10 grams could store at room temperture and 1 atm 95.3 micrograms of He, 289 times the .33 ug found by George, Tanzella, and McKubre. That leaves plenty of room to accomodate the fact that the Case catalyst was exposed only to air, and then at 3.4 atm about 3 times each to H2 and D2, enough, as my post of 6.21.99 shows, to adsorb .33 ug He, which would be gradually released by four weeks at 200-210 deg C, with trace O2, N2, Cl2, and H2O etching the pore surfaces by forming CO, CO2, CCl4, while H2 and D2 form CH4. Convection currents and temperatures in the catalytic bed would differ for H2 and D2, as would reaction rates. Some arrangements are bound to exist that show helium release with D2, but not H2. Therefore, it is premature to claim that the Case cell shows evidence of nuclear reactions. It is interesting in recent days to see posts by many experts on the nonexistence of helium adsorption in activated carbon at room temperature at 1 atm, since a major report was published in Nature in 1960. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505-986-9103 505-920-6130 cell rmforall earthlink.net ****************************************************** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 07:17:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24872; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:14:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:14:50 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614101446.007a5d90 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:14:46 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <39464520.46B8E8D0 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"pPELL2.0.V46.QDvHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35543 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: That's a good essay. Ed Storms recently suggested we put together a list of 20th century discoveries that were first rejected, and symbolically give them the "Flying Pig" award. The idea is to counter the "20 Worst Ideas" that was published in Wired, and which was touted by many skeptics. They should be reminded how often they were wrong. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 08:08:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13242; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:06:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:06:49 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:23:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? Resent-Message-ID: <"r6PbJ1.0.fE3.9-vHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35544 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:14 AM 6/14/0, Jed Rothwell wrote: >That's a good essay. Ed Storms recently suggested we put together a list of >20th century discoveries that were first rejected, and symbolically give >them the "Flying Pig" award. The idea is to counter the "20 Worst Ideas" >that was published in Wired, and which was touted by many skeptics. They >should be reminded how often they were wrong. > >- Jed This is a wonderful idea. I would like to see such an award well endowed, like the Nobel, so it carries some prestige. Unlike the Nobel, it should be awarded posthumously or not, since such victims often go unrecognized until well after death. It would be tough to choose though, because there is such a backlog. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 08:38:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28551; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:36:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:36:35 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614113628.007a96c0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:36:28 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Mizuno 'sample temperature' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"WT4pf2.0.0-6.3QwHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35545 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little asked about the orange line in Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraph # 20, 21, 22 and 24. It is labeled "Sample Temperature" and as Scott figured out, it is ten times the left Y-axis. The temperature is generally around 750 deg C. It is measured with an IR temperature sensor. This is a preliminary, uncalibrated measurement; the actual temperature is probably more, but it is attenuated by the water in the cell. Anyway, the temperature is at least 750 degrees. Mizuno is now calibrating by putting high temperature bulbs in the cell in place of the anode/cathode assembly. These bulbs are designed to calibrate IR sensors. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 08:59:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04871; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:56:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:56:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20000614155620.21076.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:56:19 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"kDEum.0.1C1.6jwHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35546 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I find the implications of individuals to resist a fundamental change in their personal world veiws to be almost as helpful to radical notions as harmful... What would happen if we all blithely accepted theories on minimal evidence?? Would we still defend our pet theories (recognized or not) to the death?? Would we be so diligent in construcing experiments to prove an explanation for the unexplained?? What else other than blind stubborness would propell a little known scientist to risk universal derision by promoting an idea contrary to "modern science" change hurts us even when we invoke that change ourselves Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 09:11:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11494; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:09:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:09:20 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614120910.007a5230 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:09:10 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: McKubre: Chubb: Forsley: He in activated C 6.14.00 In-Reply-To: <39479151.6A2BA7B1 earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA11453 Resent-Message-ID: <"Yqogk3.0.Wp2.muwHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35547 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich Murray deserves credit for posting this important information about helium absorption. HOWEVER, he has been told time after time, by McKubre and others, that this cannot explain the helium in these experiments. McKubre repeats himself here, with his usual clarity: >That the carbon catalyst we use has no substantial amount of >pre-existing 4-He has been easily and well established. Large samples >have been subject to vacuum, H2 and D2 exposure, at temperature, >for long periods, with no evidence of substantial 4-He release. >Individual pieces of catalyst (randomly selected) have been heated >at temperatures up to 2300°C to liberate all gas species (in two >laboratories). Whatever process produces catalyst does not result in >any significant absorbed or adsorbed 4-He, neither does normal >handling in air. Unfortunately, Murray keeps ignoring this message and all the others like it, and if the past is any guide, I expect he will continue to "challenge" the results with this "absorption hypothesis" over and over and over and over . . . Perhaps we should establish the Skeptic Energizer Bunny Award. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 09:25:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA10296; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002901bfd624$b09cdc60$3d441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Boiling Point of Water vs Altitude Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:18:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"7kQHg3.0.hW2.54xHv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35548 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Having once tried unsuccessfully to push the boiling point of a tub of water past 201 F in Albuquerque (ca. 1956). :-) Altitude (ft) Pressure (mm Hg) Boiling Point (Deg F) 0.0 760 212 1640 716 209 3280 674 206 4920 634 203 6560 596 200 8200 560 197 9840* 526 194 * if Mizuno is this high up, his water will boil at 90C Jed. :-) About 1 Deg F decrease in boiling point per 500 ft increase in altitude? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 09:29:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11076; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> References: <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:22:39 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"iK2iv.0.xi2.Z7xHv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35549 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 06:23 PM 6/13/00 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>***{As I said to John, the software engineer is not concerned with >>emulating the experiment, but with emulating the allegedly indeterministic >>characteristics which the experimental data are said to contain.... > >>What we do care >>about, however, is the implied claim, by him or anyone else who alleges >>that their experimental data could not be due to a deterministic process, >>to be able to reliably sort data into "deterministic" and "indeterministic" >>categories. I say it is impossible even in principle to do that, and I have >>flatly proven that assertion. > >Your "proof" is invalid. In effect you have simply demonstrated that it is >possible to duplicate ANY desired set of experimental data by simply >fabricating it...i.e. by cheating. That's obvious...and proves nothing. >For example, if I fed you these pairs of force and acceleration values >(1,1), (2,4), (3,9), (4,16) and told you they were observed when >accelerating a unit mass, you would be forced to conclude that F = ma^2. >This erroneous conclusion is wholly a result of my fabrication of the data >set. ***{You are utterly missing the point. The point is that if you employ an experiment to generate data--any experiment whatsoever--and, after analyzing the data, you conclude that it exhibits characteristics which are incompatible with determinism, you are then obligated to explicitly state those characteristics and demonstrate that, by means of them, you can reliably sort data into "deterministic" and "indeterministic" categories. If you refuse to state the characteristics you are using, or if, when those criteria are applied, they falsely place data from a deterministic source--e.g., a digital computer--into the "indeterministic" category, then your criteria fail. That was the point of my thought experiment: to demonstrate that, in all cases whatsoever, such attempts *must* fail. The reason: any data characteristics that you can objectively identify can be used to produce a computer program which will be capable of generating data with those characteristics. Result: there is no statistical test by which it is possible, even in principle, to distinguish between deterministic and indeterministic sources. Result: in any case where a claim is made that an experiment shows indeterminism, the method of argument *cannot* be statistical--which means: it cannot be based on the generalized mathematical properties of the data set itself. That means the basis of any such argument must lie in the particulars of the experiment, rather than in the generalized properties of the data. But, if the argument is particular rather than general, then it can only arise in one way: by alleging that the absence of a causal explanation for that particular result demonstrates the need to postulate some sort of magic. (Terms such as "quantum mechanical entanglement," "indeterminism," etc., are merely trendy modern synonyms for magic, because they invoke the magical notion that things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing.) However, such a method of arguing is not merely false, but absurd. Mankind existed on Earth for millions of years without the causal understanding necessary to produce an electric light. Then, finally, that understanding was achieved. And the same thing could be said of literally tens of thousands of other products and processes upon which our present civilization relies. Therefore you cannot conclude, from your inability to explain something, that it must be due to magic. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Entanglement experiments are rather subtle. The main point of interest is >that two spatially separated detectors produce paired observations that >look as if superluminal communication is going on. ***{Incorrect. "Spooky action at a distance" means exactly what it says: the ability of a cause to influence events at a remote location without passing through the intervening space. If I use a pistol to shoot a can off of a fencepost, that is not action at a distance, because the bullet did not affect the can until *after* it had passed through the intervening space, and the same would be true even if the bullet, like gravity, had traveled at hundreds of millions of times the speed of light. Thus "superluminal communication" is a possible *real* explanation of the "entanglement" experiments--which means: it is an explanation in terms of classical determinism rather than in terms of quantum mechanical indeterminism. The problem you are having with this particular "quantum mechanical" claim is common to many engineers, who by virtue of a lifetime devoted to making things work in the real world, have so totally habituated the notion of classical causality into their mental processes that they literally cannot conceive of a mind so stupid, or so evil, that it would actually claim that *real* action at a distance can occur. To disabuse yourself of the notion that no mind can be that stupid or that evil, there is only one cure: read the writings of Bohr or his modern lackeys, concerning exactly what the "Copenhagen interpretation" is and implies. --MJ}*** I call your attention to >"Violation of Bell's Inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions", >Weihs et al (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9810080). This recent effort >succeeded in removing one of the most important objections to other >entanglement experiments. They arranged to randomly select (using a >physical random number generator) the polarizer angle at one detector only >after the photons were well on their way towards the detectors, far too >late for any knowledge of the angle to be somehow communicated at >lightspeed to the other detector. Still they observed the expected >super-correlation, matching the predictions of QM closely. ***{It is entirely to be expected that varying the angle of one polarizer while the photons are in flight will have no effect on the probability that both photons will pass through the slits. The only angle that matters is the angle between the polarizers at the instant when the photons actually pass through. To see why, suppose that the effective cross section of a photon is that of a spinning disc, and that polarizers, internally, contain openings which are analogous to the openings between the slats in a picket fence. In that case, it seems rather obvious that the only angle which matters is the angle between the slats (the polarizers) when the frisbees (the photons) strike them. How the angle may vary as the photons are in flight is manifestly of no importance. I would add that the above frisbee analogy is only that: an analogy. It is only one potential classical explanation for these results out of a vast number. I am only bringing it up to illustrate why it is not surprising that in-flight changes in the angle of the polarizers are unimportant. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >The authors of this paper opoenly admit that, since their >detection/collection efficiency is only about 5% in this experiment, it is >possible that somehow, the photons they detected do not fairly represent >the whole ensemble emitted by the source. They do not, however, dismiss >their results out of hand simply because some dork with a pencil and paper >could sit in a room by himself and write down an identical set of results. ***{No, but there are some things that we *can* dismiss out of hand. For example: (1) It is unacceptable to argue that the statistical properties of the data collected by an entanglement experiment prove indeterminism, since a deterministic machine--a digital computer--can generate data with the same statistical properties. (2) It is unacceptable to argue that a magical "explanation"--i.e., one based on the assumption that things can leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing--must be accepted as correct in cases where no causal explanation is immediately forthcoming. If, therefore, you are not attempting an argument in the form of (1) or (2), above, then precisely what *is* the form of the argument that you are attempting? What is it, exactly, that you think the Aspect experiment proves, and how do you think it proves it? --Mitchell Jones}*** > >P.S. Thanks for telling me my clock was off by 1 day. ***{No, my point was that your clock is flaky, Scott. I have received posts from you that were dated months in the future and years in the past. (For example, I am looking at a post from you right now with the following tagline: Scott Little 16:14 2000/07/09 2 pages Re: Interesting experiment - conversion formulas needed.) My guess is that the ni-cad batteries that store your clock settings when your computer is turned off are going bad, or else that there is a logic flaw in the computer code that controls your clock. (A Y2K related difficulty, perhaps? :-) --MJ}*** > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 09:40:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23706; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:38:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:38:14 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614123742.007a7cf0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:37:42 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA23353 Resent-Message-ID: <"S3CnZ2.0.Ho5.rJxHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35551 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have been thinking about this "Flying Pig" award that Ed proposed. I wrote to him the other day: . . . Some obvious candidates would be the airplane, continental drift, the laser, semiconductors, amorphous semiconductors, Vitamin B as the cure for pellagra and so on. One problem is, these discoveries are taken for granted so much that people have difficulty believing there was opposition. Some flat out refuse to believe it, even when I supply original quotes from the authors. I quoted a long passage from the Townes book to a physics professor at Florida State U., describing initial opposition to the maser. He insisted I was misinterpreting what Townes meant, and [the objection was over funding or practicality], nothing to do with physics. See attached. - Jed TOWNES QUOTES: One day after we had been at it for about two years, Rabi and Kusch, the former and current chairmen of the department—both of them Nobel laureates for work with atomic and molecular beams, and both with a lot of weight behind their opinions—came into my office and sat down. They were worried. Their research depended on support from the same source as did mine. "Look," they said, "you should stop the work you are doing. It isn't going to work. You know it's not going to work. We know it's not going to work. You're wasting money. Just stop!" I simply told them that I thought it had a reasonable chance and that I would continue. I was then indeed thankful that I had come to Columbia with tenure. (p. 65) Before -- and even after -- the maser worked, our description of its performance met with disbelief from highly respected physicists, even though no new physical principles were really involved. Their objections went much deeper than those that had led Rabi and Kusch to try to kill the project in its cradle . . . Llewelyn H. Thomas, a noted Columbia theorist, told me that the maser flatly could not, due to basic physics principles, provide a pure frequency with the performance I predicted. So certain was he that he more or less refused to listen to my explanations. After it did work, he just stopped talking to me. . . . . . . I visited Denmark and saw Niels Bohr . . . I described the maser and its performance. "But that is not possible," he exclaimed. I assured him it was. Similarly, at a cocktail party in Princeton, New Jersey, the Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann asked what I was working on. After I told him about the maser and the purity of its frequency, he declared, "That can't be right!" But it was, I replied, and told him it was already demonstrated. (p. 69) CARR OFF-THE-WALL INTERPRETATION: . . . That their thesis committee would approve this is pretty good evidence that the idea was not thought to violate the laws of physics. Just as indicated by what I wrote, particularly in the original context. >That if he had not a grad student, Rabi, Kusch, Von >Neumann and the others would not have objected? No, that their objections were not that the idea violated the laws of physics, as had been asserted when this example was put forth as an example of that. >They did not care what he >did -- their only concern was about the grad students? That's absurd. Not at all. Committee members have been known to object that a particular project was not feasible, and would certainly object if it was thought to be impossible because it violated the laws of physics. To do otherwise would violate their fiducial duty. >I remind you that Rabi and Kusch ordered *Townes* to stop. They said "you are >wasting your time." They were in no position to order him to do anything, but IIRC you indicated that they were concerned about *their* grant, not *his* time. They were probably concerned that it would take too long and the drop in productivity would hurt them, but since we can't read their minds, we can only speculate concerning their motivations. However, we can see in their words that they were not saying that his project violated the laws of physics. -- James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon. Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 09:40:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23518; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:38:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:38:06 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614123631.007a8b90 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:36:31 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? In-Reply-To: <20000614155620.21076.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_uOpI1.0.Nl5.kJxHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35550 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Adam Cox wrote: >What would happen if we all blithely accepted theories on minimal evidence?? That would be a mistake, but it has nothing to do with "rejecting new ideas." It would be best, I think, to apply identical rigorous standards to all ideas, old or new, accepted or controversial. Also, when examining extraordinary claims, we should use the most conservative means available, contrary to the dictum: "extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof." We want ordinary, ho-hum, boring proof. Fortunately, CF is backed by overwhelming evidence, which mostly consists of boring, long-established, incontrovertible calorimetry. Unfortunately, people refuse to look at the calorimetry. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 09:55:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA30179; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:52:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:52:28 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614125217.007a36f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:52:17 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Boiling Point of Water vs Altitude Cc: In-Reply-To: <002901bfd624$b09cdc60$3d441d26 fjsparber> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"iacL7.0.IN7.BXxHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35552 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: >* if Mizuno is this high up, his water will boil at 90C Jed. :-) Nope. He is way down low. About 40 meters above sea level. I checked this out in January 2000, and found the following info. Dr. Kiyoshi Ochifuji of the Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University installed an IDMP sensor on the roof of the Engineering Dept., where Mizuno works at Latitude 43*03', N, Longitude 141*20' E, Height above sea level: 40 m. (IDMP stands for "International Daylight Measurement Programme.") - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 10:12:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA06321; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:10:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:10:45 -0700 Message-ID: <004701bfd622$ee438de0$58627dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <20000614155620.21076.qmail hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:23:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZyVIJ.0.hY1.LoxHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35553 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Adam Cox writes: > I find the implications of individuals to resist a fundamental change in > their personal world veiws to be almost as helpful to radical notions as > harmful... > > What would happen if we all blithely accepted theories on minimal evidence?? That is hardly implied by the article, which proposes, among other things, a critical re-evaluation of the scientific society's view of itself after a very thorough study of the record. > Would we still defend our pet theories (recognized or not) to the death?? Nobody is proposing trashing the idea of sorting ideas based on merit. > Would we be so diligent in construcing experiments to prove an explanation > for the unexplained?? Well, I suppose if we "blithely accept theories based on minimal evidence," we would be inundated with ideas which would then be acceptable that we would have little time or budget for experiment. This issue comes down the fact that each of us is fully responsible for what we choose to accept as true. Society is all of us. None of have to believe what we find unacceptable, but there are consequences, sometimes severe, for disbelieving doctrine. We may find ourselves accepting that we must more critically examine what we believe as true. This decentralization of authority is fundamentally threatening to institutions, and such steps must not be taken lightly. I do not count myself among those who benefit from a de-stabilized society. > > What else other than blind stubborness would propell a little known > scientist to risk universal derision by promoting an idea contrary to > "modern science" Widespread knowledge, scientifically accepted that "little know scientists" often or sometimes or rarely submit astounding new ideas, might cause us to see our knowledge as less than sacrosanct, and make us more tolerant of new ideas, or it might validate certain existing institutions. The point of the paper the Beaty cited is that there is solid reason to consider the notion that the isolated outsider may contribute things of fundamental, and therefore inestimable value, to science. If this is, in fact, true, whatever changes may be deemed necessary should then be tried. The idea is to prevent martyrdom and advance science. > > change hurts us even when we invoke that change ourselves It hurts a lot less if we understand it and adapt. The benefits then often outweigh the costs. Ed Wall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 10:55:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26918; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:52:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:52:24 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F9D xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:47:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"6zwRh3.0.Ha6.NPyHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35554 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I blame the educational system. It is too easy for people of low ethical standards to get a degree in a science and not know the first thing about the scientific method. It just blows me away to run into a Ph.D. who not only doesn't know the scientific method, but preaches AGAINST it. What were they thinking when they gave these people degrees and set them lose upon the world?! > ---------- > From: William Beaty[SMTP:billb eskimo.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 7:45 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Science rejects new ideas? > > > Here's an interesting paper. Besides the usual plate tektonics, germ > theory, etc., the author offers a long list of major discoveries which > met with years of resistance. > > The Plight of the Obscure Innovator > http://fls.cll.wayne.edu/isp/mnissani/PAGEPUB/HISTORY.HTM > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 11:04:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00328; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:03:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:03:35 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F9C xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:41:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"v48QU2.0.25.tZyHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35555 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Adam Cox[SMTP:merlyn_x hotmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 8:56 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? > > I find the implications of individuals to resist a fundamental change in > their personal world veiws to be almost as helpful to radical notions as > harmful... > > What would happen if we all blithely accepted theories on minimal evidence?? > Would we still defend our pet theories (recognized or not) to the death?? > Would we be so diligent in construcing experiments to prove an explanation > for the unexplained?? > > What else other than blind stubborness would propell a little known > scientist to risk universal derision by promoting an idea contrary to > "modern science" > > change hurts us even when we invoke that change ourselves > > Merlyn > The problem isn't that "we all blithely" accept theories on minimal evidence. The problem is that there are people who have forgotten or have rejected the scientific method. Ten years after the fact, people who made the mistake of rejecting a hypothesis that an experiment did not test continue to voice their unscientific opinions despite far more recent evidence that proves the hypothesis is correct. The problem is that they are intellectually lazy and dismiss ALL experimental results that prove the hypothesis as "experimental error" because they've made up their minds ten years ago in error! Science requires UNBIASED observers making REASONABLE conclusions based on experimental evidence. From the experiment, the theory must be made to fit! Theory does NOT trump experiment. Anyone who disregards experimental results because it doesn't fit with his theory is a priest, not a scientist. Alternative explanations are required, a "competing theory" to explain the results. You cannot declare the results an error because it conflicts with your pet theory. There is no "BIAS" towards extraordinary results. (i.e. there is no requirement for extraordinary experimental evidence for an "extraordinary" claim, because the concept of an "extraordinary" claim is means the "scientist" has an "extraordinary" BIAS and thus is NOT a scientist.) Most importantly, anyone with a university education should have learned to be tolerant of new ideas and to think independently. If they respond to a new idea with derision and immaturity, and if they think in terms of "popular opinion" or "most scientist say", then they should apply to their university for a refund because their school has failed to teach them the most fundamental concepts of "university". From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 12:05:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24437; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:03:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:03:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3947D800.10E27EFC ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:07:54 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vCAz02.0.lz5.tRzHv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35556 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > At 10:14 AM 6/14/0, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >That's a good essay. Ed Storms recently suggested we put together a list of > >20th century discoveries that were first rejected, and symbolically give > >them the "Flying Pig" award. The idea is to counter the "20 Worst Ideas" > >that was published in Wired, and which was touted by many skeptics. They > >should be reminded how often they were wrong. > > > >- Jed > > This is a wonderful idea. I would like to see such an award well endowed, > like the Nobel, so it carries some prestige. Unlike the Nobel, it should > be awarded posthumously or not, since such victims often go unrecognized > until well after death. It would be tough to choose though, because there > is such a backlog. Some irony can be found in the rejection many Nobel winners suffered during their initial work. Of course, they would overlook this hardship as being the price of science, while subjecting their peers to the same treatment. I suggest the issue is humility. When individuals or a discipline get too much fame, they or it begin to act as if they have all the answers. Naturally, this fame places these individuals into positions of influence from which their lack of humility is inflicted on all lesser mortals. Frankly, I see no solution to this problem short of the collective individuals being shown to be so very wrong that their fame is destroyed. The issue of cold fusion has this potential. This subject has more information based on ignorance and prejudice available in the popular media than any other example of such behavior in science. Eventually when the problems associated with cold fusion are solved and when the present policies being enthusiastically supported by the skeptics are show to be deadly, the back-lash will not be nice. Ed Storms > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner I find the implications of individuals to resist a fundamental change in their personal world views to be almost as helpful to radical notions as harmful... What would happen if we all blithely accepted theories on minimal evidence?? Would we still defend our pet theories (recognized or not) to the death?? Would we be so diligent in constructing experiments to prove an explanation for the unexplained?? What else other than blind stubbornness would propel a little known scientist to risk universal derision by promoting an idea contrary to "modern science" change hurts us even when we invoke that change ourselves Merlyn Of course we all must be on our guard to protect science, as well as everything else, from the consequences of insane imaginations. However, the issue here is degree, not an absolute acceptance or rejection. All new ideas must overcome a level of rejection if for no other reason than to clarify the issue. However, once the requirements have been met, once reasonable challenges have been answered, the new idea is expected to be accepted and explored by conventional science. Not so with cold fusion and with many other examples. Consequently, it is worthwhile asking why the reasonable expectations have broken down in these cases. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 13:02:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14121; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:58:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:58:50 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FA1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:54:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"bvV_92.0.ZS3.wF-Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35557 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:07 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? > > [snip] > I suggest the issue is humility. When individuals or a discipline get too much > fame, they or it begin to act as if they have all the answers. Naturally, > this fame places these individuals into positions of influence from which their > lack of humility is inflicted on all lesser mortals. Frankly, I see no > solution to this problem short of the collective individuals being shown to be > so very wrong that their fame is destroyed. The issue of cold fusion has this > potential. This subject has more information based on ignorance and prejudice > available in the popular media than any other example of such behavior in > science. Eventually when the problems associated with cold fusion are solved > and when the present policies being enthusiastically supported by the skeptics > are show to be deadly, the back-lash will not be nice. > The defense the "skeptics" will have after they are proven to have been wrong and counter productive to progress will be that they will claim "at the time" they were justified in denouncing cold fusion. Of course, that will not be true. The time at which there was enough evidence for the intelligent scientist to conclude CF is a real physical effect is long past. We are now into the period where there is overwhelming evidence and denying the existance of CF is inexcusable. What motivates the skeptic is a lack of courage and a need to appear "respectable". They will go with the crowd, their biggest fear is that they are "different". From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 13:05:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15975; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:02:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:02:25 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:56:54 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"RnJxF3.0.Sv3.GJ-Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35558 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: >....What is it, exactly, that you think the Aspect experiment >proves, and how do you think it proves it? Myself and others seem to think it has something to do with "entanglement"; or "locality" versus "spooky action at a distance". Whereas you seem be arguing that it has something to do with "determinism" versus "non-determinism". Stephen LaJoie wrote: >...even though measurments on one particle affect the other, >you cannot devise a communication scheme using this effect, >thus no information is sent, thus nothing was sent faster >than light. I don't see how the fact that we cannot yet, and may never be able to use quantum entanglement for communication, suggests that the entangled particles are not communicating between themselves faster than light. ie My password preventing you from using my "instant" email account, doesn't prove that no information can be sent by it, or that I cannot use it when I am socially "entangled" with another! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 13:36:18 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16509; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614162608.007a0870 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:26:08 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: SORTA OFF TOPIC: "1900 House" / ZAPPY Power Systems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DRVgr2.0.h14.wf-Hv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35559 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The "1900 House" is a thought-provoking four-part documentary now on PBS. See: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/1900house/ It follows a modern family living in a Victorian era house in the U.K., with circa 1900 technology. I suppose this is the closest thing to time travel. After they spent three months in this house, the family felt a greater understanding of the past, and more empathy with their ancestors -- especially for women, who were burdened with housework. That is a good exercise, but I don't need it myself. I have lived in Japanese slum houses with fewer amenities than the "1900 House." Plenty of hot water though, in the public baths. I think some of the assumptions made by the narrator are oversimplified, but it's okay for a television program. They take some of the cliches of the Victorian era at face value. For example, it is common knowledge that in the magazines and popular books of that time, a husband was expected to be the "master of the house," and to make major decisions. I suppose many were, and are today for that matter, but there were also many strong-willed women who ran the family and decided, for example, which house to buy, or where the children would go to school. The popular press exaggerates trends, and it sometimes shows social ideals rather than realities. There was more equality of the sexes in 1900 than magazines portrayed, and less equality today that our popular dramas and magazines show. Not all women wore those tight corsets. Women were not all obsessed with modesty. In the '20s my grandmother was arrested for wearing a swimsuit that showed her ankles. She was not mortified or ashamed; she was hopping mad at the cops. Sex was more popular than you might think. Read Henry Miller's books for details. The other nitpicking complaint I have is that a house, the family or an individual does not usually occupy in one discrete era at one time. An impoverished person living in a hut or a cardboard box may own only a dozen objects all of the manufactured a few years ago. A recent immigrant may have only furniture in books from the last few years. But a middle-class person who is long settled in a country, and who has inherited ordinary objects from grandparents, aunts and uncles is likely to have a range of commonplace artifacts in the house from a surprisingly wide span of time. The beat up old books, workaday tools, dishes, and other miscellaneous stuff lying around my house includes things like a tape measure and (somewhere) a micrometer that belonged to my grandfather, which must be 100 years old, and some beat-up century old Sears mail-order furniture. A settled house in 1900 would have had stuff lying around in the kitchen drawer from 1790. At the other extreme, people often own recently invented objects which are "ahead of their time" -- especially tools of trade. Even today, most gadgets take about twenty years to permeate through society, but early adaptors buy them a few years after they come on the scene. I have not seen the Documentary Parts 2 - 4 yet, but I suspect they will portray the family members scribbling away with steel pointed pens. That is how most people wrote letters in 1900. Most, but not all. If I had been me in 1900, I would have owned a typewriter and a Dictaphone, even though they were expensive. Manual typewriters were pretty good by that time. I used a model 1910 Remington in high school and college. The "1900 House" does not have a telephone or central heating, because these things were not widely available in England until the 1920s. But they were invented decades years earlier, and many U.S. houses already had them. (Sources: "1908 Sears Roebuck catalog," ready-made house section; Amazon.com review, "The Sears, Roebuck Home Builder's Catalog : The Complete Illustrated 1910 Edition," which includes a section on electrical fixtures.) The latest wave-of-the-future gadget, by the way, is the electrically powered scooter. Manual and electric scooters are all the rage in New York City. Mine will be here tomorrow. I'll describe the performance in detail later, after I communte with it for a week and speed test it at a running track. They supposedly go 13 mph (21 kph), with a range of 8 miles (13 km). They have some advantages over bicycles and electrically powered bicycles: they are smaller and lighter, and you can fold them and carry them like a suitcase with wheels on the subway or up the elevator to your office. You can stuff one into a locker. You can ride them on the sidewalk on a busy street. (You are not supposed to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk in most U.S. cities.) The motor is a half-horsepower, or about 373 watts, which makes this the second most energy efficient method of transportation, after bicycles. Assuming battery charging efficiency is 70% (per NREL), this means you can go 13 miles with .533 kWh of energy, or $0.003 per mile. Gasoline at $1.35 per gallon costs $0.068 per mile with most cars, and with hybrid electric car it comes to roughly $0.023. See http://www.zapworld.com/catalog/zappy.html Remember: you heard that first right here on Vortex. Always ahead of the curve. Sometimes too far ahead for our own good. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 14:09:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06150; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:06:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:06:34 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000614160318.0136eb54 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:03:18 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DEo5z3.0.-V1.PF_Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35560 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:22 AM 6/14/00 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote: >That means the basis of any such argument must lie in the particulars of >the experiment, rather than in the generalized properties of the data. OK, now I see your drift. Yes, the above conclusion is correct (and trivial). It is absolutely necessary to consider the particulars of the experiment...otherwise you have no idea what the data represents. If you're not convinced of this, perhaps you should search for a question to which the answer is "42". I could go on to argue all of your points but your reference to proponents of QM as "evil" sorta takes the wind out of my sails. I don't see any point in arguing with a zealot. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 14:33:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14738; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:30:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:30:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20000614213014.53663.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.58] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:30:14 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"FVf_7.0.Cc3.8c_Hv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35561 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: And you guys do to new ideas what was done to your ideas. As I have stated, if it is about bubbles figure how to harness bubbles, that's real ZPE. Cold or hot, making bubbles is what it is all about. I told you all how light slipstreams around the Sun long ago and why the 1.75 was never met. Now Hal comes out just recently with the same type explaination. Only made to fit the old curved void space thermodynamic paradigm. New hat is now old hat since flat space has been proven and cosmological constant is back. You guys need to keep up or get left behind. David ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 15:39:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03707; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:37:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:37:39 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614182710.007a52b0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:27:10 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Science rejects new ideas? In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FA1 xch-evt-10.ca.boe ing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LZb6u3.0.rv.oa0Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35563 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Storms and LaJoie listed some of the reasons for continued skeptical resistance to CF, such as "lack of humility" and "is a lack of courage and a need to appear 'respectable.'" A few leading skeptics, like Huizenga, Morrison and Park have been exposed to experimental data from CF. I think they are guilty as charged. Journal editors who have read and rejected good papers deserve a large share of the blame. The vast majority of others, however, know nothing about the subject, and they have had no opportunity to learn. The information is not published in newspapers or journals. I think it is unfair to blame people for not knowing about obscure events. Educated people in 1905 read in the newspapers and technical journals that large, man-carrying airplanes were a violation of the laws of nature. It was said that nothing larger than a bird can fly, and this assertion was bolstered by impressive looking mathematics and physics from some of the most respected scientists of the day. It *sounded* plausible. Busy professional scientists and engineers did not have had the time to challenge common-knowledge, and they saw no point to challenging it. Can we blame them? People do not have time to go around challenging thousands of textbooks assertions. Yes, the textbooks have been proven wrong before, and it seems likely that more will be overthrown in the future, but unless you devote years of in-depth research to a field, how can you judge what is solid and what isn't? The respected scientists who published the "proof" back in 1905 were honest, and quite convinced themselves that they understood the problem, and airplanes were impossible. There was no cover-up or conspiracy to suppress aviation. The problem was caused by ignorant people who did not realize how ignorant they were. I have spoken to many scientists and engineers who know nothing about CF. A few dismiss it angrily. Many others express no interest. But others are favorably impressed. I feel that if we could only find a way to push the message though to a wider audience, most of the opposition would melt away. Education is another problem, but maybe not because of "low ethical standards in higher eduction." I think the problem is more prosaic. Take energy conservation. People do not conserve energy because they are ignorant, not because they are uncouth vandals. There are no advertisements in the newspapers or television describing the benefits of things like compact flourescent lights. You can read about them in the Scientific American. If you happen to spot one at the hardware store, you might read the sales literature and product comparison on the box. Then, finally, people who understand basic science will be inclined to buy one and test it. (The people reading this list, for example, would take one home, whip out an ammeter and photometer and check performance to the nearest 10%.) People are anxious to clean up the environment. They are willing to pay high taxes to help. They do many stupid, inconvenient and destructive things which they wrongly believe will help, such as washing the labels off of bottles with hot water. Unfortunately, ordinary folks in the U.S. and Japan know next to nothing about basic science, and they cannot judge these issues. I know some highly placed professionals, opinion makers, newspaper editors, lawyers and others who cannot begin to understand compact flourescent lights, co-generators, heat pumps and the other basic energy-related issues. When I try to explain these things, their eyes glaze over. They have no idea what I am talking about. I am not trying to be condescending. I feel the same helpless confusion when the lawyers try to explain to me how the tax laws work. In my experience, Japanese people are just as ignorant as Americans despite their tough education system. However, the nation as a whole implements energy conservation measures more effectively than we do because the leaders take the initiative. They more or less compel people to take measures. One day sometime around 1965, piles of compact flourescent lights showed up in every grocery store and hardware supply house in the country. A year later every house and building in the country was equipped with them, except in the bathroom. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 15:40:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03044; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:34:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:34:09 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:33:51 -0400 Message-Id: <200006142233.SAA03280 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"O_SJP2.0.Il.WX0Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35562 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I and Mitch wrote: >>Braindead Ayn Rand Dogma. > >***{Not exactly encouraging a civil discussion today, eh? Does the wife >have you sleeping on the couch, perhaps? --MJ}*** To inject a bit of factual science content into an otherwise purely idiotic political discussion, I will relate a short story. I was living in Europe in a dorm housing situation once, where many people would live for a few months to a year or so, work long enough to travel to their next destination, and then travel onward. As was the custom there, when a person would leave the place, they would give away what they couldn't carry or they would just leave the door open to their rooms when they left, and people could come in an take what they liked. I found an old Mr. Coffee coffeepot that had been left in a room, took it back to my room and tried it out only to find out that it didn't work. I took it apart, and found that coffee had boiled over into the switch, and there wasn't any electrical contact, so I cleaned the switch, plugged it in and turned it on to see if that would fix it. I didn't have a meter, so I was holding the pot by the heating element to determine if it would get warm. Well I evidently fixed the switch, because the next thing I knew, the thumb and fingers that were in contact with the heating plate clamped together very tightly, and some kind of buzzing AC current was creeping rather slowly up my arm, making it numb, and rendering it unusable. I say rather slowly because I did have time to recognize the fact that my thumb and fingers had formed a primary circuit, and that the creeping stuff was some form of inductive or tranformation electrical process that was shaped actually, similar to the primary circuit. It was a fascinating and a physically pleasant thing in some ways to experience. It tickled parts of my brain. I had time to formulate more thoughts as well, and came to the realization that I could not let go of the thing, and that the electricity was moving up my left arm towards my HEART. I realized that once that happened, I was a goner. At that moment, I then used every muscle that I still could control, and threw my entire body away from the wall socket, which unplugged me and the coffeepot and broke the circuit. All I wanted was a cheap, convenient cup of coffee, after all. I found similarities between this experience and reading Ayn Rand. The effect that her writing had on me was an easy thing for me to recognize, but a difficult thing for me shake. I found that her writing style has a profound effect on peoples' brains because of her use of long and repetitive diatribes that are quite similar to many other brainwashing or mind control techniques. Her writing style takes simple, naive ideas, and by a method of repetition turns them into braindead dogma. I found that when I would meet someone who had read Ayn Rand, I could pick up their language patterns quiet easily, and their self-massaged brains would fall into a hypnotic state whenever they were using the same cadence or rhythms that she did in her books. They would become like zombies that were oblivious to what was happening around them, and only capable of acting or thinking within a certain, very narrow set of rules or mindset. Their actions could be very easily controlled by someone knowlegable in that particular art, simply by leading them around using the same images and keywords that Ayn Rand used to describe her perfect fantasy of happy individuals making wonderful products or working on technological solutions to their problems and selling them in what she termed the "free marketplace", unfettered by any form of regulation by the "parasitic bureacracies" such as government. Like I said, she was a simplistic purist or an idealist who was more than a bit naive, and her work found acceptance by a large underground audience in this country during a time when there was a great deal of social injustice and unrest, coupled with an increase of the illegal use of hypnotic drugs such as marijuana by the newly emerging, liberal arts educated, literati. Her bubbleheaded economic theory was laughable, but as a lingual hypnotist working with the written word of the English language alone, she was on par with the best. A true mesmerist in the classic tradition. She didn't invent Capitalism, she merely made it difficult for people (almost impossible for some) to separate the allegorical fantasy world that she created from the actual reality by thinking rationally. By the time someone read one of her books from cover to cover, they became stupid, boring, pedantic parrots, chanting her words in perfect cadence like they were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or something. I saw it happen a hundred times with various dopers that I knew, and it was a truly hilarious thing to observe. > I hope the Russians don't turn into zombies. > >***{The Russian people have had fascist or socialist parasites sucking >their blood throughout their history, and you begrudge them a shot at >freedom? Why? --MJ}*** I don't begrudge them a thing actually, and freedom the least of all. In fact, I hope that the people of Russia are smart enough to see what has happened in this country as a result of Ayn Rand's mentality, and are able to avoid it. I hope that they don't turn into a bunch of hypnotized consumers of irrational products that that will shorten their lifespan. They can't afford that nonsense, and they should know that. They have some very difficult, huge in fact, environmental and economic problems that cannot be solved in a timely enough of a fashion for most of them to survive if pure Capitalistic mechanisms are put into place. Those people need a young woman's fairytale economic philosophical trance state like they need more radioactive waste in their soil and water. They need a larger and stronger military equally as much. They have to do the exact opposite, which is to wake up, shake it off, and act fast in an intelligent way or they will die in massive numbers. They have to take care of each other, rather than begin the trampling of each other in greed as the people of the US have done to others and each other. >***{Whether elected or unelected, fascist governments do less damage to >their victims than socialist ones. If you compare infant mortality rates, longevity, actual per capita income, availability and cost of healthcare, length of vacation time, availability of paid sick time, opportunities in the workplace for women, availability of childcare for women with children who want to have a career, racial equality, availability of unlimited free education, the number of hours in the average workweek and numerous other quality of life factors between fascist countries and socialist ones, the advantages available for the people in the socialist countries outweigh the ones available to the people in the fascist countries by a staggering amount. That is why socialism is so popular and well defended in Europe. They have seen the end results of the pure forms of both Capitalism and Communism, and have picked the best features of both in a democratic fashion. They have, for the most part, rejected overt fascism. It has been working quite well in most of Europe since the end of WWII. What you are saying is simply untrue. Naturally, they are constantly being pressured and at times to some degree, temporarily influenced by some unhealthy ideas, but on the whole, they have been quite well educated TO THINK rationally, rather than expound rote dogma, a very important and overlooked factor, and can, for the most, part see through the linguistic programming of the ones who have agendas that are not in their best, longterm interests. The reason is simple: under socialism, >the citizens retain no rights at all, whereas under fascism, they at least >retain the hollow form of rights. This is funny. I think there may some misunderstanding between the way you are using the term socialism and the way I use it. I think you equate it with pure communism, and I do not. Socialism, as I have seen it practiced in numerous European countries, allows for democracy and a regulated form of Capitalism to work together with a socialistic vision for the betterment of the entire society. It does so without sacrificing the rights of the individual to the extent that that occurs under fascism, Communism or Capitalism, in fact, it protects those rights quite well. The Europeans own their own property, have a much higher quality of life, enjoy more freedoms actually, and participate actively in a larger number of available political groups to express their individual ideas, concerns and desires. Those ideas are enacted or made manifest in a much more representative fashion than they would be here in the US, where you have two main parties that are both owned by the same corporations. And, so long as the judicial system of a >nation retains at least a facade of rights, some market based economic >activity will continue. That's why Pinochet, despite his faults, >undoubtedly saved Chile from a far worse fate, which would surely have been >visited upon it if Allende, a self-admitted communist, had retained power. >--MJ}*** We will never know what would have happened in Chile under Allende, since he and so many of his supporters were killed, so logically, it is not really possible to make any projections, is it? >***{Every government on this planet, with the exception of a handful of >socialist abattoirs such as North Korea and Cuba, is fascist. I think Mitch, that you have been reading too much literature of a certain kind, have adopted an almost childish political outlook and don't know what is really happening in the world. If you traveled, and lived outside of the US for a long period, especially looking at the European countries, you would see that the majority of those countries are quite far from being fascist. In fact, you might also pick up on the fact that there is no poverty or starvation in most of the European countries. It has been outlawed - what a concept, eh? The food and drinking water contain no chemical poison, nor has the food been secretly altered genetically. That has likewise been outlawed for reasons which are obvious to truly intelligent, thinking people. Pollution laws are much more stringent, are more widely observed and enforced better. Women, people of color, and other minorities are allowed, encouraged, and financially assisted to get an education to better themselves if they desire, and they are treated equally, again for the most part, in the workplace. There are still some minor quirks in every country, but overall the quality of life and the number of freedoms enjoyed are higher for *everyone* over there than they are in any other part of the world. If the Americans were not so drunk on their military might and hypnotized by emptyheaded, economic philosophy novelists, perhaps they might see that there are alternative ways of living that are much better. It may require that they travel around with their blinders off for a while, and encouraged to think at least once in a while, but I know that it would be worthwhile. It certainly was for me. Under >fascism, minorities tend to be slaughtered (if you doubt this, ask a Branch >Davidian, if you can find one), and there are more than a hundred fascist >governments on this planet right now the leaders of which have killed >enough of their own citizens to make Pinochet look like a saint by >comparison. Given that state of affairs, by what logic do you see fit to >bitch about him? Well, I responded mainly because you were holding Pinochet up as an example of a good leader. I don't think that he was, and I've given my reasons for that. Obviously his the rest of the world and his own countrymen didn't think much of him either, and it took quite a long time for them to peacefully wrest control over their country away from him. He lives now surrounded by a small, paid security force, and only because he held too many secrets about too many people. He was a smart operator in that way. Any leader who thinks that he or she needs to slaughter, disappear or starve to death his or her opposition though, is ultimately not too smart and one that I would have to speak out against. I know that he wasn't the worst leader on Earth, but he was one of them. I cannot endorse his actions, and yet somehow you seem to think that he is a saint. It is your logic that has always escaped me. He is an old man, and a better fascist than most. Go after >the real butchers first, starting with socialist dirtbags such as Castro >and Kim Joon Il, and work your way down. If you do so, you will get to >Clinton and Bush long before you get to Pinochet. --MJ}*** I don't know what his age has to do with anything unless you are just trying to get me to feel a natural fondness for the aged and apply it to an aged mass murderer. I do go after real butchers as well, as you may have noticed from my posts. I didn't bring Pinochet up, you did. I start with Clinton/Gore, Reagan/Bush and their crowd of corporate owners because by the sheer numbers alone, they have really stood out in terms of the number of people that they have slaughtered militarily and intentionally starved to death with economic sanctions or failure to give aid based on the economic philosophy and cooperative mood of the indigenous people of other countries. I realize that they are just puppets of the real bad guys, but they volunteered to be that, so they are bad as well. At no time in the history of mankind has this small a number of people been responsible for the deaths of such a large number of people. I don't know how you rank butchers, but that is how I do it. Their calculated actions have been so grossly heinous that they have resorted to hiding them from their own people in a ridiculous attempt to maintain their images as decent human beings. They have failed, obviously, and too many nations of the world are now busy arming themselves for WWIII, a battle for their freedom from the US corporate slave policy. As soon as they see their chance, they will take it, and everyone will suffer. If you have any friends that are decent human beings and are citizens of any other country, just ask them for an honest answer about that. It is a very grave concern for many people. >>His predecessor, Allende, was no sweetheart either however, from the stories >>that I got from friends living there. Many of them had their houses >>ransacked, and were deported at gunpoint immediately after his victory. > >***{And it was just beginning. Based on what happened in other nations >where communist governments took power, the streets would soon have been >red with blood, if Pinochet had not done what he did. For that reason, it >is *very* likely that, in the net, his coup save lives. --MJ}*** I think that you jump to false conclusions about what would have occurred in Chile had we not militarily taken it over, with the same quickness that you believe that a pile of rocks in a less than perfectly random formation on another planet is proof of intelligent life currently living or having previously lived there. Much of this based on some "photo enhancement" algorthms that are actually nothing more than geometric pattern generators. Given your background in mathmatics, this is yet another example of some very faulty logic. Of course geometric patterns are what you will see in those photos because that is what those programs are designed to produce. If I recall correctly, you have also expressed a paranoia of these fantasy outerspace creatures to such an extent that it justifies in your mind the arming of all future space probes with thermonuclear weaponry to defend our "right" to send exploratory tubules to their home planets. Perhaps your military training in the Air Force has had something to do with this, I don't know. Perhaps by expounding these beliefs, you would benefit from this financially, again I don't know. I do know that it seems to be pretty easy these days to suggest to a believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy that they should arm themselves to the hilt and preemptively kill everybody (both real, and imagined) who doesn't intone the same things that Ayn did (and in the same rhythmic pattern, too). Do you now perchance, work for the arms industry, military intelligence or the nuclear power industry, or are you a retired hobbyist of some sort that just can't shake your military training with your intellect? I realize that it is difficult, having encountered it entirely too many times. In your Air Force, death from the sky, military career, did you ever notice that everyone around you was wearing the same outfit, and had the same bad haircut? Did you notice that they all lived in the same design of house, ate the same foods, bought everything from the same store (The PX) and said the same things about all of it? Did you notice that the hierarchy and paygrade was based on the number of people that a person controlled in every way, and the number of people that they could kill, instead of the other way around? Did you notice that the more creatively aggressive opinions were rewarded with a higher rank and paygrade? Surely, you did. Did you ever stop and think that maybe some of the aggressive military actions were just a sadistic excuse to use more weaponry than was necessary to stop a threat that in many cases was not even really there in the first place, simply for the financial benefit of the arms suppliers? It must have crossed your mind at one point. Did you yourself ever consciously engender a false paranoia in others to generate more funding for the military or yourself? Did you ever stop and think that for a person who thinks of himself as being dedicated to finding the truth, saving lives, protecting his own freedom, and owning property, that signing away for years of your life, 24 hour a day, absolute control over everything you own, even including your very mind and body to an organization of mass killers might pose an enormous contradiction between your proposed philosophy and actual reality? I would have. I think that it has damaged your abilities to think in any other way than the way you have been trained. I think you need to look up the word non-conformist, and see that you could not possibly be one. >***{Actually, Allende was democratically elected because the majority of >the people, in every nation on Earth, is comprised of unreasoning, >other-directed, functionally illiterate fools. Allende was the beast from >hell that most Chileans deserved, and Pinochet was the man who prevented >them from being consumed by the flames which they had ignited. Naturally, >since he prevented their illusions from being shattered, most of them look >with nostalgia at "what might have been," and resent Pinochet for saving >them from themselves. --MJ}*** (snip) >***{Which Rockefeller? Nelson? David? Was this before Allende was >overthrown, or after? --MJ}*** I don't recall which of the Rockefellers it was, but he was with the State Department at the time, and delivering a small wad of US taxpayer cash which was nominally supposed to be aid for the poor into the hands of a corrupt few in the Chilean government in return for allowing the US to exploit their country's mineral resources and cheap labor. If you yourself were a functionally literate person who traveled and knew real history by experience, then you would have at the very least read my entire post which stated that I landed there in 1969, before Allende was even elected. Like I said before, it was the excessive exploitation of the people and resources of that country by the US that led to Allende's democratic election, and his decision to take the mines back. Are you getting any of this? Hello? >>Allende probably would have lasted a bit longer if he hadn't cut off his >>diplomatic relationships with the US, and hadn't nationalized the US owned >>banks and coppermines. > >***{Typical move of a stupid communist thug. They all think they can run >companies better than their owners, but they never succeed. All they do is >destroy the economies of the nations that they control, and consign the >citizenry to lives that are short, miserable, and for the most part richly >deserved. --MJ}*** I think what actually happened was that they were all killed by the CIA and Pinochet's goon squads. In fact, that is exactly what I and many others know happened. The number of people slaughtered at the outset, and the number of "disappeared" after the fact is quite well documented. I don't understand why anyone would contest what was a very well documented event in history, unless they have some reason to do so. What is your reason for doing that? [snip] >***{So far, it's just talk. Putin is pushing a 13% flat tax which, if >implemented (likely) will give the Russian federation a tax rate *vastly* >lower than that of the U.S. That's a good start, but much more is >needed--to wit: a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sanctity of >private property rights, the selling off of the remaining state >enterprises, cold-turkey economic deregulation, the elimination of tariffs, >and so on. The road from socialist slavery to capitalism and freedom is a >long one, and, unfortunately, passes through fascism--which is where Russia >is right now. The good news, however, is this: communism consumes an >economy down to the bare walls, thereby leaving little for a transitional >fascist government to steal. Result: the possibility exists that Russia >will not linger in the fascist phase very long, before moving on to laissez >faire capitalism. If they do, then they will dominate the 21st century the >way the United States dominated the 20th, and Putin will be honored by >future historians as the father of his country. I hope it happens because, >as a very wise man said long ago, "Where freedom is, there is my country." >--MJ}*** I hope Putin loves the people of his country enough to work for the real freedoms from starvation, ignorance, death, disease, guilt and fear. If he allows the more predatory form of Capitalism that you are advocating to get a foothold in his country, he will have all of the negatives listed above sitting in his lap in short order. We have them in our country right now. He should work more closely with the European governments, in particular the Czechs, to bring his country on track. Havel is a good man, and I think, big enough inside to offer real help to the Russian government if that is what they really want. Hopefully, all those governments in that area will realize that a healthy, well educated, intelligent, considerate Russia will be good for their countries as well, and give Putin some honest advice on how to achieve that in a more mentally balanced way. If any one country tries to exploit the other, it will come to light, and any trust that was built between them will be lost. They all have too much to lose right now. As for the US government, they need to have the collective brain of the military industrial complex analysed, and their covert actions reigned in before it is too late. The same goes for the barbaric economic practices of the Fortune 500 on Wall Street. If we don't make some large and very real changes soon, we will be overwhelmed by the number of countries that will have very good reasons for attacking us in one fashion or another. Barring that, I would say let's just get it over with and take over the world militarily. Forget about the free marketplace altogether. Then everyone can all wear the same clothes, eat the same food, shop at the big PX, say the same things, and have the same bad haircut. I will be dead of course on all counts, as I am quite a stylish, unique and cantankerous fellow, but statistically, it could easily be proven by a person of your talents that I never did even exist at all using the appropriate algorthms, so it shouldn't make any difference to someone like you. In fact, it could be argued that by preemptively killing me for any crimes that I would undoubtedly commit in the future, based upon your perceived behavior pattern of all those functionally illiterate fools that have expressed an opinion other than Ayn Rand's, you may, *very* well indeed, in the net, save many lives. Right? It would be a perfectly logical thing for you to do, based on your own past behaviors, I think. As with my exchange with Rothwell, I am going to give you the last word on this thread. I've presented my thoughts on the matter to the best of my ability, and don't see the need to go any further with it. "Trench warfare" has never been for this kid. Think what you will, or perhaps better in your case, think what you can ;) Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 16:09:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19384; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:06:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:06:31 -0700 Message-ID: <00de01bfd654$a811d0c0$58627dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F9C xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Subject: Re: Science rejects new ideas? Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:02:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"R1z_T3.0.nk4.s_0Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35564 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: LaJoie, Stephen A To: Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 1:41 PM Subject: RE: Science rejects new ideas? > > The problem is that there are people who have forgotten or have rejected the > scientific method. Ten years after the fact, people who made the mistake of > rejecting a hypothesis that an experiment did not test continue to voice their > unscientific opinions despite far more recent evidence that proves the > hypothesis is correct. The problem is that they are intellectually lazy and > dismiss ALL experimental results that prove the hypothesis as "experimental > error" because they've made up their minds ten years ago in error! While walking to the ICCF conference in Lerici recently, I had the company of Doug Morrison, who started telling me his opinion of the new book, _Excess Heat_, by Beaudette. He was comparing it to _Mallove's Fire From Ice_, saying that Mallove's was much less biased. I said that Mallove wrote the book fairly early on, and was giving consideration to both sides of the controversy. He then started in on the F & P faulty neutron measurement, hammering on it like it meant something. I emphasized that it was not significant because they were not physicists, so such measurements should not have raised such a fuss. After all, they admitted they made a mistake. No, Morrison was intent on impressing me on his rightness then and his rightness now. I didn't say much as I realized how pathetic this man is, but I did ask if there was anything at the conference he found interesting. He said, "there's nothing new." I asked about McKubre's presentation that showed his data for 3He concentration data 4 orders of magnitude above background in a Case cell. All he said was "It's interesting." The next day, after Fleischmann's talk, Morrison informed Fleischmann and the rest of us infidels that he was there to help us to do good experiments. I'm sure he had himself convinced at least. Edward Wall New Energy Research Laboratory Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816 (603) 226-4822 fax (603) 224-5975 ewall infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 14 23:02:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA30508; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:01:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:01:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3948720A.38198469 home.com> Disposition-Notification-To: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:04:58 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------051FE21D6D838BF8FBADA27E" Resent-Message-ID: <"se2FQ1.0.cS7.K57Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35565 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------051FE21D6D838BF8FBADA27E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Regarding initial hostility to new ideas, we've seen this over and over to a depressing degree in all fields, but are we also succumbing to the same syndrome? I'm now convinced that the nature of physical reality is such that the underpinnings of the scientific method as practiced are invalid! In a bizarre self-referential way, the scientific method has shown that it is itself invalid. I think that means that the model of reality on which it is based is not accurate. First I'll start with the experiments that show that retro-causality exists. That means that the past can be edited. That fact alone invalidates the entire infrastructure of science. Think about it. ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/ Of the many hundreds of studies in this and related fields, the experiments are done with higher standards than most because of all the criticism of them, and the results are unequivocal. Jessica Utts, professor of statistics at UC Davis, has analyzed many such experiments and concluded that effects are real well beyond any doubt. I recently returned from the Second Annual Remote Viewing Conference, Mesquite Nevada ( http://www.RVconference.org/ ) and participated in a number of amazing happenings. You want overunity energy production? Please explain this: Jack Houck, a Boing engineer gave a PK party. I was there and personally witnessed excess heat! Can you explain that with physics? I don't think so. Of the hundred or so people at the party, ~60% were able to soften metal to almost the liquid state. I personally felt a spoon get quite hot in the process. No calorimeter necessary. In many cases the object was not being touched at all where it deformed. The children and non-technically trained do best because they haven't yet learned it's impossible. Bending 3/8 in. extruded Al rods was common among the youngsters. Techies do the worst. I brought a length of Silicon Carbide hoping an expert could bend this unbendable material, but the party atmosphere and chaotic activity precluded that. At another time, I successfully, and to me quite spectacularly, was able to precognitively remote view and draw an image that was to be projected on the screen 5 minutes in the future that hadn't even been selected yet. Often these random selections are done with carefully calibrated real random number generators seeded by nuclear or semiconductor noise sources. Explain that one! ( But then we know that nuclear decay can be influenced by intent, so I guess that invalidates that :-) ). http://www.mindsonginc.com/products/index.html http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/core2.html http://www.lfr.org/csl/index.shtml http://www.crviewer.com/ http://www.visallnet.com/ http://p-i-a.com/ I've been to a PK craps workshop in Las Vegas given by Joe Gallenberger, a Monroe Institute trainer. In many cases the people rolling the dice are able to do it quite a while without rolling a 7. The record is 1 hour 15 minutes. The probability of that is vanishingly small unless PK was extant. One dealer said he'd never seen anything like that before. So what does that say about the experimental results in anomalous energy experiments? Is it fair to ignore these results but complain that others ignore cold fusion data? The evidence is that the results of those or any other experiments are based on the desire, imagination, and expectation of the experimenter! (And remember, past results can be edited too -- retro-causality again.) The objectivist idea (promulgated by Ayn Rand) that reality exists independent of the observer is clearly incorrect in this domain. It is correct at another level, however. So what model is correct? The only one I can think of that can explain all the observed anomalies is best explained via a software/virtual reality analogy. Assume that everything in your physical reality is a model running on a cosmic computer (you're in a Holodeck). Retro-causality is just stopping the model, editing the state vector and possibly the algorithm, backing up the clock and restarting. You can choose to remember doing that or not, but usually not. It is sort of like taking back a move in chess though, it's not really playing the game. The evidence clearly shows that we each get our own private holodeck, no two states or models are identical, but there is enough information sharing to keep some kind of consistency, but less than most people imagine (there are experiments to show that--but wait-- I already showed that experiments are invalid :-( ). That's why there are so many disagreements and arguments about results--the models are not entirely in sync-- both parties are right! It's not in general possible for a modeled entity to understand the machinery upon which the model itself is running. We are a special case and do have that capacity. It is misguided to try to understand ultimate reality based on the rules of a particular model running in it. Trying to explain the overlying machinery based on experiments from inside the model itself are going to be ineffective and confusing. The machinery, or cosmic computer, is entirely deterministic, although vast beyond comprehension, and does run on some rather simple principles-- kind of a vast database of active objects constantly forming links to like objects in all possible ways. The evidence also shows that there are no secrets-- All information is available to everyone all the time, there's no kind of "file protection", and every thought ever though exists in the database perpetually. Nothing is inaccessible by a good remote viewer. (This caused some distress in the military RV program, as the viewers accessed material they weren't supposed to know :-) ). e.g. The best there is: Joe McMoneagle http://www.mceagle.com/ So does pre-cognitive remote viewing imply pre-destination? I don't think so. It's not pre-cognition at all but actually programming that event to happen. I'm beginning to see, though, why subjects such as these are often avoided, and validly so. It's because it's not playing the game. Most people like a fixed set of rules and an unchanging model, and that's fine. You wouldn't change the rules of chess in the middle of the game. Scientists who are doing QM experiments are openening the door and pushing the limits of this physical model, which yields anomalies. I, for one, as an engineer, have more fun investigating the mechanism of the game rather than playing it. Yours Truly, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Phoenix -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------051FE21D6D838BF8FBADA27E Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------051FE21D6D838BF8FBADA27E-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 03:32:05 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA10628; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:29:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:29:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20000615102830.72872.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.47] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:28:30 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"eYV3G.0.-b2.k_AIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35566 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hoyt, are a real Phoenix? My experience says the Earth is still a sphere no matter what, even if it appears to everyone it is hollow burning pit. There is illusion, there is reality. Hard line to draw but that's the fun of it all! My dream says a whirlpool can generate electricity. Doesn't mean it will, doesn't mean it won't. My wishing will not make it one way or the other. My wishing might get it built and tested. I think it could do it once, it could do it twice, it could do it thrice, and still fail on the fourth and not ever do it again. That's why the Scientific Method is important, IMO. A hypnotist can cause folks to see and believe anything, even groups of folks. Happens all the time. Consciousness is fluid. But no matter if you think you are talking to a butterfly if you do it in the middle of an interstate super high way a big rig will not recognize your butterfly. There is a reality, there is a seperate reality, but where the rubber meets the road real is real. My work is progressing very well despite a %99 put down rate over 10,000 archived pages. We have built the first whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded history and are building more. Very recently another seperate individual is daring to ask and also reports, no data found, no recognition by science, no testing, no nothin'. But has found a collection of stories and the only known photo of the giant whirlpool. Pretty neat stuff. Looks just like the photo on my splash page. http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html Top vortex experts are helping now. Tests have been announced by scientists at NASA and universities, even a High School. I will get this data, one way or another. David Dennard A REAL Phoenix http://www.whirlpower.cc >From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Subject: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. >Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:04:58 -0700 > > > >Regarding initial hostility to new ideas, we've seen this >over and over to a depressing degree in all fields, but are >we also succumbing to the same syndrome? > >I'm now convinced that the nature of physical reality is such >that the underpinnings of the scientific method as practiced are >invalid! > >In a bizarre self-referential way, the scientific method has shown >that it is itself invalid. I think that means that the model of reality >on which it is based is not accurate. > >First I'll start with the experiments that show >that retro-causality exists. That means that the past can be edited. > >That fact alone invalidates the entire infrastructure of science. > >Think about it. > >ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/ > >Of the many hundreds of studies in this and related fields, >the experiments are done with higher standards than most because of >all the criticism of them, and the results are unequivocal. > >Jessica Utts, professor of statistics at UC Davis, >has analyzed many such experiments >and concluded that effects are real well beyond any doubt. > >I recently returned from the Second Annual Remote Viewing Conference, >Mesquite Nevada ( http://www.RVconference.org/ ) and participated >in a number of amazing happenings. > >You want overunity energy production? Please explain this: > >Jack Houck, a Boing engineer gave a PK party. I was there and >personally >witnessed excess heat! Can you explain that with physics? I don't >think so. Of the hundred or so people at the party, ~60% were able >to soften metal to almost the liquid state. I personally felt >a spoon get quite hot in the process. No calorimeter necessary. > >In many cases the object was not being touched at all where it >deformed. The children and non-technically trained do best >because they haven't yet learned it's impossible. Bending >3/8 in. extruded Al rods was common among the youngsters. > >Techies do the worst. I brought a length of Silicon Carbide hoping >an expert could bend this unbendable material, but the party >atmosphere and chaotic activity precluded that. > >At another time, I successfully, and to me quite spectacularly, >was able to precognitively remote view and draw an image that was to be >projected on the screen 5 minutes in the future that hadn't even >been selected yet. Often these random selections are done >with carefully calibrated real random number generators seeded >by nuclear or semiconductor noise sources. Explain that one! >( But then we know that nuclear decay can be influenced by intent, >so I guess that invalidates that :-) ). > >http://www.mindsonginc.com/products/index.html >http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ >http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/core2.html >http://www.lfr.org/csl/index.shtml >http://www.crviewer.com/ >http://www.visallnet.com/ >http://p-i-a.com/ > >I've been to a PK craps workshop in Las Vegas given by Joe Gallenberger, >a Monroe Institute trainer. In many cases the people rolling the dice >are able to do it quite a while without rolling a 7. The record >is 1 hour 15 minutes. The probability of that is vanishingly small >unless PK was extant. One dealer said he'd never seen anything like >that >before. > >So what does that say about the experimental results in >anomalous energy experiments? > >Is it fair to ignore these results but complain that others >ignore cold fusion data? > >The evidence is that the results of those or any other experiments >are based on the desire, imagination, and expectation >of the experimenter! (And remember, past results can be edited >too -- retro-causality again.) > >The objectivist idea (promulgated by Ayn Rand) that reality >exists independent of the observer is clearly incorrect in >this domain. It is correct at another level, however. > >So what model is correct? > >The only one I can think of that can explain all the observed >anomalies is best explained via a software/virtual reality analogy. > >Assume that everything in your physical reality is a model >running on a cosmic computer (you're in a Holodeck). > >Retro-causality is just stopping the model, editing the state >vector and possibly the algorithm, backing up the clock and restarting. > >You can choose to remember doing that or not, but usually not. > >It is sort of like taking back a move in chess though, it's not really >playing the game. > >The evidence clearly shows that we each get our own private holodeck, >no two states or models are identical, but there is enough information >sharing to keep some kind of consistency, but less than most >people imagine (there are experiments to show that--but wait-- >I already showed that experiments are invalid :-( ). > >That's why there are so many disagreements and arguments about >results--the models are not entirely in sync-- both parties are >right! > >It's not in general possible for a modeled entity >to understand the machinery upon which the model itself is running. > >We are a special case and do have that capacity. > >It is misguided to try to understand ultimate reality based >on the rules of a particular model running in it. > >Trying to explain the overlying machinery >based on experiments from inside the model itself are >going to be ineffective and confusing. > >The machinery, or cosmic computer, is entirely deterministic, >although vast beyond comprehension, and does run on some rather >simple principles-- kind of a vast database of active objects >constantly forming links to like objects in all possible ways. > >The evidence also shows that there are no secrets-- >All information is available to everyone all the time, >there's no kind of "file protection", and every thought >ever though exists in the database perpetually. >Nothing is inaccessible by a good remote viewer. > >(This caused some distress in the military RV program, as >the viewers accessed material they weren't supposed to know :-) ). > >e.g. The best there is: Joe McMoneagle http://www.mceagle.com/ > >So does pre-cognitive remote viewing imply pre-destination? >I don't think so. It's not pre-cognition at all but actually >programming that event to happen. > >I'm beginning to see, though, why subjects such as these >are often avoided, and validly so. It's because it's not playing >the game. Most people like a fixed set of rules and an unchanging >model, and that's fine. You wouldn't change the rules of chess >in the middle of the game. > >Scientists who are doing QM experiments are openening the door >and pushing the limits of this physical model, which yields >anomalies. > >I, for one, as an engineer, have more fun investigating the >mechanism of the game rather than playing it. > > >Yours Truly, > >Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. >Phoenix >-- >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 ><< hoyt-stearns.vcf >> ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 06:29:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02766; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:26:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:26:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3948D2A9.B3187410 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 05:57:13 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" CC: Jed Rothwell Subject: [Fwd: Re: Your ICCF-8 Video recording availability] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zID913.0.4h.3cDIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35567 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 15, 2000 Vortex, As indicated below, the ICCF-8 tapes are available at about $15.00 per cassette in whatever format you desire. NTSC for the U.S..I have inquired of the total cost including shipping and payment method. This should come out later. I have ordered the entire set. Compared to my tapes, ICCF-8 seems to have a shorter recording of the Conference. This could be because of full tapes. I'll see. The secretariat has not indicated the order turnaround time or other details inquired about in my letter. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Your ICCF-8 Video recording availability Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:25:19 +0200 From: ICCF8 ENEA <> To: Akira Kawasaki Dear Mr. Kawasaki, sorry for the delay of our reply. But I asked information about the videotape to the technician. There are 6 tapes of the whole Conference and each of them costs 30.000 italian lire. If you are not interested in all of them you can choose some or one of them. It's enough for me to know which one do you prefer. Which means that you have to indicate the name of the speaker and the day he spoke (for example: if you were interested in Mr. Rouussetskii speech it's enough you say: A. Roussetskii, 24 May, wednesday, Morning session). Anyway, let us know as soon as you can. Moreover you should indicate if you use a particular system for videorecorder, like for example the NTSC. Waiting for news we send you best regards. Simona Ferri ICCF8 Secretariat At 17.09 11/06/00 -0700, you wrote: >June 10, 2,000 > >Dear Secretariat, > >I would like to thank the ICCF-8 organization for conducting the >Conference at the Marigola site --- right on the "Bay of the Poets". I >and my wife enjoyed the bit of history of the bay tied to the English >poets, Shelly and Byron and author Marie Shelly (of Frankenstein). We >also visited Keat's residence in Rome where Shelly also often visited. > >I understand ICCF-8 will be making available a video tape of the >Conference. If this is so, when do you estimate it will become available >and its cost. Will the recording be the complete Conference transactions >or edited highlights with commentary? > >Also, when is the estimated time the published Proceedings become >available? > >Sincerely, >Akira Kawasaki, ICCF-8 Participant > ICCF8 Secretary Maria Luisa Ciceroni Tel +39-06-94005854 Fax +39-06-94005855 Conference Web site <> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 07:17:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27454; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:12:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:12:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3948E56F.66B6A223 bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:17:19 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. References: <3948720A.38198469 home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"At8kB1.0.pi6.HHEIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35568 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." wrote: > > Regarding initial hostility to new ideas, we've seen this > over and over to a depressing degree in all fields, but are > we also succumbing to the same syndrome? > > I'm now convinced that the nature of physical reality is such > that the underpinnings of the scientific method as practiced are > invalid! > > In a bizarre self-referential way, the scientific method has shown > that it is itself invalid. I think that means that the model of reality > on which it is based is not accurate. There are a group of physicists who are trying to resolve the issues you mention. Their call it post quantum science. It certainly explains "action at a distance" but goes far beyond with some bizarre implications. The "quantum mind" concept is based on Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's research into the brain as a quantum computer. A good summary of their and others' work is on Tony Smith's web site at: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/QuanCon.html Public archives of Hameroff's moderated listserver are available at: http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html The issues argued here become trivial under the science of these gentlemen. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 10:21:09 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05647; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:16:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:16:34 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000614160318.0136eb54 earthtech.org> References: <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:15:15 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"9dDwW2.0.9O1.ozGIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35569 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >At 11:22 AM 6/14/00 -0500, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>That means the basis of any such argument must lie in the particulars of >>the experiment, rather than in the generalized properties of the data. > >OK, now I see your drift. Yes, the above conclusion is correct (and >trivial). ***{It isn't "trivial" to clarify what the requirements of proof are, Scott. The fact of the matter is that, in order to experimentally demonstrate indeterminism, it would be necessary to unearth data that could not have been produced by a deterministic process. In that regard, there are three possible forms that such an argument might take: (1) You might come up with some generalized statistical property of a data stream--something analogous to randomness--which supposedly could not be produced by a deterministic process. In such a case, it would be possible to program that criterion into a computer and do generalized testing of data streams, to see if examples of indeterminism could be found. (2) You might come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic explanation *could not* be applied. To do that, you would have to demonstrate either that the cause did not precede the effect, or that there was no continuous spatial pathway by which entities could move from the location of the cause to the location of the effect. (3) You might come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic explanation *had not* been applied. The premise of such a line of reasoning, naturally, would be that anything which is unexplained must be attributed to indeterminism. Since I flatly proved that (1) is impossible, since (2) is self-evidently impossible, since (3) is a ridiculous non sequitur, since (1), (2), and (3) taken together demolish all attempts to demonstrate indeterminism, and since "quantum mechanical entanglement" is a species of indeterminism, it follows that no experimental demonstration of quantum mechanical entanglement is possible, even in principle. --Mitchell Jones}*** It is absolutely necessary to consider the particulars of the >experiment...otherwise you have no idea what the data represents. If >you're not convinced of this, perhaps you should search for a question to >which the answer is "42". ***{What is the specific form of your argument, Scott? Are you claiming that the Aspect experiment demonstrates indeterminism by method (1), (2), or (3) above? Or do you claim that some fourth type of argument can be applied? If so, please explain what it is. --MJ}*** > >I could go on to argue all of your points but your reference to proponents >of QM as "evil" sorta takes the wind out of my sails. ***{By "proponents of quantum mechanics," I refer exclusively to those who adhere to the so called "Copenhagen interpretation," or one of its modern variants, and who behave as committed adherents to that interpretation. And I mean *real* adherents. I'm not talking about naive individuals who, after reading such garbage as part of the required material in a college course, remain confused about it, or who assume it cannot mean what it seems to mean. You, for example, have endorsed the field theoretic interpretation of gravity, which implies that force bearing entities are leaping into existence out of nothing to deliver the force to objects that are affected by gravity. However, that is an implication which you have denied. Therefore, since you have in the past *denied* that you are a believer that things leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing, I assumed you would recognize that the remark about evil was *not* aimed at you, and I have no idea why it would "take the wind out of [your] sails." Evil exists in the world, Scott. That's a fact. And sometimes it is worthwhile to talk about it. --MJ}*** I don't see any >point in arguing with a zealot. ***{While my references to stupidity and evil were not aimed at you, your "zealot" label is clearly aimed at me. Therefore you are either alleging that I exhibit strong commitment to a cause, or that I exhibit an excessive commitment to a cause--probably the latter. I fail, however, to see how that state of affairs, even if true, would imply that there is no point in arguing with me. (I, for example, argue because it is an efficient way to test my opinions, rather than because I expect to change the mind of my opponent. (I have never won an argument because I was right. If you doubt this, simply ask anyone who has argued with me. :-) --MJ}*** > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 10:37:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12020; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:34:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:34:48 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FA4 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:00:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"RG27V2.0.jx2.tEHIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35570 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > ---------- > From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.[SMTP:hoyt-stearns home.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 11:04 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. > > [snip] > You want overunity energy production? Please explain this: > > Jack Houck, a Boing engineer gave a PK party. I was there and > personally > witnessed excess heat! Can you explain that with physics? I don't > think so. Of the hundred or so people at the party, ~60% were able > to soften metal to almost the liquid state. I personally felt > a spoon get quite hot in the process. No calorimeter necessary. > [snip] > So what does that say about the experimental results in > anomalous energy experiments? > Nothing. It is totally unrelated. > Is it fair to ignore these results but complain that others > ignore cold fusion data? > Nope. Please tell us how to do this so so that we can reproduce it. If we don't know that, then it is an interesting claim that isn't worth bothering with because we cannot validate it ourselves or otherwise test it. [snip] > The objectivist idea (promulgated by Ayn Rand) that reality > exists independent of the observer is clearly incorrect in > this domain. It is correct at another level, however. > 1) Why, even given that your claims to PK are valid. and 2) The objectivist idea isn't just Ayn Rand. The idea that the physical world is the same for all observers and knowable is basic to all science. > So what model is correct? > Science has been very successful. > The only one I can think of that can explain all the observed > anomalies is best explained via a software/virtual reality analogy. > > Assume that everything in your physical reality is a model > running on a cosmic computer (you're in a Holodeck). > I see no reason to presume that at all. It is analogus to explaining physics by saying "God did it." Feel free to persue that theory, but it will not lead to any new science. [snip] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 10:51:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18672; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:48:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:48:28 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000615134811.007a1ca0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:48:11 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Morrison's comments about calorimetry In-Reply-To: <00de01bfd654$a811d0c0$58627dc7 computer> References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4F9C xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"8AYXw3.0.fZ4.iRHIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35571 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed Wall wrote: >The next day, after Fleischmann's talk, Morrison informed Fleischmann and >the rest of us infidels that he was there to help us to do good experiments. >I'm sure he had himself convinced at least. I happen to have that segment of the video tape of that exchange queued up. Perhaps it is not worth the effort, but let me transcribe it. M: I sometimes feel my greatest contribution to [this field] is to say 'do good experiments.' Ed Storms said the technique of using the pulse of heat is not a good way to calibrate, you said Ed was wrong. Are you going to answer that? Now . . . F: I haven't time. M: Fine. The point is, you disagreed. Now when I say do good experiments, I think one should do an experiment where you don't have these discussions. And the best way to do calorimetry, is to use the Wheatstone bridge method with a null . . . Where you try to get nothing, then you are safe. This means you have a calorimeter with three baths, at 30 degrees, 40 degrees, 50 degrees. And you put the thing which you believe is putting out heat into the middle one, and all the others you keep constant. [inaudible portion, the gist of it being: this method is used at Harwell for example, to measure plutonium in an impure sample . . .] You reduce current going into the heaters [in other baths] to keep the balance. There is no argument about delicate calibrations. . . . You avoid all these discussions. I would very much like to see people do good experiments and avoid all these discussions. F: Well, you see Douglass, it is impossible to answer you. Because it would take about a half hour. Your system is actually not applicable to the system we studied. You have to be very, very careful not to say you should use an isothermal calorimeter, like the plutonium-type calorimetry, which is not applicable to this type of system. You have to ask yourself, 'what am I trying to measure?' . . . I absolutely agree with you, that you have do it properly. Now in fact, the Harwell plutonium-type calorimetry [when applied to CF] was a complete fiasco. I could take about an hour to tell you why. Notes and Comments by Jed Morrison is confused about thermal pulses. Storms was talking about calibrating with a joule heater alone, without electrolysis or a mechanical stirrer. Fleischmann discussed a thermal pulse added while electrolysis is underway, when electrolysis bubbles ensure complete mixing. After the Q&A session, Fleischmann said to me that he does partially disagree with Storms, because he thinks that with proper cell geometry -- with a tall, thin cell -- mixing will not be an issue and a pulse of heat alone can be depended on. I took this comment to Storms, who said actually he agrees, but some people do use the wrong shaped cells. Fleischmann also pointed out that he measured temperature at two or more points in the cell to be sure there was mixing, and the difference in temperature was so small "you just shouldn't bother with it." A 'Wheatstone bridge' usually refers to a method of measuring electrical resistance, in which four resistors are connected. Three have known resistance, and the resistance of the forth is determined. Morrison refers to an analogous method to measure heat. Just after the Q&A session, Fleischmann explained to me that the main reason that method does not work well in these experiments is that the bath heaters produce a great deal of thermal noise. I wish he had taken a moment to say that in his response to Morrison. There is no such thing as foolproof calorimetry. Morrison's advice to 'do good experiments' is about as useful as the stock market tip 'buy low, sell high.' There is no method which cannot be screwed up. Fleischmann's goal, to measure low level heat of approximately 5%, is particularly difficult to achieve, no matter method you choose. All methods require calibration. In principle, methods like flow calorimetry require no calibration, but in practice you must calibrate. This was telling encounter between Fleischmann, an expert in calorimetry, and Morrison, who does not appear understand the fundamentals of the subject. Morrison was not impressed by McKubre's helium results because, as he said, this is the same old thing. He is correct in a sense: qualitatively it is the same old heat, helium, and still there are no neutrons. Most people find it more convincing when the same results are obtained year after year, with better instruments and an improved S/N ratio, but Morrison is holding out for a different set of results that will conform to conventional hot fusion theory. As Ed Wall points out, quantitatively the helium results are 4 orders of magnitude higher than before, which makes this 'same old thing' but more convincing. Morrison does not understand that, because he is strangely innumerate at times. (I think he honestly does not understand.) The tritium results are also the 'same old thing,' but again, they are thousands of times larger than before. In earlier conferences and papers, Morrison often said that CF is caused by the 'cigarette lighter effect,' even though this effect is 3 to 6 orders of magnitude too small. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 11:33:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02797; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:30:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:30:36 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:29:18 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"EW-Uu3.0.ah.C3IIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35572 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: >>....What is it, exactly, that you think the Aspect experiment >>proves, and how do you think it proves it? > >Myself and others seem to think it has something to do with >"entanglement" ***{"Entanglement" is a species of indeterminism (see below). Since it is impossible to experimentally demonstrate indeterminism, it is also impossible to experimentally demonstrate "entanglement." --MJ}*** ; or "locality" versus "spooky action at a >distance". ***{"Action at a distance" refers to the supposed ability of a cause at location A to produce an effect at location B, without any entities following a continuous spatial pathway from A to B. It does *not* refer to cases where the entities pass from A to B at velocities in excess of the speed of light; and it does *not* apply to cases where events at A and B are merely correlated, due to having a common cause at location C. --MJ}*** Whereas you seem be arguing that it has something >to do with "determinism" versus "non-determinism". ***{That's right, John. According to "quantum mechanics," the state of the photon at B is indeterminate until the other photon's state is measured at A. Prior to that time, the two photons allegedly exist in a non-specific "superposition" of states known as "entanglement." It is, by this *ludicrous* view, only after the photon is detected at A that the wave function collapses and the photon at B assumes a determinate state. --MJ}*** > >Stephen LaJoie wrote: >>...even though measurments on one particle affect the other, >>you cannot devise a communication scheme using this effect, >>thus no information is sent, thus nothing was sent faster >>than light. > >I don't see how the fact that we cannot yet, and may never be >able to use quantum entanglement for communication, suggests >that the entangled particles are not communicating between >themselves faster than light. ***{If entities pass from A to B carrying some effect at superluminal velocities, this a blatantly obvious instance of classical causal determinism. If the proponents of "quantum mechanics" endorse that view, they are conceding the validity of the classical analysis. Therefore, if they want to continue the pretense that their view is the correct one, they *must* claim that no entities carry the effect from A to B--which means: they must claim that true action at a distance is taking place. --MJ}*** ie My password preventing you >from using my "instant" email account, doesn't prove that no >information can be sent by it, or that I cannot use it when I >am socially "entangled" with another! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 11:37:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04432; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:35:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:35:00 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000615143444.007a2450 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:34:44 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Flying car specifications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6J4YP.0.A51.K7IIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35573 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://www.moller.com/ I have long thought the "Skycar" flying car is a nutty idea, because the thing would be dangerous and noisy, but I am impressed by the latest prototypes. Here are the specifications: Passengers: 4 Cruise speed/ top speed: 350/390 mph Maximum rate of climb: 7800 fpm Maximum range: 900 miles Payload with max fuel: 740 lbs Fuel consumption: 15 mpg Operational ceiling: 30,000 ft Gross weight: 2400 lbs Engine power (8x120 hp): 960 hp Dimensions (LxWxH): 18' x 9' x 6' Takeoff and landing area: 35 ft dia Noise level at 500 ft: 65 dba Vertical takeoff and landing: yes Uses automotive gas: yes Emergency parachutes: yes [for the entire airframe, not just the passengers] It is still too noisy for urban use, but it reportedly generates about 30% of the noise of a modern Cessna. Small airplanes take off and land all day outside my office, and fly over my house, and the noise is much lower than it used to be. During the annual airshow they do a flyover with modern corporate jet and a 1970 model small jet, and the difference in noise levels and smoke is astounding. Pilot training, safety and air traffic control are major concerns, but it seems the designers have put a lot of thought into these issues. With the automatic controls, redundant engines and built-in emergency parachutes I expect this thing would be far safer than an ordinary small airplane or helicopter. The rotors are all in ducts, which is probably safer than a helicopter or prop-plane, but I suppose they might still suck someone in, like a small jet engine. Mileage is 15 mpg, which is reasonable. With CF or some other source of zero cost, nonpolluting energy, and improved air traffic control, this technology would go through the roof. It would eventually reduce or eliminate highway congestion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 12:30:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25275; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:26:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:26:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20000615192607.32711.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.17] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:26:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"nF0zP3.0.nA6.utIIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35574 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" >Subject: RE: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:00:58 -0700 >Science has been very successful. I defend the Scientific Method but science these days is not about science. It is about scientists and money and clout and prestige. Science has been very good at polluting the planet. And practically every real innovation in history has come for outside the ranks of science. The latest discoveries show science does not have a clue and never really did about the most basic actions in the universe. Like in my work. I say gravity causes evaporation. Many now agree. Science has always said heat causes evaporation. Science has lots of stuff backwards that is easy to see with common sense. Einstein dismissed common sense when he dismissed the cosmological constant saying, "common sense is just the prejudices taught to us in our youth". WE now have backwards ignorant polluted planet as a result. That is not sucessful science in my opinion. David ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 13:16:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14855; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:11:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:11:12 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:11:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. In-Reply-To: <20000615192607.32711.qmail hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"T-DNM2.0.xd3.UXJIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35575 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, David Dennard wrote: > >From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" > >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" > >Subject: RE: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. > >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:00:58 -0700 > > >Science has been very successful. > > I defend the Scientific Method but science these days is not about science. > It is about scientists and money and clout and prestige. Getting a degree and wearing a white lab coat and getting a paycheck from a prestigious institution and published in a "journal" doesn't make you a scientist. What makes you a scientist is practicing the scientific method. > Science has been very good at polluting the planet. People polute the planet, especially Americans. Once they have the technology people can make the choice to use it unwisely. > And practically every real innovation in history has come for outside the > ranks of science. Well, sure. Like fire. > The latest discoveries show science does not have a clue and never really > did about the most basic actions in the universe. Like in my work. I say > gravity causes evaporation. Many now agree. Science has always said heat > causes evaporation. Science has lots of stuff backwards that is easy to see > with common sense. Einstein dismissed common sense when he dismissed the > cosmological constant saying, "common sense is just the prejudices taught to > us in our youth". WE now have backwards ignorant polluted planet as a > result. > > That is not sucessful science in my opinion. > > David Caves, and being cheetah kibble, are always an option. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 14:07:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02835; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:04:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:04:25 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000615170403.007a4460 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:04:03 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Don't blame the scientists! In-Reply-To: References: <20000615192607.32711.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA02764 Resent-Message-ID: <"e2OuG1.0.9i.OJKIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35576 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Dennard wrote: > Science has been very good at polluting the planet. I have been meaning to address this kind of statement for a long time. Let me climb up on my soapbox here . . . That's totally unfair to scientists and technologists! It isn't their fault. As far back as 1600 they have been developing methods to reduce pollution, and they have urged government, industry and citizens to adapt these methods, often without success. In 1906, engineers developed and patented hybrid gasoline electric automobiles. Suppose we had used them over the last 94 years, instead of pure gasoline and diesel engines: * Air pollution would be roughly two-thirds lower than it is today (I think), and even lower in urban areas like Atlanta. * The U.S. would be exporting oil, with no trade deficit. * Most of the oil that has been pumped out of the ground and into the atmosphere in the last 90 years would still be underground. That would be the effect of just *one* major technology. If all the nations of the earth had adapted ten or twenty major money-saving conservation technologies when they were developed, such as hybrid automobiles, cogeneration, and compact flourescent bulbs, the reduction in pollution and the amount of money we would have saved by now would be stupendous. Over the long term I suppose it would amounted to trillions of dollars. It would rival the cost of a good-sized war. The public is responsible. Political leaders, corporations and the public together can fix almost all of our problems with technology, overpopulation, and urban sprawl. The solutions have already been found: we need only summon up the will and spend the money to implement them. In places like Japan, many of the solutions have already in implemented. All we have to do is learn from them, and buy their technology until we can copy it and improve it. Of course it won't be cheap to design the new machines and retool the factories, but it will be very profitable once the production lines roll. Since all machines wear out and have to be replaced anyway, there will be no additional cost of materials. A quote from Samuel Florman tells the story: Sir Hugh E. C. Beaver, addressing the First International Congress on Air Pollution in 1955, traced the seven-hundred-year-long campaign against air pollution in England. Complaint after complaint, committee after committee, report after report—all were ineffectual, as the centuries passed, and conditions grew progressively worse. Finally the London Smog of 1952, with its horrendous 4,000 deaths, set the scene for a new investigating committee, which was chaired by Sir Hugh. The committee's report was well received, said Beaver, and led to effective action, not because the report was exceptional in any way, but because the public was, at long last, receptive. The lesson to be learned, according to Beaver, is that "on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the issue." Scientists and engineers do have one special responsibility. It is up to them to try to educate the public. Also, they should speak out against anti-technologists, doomsdayers, and people who think the problems cannot be fixed, or it is not worth fixing them. As much as I passionately favor CF, I must point out that we do not even need it to eliminate a large fraction of pollution and energy consumption. I guess we could reduce consumption by half or two thirds, and more in the former Soviet Union. It would be much cheaper, easier and better with CF. We could eliminate virtually all pollution, and expand per-capita consumption so that every person could get enough heat, light and clean water. Plus, we could make revolutionary new machines, colonize other planets, and do lots of other nifty things that would be impossible today. As I see it, CF is kind of like the cure for tuberculosis. TB was a terrible scourge in the mid-19th century, especially in Japan. In the four or five decades before an effective cure was discovered, the rates of TB infection and the mortality rate (rate of infected people who died) fell by a large margin, in all developed nations. There was no specific treatment, but public health measures like cleaner air and water, sanitation, better living conditions and better nutrition solved most of the problem. That was an expensive way to eliminate a contagious disease, but those public health measures were valuable in their own right. They improved the quality of life, and we should have -- and would have -- done them all even if a vaccine for TB had been developed in 1860. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 15:18:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA30900; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:15:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:15:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20000615221522.34083.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.110] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Scientific method, non-locality, rejecting new ideas. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:15:22 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"PzllV1.0.kY7.QMLIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35577 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen writes: >People polute the planet, especially Americans. Once they have the >technology people can make the choice to use it unwisely. >Caves, and being cheetah kibble, are always an option. I think maybe it was you that used the cave analogy before. And I agree America took a wrong turn at the fork in the road. But we would all be doing the goose step if our forefathers had not made great sacrifice. What went wrong? In science, Einstein's perspective of deflection due to curved space is at the root of the problem. This led us astray. Not so much due to his error. He said the angle had to be 1.75. It is just science does not understand what it means that it is less than 1.75. I have explained it as a slipstream effect, not curved space, not local curved space. Space is not a curved void. Space if flat and fluid. In economics, not minting currency in gold and silver a direct violation of the Constitution. It is not that there is not enough gold an silver to mint currency. In no way was it ever intended all paper money had to have a gold dollar to back it up. I was intended to keep the value from sliding. It is all about getting the gold out of the poor persons pocket, making sure he is strapped for life in high interest debt. The Money changers have taken over. Master Card is your Master. And eventually they wil get rid of cash all together so only a persons "mark", a person identification, will be the only way a person can buy or sell. Won't be long till freedom as we know it vanishes. And the basic undermining of the moral fiber of our youth all add up to the decline of our civilization. America is leading the sheep to slaughter. If the wool is not pulled off our eyes all hope will be lost. Freedom is a very rare thing on the planet, maybe just a temporary fluke. History shows a procession of Pharaohs, Ceasars, Emperors, Kings, Czars, Dictators, all men pretending to be God leading up to Hitler. But a small colony of folks made a new way and founded a new way. That way is almost gone. It was just the tinniest breath of freedom in history. Abolished slavery. Unheard of before. Women can vote. Never before. The first part of his century will be seen as the pinnacle of our civilization if we do not restore the values America was based on. Our America is not America. David ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 15:29:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03345; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:25:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:25:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20000615222509.51650.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.26] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Don't blame the scientists! Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:25:09 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"K6FJ32.0.3q.gVLIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35578 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If Whirlpower works we will have true infinite energy, clean, abundant, that every one can use freely. I'm not asking anything for it. And we will not have to power down. Power down is never going to happen. If we don't find a simple clean way like Whirlpower or something we will die in our cesspool of pollution. All it takes is to build a whirlpool and test it in a Scientific Method, theorists propose, scientists dispose, manner. All reports are, a whirlpool has never been built by man in all recorded history. That's just not right. David >From: Jed Rothwell >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: vortex-L eskimo.com >Subject: Don't blame the scientists! >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:04:03 -0400 > >David Dennard wrote: > > > Science has been very good at polluting the planet. > >I have been meaning to address this kind of statement for a long time. Let >me climb up on my soapbox here . . . > >That's totally unfair to scientists and technologists! It isn't their >fault. As far back as 1600 they have been developing methods to reduce >pollution, and they have urged government, industry and citizens to adapt >these methods, often without success. In 1906, engineers developed and >patented hybrid gasoline electric automobiles. Suppose we had used them >over the last 94 years, instead of pure gasoline and diesel engines: > >* Air pollution would be roughly two-thirds lower than it is today (I >think), and even lower in urban areas like Atlanta. > >* The U.S. would be exporting oil, with no trade deficit. > >* Most of the oil that has been pumped out of the ground and into the >atmosphere in the last 90 years would still be underground. > >That would be the effect of just *one* major technology. If all the nations >of the earth had adapted ten or twenty major money-saving conservation >technologies when they were developed, such as hybrid automobiles, >cogeneration, and compact flourescent bulbs, the reduction in pollution and >the amount of money we would have saved by now would be stupendous. Over >the long term I suppose it would amounted to trillions of dollars. It would >rival the cost of a good-sized war. > >The public is responsible. Political leaders, corporations and the public >together can fix almost all of our problems with technology, >overpopulation, and urban sprawl. The solutions have already been found: we >need only summon up the will and spend the money to implement them. In >places like Japan, many of the solutions have already in implemented. All >we have to do is learn from them, and buy their technology until we can >copy it and improve it. Of course it won't be cheap to design the new >machines and retool the factories, but it will be very profitable once the >production lines roll. Since all machines wear out and have to be replaced >anyway, there will be no additional cost of materials. A quote from Samuel >Florman tells the story: > > Sir Hugh E. C. Beaver, addressing the First International > Congress on Air Pollution in 1955, traced the > seven-hundred-year-long campaign against air pollution in > England. Complaint after complaint, committee after committee, > report after report—all were ineffectual, as the centuries > passed, and conditions grew progressively worse. Finally the > London Smog of 1952, with its horrendous 4,000 deaths, set the > scene for a new investigating committee, which was chaired by > Sir Hugh. The committee's report was well received, said Beaver, > and led to effective action, not because the report was > exceptional in any way, but because the public was, at long > last, receptive. The lesson to be learned, according to Beaver, > is that "on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the issue." > >Scientists and engineers do have one special responsibility. It is up to >them to try to educate the public. Also, they should speak out against >anti-technologists, doomsdayers, and people who think the problems cannot >be fixed, or it is not worth fixing them. > >As much as I passionately favor CF, I must point out that we do not even >need it to eliminate a large fraction of pollution and energy consumption. >I guess we could reduce consumption by half or two thirds, and more in the >former Soviet Union. It would be much cheaper, easier and better with CF. >We could eliminate virtually all pollution, and expand per-capita >consumption so that every person could get enough heat, light and clean >water. Plus, we could make revolutionary new machines, colonize other >planets, and do lots of other nifty things that would be impossible today. > >As I see it, CF is kind of like the cure for tuberculosis. TB was a >terrible scourge in the mid-19th century, especially in Japan. In the four >or five decades before an effective cure was discovered, the rates of TB >infection and the mortality rate (rate of infected people who died) fell by >a large margin, in all developed nations. There was no specific treatment, >but public health measures like cleaner air and water, sanitation, better >living conditions and better nutrition solved most of the problem. That was >an expensive way to eliminate a contagious disease, but those public health >measures were valuable in their own right. They improved the quality of >life, and we should have -- and would have -- done them all even if a >vaccine for TB had been developed in 1860. > >- Jed > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 16:21:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28503; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000615192326.006f6d08 postoffice.ptd.net> X-Sender: revtec postoffice.ptd.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:23:26 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: jeff fink Subject: Re: Flying car specifications In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000615143444.007a2450 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"M85Ax2.0.5z6.FHMIv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35579 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:34 PM 6/15/00 -0400, you wrote: >See: > > >Mileage is 15 mpg, which is reasonable. > >With >- Jed > > >15 mpg is not a reasonable estimate. My 275 hp TransAM gets 18 mpg. Imagine the milage a 960 hp car would have, and cars do a lot of coasting. Airplanes run near flat out most of the time. My club's Cherokee 235 can't make 1000 miles on 84 galllons. That's less than 12 mpg for a 235 hp, relatively efficient, flying machine. Something dosn't seem right here! Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 17:37:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA14547; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ED87F1F8B1DD411B84E00D0B74D72F40BA541 MAILSERVER> From: "Florek, Steven" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Flying car specifications Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:11:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"fIzUq1.0.CZ3.DJNIv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35580 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: They use a modified Wankel engine (8 of them actually), and they have been tuning it for many years. Wankels are inherently more efficient than conventional internal combustion engines, but for some reason have not been widely adopted . The particular engines they have developed are apparently fuel efficient in both low- and high-speed flight profiles. Also, the craft is very lightweight, and has a lifting body design that is more efficient than a conventional airplane. All of this adds up to a feasible "hovercar" (hopefully). That said, the production craft has yet to fly so they don't really know what kind of mileage it's really going to get. They've been at it for 30 years. -Steve -----Original Message----- From: jeff fink [mailto:revtec ptd.net] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 4:23 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Flying car specifications At 02:34 PM 6/15/00 -0400, you wrote: >See: > > >Mileage is 15 mpg, which is reasonable. > >With >- Jed > > >15 mpg is not a reasonable estimate. My 275 hp TransAM gets 18 mpg. Imagine the milage a 960 hp car would have, and cars do a lot of coasting. Airplanes run near flat out most of the time. My club's Cherokee 235 can't make 1000 miles on 84 galllons. That's less than 12 mpg for a 235 hp, relatively efficient, flying machine. Something dosn't seem right here! Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 15 18:39:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA02234; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:37:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:37:57 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:37:48 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"JGcJd3.0.nY.qJOIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35581 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > (1) You might come up with some generalized statistical property of a data > stream--something analogous to randomness--which supposedly could not be > produced by a deterministic process. In such a case, it would be possible > to program that criterion into a computer and do generalized testing of > data streams, to see if examples of indeterminism could be found. Hi Mitch. I don't believe that any of the factions in the age old QM determinism debate have ever claimed that the characteristics of the statistics implies indeterminancy. If a QM process creates a particular frequency distribution of white noise, certainly we could imagine a deterministic mechanism which did the same thing. The random decay times of radioactive atoms could be explained by "local hidden variables", by assuming that some sort of determinstic random generator is operating within the atom. If photons arrive at the film plane randomly, we could imagine that they had been given random trajectories. > (2) You might come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic > explanation *could not* be applied. To do that, you would have to > demonstrate either that the cause did not precede the effect, or that there > was no continuous spatial pathway by which entities could move from the > location of the cause to the location of the effect. THAT is the key point. As I understand it, the Aspect entanglement experiment is easy to explain in deterministic terms. Simply acknowledge that distant particles can be in superliminal (instantaneous) communication with each other. End of story. I don't quite understand the chain of reasoning in the QM debate, but I've heard it stated that QM behavior demonstrates that *EITHER* reality is fundamentally indeterminate, *OR* that information can travel instantaneously across any distance (and all distant points in space are therefore in some ways the same point.) If there truely are no other options, then those who refuse to accept FTL and nonlocality can solve the problem by assuming that indeterminacy is built into physics. Those who find indeterminacy abhorrant can assume that space is nonlocal. > Since I flatly proved that (1) is impossible, since (2) is self-evidently > impossible, Why is #2 impossible? ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 04:20:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA06313; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:19:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:19:15 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616191350.00a345c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:13:50 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ORY9U3.0.UY1.pqWIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35582 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchel Jones wrote: >According to "quantum mechanics," the state of the >photon at B is indeterminate until the other photon's >state is measured at A. Prior to that time, the two >photons allegedly exist in a non-specific >"superposition" of states known as "entanglement." >It is, by this *ludicrous* view, only after the photon >is detected at A that the wave function collapses and >the photon at B assumes a determinate state. Ahhh... Now I understand what you are referring to when you talk about "indeterminism". For some reason I thought it had something to do with unpredictability, and I couldn't see that the Aspect experiment provides a particularly good example of that. As far as illustrating superposition of states, consider a quantum computer - which doesn't yet exist, but as far as I know (which isn't very far) all the required elements are possible and have been tested and perform as expected. The problem that it is expected to be rather good at solving is to factor the product of two very large prime numbers. The method that it uses to achieve this relies very heavily on entanglement and superposition of states. The idea is that the UP or DOWN spin of an atom may used to represent a 0 or 1, and so we need say 2 x 100 atoms to represent 2 x 100bit (~30digit) numbers. We can initialise their spins and measure them to clear them all to DOWN say. We can then give them all just enough exitation to half flip them to a spin UP. At this point in time they (according to all experimental evidence) exist in superimposed states of being *both* UP and DOWN. So these two numbers now represent ALL POSSIBLE PAIRS of 100 bit numbers SIMULTANEOUSLY! The theory goes (as I imagine it) that we now pass these two numbers through some multiply logic (again done with quantum states so all possible products are carried through simultaneously). And then we compare all these possible multiplication results with the given 200bit product in some more quantum logic and get it to collapse when it reads equal - the two primes being found in the collapsed state of the two 100bit registers. It seems to me that your sofware dork would have a bit of trouble with this one! Remember he is not allowed to sequentially try every possible pair of primes. Rather he is only allowed to use one or more numbers to represent the "superimposed state" that each quantum register bit is in (ie 50%up 50%down) and then progress once through the calculation using these numbers in the same manner as the quantum computer would and coming up with more numbers along the way representing the "superimposed state" output of each of the quantum gates etc, and finally collapsing these numbers to get the answer. OK, I don't know much about this subject and may have made plenty of mistakes in the above description, but this is a big area of research at present and I would guess that the simplest quantum gate cannot be adequately simulated by conventional logic or computer - or they wouldn't be trying so hard to build them. So, do you reckon they are just stupid and will never get past a single gate? Or do you reckon software engineers are dorks because they can't use numbers to do 2^200 multiplications simultaneously when all we want is the ONE MOST LIKELY answer to the final equality comparison? Mitchell Jones wrote: >>(2) You might come up with an experimental result to which >>a deterministic explanation *could not* be applied. To do >>that, you would have to demonstrate either that the cause >>did not precede the effect, or that there was no continuous >>spatial pathway by which entities could move from the >>location of the cause to the location of the effect. William Beaty replied: >THAT is the key point. As I understand it, the Aspect >entanglement experiment is easy to explain in deterministic >terms. Simply acknowledge that distant particles can be in >superliminal (instantaneous) communication with each other. >End of story. It is not really the end of the story if you are a scientist and want to be able to defend your beliefs in front of other scientists. As soon as you accept superluminal communication or even synchonisation, you have rejected special relativity (ho hum don't we all) but in so doing you have also said that there MUST BE a preferred reference frame (the superluminal effect allows you to synchronise clocks to measure the one way speed of light in each direction to find out at what speed you are moving with respect to this preferred reference frame). So then you need to be able to explain why (almost?) all efforts to detect motion with respect to this preferred reference frame have failed - ie you need to find the flaw in the *many* Michelson-Morely type of experiments, argue aether drag, aberration, etc, etc, which scientists have given a pretty good going over - with new and quite different experiments being done relatively recently after the dipole ansiotropy in the cosmic background radiation seemed to strongly suggest a preferred reference frame. So if you have a working hypothesis which explains the null result of all of these experiments, then you can hold your head up high. Ideally you should also be able to suggest an experiment which will test your working hypothesis against special relativity - one that hasn't yet been effectively done. If you haven't even a working hypothesis, then you had best keep your mouth shut or at least your voice down because scientists are supposed to set their beliefs by the result of experiments, not opposite to and in spite of all experiments. That is the domain of cranks and crackpots (welcome to the club!). From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 07:24:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24358; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:23:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:23:18 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <394A386E.302ACDF2 centurytel.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:23:43 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" Resent-Message-ID: <"qkQa93.0.Wy5.LXZIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35583 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: (2) ... you would have to demonstrate either that the cause did not precede the effect, or that there was no continuous spatial pathway by which entities could move from the location of the cause to the location of the effect. William Beaty wrote: THAT is the key point. As I understand it, the Aspect entanglement experiment is easy to explain in deterministic terms. Simply acknowledge that distant particles can be in superliminal (instantaneous) communication with each other. End of story ... Mitchell Jones wrote: ... (2) is self-evidently impossible, William Beaty wrote: Why is #2 impossible? John Winterflood wrote: ... As soon as you accept superluminal communication or even synchonisation, you have rejected special relativity ... So then ... you need to find the flaw in the *many* Michelson-Morely type of experiments, argue aether drag, aberration, etc, etc, which scientists have given a pretty good going over - with new and quite different experiments being done relatively recently after the dipole ansiotropy in the cosmic background radiation seemed to strongly suggest a preferred reference frame. So if you have a working hypothesis which explains the null result of all of these experiments ... Hi All, I have never heard of any experiment which proves that Newton's "action at a distance" is false. If someone feels compelled to postulate superluminal entities, one could pick gravitons, since Earth seems to gravitationally know where the Sun is about 8 minutes before it can detect photons from the Sun. Regarding the Michelson-Morely type of experiment, it seems to be an experimentally well-established fact of nature that, as far as light is concerned, v(anything) + c = c; and that refers to light (EM radiation) alone. I don't know of any experiment that has demonstrated such a relationship for anything else. (It is not surprising that v + c = c seems important to us since we are light-sensitive organisms.) Regarding (2) above, nothing needs to be demonstrated. It is no more absurd to accept action at a distance as a fact of nature than it is to accept v + c = c. Obviously, we "see through a glass darkly," but we can be consoled by the utility of Newtonian design equations which enable us to calculate the banking required at curves in roads, as well as the trajectory of missles. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 07:25:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24863; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:24:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:24:07 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616102358.0079fec0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:23:58 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Flying car specifications In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000615192326.006f6d08 postoffice.ptd.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20000615143444.007a2450 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"706g.0.K46.7YZIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35584 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: jeff fink wrote: >15 mpg is not a reasonable estimate. My 275 hp TransAM gets 18 mpg. It is reasonable, I think. I have seen several other small planes with that kind of rated performance. Mirage Aircraft has a conventional plane with nominal 25 mpg. (http://www.mirageaircraft.com/design-info.htm) A prototype Cirrus Design airplane, that has actually flown extensively, gets 19 mpg, at cruising speed. See New York Times magazine, November 21, 1999, "Turn Left at Cloud 109," by James Fallows. The Cirrus is interesting. It will cost $179,400. I goes 184 mph with a 200 hp engine (smaller than your TransAm). Like the Aircar, it has built-in parachutes for the airframe, if all else fails. Here is description of a flight: [The pilot] smoothly pushed in the throttle lever, the Cirrus reached its rotation, or liftoff, speed of 65 knots, and we began our aerial survey of Los Angeles. The plane climbed and turned easily, controlled by a little side stick, as in a military fighter, rather than a large yoke, as in most planes. A computer panel, like one in an upscale laptop, showed us where we were at all times with a ''moving map'' of obstacles, features and airports ahead >Something dosn't seem right >here! Your car engine is not right. 18 mpg on the ground is obscene. With the right technology it would be getting 60 mpg and giving better performance. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 07:40:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA32295; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:39:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:39:06 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616103903.007a6640 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:39:03 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Flying car specifications In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000616102358.0079fec0 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000615192326.006f6d08 postoffice.ptd.net> <3.0.6.32.20000615143444.007a2450 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6n_AJ.0.Xu7.AmZIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35585 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://cirrusdesign.com/ has a copy of the New York Times article I referred to, and a photograph of the airplane falling with parachute extended. The company has finally begun selling airplanes this year, and it has a large backlog of orders. This Cirrus airplane seems more practical than the Aircar. It is less of a technological leap. Sometimes, products like the Aircar or the Analytical Engine can be too far ahead of their time. Note that the plane gets 19 mpg even though the landing gear is not retractable! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 07:48:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02739; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:46:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:46:43 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000616094324.0126d640 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:43:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: <394A386E.302ACDF2 centurytel.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"uh2rj3.0.jg.JtZIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35586 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:23 PM 6/16/00 +0000, Taylor J. Smith wrote: >I have never heard of any experiment which proves that >Newton's "action at a distance" is false. If someone feels >compelled to postulate superluminal entities, one could >pick gravitons, since Earth seems to gravitationally know >where the Sun is about 8 minutes before it can detect photons >from the Sun. Earth's "knowledge" of the Sun's instantaneous location is merely an outcome of the way ordinary lightspeed fields (both gravitational and electromagnetic) behave under conditions of uniform motion. We recently explored this issue in a paper that can be found at: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9910050 Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 10:32:31 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24030; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:22:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:22:57 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:21:10 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Bill Bonner's Free Financial Newsletter Resent-Message-ID: <"zwTAE3.0.Kt5.m9cIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35587 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is yet another quote from Bill Bonner's free financial newsletter: "There is always a disposition in people's minds to think that existing conditions will be permanent," wrote Charles Dow in 1902. "When the market is down and dull, it is hard to make people believe that this is the prelude to a period of activity and advance. When prices are up and the country is prosperous, it is always said that while preceding booms have not lasted, there are circumstances connected with this one which is unlike its predecessors and give assurance of permanency. The one fact pertaining to all conditions is that they will change." To subscribe, go to http://www.dailyreckoning.com. --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 10:33:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24120; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:23:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:23:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006142233.SAA03280 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:21:04 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"xkwUi3.0.gu5.v9cIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35588 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I and Mitch wrote: >>>Braindead Ayn Rand Dogma. >> >>***{Not exactly encouraging a civil discussion today, eh? Does the wife >>have you sleeping on the couch, perhaps? --MJ}*** > >To inject a bit of factual science content into an otherwise purely idiotic >political discussion ***{I'm not sure why you believe political discussion to be "purely idiotic," but in any case, if you really feel that way, why did you start this discussion? All I did was recommend Bill Bonner's free newsletter, and give an excerpt. You are the one who, in response to my rather tame recommendation, posted a lengthy political rant--and one so pointedly directed at my beliefs that I could hardly ignore it. By contrast, I refer you to Jed Rothwell, who also posts lengthy political rants from time to time, but in most cases refrains from pointedly aiming gratuitous slaps at my opinions. Result: since at this stage in my life I am primarily interested in discussing science, I frequently let his stuff pass, dispite the strong disagreements that I usually have with what he says. Therefore, if you really don't enjoy political discussions with me, then I suggest you simply refrain from grabbing me by the horns. --MJ}*** , I will relate a short story. I was living in Europe >in a dorm housing situation once, where many people would live for a few >months to a year or so, work long enough to travel to their next >destination, and then travel onward. As was the custom there, when a person >would leave the place, they would give away what they couldn't carry or they >would just leave the door open to their rooms when they left, and people >could come in an take what they liked. I found an old Mr. Coffee coffeepot >that had been left in a room, took it back to my room and tried it out only >to find out that it didn't work. I took it apart, and found that coffee had >boiled over into the switch, and there wasn't any electrical contact, so I >cleaned the switch, plugged it in and turned it on to see if that would fix >it. I didn't have a meter, so I was holding the pot by the heating element >to determine if it would get warm. > >Well I evidently fixed the switch, because the next thing I knew, the thumb >and fingers that were in contact with the heating plate clamped together >very tightly, and some kind of buzzing AC current was creeping rather slowly >up my arm, making it numb, and rendering it unusable. I say rather slowly >because I did have time to recognize the fact that my thumb and fingers had >formed a primary circuit, and that the creeping stuff was some form of >inductive or tranformation electrical process that was shaped actually, >similar to the primary circuit. It was a fascinating and a physically >pleasant thing in some ways to experience. It tickled parts of my brain. > >I had time to formulate more thoughts as well, and came to the realization >that I could not let go of the thing, and that the electricity was moving up >my left arm towards my HEART. I realized that once that happened, I was a >goner. At that moment, I then used every muscle that I still could control, >and threw my entire body away from the wall socket, which unplugged me and >the coffeepot and broke the circuit. All I wanted was a cheap, convenient >cup of coffee, after all. ***{A scary story indeed, and a worthwhile reminder that death stands in the shadows watching us, every moment of our lives. All it takes is a moment of inattention, and we are his. --MJ}*** > >I found similarities between this experience and reading Ayn Rand. The >effect that her writing had on me was an easy thing for me to recognize, but >a difficult thing for me shake. I found that her writing style has a >profound effect on peoples' brains because of her use of long and repetitive >diatribes that are quite similar to many other brainwashing or mind control >techniques. ***{There is no connection whatsoever. Brainwashing relies upon forced association--that is, upon coercing the victim to remain in the presence of those who are conducting the indoctrination. Examples are the "reeducation" camps in communist nations, or the government run schools in the U.S. and elsewhere. Rand, on the other hand, relies on rational persuasion. There is no coercion: someone recommends one of her books--e.g., Atlas Shrugged--and, if you are interested, you buy a copy and read it. If you don't like it after the first line, page, chapter, or whatever, you are free to chuck it in the trash without penalty. Thus there is no parallel between the two situations at all. --MJ}*** Her writing style takes simple, naive ideas, and by a method of >repetition turns them into braindead dogma. ***{Her views are neither simple nor naive, and if they turn into braindead dogma in a particular person's mind, that is his choice, not hers. --MJ}*** I found that when I would meet >someone who had read Ayn Rand, I could pick up their language patterns quiet >easily, and their self-massaged brains would fall into a hypnotic state >whenever they were using the same cadence or rhythms that she did in her >books. They would become like zombies that were oblivious to what was >happening around them, and only capable of acting or thinking within a >certain, very narrow set of rules or mindset. Their actions could be very >easily controlled by someone knowlegable in that particular art, simply by >leading them around using the same images and keywords that Ayn Rand used to >describe her perfect fantasy of happy individuals making wonderful products >or working on technological solutions to their problems and selling them in >what she termed the "free marketplace", unfettered by any form of regulation >by the "parasitic bureacracies" such as government. ***{Knuke, everyone who has had an intellectual life during the past 40 years has known many people of the sort your describe above. It is such a notorious phenomenon, in fact, that whole books have been written about it. (See, for example, *It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand*, by Jerome Tuccille.) There is even a name for such people: Randroids. Nor is it a mystery how they come about: such individuals are drawn from the masses of common people, and are fully as unreasoning and other-directed the day after they enlist in an "Objectivist" organization as they were the day before. Again, however, that is not Rand's fault, nor the fault of her philosophy. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. --MJ}*** > >Like I said, she was a simplistic purist or an idealist who was more than a >bit naive, and her work found acceptance by a large underground audience in >this country during a time when there was a great deal of social injustice >and unrest, coupled with an increase of the illegal use of hypnotic drugs >such as marijuana by the newly emerging, liberal arts educated, literati. >Her bubbleheaded economic theory was laughable, but as a lingual hypnotist >working with the written word of the English language alone, she was on par >with the best. A true mesmerist in the classic tradition. She didn't >invent Capitalism, she merely made it difficult for people (almost >impossible for some) to separate the allegorical fantasy world that she >created from the actual reality by thinking rationally. By the time someone >read one of her books from cover to cover, they became stupid, boring, >pedantic parrots, chanting her words in perfect cadence like they were >reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or something. I saw it happen a hundred >times with various dopers that I knew, and it was a truly hilarious thing to >observe. ***{Most "Objectivists" are undeniably as you claim--which is to say that they are fully as petty, image oriented, dogmatic, and inclined towards herd behavior as are most Catholics, Protestants, Bhuddists, Moslems, Orthodox Jews, Atheists, vegetarians, environmentalists, Democrats, Republicans, and on and on. Why is that so? Because it is from *mankind* that the objectivist movement draws its recruits, and, as a consequence, they exhibit all the foibles common to the species. But so what? Would you expect it to be otherwise? I mean, what, precisely, is your point? Do you intend, for example, to argue that Rand's philosophy must be inherently defective, merely because her books lack the power to instantaneously transform her readers into the reasoning beings that she thought they ought to be? --MJ}*** > >> I hope the Russians don't turn into zombies. >> >>***{The Russian people have had fascist or socialist parasites sucking >>their blood throughout their history, and you begrudge them a shot at >>freedom? Why? --MJ}*** > >I don't begrudge them a thing actually, and freedom the least of all. ***{Freedom is the state of the man who can reasonably expect that his property rights will not be violated. Since capitalism is the only political system where property rights are absolute, it is also the only political system where men can be free. --MJ}*** In >fact, I hope that the people of Russia are smart enough to see what has >happened in this country as a result of Ayn Rand's mentality, and are able >to avoid it. ***{Ayn Rand was an advocate of capitalism, and as such is in no sense responsible for the goings on in fascist America. --MJ}*** I hope that they don't turn into a bunch of hypnotized >consumers of irrational products that that will shorten their lifespan. ***{Capitalism is a political system in which private property rights are absolute, and thus has exactly *nothing whatsoever* to do with "hypnotized consumers" purchasing "irrational products" that will "shorten their lifespans." While some consumers will doubtlessly be dumb enough to do that, others will not, and their decisions will be *their* responsibility and no one else's. --MJ}*** >They can't afford that nonsense, and they should know that. They have some >very difficult, huge in fact, environmental and economic problems that >cannot be solved in a timely enough of a fashion for most of them to survive >if pure Capitalistic mechanisms are put into place. ***{An empty assertion, signifying nothing. The environmental and economic track records of the socialist nations are--by far--the worst on the planet. If you doubt this, I suggest that you spend your next vacation travelling in the former Soviet-bloc nations. --MJ}*** Those people need a >young woman's fairytale economic philosophical trance state like they need >more radioactive waste in their soil and water. ***{Russia's present economic and environmental problems were caused by socialism. In the former Soviet Union, citizens lived in grinding poverty and misery, hip deep in their own untreated sewage, breathed air choked with wastes from low-tech factory smokestacks, and drank water clogged with industrial pollutants. Bottom line: the people of Russia have tested the dreams of people like you and found them wanting, and they are very unlikely to test them again in the near future. --MJ}*** They need a larger and >stronger military equally as much. ***{While I agree that the Russian military is far larger than would be needed for defensive purposes, I get the impression that you are hostile to the very *idea* of a military. Therefore, let's lay our cards on the table. I believe that free nations need to maintain militaries large enough to defend themselves. Do you have a different opinion? --MJ}*** They have to do the exact opposite, >which is to wake up, shake it off, and act fast in an intelligent way or >they will die in massive numbers. They have to take care of each other, >rather than begin the trampling of each other in greed as the people of the >US have done to others and each other. ***{The people of Russia have the following choices: (a) socialism, where the government controls everything and property rights do not exist; (b) capitalism, where the sole function of government is to protect property rights, and, thus, where property rights are absolute; and (c) fascism, where the battle between the advocates and the opponents of private property has been inconclusive, and where as a consequence there exists an unstable mixture of property rights and government controls. The Russians tried socialism for more than 70 years, and it was an unmitigated disaster. Result: loathing of that system is so intense that there is no chance they will return to it in the near future. Right now, they are trying fascism, and they aren't liking what they are seeing. The reason: fascism is a parasitic system devoted to the consumption of capital produced by previous generations, and does not work very well in a society which has already been plundered down to the bare walls. The logical choice for Russia, therefore, is capitalism. --MJ}*** > >>***{Whether elected or unelected, fascist governments do less damage to >>their victims than socialist ones. > >If you compare infant mortality rates, longevity, actual per capita income, >availability and cost of healthcare, length of vacation time, availability >of paid sick time, opportunities in the workplace for women, availability of >childcare for women with children who want to have a career, racial >equality, availability of unlimited free education, the number of hours in >the average workweek and numerous other quality of life factors between >fascist countries and socialist ones, the advantages available for the >people in the socialist countries outweigh the ones available to the people >in the fascist countries by a staggering amount. That is why socialism is >so popular and well defended in Europe. They have seen the end results of >the pure forms of both Capitalism and Communism, and have picked the best >features of both in a democratic fashion. They have, for the most part, >rejected overt fascism. It has been working quite well in most of Europe >since the end of WWII. What you are saying is simply untrue. ***{Nope. Attempting to pick "the best features of both," whether in a democratic or a non-democratic fashion, is the defining characteristic of fascism. That's why every nation in present day Europe, from Russia to England, is a fascist state; and it's also why your attempted comparison is invalid. --MJ}*** > >Naturally, they are constantly being pressured and at times to some degree, >temporarily influenced by some unhealthy ideas, but on the whole, they have >been quite well educated TO THINK rationally, rather than expound rote >dogma, a very important and overlooked factor, and can, for the most, part >see through the linguistic programming of the ones who have agendas that are >not in their best, longterm interests. ***{So the people of Europe think rationally, do they? I suggest that the best cure for that statement would be for you to sit in on the deliberations of a European parliament sometime. You would find, in between runs to the crapper to puke your guts out, that law is made in Europe by the same sorts of character deficient scumbags and retards as those who make it in the U.S. And, once that fact was thoroughly impressed on your mind, you could then turn to the evaluation of your claim that the people who elected the scumbags and retards "think rationally." --MJ}*** > > The reason is simple: under socialism, >>the citizens retain no rights at all, whereas under fascism, they at least >>retain the hollow form of rights. > >This is funny. I think there may some misunderstanding between the way you >are using the term socialism and the way I use it. I think you equate it >with pure communism, and I do not. ***{Communism began as a political movement advocating socialism--i.e., the abolition of private property. Once the communists rose to power in some nations--most notably the former Soviet Union--many people in the West fell into the habit of describing those nations as "communist." The actual people in those movements, however, always described themselves, correctly, as socialists. --MJ}*** Socialism, as I have seen it practiced >in numerous European countries, allows for democracy and a regulated form of >Capitalism to work together with a socialistic vision for the betterment of >the entire society. ***{In many democratic nations political parties have been launched by socialists and, thus, have used the term "Socialist" in their names. And, in a number of European nations, parties with the word "Socialist" in their names have actually, after decades of struggle, come to power. Once in power, however, *none* have been successful in reaching their original goal of abolishing private property, because the opposition parties did not obligingly give up the fight when the socialist parties assumed power. The upshot in each case has been a system in which private property rights were mixed with a vast mire of governmental intrusions and controls. This is the system that, properly, is known is fascism. Bottom line: the proven communist technique of executing the opposition soon after you take office is, in fact, the only way that socialism can be achieved. --Mitchell Jones}*** It does so without sacrificing the rights of the >individual to the extent that that occurs under fascism, Communism or >Capitalism, in fact, it protects those rights quite well. ***{Since we are the rightful owners of our bodies as well as of the products of our labor, it follows that *all rights are property rights*. Since capitalism is a political system in which property rights are absolute, it is a flat-out contradiction to say that the rights of the individual are sacrificed more under capitalism than under either fascism or socialism. --MJ}*** The Europeans own >their own property ***{Yup. Some property rights are permitted under fascism. --MJ}*** , have a much higher quality of life, enjoy more freedoms >actually, and participate actively in a larger number of available political >groups to express their individual ideas, concerns and desires. ***{As compared to what? To the U.S.? In that case I should point out that the U.S. abandoned its capitalistic heritage decades ago, and, today, is fully as fascist as the states of Western Europe. Turning to your specific claims, let me say first that I have lived both in Europe and in the U.S., and I regard the overall quality of life in the two areas to be about the same. The reason for the mixed assessment is simple: I rank social freedom--e.g., sexual freedom--much higher in Europe than in the Puritannical, blue-nosed, Bible thumping U.S. On the other hand, I rank economic freedom--the right to buy, use, and trade property without interference--much lower in Europe than in the U.S. Overall, therefore, it is a mixed bag, and the quality of life in the two areas is about the same. --MJ}*** Result: the quality of Those ideas >are enacted or made manifest in a much more representative fashion than they >would be here in the US, where you have two main parties that are both owned >by the same corporations. ***{I agree that the U.S., at root, is a one-party state. I do not agree, however, that one-party states are necessarily more corrosive to individual rights than are multi-party states. Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether the thugs who run roughshod over my rights were "duely elected" in a one-party system, or in a multi-party system, or were not elected at all. In my view, electoral systems are important only because, when properly designed, they can prevent politicians from violating people's rights. Thus I have *zero* interest in puzzling over the question of which of various demonstrably failed electoral systems is better than the others. --MJ}*** > > And, so long as the judicial system of a >>nation retains at least a facade of rights, some market based economic >>activity will continue. That's why Pinochet, despite his faults, >>undoubtedly saved Chile from a far worse fate, which would surely have been >>visited upon it if Allende, a self-admitted communist, had retained power. >>--MJ}*** > >We will never know what would have happened in Chile under Allende, since he >and so many of his supporters were killed, so logically, it is not really >possible to make any projections, is it? ***{Allende was a self-avowed communist--which means: he was a socialist who was willing to do whatever was necessary to bring about the actual abolition of private property. We have massive evidence--more than a hundred million lives snuffed out by such men in slaughterhouses all over the world--indicating what would likely have happened, had Allende been permitted to consolidate his power. To me, it is obviously wishful thinking to suggest that Pinochet did not save his country from a worse fate than the one he visited upon them. --MJ}*** > >>***{Every government on this planet, with the exception of a handful of >>socialist abattoirs such as North Korea and Cuba, is fascist. > >I think Mitch, that you have been reading too much literature of a certain >kind, have adopted an almost childish political outlook and don't know what >is really happening in the world. ***{And I would say exactly the same thing about you. --MJ}*** If you traveled, and lived outside of the >US for a long period, especially looking at the European countries ***{In fact, I lived in Europe for several years. --MJ}*** , you >would see that the majority of those countries are quite far from being >fascist. ***{No, I regard property rights as the most important concept in political theory, and I classify nations on the basis of the way they deal with it. This is not a usage that I made up: it is, in fact, a very common usage among economists, particularly among members of the Austrian school. I adopted it because it is the only usage that makes sense to me. --MJ}*** In fact, you might also pick up on the fact that there is no >poverty or starvation in most of the European countries. ***{Dream on. Statements such as that make me wonder if you have really lived in Europe. How, for example, could you have spent any time in Athens, or Rome, or Zurich, or Paris, or London, without encountering the underclass of drug addicts, bums, street criminals, and the mentally ill, who infest their parks and sleep under their bridges? Sure, their problems in this area are *vastly less* than our own, because, as noted above, European states are much more respectful of social rights--e.g., sexual freedoms, the freedom to buy and consume drugs, etc.--than is the case in the U.S. But to make blanket claims that they have no poverty or starvation is simply ridiculous. --MJ}*** It has been >outlawed - what a concept, eh? ***{Did you ever hear of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty"? Hey, that worked great! What a concept! --MJ}*** The food and drinking water contain no >chemical poison, nor has the food been secretly altered genetically. That >has likewise been outlawed for reasons which are obvious to truly >intelligent, thinking people. ***{Rubbish. The government has no business selling water in the first place, and people who are dumb enough to trust water supplied by the government deserve what they get. As for the food, well, I don't want the government telling me what I can and cannot eat by deciding who is and is not permitted to sell food. Governments, in case you haven't noticed, tend to be run by character-deficient scum and retards, and I don't happen to believe that "truly intelligent, thinking people" want character-deficient scum and retards telling them what they can and cannot eat. --MJ}*** Pollution laws are much more stringent, are >more widely observed and enforced better. ***{Yup: pollution laws passed by character deficient scum and retards, who in turn were "duly elected" by great masses of unreasoning, other-directed, and thoroughly ignorant people. Hey, that's got to be a good thing, right? I mean, what could go wrong? --MJ}*** Women, people of color, and other >minorities are allowed, encouraged, and financially assisted to get an >education to better themselves if they desire ***{Yup: and the "financial assistance" is simply *stolen* from those who earned it. That, too, has to be a great thing, right? After all, "women, people of color, and other minorities" are too dumb to survive in a free society. Or at least that's what you believe, right? --MJ}*** , and they are treated equally, >again for the most part, in the workplace. There are still some minor >quirks in every country, but overall the quality of life and the number of >freedoms enjoyed are higher for *everyone* over there than they are in any >other part of the world. ***{Or, at least, that's the view from the mountaintop in Cloud Cuckoo Land. --MJ}*** > >If the Americans were not so drunk on their military might and hypnotized by >emptyheaded, economic philosophy novelists ***{The dominant types of cultural, economic, and political goings on that we see in the present-day U.S. *horrified* Rand, and when you suggest otherwise, you reveal either a deep ignorance of her philosophy, or else a very strong tendency toward exaggeration. Either way, the implication of your statement is utterly wrong. --MJ}*** , perhaps they might see that >there are alternative ways of living that are much better. It may require >that they travel around with their blinders off for a while, and encouraged >to think at least once in a while, but I know that it would be worthwhile. >It certainly was for me. > > Under >>fascism, minorities tend to be slaughtered (if you doubt this, ask a Branch >>Davidian, if you can find one), and there are more than a hundred fascist >>governments on this planet right now the leaders of which have killed >>enough of their own citizens to make Pinochet look like a saint by >>comparison. Given that state of affairs, by what logic do you see fit to >>bitch about him? > >Well, I responded mainly because you were holding Pinochet up as an example >of a good leader. ***{That's totally wrong. While I consider Pinochet to have been relatively benign as fascists go and a far better leader for Chile than Allende would have been, that is a far cry from saying he is a good man, and I have never done so. --MJ}*** I don't think that he was, and I've given my reasons for >that. Obviously his the rest of the world and his own countrymen didn't >think much of him either, and it took quite a long time for them to >peacefully wrest control over their country away from him. He lives now >surrounded by a small, paid security force, and only because he held too >many secrets about too many people. He was a smart operator in that way. >Any leader who thinks that he or she needs to slaughter, disappear or starve >to death his or her opposition though, is ultimately not too smart and one >that I would have to speak out against. I know that he wasn't the worst >leader on Earth, but he was one of them. I cannot endorse his actions, and >yet somehow you seem to think that he is a saint. It is your logic that has >always escaped me. ***{I think he was a far better leader than the people of Chile deserved or had a right to expect, given the utter ignorance of most Chileans concerning what freedom is and implies. However, I have never expressed that opinion on the internet or in any of my books, or in private e-mail, so I'm afraid I have no idea to what source you are referring. --MJ}*** [To be continued] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 11:04:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20787; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:57:41 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"ZewdP3.0.b45.qhcIv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35589 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ***{This is a continuation of my response to Michael Huffman. --MJ}*** > >He is an old man, and a better fascist than most. Go after >>the real butchers first, starting with socialist dirtbags such as Castro >>and Kim Jong Il, and work your way down. If you do so, you will get to >>Clinton and Bush long before you get to Pinochet. --MJ}*** > >I don't know what his age has to do with anything unless you are just trying >to get me to feel a natural fondness for the aged and apply it to an aged >mass murderer. I do go after real butchers as well, as you may have noticed >from my posts. I didn't bring Pinochet up, you did. ***{All I did was recommend Bill Bonner's free financial newsletter, and include a brief paragraph about Putin's chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, which I considered to be of interest. That paragraph was as follows: >> "Putin's Adviser Extols Ayn Rand" says The Moscow >> Times. "Newly appointed presidential economics adviser >> Andrei Illarionov showed his economic colors Tuesday as he >> vociferously supported the ideas of one of the >> most influential shapers of Western thought on free >> markets, Ayn Rand," said the paper. Then, quoting Mr. >> Illarionov: "Every import tariff and every limit on >> foreign-exchange transactions is a blow to >> our consciousness. Every tax acts against our freedom." The >> new economics advisor to President Putin made the remarks >> at a news conference Tuesday dedicated to the launch of >> Rand's work in the Russian language. Illarionov cited >> Chile's economic plan under the dictatorship of General >> Augusto Pinochet as an ideal example of good economic >> programming. As you can see, it was Illarionov, not me, who extolled the virtues of Pinochet's economic program. The first time I ever wrote a word about Pinochet was *after* you started talking about him, not before. Nevertheless, for the record, I do happen to think that Pinochet's economic program, as opposed to his methods of dealing with his political opponents, was good for his country. He freed up markets, stabilized the money supply, prices, interest rates, and the value of the currency, lowered taxes, massively shrank the bureaucracy, and unleashed an economic boom that has propelled Chile from the status of a third-world hell-hole to that of a wealthy, modern country. For that, I think he is due some credit, though I don't see a snowball's chance in hell that he will ever get it--not in his lifetime, at any rate. The reason: by wresting his country from the hands of the man--Allende--who would have destroyed her, he made tons of enemies, and at the same time prevented the common citizens of Chile from ever experiencing the disaster that they deserved. Result: they still look upon Allende with nostalgia, and hate the man who saved their country. --Mitchell Jones}*** I start with >Clinton/Gore, Reagan/Bush and their crowd of corporate owners because by the >sheer numbers alone, they have really stood out in terms of the number of >people that they have slaughtered militarily and intentionally starved to >death with economic sanctions or failure to give aid based on the economic >philosophy and cooperative mood of the indigenous people of other countries. ***{On your first point, I agree. U.S. Presidents, both Republican and Democrat alike, have been prone to insert U.S. troops into situations that were better left alone, as well as to prolong the resulting conflicts by ineptly micromanaging the military operations after they had been started, and thereby have contributed to the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. On your second point, I disagree. Economic sanctions are ineffective, because they merely result in the diversion of trade channels through countries that refuse to abide by the sanctions. In the net, sanctions are contraproductive, because they give dictators (e.g., Castro, Saddam) a scapegoat on which they can blame the suffering of their people, thereby enabling them to cling to power much longer. However, sanctions do not directly contribute to starvation in the sanctioned nations. When starvation occurs, it is because of the inept socialist or fascist policies followed by the governments of those countries, rather than because of the sanctions per se. On your third point, I also disagree. Foreign aid is money stolen from its rightful owners, and, like sanctions, has the effect of permitting socialist or fascist power elites to continue their depredations much longer than would be possible without it. As such, it neither helps those from whom it is taken, nor those who receive it. The only beneficiaries, in fact, are the international social workers who administer such programs, the politicians who look like good guys by voting for them, and the local power elites on the receiving end who profit massively by diverting most of the aid into their own pockets. --Mitchell Jones}*** >I realize that they are just puppets of the real bad guys, but they >volunteered to be that, so they are bad as well. ***{True. --MJ}*** > >At no time in the history of mankind has this small a number of people been >responsible for the deaths of such a large number of people. I don't know >how you rank butchers, but that is how I do it. ***{I'll grant that Clinton, Bush, etc., have gotten a lot of people killed in needless conflicts in other countries, but I really think they are pikers compared to the real bad guys, who trained their guns on their own citizens. Mao: 60 million; Stalin: 30 million; Hitler: 11 million; Pol Pot: 3 million; etc. --MJ}*** Their calculated actions >have been so grossly heinous that they have resorted to hiding them from >their own people in a ridiculous attempt to maintain their images as decent >human beings. ***{True. --MJ}*** They have failed, obviously, and too many nations of the >world are now busy arming themselves for WWIII, a battle for their freedom >from the US corporate slave policy. As soon as they see their chance, they >will take it, and everyone will suffer. ***{Again, I tend to agree. Clinton has made the U.S. the most hated nation on Earth, and I fully expect that the day will come when a terrorist expresses that hatred by detonating a suitcase nuke or an anthrax bomb in a major U.S. city. When that happens, we will see an economic collapse that will make the 1930's look like paradise, and a U.S. distatorship more foul than anything the New World has ever seen. I hope most fervently to be somewhere else when it happens. --MJ}*** If you have any friends that are >decent human beings and are citizens of any other country, just ask them for >an honest answer about that. It is a very grave concern for many people. > >>>His predecessor, Allende, was no sweetheart either however, from the stories >>>that I got from friends living there. Many of them had their houses >>>ransacked, and were deported at gunpoint immediately after his victory. >> >>***{And it was just beginning. Based on what happened in other nations >>where communist governments took power, the streets would soon have been >>red with blood, if Pinochet had not done what he did. For that reason, it >>is *very* likely that, in the net, his coup save lives. --MJ}*** > >I think that you jump to false conclusions about what would have occurred in >Chile had we not militarily taken it over, with the same quickness that you >believe that a pile of rocks in a less than perfectly random formation on >another planet is proof of intelligent life currently living or having >previously lived there. ***{But I don't believe that, Knuke. I have an open mind on that subject, in marked contrast to many others who post here, but I am as unconvinced on that point at the present time as I am about cold fusion. I suggest you should confine your remarks to what I have actually said, and avoid guessing about things left unsaid. --MJ}*** Much of this based on some "photo enhancement" >algorthms that are actually nothing more than geometric pattern generators. >Given your background in mathmatics, this is yet another example of some >very faulty logic. Of course geometric patterns are what you will see in >those photos because that is what those programs are designed to produce. ***{You are confusing me with someone else. I agree with what you are saying, if you are talking about "cities on Mars" and similar stuff. There are, however, some photos on other subjects that are rather difficult to explain away. --MJ}*** > >If I recall correctly, you have also expressed a paranoia of these fantasy >outerspace creatures to such an extent that it justifies in your mind the >arming of all future space probes with thermonuclear weaponry to defend our >"right" to send exploratory tubules to their home planets. Perhaps your >military training in the Air Force has had something to do with this, I >don't know. Perhaps by expounding these beliefs, you would benefit from >this financially, again I don't know. ***{Now you are really going off the deep end. I never said any such thing, and by suggesting that I did, you reveal that you are very seriously inclined to engage in wishful thinking. I really suppose I should not be surprised, since wishful thinking is an essential ingredient in the thought processes of all socialists. Nevertheless, I again suggest that you confine your remarks to things that you know for a fact that I said, and cease these wildly-off-the-mark speculations about what I believe and how I feel. --MJ}*** I do know that it seems to be pretty >easy these days to suggest to a believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy ***{I tend to agree with Rand on most things, but I don't agree on all. For example, she erred in thinking that there was a conflict between free will and determinism, and consequently thought she had to give up one or the other. Result: since free will was a central tenet of her philosophy, she became a proponent of a kind of cognitive indeterminism. In my view, however, free will is a mental process with very definite characteristics; and, once those traits are understood, the putative conflict between free will and determinism slips away. Bottom line: I am not a "believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy." I applied the same critical approach to her views that I apply to everyone else's. The reason I have more respect for her than for any other philosopher is simply that her system proved more difficult to attack than did theirs. --MJ}*** that they >should arm themselves to the hilt and preemptively kill everybody (both >real, and imagined) who doesn't intone the same things that Ayn did (and in >the same rhythmic pattern, too). ***{Again, you are putting forth guesses and speculation about me, and are wildly off the mark. I am not a doctrinnaire Objectivist, and I never was. Any time I attended meetings held by those people--the Randroids--I attempted to explore their views pretty much the same way I explore other people's views here on vortex: by stating pointed questions and arguments. However, by their responses they proved themselves to be, for the most part, closed-minded and intolerant of dissent, and I responded as I am wont to do, by taking myself elsewhere. What you need to recognize is that most "Objectivists" are just ordinary people, despite their unorthodox opinions, and that psychological momentum is just as real as momentum of the physical kind. That means people change slowly, and it means if a narrow-minded, Bible thumping Baptist reads Ayn Rand and becomes an "advocate of reason," all that changes in the short run are the words he chants and the holy book that he thumps. Any real improvement in his character, if it occurs at all, will be a gradual process stretching over decades. Thus if you didn't get along with a man before he became an Objectivist, you won't get along with him afterwards either. --MJ}*** Do you now perchance, work for the arms >industry, military intelligence or the nuclear power industry, or are you a >retired hobbyist of some sort that just can't shake your military training >with your intellect? I realize that it is difficult, having encountered it >entirely too many times. ***{No to all of the above. --MJ}*** > >In your Air Force, death from the sky, military career, did you ever notice >that everyone around you was wearing the same outfit, and had the same bad >haircut? Did you notice that they all lived in the same design of house, >ate the same foods, bought everything from the same store (The PX) and said >the same things about all of it? ***{Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. Believe it or not, people in the Air Force exhibit pretty much the same spectrum of opinions as you see on the outside. --MJ}*** Did you notice that the hierarchy and >paygrade was based on the number of people that a person controlled in every >way ***{This is approximately correct, but the same relationship holds in civilian life. --MJ}*** , and the number of people that they could kill ***{No. Most Air Force personnel are not pilots, and are concerned either indirectly, or not at all, with delivering ordnance from the air. --MJ}*** , instead of the other way >around? Did you notice that the more creatively aggressive opinions were >rewarded with a higher rank and paygrade? Surely, you did. ***{No, because your suggestion is utterly false. Basically, if you did what was expected of you and did it well, and if a slot became available, you had a shot at promotion. Beyond that, to a degree, politics came into play, so the system was not a pure meritocracy by any means. It was, however, a far better approximation to it than you, or most outsiders, seem to think. --MJ}*** > >Did you ever stop and think that maybe some of the aggressive military >actions were just a sadistic excuse to use more weaponry than was necessary >to stop a threat that in many cases was not even really there in the first >place, simply for the financial benefit of the arms suppliers? ***{Under fascism, as I have pointed out in the past, politically connected insiders maneuver behind the scenes to enrich themselves, and they don't really give much of a damn who gets hurt in the process. Thus your comment, above, is undeniably correct. Your implication, however, that such activities are to be blamed on the military, is incorrect. The fascist system, by its very nature, provides a framework of legislative and regulatory complexity that is an ideal environment for concealing the kinds of machinations that you describe, and that is the location where blame ought to be attached. --MJ}*** It must have >crossed your mind at one point. Did you yourself ever consciously engender >a false paranoia in others to generate more funding for the military or >yourself? ***{No. Again, you err in seeking the causes of such things within the military. They lie elsewhere. --MJ}*** > >Did you ever stop and think that for a person who thinks of himself as being >dedicated to finding the truth, saving lives, protecting his own freedom, >and owning property, that signing away for years of your life, 24 hour a >day, absolute control over everything you own, even including your very mind >and body to an organization of mass killers might pose an enormous >contradiction between your proposed philosophy and actual reality? ***{No. America needed a military when she was free; and if she should ever be free again, she will need a military then, as well. --MJ}*** I would >have. I think that it has damaged your abilities to think in any other way >than the way you have been trained. I think you need to look up the word >non-conformist, and see that you could not possibly be one. ***{Knuke, it is entirely possible that I am the most thoroughgoing nonconformist who has ever walked the face of the Earth. Why do I say that? Because I go out of my way to seek out criticism of all of my beliefs, and, when I find myself unable to defend an opinion, I abandon it. All of my opinions, to the extent humanly possible, are battle tested: they are the opinions that have survived relentless criticism, by myself and others. Social expediency has not been a factor in the formation of my beliefs. --MJ}*** > >>***{Actually, Allende was democratically elected because the majority of >>the people, in every nation on Earth, is comprised of unreasoning, >>other-directed, functionally illiterate fools. Allende was the beast from >>hell that most Chileans deserved, and Pinochet was the man who prevented >>them from being consumed by the flames which they had ignited. Naturally, >>since he prevented their illusions from being shattered, most of them look >>with nostalgia at "what might have been," and resent Pinochet for saving >>them from themselves. --MJ}*** >(snip) >>***{Which Rockefeller? Nelson? David? Was this before Allende was >>overthrown, or after? --MJ}*** > >I don't recall which of the Rockefellers it was, but he was with the State >Department at the time, and delivering a small wad of US taxpayer cash which >was nominally supposed to be aid for the poor into the hands of a corrupt >few in the Chilean government in return for allowing the US to exploit their >country's mineral resources and cheap labor. If you yourself were a >functionally literate person who traveled and knew real history by >experience, then you would have at the very least read my entire post which >stated that I landed there in 1969, before Allende was even elected. ***{I followed the Allende situation in Chile rather closely at the time, but, three decades later, I did not remember the exact year when the coup occurred. I didn't have a reference handy, so I asked. Is that what "functional illiteracy" means to you? --MJ}*** Like I >said before, it was the excessive exploitation of the people and resources >of that country by the US that led to Allende's democratic election, and his >decision to take the mines back. ***{Rubbish. Foreign investment creates jobs, and is economically beneficial. Allende nationalized the foreign owned firms because he was a socialist thug, and that's what socialist thugs do. --MJ}*** Are you getting any of this? Hello? ***{I hear you. I simply do not agree. --MJ}*** > >>>Allende probably would have lasted a bit longer if he hadn't cut off his >>>diplomatic relationships with the US, and hadn't nationalized the US owned >>>banks and coppermines. >> >>***{Typical move of a stupid communist thug. They all think they can run >>companies better than their owners, but they never succeed. All they do is >>destroy the economies of the nations that they control, and consign the >>citizenry to lives that are short, miserable, and for the most part richly >>deserved. --MJ}*** > >I think what actually happened was that they were all killed by the CIA and >Pinochet's goon squads. In fact, that is exactly what I and many others >know happened. The number of people slaughtered at the outset, and the >number of "disappeared" after the fact is quite well documented. I don't >understand why anyone would contest what was a very well documented event in >history, unless they have some reason to do so. What is your reason for >doing that? ***{I don't deny that there were killings. I deny that Pinochet killed as many as Allende would have killed, if he had not been overthrown. Worldwide, in the 20th century, socialist rulers killed upwards of 100 million of their own citizens. It was a bloodbath without parallel in human history, and there is every reason to believe that Allende would have been true to the established form, if Pinochet had permitted him to be. --MJ}*** >[snip] > >>***{So far, it's just talk. Putin is pushing a 13% flat tax which, if >>implemented (likely) will give the Russian federation a tax rate *vastly* >>lower than that of the U.S. That's a good start, but much more is >>needed--to wit: a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sanctity of >>private property rights, the selling off of the remaining state >>enterprises, cold-turkey economic deregulation, the elimination of tariffs, >>and so on. The road from socialist slavery to capitalism and freedom is a >>long one, and, unfortunately, passes through fascism--which is where Russia >>is right now. The good news, however, is this: communism consumes an >>economy down to the bare walls, thereby leaving little for a transitional >>fascist government to steal. Result: the possibility exists that Russia >>will not linger in the fascist phase very long, before moving on to laissez >>faire capitalism. If they do, then they will dominate the 21st century the >>way the United States dominated the 20th, and Putin will be honored by >>future historians as the father of his country. I hope it happens because, >>as a very wise man said long ago, "Where freedom is, there is my country." >>--MJ}*** > >I hope Putin loves the people of his country enough to work for the real >freedoms from starvation, ignorance, death, disease, guilt and fear. If he >allows the more predatory form of Capitalism that you are advocating to get >a foothold in his country, he will have all of the negatives listed above >sitting in his lap in short order. ***{Let's be clear here: what I advocate is that the citizens of Russia, for the first time in their history, should be able to reasonably expect that their property rights will not be violated. That's what freedom means, and if it happens, Russia will experience a runaway boom similar to the one experienced by the U.S. in the 19th century, and will come to be the dominant power on planet Earth "in short order." --MJ}*** We have them in our country right now. >He should work more closely with the European governments, in particular the >Czechs, to bring his country on track. Havel is a good man, and I think, >big enough inside to offer real help to the Russian government if that is >what they really want. ***{I haven't read much about Havel, but what I have read suggests that he is a borderline libertarian, not a socialist, and so I am surprised that you would be attracted to him. Perhaps we are less far apart than you think. --MJ}*** Hopefully, all those governments in that area will >realize that a healthy, well educated, intelligent, considerate Russia will >be good for their countries as well, and give Putin some honest advice on >how to achieve that in a more mentally balanced way. ***{A borderline libertarian is more balanced than an objectivist? Hello? Many objectivists also consider themselves to *be* libertarians--people like me, for example. --MJ}*** If any one country >tries to exploit the other, it will come to light, and any trust that was >built between them will be lost. They all have too much to lose right now. > >As for the US government, they need to have the collective brain of the >military industrial complex analysed, and their covert actions reigned in >before it is too late. ***{I tend to agree, but, as noted above, I don't think the source of the problem lies in the military. --MJ}*** The same goes for the barbaric economic practices of >the Fortune 500 on Wall Street. ***{If you refer to the stock market bubble, I agree, but I think it is far too late. The stock market is going to crash irregardless, and when it does, it is going to break the entire country. The only thing that is unclear is the timing. --MJ}*** If we don't make some large and very real >changes soon, we will be overwhelmed by the number of countries that will >have very good reasons for attacking us in one fashion or another. ***{Yup. --MJ}*** > >Barring that, I would say let's just get it over with and take over the >world militarily. Forget about the free marketplace altogether. Then >everyone can all wear the same clothes, eat the same food, shop at the big >PX, say the same things, and have the same bad haircut. ***{The reason I got out of the military, Knuke, is that I did not like being told what to do. That is not to say that a military is something which can be dispensed with. It can't, if we are to have any hopes of being free. --MJ}*** I will be dead of >course on all counts, as I am quite a stylish, unique and cantankerous >fellow, but statistically, it could easily be proven by a person of your >talents that I never did even exist at all using the appropriate algorthms, >so it shouldn't make any difference to someone like you. ***{Of course it would make a difference. If you were dead, I couldn't argue with you, now could I? :-) --MJ}*** In fact, it could >be argued that by preemptively killing me for any crimes that I would >undoubtedly commit in the future ***{Pinochet might endorse killing you, on the grounds that, as a socialist, you are an advocate of mass theft and of its eventual consequence: mass starvation. I, however, believe that the best way to deal with people such as yourself is to set up an electoral system in which people vote with their tax receipts. Under such a system, the larger the depredations which socialists and fascists commit against an individual, the greater the number of votes he will be able to cast at election time. Result: it will become impossible for people with nutty ideas like yours to destroy a nation by their incessant political activism. If people vote with their tax receipts, then the more people you rob, the more powerful the political backlash against you will become. --MJ}*** , and, based upon your perceived behavior pattern >of all those functionally illiterate fools that have expressed an opinion >other than Ayn Rand's ***{The low moral and intellectual caliber of the common man is not due to his failure to parrot "Objectivist" doctrine, and I never said it was. Indeed, the foibles of commen people were discussed centuries before Ayn Rand was born. (Check out *The Misanthrope* by Moliere, a 17th century Frenchman, if you doubt this. It's a hell of a read!) You do agree, don't you, that most people are unreasoning, other directed, functionally illiterate fools? If not, what planet are you from? :-) --MJ}*** , you may, *very* well indeed, in the net, save many >lives. Right? It would be a perfectly logical thing for you to do, based >on your own past behaviors, I think. ***{You know exactly *zero* about my past behaviors, truth be told. And you flatter yourself if you think I regard people of your ilk as capable of influencing policy in a free country. I don't. A properly constructed electoral system would provide feedback loops that would *automatically* prevent it from being destabilized by people like you. Result: under such a system, I would be free to amuse myself by arguing with you, as I am doing now, without fretting over any nonexistent danger that you or your kind might pose. --MJ}*** > >As with my exchange with Rothwell, I am going to give you the last word on >this thread. ***{I'll believe it when I see it. :-) --MJ}*** I've presented my thoughts on the matter to the best of my >ability, and don't see the need to go any further with it. "Trench warfare" >has never been for this kid. Think what you will, or perhaps better in your >case, think what you can ;) > >Knuke >Michael T. Huffman >Huffman Technology Company >1121 Dustin Drive >The Villages, Florida 32159 >(352)259-1276 >knuke LCIA.COM >http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 11:55:56 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24178; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:53:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:53:10 -0700 Message-ID: <394A78A8.31CEBB00 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:57:44 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Flying car specifications References: <3.0.1.32.20000615192326.006f6d08 postoffice.ptd.net> <3.0.6.32.20000615143444.007a2450 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000616103903.007a6640@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"u-vbE3.0.iv5.MUdIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35590 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > http://cirrusdesign.com/ > > has a copy of the New York Times article I referred to, and a photograph of > the airplane falling with parachute extended. The company has finally begun > selling airplanes this year, and it has a large backlog of orders. > > This Cirrus airplane seems more practical than the Aircar. It is less of a > technological leap. Sometimes, products like the Aircar or the Analytical > Engine can be too far ahead of their time. Ah, yes, but you still require a pilot's license. The goal of the aerocar builders is a plane which can be flown without a pilot's license. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 12:10:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA29016; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:07:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:07:54 -0700 Message-ID: <1ED87F1F8B1DD411B84E00D0B74D72F40BA54E MAILSERVER> From: "Florek, Steven" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:51:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"og6Yg2.0.H57.9idIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35591 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Winterflood wrote: >As far as illustrating superposition of states, consider >a quantum computer - which doesn't yet exist, but as >far as I know (which isn't very far) all the required >elements are possible and have been tested and perform >as expected. How does one distinguish the capabilities of an analog computer with those of a quantum computer? Take a generalized analog computer that encodes information in frequency, amplitude, and/or phase in some arbitrary fashion. Aren't these devices able to perform miraculous feats of near-instantaneous convergence to mathematical solutions in much the same way quantum computers do? That is, by harnessing large numbers of interacting particle-waves to "compute" solutions in parallel. Analog computers behave "deterministically" in the sense that I think we are using the word (they obey laws that are non-statistical in nature). Can we therefore confidently state that quantum computer demonstrations are sufficient to prove the existence of superposition of states as predicted by quantum theory? No one treats analog computers as though they are in a superposition of states until someone turns a crank and a solution pops out. -Steve From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 13:30:05 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14962; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1250935377==_ma============" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <394A386E.302ACDF2 centurytel.net> References: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:24:19 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"d6C2-2.0.ef3.2seIv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35592 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --============_-1250935377==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jack Smith wrote: >Hi All, > >I have never heard of any experiment which proves that >Newton's "action at a distance" is false. ***{For the record: the notion that Newton believed in action at a distance is a falsehood propagated by his modern detractors. His equation of universal gravitation was a construct that had been deliberately fitted to experimentally obtained data points, and, while he made no claims about what the proper explanation for gravity was, he had very strong opinions about about what it was not. Here, for example, is what he had to say about the notion of "action at a distance": "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." [Isaac Newton, Third Letter to Bentley (Feb. 25, 1692), R. and J. Dodsley, London, 1756] Enough said. --Mitchell Jones}*** [snip] >It is no more absurd to accept action at a distance as a fact >of nature than it is to accept v + c = c. ***{Action at a distance implies that forces can leap into existence out of nothing, in violation of the principle of continuity. If that were possible, then the entire structure of human knowledge would collapse. For how, in that case, could we infer the existence of the external world, or our bodies, or our memories? If you think you see a dog, for example, the dog may not exist: the forces required to deflect incident photons from the "dog" into your eyes may have simply leaped into existence out of nothing. And similar considerations apply to all other sensations. Bottom line: if forces can leap into existence out of nothing, then we have no basis for believing in the existence of anything, including ourselves. The acceptance of v + c = c, on the other hand, is of a much more benign character, since all it requires is the existence of some sort of all-pervasive medium, an aether, within which c is a terminal velocity, coupled with the notion that, at some level, material interactions are either wave phenomena, or at least are very profoundly influenced by the wave phenomena which they themselves stir up. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Obviously, we "see through a glass darkly," but we can be consoled >by the utility of Newtonian design equations which enable us >to calculate the banking required at curves in roads, as well as >the trajectory of missles. ***{Newton is the man whose genius made the science of physics possible, and he does not deserve to be labeled a proponent of "action at a distance." It is a concept that he openly derided and abhored. --MJ}*** > >Jack Smith --============_-1250935377==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Jack Smith wrote: >Hi All, > >I have never heard of any experiment which proves that >Newton's "action at a distance" is false. ***{For the record: the notion that Newton believed in action at a distance is a falsehood propagated by his modern detractors. His equation of universal gravitation was a construct that had been deliberately fitted to experimentally obtained data points, and, while he made no claims about what the proper explanation for gravity was, he had very strong opinions about about what it was not. Here, for example, is what he had to say about the notion of "action at a distance": "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." [Isaac Newton, Third Letter to Bentley (Feb. 25, 1692), R. and J. Dodsley, London, 1756] Enough said. --Mitchell Jones}*** [snip] >It is no more absurd to accept action at a distance as a fact >of nature than it is to accept v + c = c. ***{Action at a distance implies that forces can leap into existence out of nothing, in violation of the principle of continuity. If that were possible, then the entire structure of human knowledge would collapse. For how, in that case, could we infer the existence of the external world, or our bodies, or our memories? If you think you see a dog, for example, the dog may not exist: the forces required to deflect incident photons from the "dog" into your eyes may have simply leaped into existence out of nothing. And similar considerations apply to all other sensations. Bottom line: if forces can leap into existence out of nothing, then we have no basis for believing in the existence of anything, including ourselves. The acceptance of v + c = c, on the other hand, is of a much more benign character, since all it requires is the existence of some sort of all-pervasive medium, an aether, within which c is a terminal velocity, coupled with the notion that, at some level, material interactions are either wave phenomena, or at least are very profoundly influenced by the wave phenomena which they themselves stir up. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Obviously, we "see through a glass darkly," but we can be consoled >by the utility of Newtonian design equations which enable us >to calculate the banking required at curves in roads, as well as >the trajectory of missles. ***{Newton is the man whose genius made the science of physics possible, and he does not deserve to be labeled a proponent of "action at a distance." It is a concept that he openly derided and abhored. --MJ}*** > >Jack Smith --============_-1250935377==_ma============-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 14:37:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26761; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:33:13 -0400 Message-Id: <200006162133.RAA01917 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Time to Move to Russia? Resent-Message-ID: <"A2QK.0._X6.lqfIv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35593 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I and Mitch wrote: >>As with my exchange with Rothwell, I am going to give you the last word on >>this thread. > >***{I'll believe it when I see it. :-) --MJ}*** Well done, Mitch. I won't say anymore on the subject other than, if someone stuck you, me and Rothwell in a hot air balloon and radioed us just a couple of issues a day, I know we could make history. ;) Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 16 18:23:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA13300; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:22:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:22:30 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <66.4adf452.267c2caf aol.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:21:51 EDT Subject: Re: Flying car specifications To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"suC8_2.0.eF3.LBjIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35594 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Moller Skycar will require a special license, but one that should be a lot easier to get than a pilot's license, though probably harder to get than an automobile license. About the gas mileage and horsepower. The Skycar, or Volantor as the company also calls it, only needs all those 960 horsepower for vertical takeoff, which is extremely inefficient compared to winged takeoff on a runway. Once it's airborne, the Skycar should be able to cruise in forward flight using much less power. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 01:20:31 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA23294; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:19:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:19:22 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mizuno ICCF-8 viewgraphs on web page Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:18:48 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <8kcmks4d9b5all2ra2doi6fepg0b9msv8f 4ax.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000612094804.01362ff4 earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613101311.007a0290@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000611163550.01363114@earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000612161953.0079f590@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000613122417.007c4130@pop .mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000613152453.007a2e20 pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613152453.007a2e20 pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id BAA23276 Resent-Message-ID: <"OD_eS1.0.uh5.AIpIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35595 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:24:53 -0400: [snip] >The reason he can predict it is interesting. You might think of "excess >heat" as being an upward blip in the output curve. It is, sometimes, but in >many experiments it shows up as quiescence, a "non-blip," or a kind of >hysteresis when you expect to see a change. During excess heat events, the >cell is in a weird state in which you can turn down the input power and the >cell temperature lags behind, and sometimes starts an upward excursion when >it should be cooling. (See the recent Miles paper.) In other words, what is >surprising in Fig 24 is not the output power so much as the green input >line which continues to drop, while the rest of the cell does what it was >doing, ignoring the change. The disconnect does not appear until the input >power is withdrawn. That's typical of CF, which I suppose is tenuous >evidence that glow discharge excess heat may be CF, assuming it is real. [snip] This sort of behaviour would be neatly explained by a temperature dependant negative feedback mechanism inherent in a putative CF mechanism. I.e. as the temperature drops, the conditions required to produce CF are better met, which results in more heat being produced, which pushes up the temperature, in turn pushing the operating point further from the ideal etc. IOW it tends to maintain a constant temperature which is the ideal temperature for the reaction. If so, then it would be interesting to know the actual cathode temperature, and strive to operate at that temperature. A further consequence would of course be that certain constraints would be placed upon the possible nature of the mechanism. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 05:46:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA18487; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:43:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:43:54 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <394B72A4.6CCA5A8B centurytel.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:44:20 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" Resent-Message-ID: <"5as1G.0.nW4.9AtIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35596 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: ***{Newton is the man whose genius made the science of physics possible, and he does not deserve to be labeled a proponent of "action at a distance." It is a concept that he openly derided and abhored. --MJ}*** Hi Mitch, I never said that Newton was a "proponent" of "action at a distance"; however, his entire physics seems to rest on action at a distance. Perhaps he was in the position of Einstein who bemoaned the presence of the cosmological constant in his (Einstein's) equations. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 08:57:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA21716; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:55:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:55:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"V3IrO2.0.EJ5.mzvIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35597 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > (2) You might come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic > explanation *could not* be applied. To do that, you would have to > demonstrate either that the cause did not precede the effect, or that there > was no continuous spatial pathway by which entities could move from the > location of the cause to the location of the effect. I think the "entanglement" issue is a distraction from the central problem: wave particle duality can be explained if particle position is not deterministic. If a light beam is made of photon particles, why can that light beam have a wavelength, or undergo diffraction, etc? How can we reconcile the evidence for photons with the evidence for waves? In other words, how can we explain the infamous double-slit diffraction experiment in a clear way which might settle most questions and satisfy most opponents in the debate? When an atom emits light, the light waves could be made from "indeterminate photons" which are smeared out in position. If this is how it works, then even a SINGLE photon can also be a sphere-wave many light-years in diameter, yet a single atom could absorb that entire wave. (And when the absorbtion occurs, the rest of the wave must somehow be informed so that other distant atoms don't also absorb a portion.) But if fields are a taboo concept, and if indeterminancy is abhorrant, then we have FEWER proposed explanations for the double-slit effect, and for everything else. Disprove conventional QM and everyone will ignore you. But supply a workable replacement, and THEN people might sit up and listen. Or at least participate in a more fruitful argument! :) ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 11:30:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA22665; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:26:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:26:38 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000617142635.007a1a80 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:26:35 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Testing two light electrically-powered vehicles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6ykP-2.0._X5.TByIv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35598 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rounding out a week devoted to futuristic transportation, I purchased and tested two light electricly-powered vehicles. I will describe them later in detail, if readers want to know. This is not exactly on-topic here in this forum, but it's interesting. Here are brief descriptions. Zappy folding electric scooter http://www.zapworld.com/ - a confusing web page, with information jumbled and repeated This a 37 lb (18 kg) scooter. It would be good for many applications, such as zipping around inside large factories or warehouses, but it does not have enough power to climb hills. When it is folded up, it can be pulled along on one wheel like a suitcase. It might be carried on a subway without much trouble. The motor power is quoted at 0.5 HP, which would be 370 watts, but I get a feeling it is more like 200 watts. When the scooter does not have enough power to climb a hill, you can push along with one foot, but this is awkward and dangerous, because the electric power surges and the handle threatens to fold up (the way it folds to be carried or stowed). You end up getting off and walking. The range is supposed to be 10 miles, but I doubt it will reach that far, even after the batteries are "broken in." This machine cannot decide whether it is a toy or a serious means of transportation. At $600 it is overpriced. Lafree electric bicycle www.lafree.com www.lafreeusa.com I investigated several electric bicycles on the Internet. Most of them looked like kludges to me, for reasons I can go into if anyone is interested. The Lafree, in contrast, looks like an engineering gem, and a test ride confirmed it. I talked to some dealers who have sold a variety of different electrically powered bicycles, and they recommended this one. It costs $1,200 with tax and a few extra items, which I think is good bargain. The machine is quite heavy, weighing about 80 lbs (36 kg), but it develops far more effective horsepower than the Zappy, and it is much easier to augment the electric power by peddling. It would not be practical to ride without the power boost. I have not ridden a tandem bicycle (a bicycle built for two) or a moped for many years, but this machine reminded me a little of them. It is like a tandem because you carry more weight but you get help, and from time to time you get a feeling that someone else is pushing, even though the power is carefully integrated into the peddling with a fuzzy logic computer. It is lighter and more maneuverable than a moped, and no problem at all to take on a sidewalk for a short distance. The range is supposed to be 20 miles, and I expect it is. The machine seems to fit the other specifications. The power controls, packaging indicator lights, self testing, and other engineering are elegant. The Lafree is probably safer than a regular bicycle, or walking, because it lets you stop at stop signs and start up again quickly, with little effort, and keep up with automobile traffic at 20 mph. The motor-assist cuts out at speeds above 20 mph, and the electric motor disengages completely, leaving you free to peddle faster if you can. That is rather difficult with an 80 lb bicycle! The Lafree does require some effort to ride, especially up hills. On a hot summer day in Atlanta, you arrive at your destination about as sweaty as you would be if you walked a block or two. When I ride a regular bicycle 2.5 miles in Atlanta, I am dripping with sweat. People commuting to work wearing business suits, or taking a trip out at lunch will find this more practical and less exhausting than a regular bicycle. I am in pretty good shape, and I would not hesitate to commute 10 miles a day on this machine along safe routes, in good weather. As with any bicycle or moped, you need an alternative form of transportation for inclement weather. Over a distance of less than two miles, in inclement weather I would recommend leaving a little early and walking to work, with a raincoat and umbrella, although walking seems to be against people's religion in the U.S. The use of any bicycle, motorcycle or moped in U.S. urban areas is severely limited by the appalling designs of the roads, traffic jams, and the homicidal behavior of drivers, who sometimes make a sport of driving bicycles and pedestrians off the road. (Yes, it has happened to me.) You are not supposed to ride on sidewalks with a bicycle, but I do anyway, because in Atlanta you would have to be suicidal to ride a bicycle on the main roads. Atlanta has the second worst pedestrian fatality rate in the U.S., mainly because it lacks sidewalks and crosswalks, and drivers habitually violate the speed limit by 10 mph or more. Performance Comparison I made several trips from my office to my house with different methods: automobile, walking, 3 trips with the Zappy, and 2 trips with the Lafree. The distance is 2.5 miles (4 km), measured with two automobile odometers, electronic and analog. I took a circuitous route along empty suburban residential streets, and in two short heavy traffic areas, along sidewalks. The route is moderately hilly, with little traffic even at rush hour. It passes by the Chamblee surburban subway station, which has more sidewalks than most Atlanta streets. There are three traffic lights and 8 or 10 stop signs. I always travel at the speed limit (25 mph most of the way), and I stop at all stop signs with the bicycle. Here is a speed comparison: Automobile: 9 minutes Walking: about 45 minutes Zippy: 28 minutes LaFree bicycle: 15 minutes ordinary bicycle: around 15 minutes Conclusion Much to my surprise, practical electric vehicles are already available. Electric bicycles are selling well in Europe and Japan. The market will remain severely limited in the U.S. because our roads and traffic law enforcement are so awful. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 14:09:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18788; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:07:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:07:25 -0700 Message-ID: <0b3f01bfd89f$27b905e0$5a9680d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000617142635.007a1a80 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Testing two light electrically-powered vehicles Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:01:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"FLW_t2.0.Ub4.CY-Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35599 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: While on the subject you may wish to check this solar model: http://www.hammacher.com/DefaultPage/default.asp?ContentPage=/publish/60237. htm > Rounding out a week devoted to futuristic transportation, I purchased and > tested two light electricly-powered vehicles. Have you considered any recumbent bikes? Tired of the aches and pains of traditional bikes - my favorite is here: http://www.linearrecumbents.com/LinearCLWB.htm Can get electric assist motors for those hard uphill climbs - at least until the calf muscles develop :-) Some models have fairings that keep out the rain. > The Lafree does require some effort to ride, especially up hills. On a hot > summer day in Atlanta, you arrive at your destination about as sweaty as > you would be if you walked a block or two. I ride at night - sleep during the day - much cooler when riding :-) Install a dynamo in the wheel and let there be light! Of course bikes have problems at the traffic lights - here is a little helpful info from the electric bike mailing list - your city may vary: *****Does anyone here have an intimate familiarity with the detector loops used at intersections with traffic signals? There has been some discussion of this at the touring list. In an e-mail from Peter Snow Cao, there is a suggestion that an external magnetic field may trigger the detector. My impression was that they either relied on a change in the magnetic coupling between coils, or just detected the eddy current losses in a winding when lossy magnetic material was nearby (i.e. a large chunk of iron). In neither case would an external magnetic field be effective. Anyone know the details?? (it must be on the web *somewhere*) Steve Kurt --- here's the posting from Peter Snow Cao at the touring list ---- Traffic signal detectors also come in a variety of shapes and flavors. Pedestrian detectors are almost always a button, and can have a feedback indicator if your traffic district wants to spend the money on them. Vehicle detectors are usually inductance loops which are wires in the pavement usually coiled 4 times. They detect the presence of a vehicle by monitoring the change in the earth's magnetic flux (as was mentioned earlier). While all moving mass can change the flux, iron works the best. So, dogs and people, unless they are carrying a quite a bit of iron on them will not "trip" a loop detector. Aluminum is also particularly poor at changing flux, hence bike and motorcycles made of aluminum frequently have problems at loop detectors. My friend who is an electrical engineer told me he planned on installing an electro-magnet on his aluminum motorcycle that he could turn on to get the loops to recognize his presence. This is because it is the magnetic flux that the detectors are monitoring and an electro-magnet who cause a large change in the ambient flux. Now the loop detectors are usually rectangular, allow diamond and round shapes are becoming more common. With the small rectangular loop detector, the edge of the loop directly above where the wire is laid is most sensitive, and usually the one closed to the stop line is more sensitive than the others. With long loops with a center wire the most sensitive area is center wire. If there is no center wire, then the edge wire. With diamond and circular loops ride through the middle and stop with your bike in the middle. I hope this helps.****** I have heard rumors of something called the "go box" which in certain cities can be used by police or emergency vehicles to change traffic lights at a distance. > The use of any bicycle, motorcycle or moped in U.S. urban areas is severely > limited by the appalling designs of the roads, traffic jams, and the > homicidal behavior of drivers, who sometimes make a sport of driving > bicycles and pedestrians off the road. (Yes, it has happened to me.) You > are not supposed to ride on sidewalks with a bicycle, but I do anyway, > because in Atlanta you would have to be suicidal to ride a bicycle on the > main roads. Atlanta has the second worst pedestrian fatality rate in the > U.S., mainly because it lacks sidewalks and crosswalks, and drivers > habitually violate the speed limit by 10 mph or more. Yes my city also suffers from poor design - walking and bike use come behind auto use unfortunately and the city engineering reflects such. No bike lanes anywhere - few sidewalks - plenty of congested roads. At least when I fly over my city Jed I don't see this big brown cloud over it like you do in Atlanta - at least not yet :-) HOOFING IT Planning on taking a walk? You might want to avoid the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., area. A study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a coalition of community and advocacy groups, says pedestrians in the Tampa-St. Pete area face the highest risk of getting killed by a car. Atlanta, Miami, Orlando and Jacksonville, Fla., round out the top-5 list of cities that are the most dangerous places in the United States for a pedestrian. Pittsburgh, Penn.; Boston; Rochester, N.Y.; and Milwaukee-Racine, Wisc. were ranked as the best cities for walking. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 14:13:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20334; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:11:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:11:17 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000617171613.006dec94 postoffice.ptd.net> X-Sender: revtec postoffice.ptd.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:16:13 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: jeff fink Subject: Re: Flying car specifications In-Reply-To: <66.4adf452.267c2caf aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"rj2RN2.0.ez4.qb-Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35600 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At >About the gas mileage and horsepower. The Skycar, or Volantor as the company >also calls it, only needs all those 960 horsepower for vertical takeoff, >which is extremely inefficient compared to winged takeoff on a runway. Once >it's airborne, the Skycar should be able to cruise in forward flight using >much less power. > >Tom Stolper > > >That makes sense. I should have figured that in. Regarding wankel engines, they have from their inception had problems with excessive wear on the rotor seals. Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 14:33:19 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25126; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:31:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:31:15 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000617173101.007aa460 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:31:01 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Alternative Energy Institute, Inc. reviews ICCF-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MBnV52.0.W86.Zu-Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35601 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: www.altenergy.org/iccf8/iccf8.html These are brief descriptions of each plenary session presentation. For example: Professor Akito Takahashi has been a leader in studies of cold fusion at Osaka University for many years, with growing sophistication. This paper given by Yuji Isobe describes several different experiments. Real-time measurement of heat and helium produced in an electrolytic cell showed production of excess power (2 Watts) as well as helium, but no neutrons. Helium in the gas and in the Pd was measured. Unfortunately, a quantitative comparison between energy and helium was not given. Ion bombardment studies were described that produced excess power as well as anomalous electromagnetic radiation and particle emission. Further information about the results will have to await publication of the paper. The summaries include good-quality photos of the authors, which show them in a better light than we have ever managed. I do not care for the Alternative Energy Institute because they accept all over-unity claims at face value, without skeptical doubts. A few years ago, they sent me an early draft of their proposed web-page content. It included many half-baked rumors and unprovable claims made 60 years ago about machines that have disappeared without a trace. It features (in bold green headlines), statements like this: It was reported that the discs buzzed with a soft hum, and in the dark they emanated strange lavender light. People who accept everything uncritically give CF a bad name. I suppose many CF scientists feel that way about me! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 15:06:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00628; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:04:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:04:16 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000617180234.007a5600 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:02:34 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Testing two light electrically-powered vehicles In-Reply-To: <0b3f01bfd89f$27b905e0$5a9680d8 n8o9m1> References: <3.0.6.32.20000617142635.007a1a80 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"tlEgQ.0.e9.WN_Iv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35602 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill Wallace wrote: >Have you considered any recumbent bikes? Tired of the aches and pains of >traditional bikes . . . I never noticed aches and pains, except after a 100 mile run. My brother likes the recumbent bikes, but I have not had occasion to try one. I think it would not be practical for commuting in Atlanta. Too low on the road, and it would be awkward to hop off and wheel through a crowd of pedestrian train passengers in front of Chamblee station. I purchased the Lafree mainly out of curiosity about the potential for practical, electrically powered urban transport for ordinary folks. I conclude that if the streets and subway stations were engineered or retrofitted for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the way they are in many parts of Japan, this would be a viable method of transportation. Better than bicycles. Quieter and less polluting than mopeds or motorcycles. I think anyone over age 12 can use this machine with ease. My daughter and her friend rode it this afternoon, and they agree with me it handles like a dream. It is like a bicycle with no steep hills. (I also purchased it because my daughter is working a summer job and has the car, and my regular bicycle is too high strung and maybe too old for commuting. They don't make Mafac centerpull brakes anymore, although they should, by golly.) >I ride at night - sleep during the day - much cooler when riding :-) I need this for 8 to 5 commuting. I could use it to go downtown, if there was a safe place at the station to leave bicycles and motorcycles. There would be in any other country. Japanese stations have enclosed parking areas with hundreds of bicycles. >Install a dynamo in the wheel and let there be light! This machine has power to spare. It would make more sense to hook one of these police floodlights to the battery, with enough candlepower to disable obnoxious drivers. (With CF powered bicycles, maybe we can have on-board tactical laser weapons. We are talking 'parity' here!) There is a setting on the power switch that says "lights" but it does not do anything, yet. I think it is a future feature. This machine was just introduced. The battery on this bicycle weighs 25 lbs. Clearly, the energy storage system is the limiting factor. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 16:32:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA20516; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:27:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:27:45 -0700 Message-ID: <0ba901bfd8b2$c3c1cea0$5a9680d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000617142635.007a1a80 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000617180234.007a5600@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Testing two light electrically-powered vehicles Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:21:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"yuv2V2.0.U05.mb0Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35603 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > I never noticed aches and pains, except after a 100 mile run. You are probably in a better shape than me - I am round :-) > I purchased the Lafree mainly out of curiosity about the potential for > practical, electrically powered urban transport for ordinary folks. I Was the ebike at www.ebike.com in your consideration? Why choose the lafree over ebike? > conclude that if the streets and subway stations were engineered or > retrofitted for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the way they are in many > parts of Japan, this would be a viable method of transportation. Better The japanese have many advances - and I wish we had some of the pedestrian friendly cities like they do - however if the future here is going to be as crowded as there - I don't know that I am looking forward to it. > I need this for 8 to 5 commuting. I could use it to go downtown, if there > was a safe place at the station to leave bicycles and motorcycles. Well couldn't you rig a high voltage theft deterrent system? :-) Give that ZAPPY device a whole new meaning (hehe) If both wheels turn with the device enabled - ZAP! > This machine has power to spare. It would make more sense to hook one of > these police floodlights to the battery, with enough candlepower to disable > obnoxious drivers. (With CF powered bicycles, maybe we can have on-board > tactical laser weapons. We are talking 'parity' here!) There is a setting > on the power switch that says "lights" but it does not do anything, yet. I > think it is a future feature. This machine was just introduced. > > The battery on this bicycle weighs 25 lbs. Clearly, the energy storage > system is the limiting factor. I believe US Flywheel and others are working on portable flywheel systems to store massive amounts of energy in something you can wear in a backpack or certainly attach to your bike, yes obnoxious driver indeed - use an EMP to disable his car - that should change his attitude. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 17 16:51:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA26397; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:49:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:49:19 -0700 Message-ID: <394C0E7B.139181BD home.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:49:15 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E60B13A2EC24F3F3369D579A" Resent-Message-ID: <"wL6nB2.0.IS6._v0Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35604 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E60B13A2EC24F3F3369D579A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, As usual, Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System, being a unified theory, does explain these quantum mechanical enigmas. See Prof. K.V.K. Nehru's paper http://www.interpres.cz/sr/rs/cwkvk/nonlocality.htm And, of course, gravity "propagates" at infinite speed in this theory because it is a property of the inward scalar motion of mass and has nothing to do with other bodies, i.e. mass is always moving toward all other points in the universe whether they are occupied or not--it's the opposite of the expansion of the universe. The universal expansion shows up as a 15 Femto G repulsive acceleration, so stars generally will not approach closer than about 4 LYr where gravity and expansion are about equal. Stars repel beyond that. That's why globular clusters are stable and galaxies fly apart. Hoyt Stearns Phoenix -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------E60B13A2EC24F3F3369D579A Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------E60B13A2EC24F3F3369D579A-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 00:09:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA01079; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:06:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:06:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:04:32 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"gDQNU1.0.nG.7K7Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35605 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> (1) You might come up with some generalized statistical property of a data >> stream--something analogous to randomness--which supposedly could not be >> produced by a deterministic process. In such a case, it would be possible >> to program that criterion into a computer and do generalized testing of >> data streams, to see if examples of indeterminism could be found. > >Hi Mitch. I don't believe that any of the factions in the age old QM >determinism debate have ever claimed that the characteristics of the >statistics implies indeterminancy. ***{Hi Bill. You are correct, more or less. The central problem with this debate is that the QM proponents *hint* at lots of things, but seldom come right out and *say* anything. Indeed, if one word were capable of describing their position on this issue, that word would be *murk*. And, to all appearances, that's the way they want it. Even if you lay out the alternative ways to argue the point in a detailed list, and ask them which form of argument they are using, silence is all that comes back at you, in virtually all cases. Such a state of affairs can be very frustrating, if you are inclined, as I am, to explore issues. Worse: for naive individuals who are not given to pondering deep questions and who lack self-confidence, the normal response to the murk is to assume that they simply aren't smart enough to understand, and that they ought to simply accept the lead of the "experts." Since most students fall into this category, the "Copenhagen interpretation," or one of its modern variants, usually wins by default. --MJ}*** If a QM process creates a particular >frequency distribution of white noise, certainly we could imagine a >deterministic mechanism which did the same thing. The random decay times >of radioactive atoms could be explained by "local hidden variables", by >assuming that some sort of determinstic random generator is operating >within the atom. If photons arrive at the film plane randomly, we could >imagine that they had been given random trajectories. > > >> (2) You might come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic >> explanation *could not* be applied. To do that, you would have to >> demonstrate either that the cause did not precede the effect, or that there >> was no continuous spatial pathway by which entities could move from the >> location of the cause to the location of the effect. > >THAT is the key point. As I understand it, the Aspect entanglement >experiment is easy to explain in deterministic terms. Simply acknowledge >that distant particles can be in superliminal (instantaneous) >communication with each other. End of story. ***{Yes, it is indeed easy to explain by postulating faster-than-light signaling; and, yes, that is, indeed, a deterministic explanation. However, it is by no means clear that these results cannot be explained in a much more straightforward way, by simply postulating that the two photons left their common source with their angular momentum vectors pointing in the same direction. (See below.) By the way, even if we ultimately must make recourse to superluminal propagation of this cause, the notion of "instantaneous" propagation is *not* indicated. One of the photons will strike its polarizer an instant before the other, and it will be sufficient for the "signal" to merely travel at some finite multiple of the speed of light, in order for it to reach the other polarizer and exert whatever effect is needed to push the other photon through. Thus some sort relatively mundane superluminal shock wave would suffice, traveling at a suprisingly large, yet finite, velocity. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >I don't quite understand the chain of reasoning in the QM debate, but I've >heard it stated that QM behavior demonstrates that *EITHER* reality is >fundamentally indeterminate, *OR* that information can travel >instantaneously across any distance (and all distant points in space are >therefore in some ways the same point.) ***{We have painstakingly built up our picture of the universe and our place in it by assuming that effects follow continuous spatial pathways at finite velocities. If *infinite* velocities are possible, then that picture disintegrates. For, in that case, any causal pathway could have gaps that are connected by jumps at infinite velocities. The neurons in our brains, for example, could be separated by gaps that were hundreds of quintillions of light years in width, if neural impulses jumped those gaps instantaneously. And the same could be said of adjacent atoms, or anything else. The result would be impossible to visualize: every particle in the universe could be alone in a black void of incomprehensible vastness, communicating with "adjacent" particles instantaneously, and the resulting "picture" would be too large to fit inside any human brain. Thus if effects can propagate at infinite velocities, the entire structure of human knowledge collapses (including "quantum mechanics." :-) --MJ}*** If there truly are no other >options, then those who refuse to accept FTL and nonlocality can solve the >problem by assuming that indeterminacy is built into physics. Those who >find indeterminacy abhorrant can assume that space is nonlocal. ***{There is a third option: it may be that the proper explanation of the Aspect experiment simply involves the two photons departing their common source with their angular momentum vectors pointing in the same direction, and maintaining that state of affairs as they approach their respective polarizers. For, in that case, if both polarizers have their transmission axes oriented the same way, then if one photon goes through, so will the other; and if one doesn't go through, the other also will not go through. This is, in fact, what is observed. How, then, do the proponents of "entanglement" discount such an interpretation? Simple: they point to other portions of the observed distribution of data points which, at present, seem to clash with that interpretation. If P is the probability that, if one photon is detected, the other will also be detected, and A is the angle in degrees between the transmission axes of the two polarizers, then the best fit of the observed data is to the curve P = cos A. However, the most straightforward calculation, assuming that the two photons have parallel angular momentum vectors, would be that P = (90 - A)/90. If you compare these two functions, you will see that they give the same results when A = 0 or A = 90, and that they differ everywhere else. If you plot them on the same chart, you will note that the cosine curve is always a bit above the linear function, except at the endpoints. The question is, how is this discrepancy to be explained? Clearly, some factor is operating that slightly increases the probability of the second photon being detected, as you move toward the middle of the distribution. The QM people "explain" what is happening by labeling that factor as "entanglement," and, after doing so, demand that doubters either provide an alternative, deterministic explanation, or else concede the debate. In effect, they use an argument in the form of my option (3) (see below), and argue that anything which is presently unexplained must be attributed to indeterminism--i.e., to "entanglement," in this case. My objection to this method of argument is simply that I don't consider magic to be an explanation of anything, and I consider "entanglement" to be an instance of magic. Since there is, at present, no fully satisfactory explanation of this result in terms of causal determinism, I simply conclude that this result is yet to be explained. For those who are baffled by my attitude, I can only say that it is easy to "explain" anything by postulating magic. If such "explanations" are accepted, the process of science comes to a halt, and so does the advancement of knowledge. In that case, when crops fail, you simply conclude that the gods were angered by something someone did and that they used their magical powers to send a plague of locusts, or bad weather, or whatever. Then you pick a scapegoat --someone nobody likes, naturally--seize them, cut their heart out, and offer it up to the gods to placate them. I object to such methods of doing things, and to anything based on the same primitive mode of thought--e.g., "quantum mechanics." --Mitchell Jones}*** > > (3) You might come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic > > explanation *had not* been applied. The premise of such a line of > > reasoning, naturally, would be that anything which is unexplained must be > > attributed to indeterminism. > > > > Since I flatly proved that (1) is impossible, since (2) is self-evidently > > impossible, > >Why is #2 impossible? ***{It is impossible to come up with an experimental result to which a deterministic explanation cannot be applied because, in order to demonstrate the inapplicability of a deterministic explanation--i.e., a *real* explanation--you would have to either demonstrate (a) that the cause could not have preceded the effect, or (b) that there was no continuous spatial pathway by which the cause could have traveled to the location of the effect. How could you do either? You would be trying to prove a negative. There are lots of continuous spatial pathways linking every point in the universe to the point where the experimental result was observed, and since superluminal velocities do *not* clash with determinism, it follows that the potential exists for a cause to propagate from any point in the universe to the location of the experiment, and produce the effect. Result: until a *real* explanation is available--as opposed to magic--the only reasonable course is to continue one's struggle to understand. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) >William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website >billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com >EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science >Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 00:48:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA07362; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:46:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:46:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <394B72A4.6CCA5A8B centurytel.net> References: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:43:33 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"iFMlv1.0.yo1.Wv7Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35606 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >***{Newton is the man whose genius made the science of physics possible, >and he does not deserve to be labeled a proponent of "action at a >distance." It is a concept that he openly derided and abhored. --MJ}*** > >Hi Mitch, > >I never said that Newton was a "proponent" of "action at a distance"; >however, his entire physics seems to rest on action at a distance. >Perhaps he was in the position of Einstein who bemoaned the presence >of the cosmological constant in his (Einstein's) equations. > >Jack Smith ***{Hi Jack. No, you can't say that a mathematical construct which has been deliberately fitted to experimentally determined data points "rests on" any particular theory. All you can do is evaluate each theory--i.e., each visualizable mental model--as it comes along, to see whether it does or does not clash with the math. In the case of Newton's law of universal gravitation, there are several theories that explain it equally well, as we have discussed on vortex in the past. There is, for example LeSage's push theory of gravitation, according to which "ultramundane corpuscles" are raining down on us from deep space at hundreds of millions of times the speed of light, and have the effect of pushing nearby bodies toward one another. Or, again, there is the pull theory, according to which "gravitons" are thrown off by masses and, when they strike other masses, they exert a tug, pulling the struck object toward the source of the graviton. And so on. Other examples abound: Kepler's famous equations of celestial motion were deliberately fitted to astronomical measurements obtained by Tycho Brahe; Maxwell's equations were deliberately fitted to the results of Michael Faraday's electromagnetic experimentation; Niels Bohr's equation defining the permitted electron orbits of hydrogen was a rather trivial tweak to Balmer's formula, which in turn was deliberately fitted to spectral data; and so on. Basically what happens in physics is that experimenters collect data, and, from time to time, mathematical physicists come up with very basic and broadly useful formulas, by deliberately seeking a fit to experimental data points. There then ensues a period of working out the mathematical implications of the new fundamental formula, devising new experiments to test those implications, and, at least back in the days before theoretical physics ceased to exist, of seeking to construct visualizable mental models to explain the math. Bottom line: mathematical constructs that have been deliberately fitted to experimentally determined data points are *theory neutral*--which means: any proponent of a visualizable model that does not clearly clash with the math can use it and claim it as his own. If this were not so, then, for example, virtually nobody today could use Maxwell's equations, since virtually nobody today believes the aether theory which Maxwell used to explain those equations. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 04:13:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA25509; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:11:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:11:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20000618111144.17041.qmail web119.yahoomail.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:11:44 -0700 (PDT) From: ron kita Subject: Antigravity Conference, Reno NV June 24-26 To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"EA-eB.0.VE6.ovAJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35607 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Cox formerly of TRW Space Park will host his second annual Antigravity Conference June 24-26 Program is listed at http://www.padrak.com/agn Please pass this message along to interested parties. Many Thanks, Ron Kita AGN cox e-mail bootstrapcox yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 05:37:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA01820; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:35:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:35:36 -0700 Message-ID: <394CBB57.7E458DDB ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:06:47 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jun 16, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"frHDi1.0.IS.O8CJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35608 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for Jun 16, 2000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:53:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 16 Jun 00 Washington, DC 1. CLIMATE CHANGE: THE FEDS WEIGH IN ON GLOBAL WARMING. "Climate Change Impacts On the United States," the first thorough federal assessment of the potential consequences of warming, was released this week for 60 days of public review. Weighing in at 4.73 kg, the massive tome is not light reading. It offers something for everyone. For the technological optimists, a persuasive argument that the planet is indeed getting warmer is coupled with the cheery prognosis that this could lead to increased agricultural productivity. But for the Malthusian pessimists, there is plenty of gloom and doom; e.g., "For the worst-case scenario category 3 hurricane, surge levels could rise 25 feet above mean sea level at JFK Airport..." Today, on the floor of the Senate, Chuck Hagel (R-NE) ridiculed the report as an "evangelical document with apocalyptic overtones." The fourth secret of Fatima maybe? 2. ABM TREATY: CLINTON'S LAWYERS PROPOSE "BROAD INTERPRETATION." The US wants to start pouring concrete for a missile defense radar on Shemya Island. That would violate a legal understanding of the ABM treaty dating back to the Reagan administration. So what are lawyers for? Anyway, it's all happened before. In 1972, the Senate ratified the ABM treaty with the understanding that it banned development of an ABM system as well as deployment. But 13 years later, a White House lawyer, Abraham Sofaer, claimed to find a loophole in the negotiating record allowing development based on "new physical principles." Like all religious visions, only the faithful could see it. Ironically, in 1993 the Clinton Administration reaffirmed the "narrow interpretation" of the ABM treaty (WN 16 Jul 93). We now seem to have come full circle. 3. LOS ALAMOS: WEN HO LEE SEEMS TO BE IN THE CLEAR ON THIS ONE. But for everyone who had access to the missing hard drives, it's going be a tough time. Naturally, the immediate response of the FBI was to trot out the polygraph machines (WN 17 Mar 00). (Let's see, how many polygraph exams did Aldrich Ames pass?) Meanwhile, there were a number of political consequences. On Wednesday, Sen. Richard Bryan (D-NV) lifted a hold he had put on the nomination of Gen. John Gordon, deputy director of the CIA, to be the first Director of Nuclear Security for the Labs. The Senate immediately confirmed Gordon by a unanimous vote. Later that day, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who had objected to creation of the new agency, snubbed congressional hearings on the missing hard drives. This latest security snafu seems to have ended the prospect of Richardson becoming Al Gore's running mate. 4. SPACE STATION: ANNUAL ATTEMPT TO KILL ISS SET FOR NEXT WEEK. Tim Roemer (D-IN) has lots of congressional allies this year for an amendment to delete the ISS from the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. His most effective ally may be the station itself, which is turning into a national embarrassment (WN 19 May 00). THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 07:20:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17408; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:16:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:16:51 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:16:48 -0400 Message-Id: <200006181416.KAA00823 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Nuclear Waste Remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"OMVHe2.0.wF4.JdDJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35609 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, George Wiseman has just repeated in his latest newsletter that nuclear waste can be remediated in minutes with a technique using Brown's Gas, and that it has now been proven in several parts of the world. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 07:34:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA22496; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:33:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:33:03 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:32:58 -0400 Message-Id: <200006181432.KAA05026 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Reversable Hydroysis Fuel Cell Kit Resent-Message-ID: <"fPdh43.0.QV5.VsDJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35610 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, Here is a link from Wiseman's newsletter as well, which offers a pretty nifty education kit for the study of their quite unique fuel cells. http://ecosoul.org Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 07:36:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA22920; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:34:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:34:46 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:52:11 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"L-moC3.0.2c5.5uDJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35611 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:16 AM 6/18/0, Michael T Huffman wrote: >Gnorts, > >George Wiseman has just repeated in his latest newsletter that nuclear waste >can be remediated in minutes with a technique using Brown's Gas, and that it >has now been proven in several parts of the world. What is the technique? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 08:17:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28148; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:14:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:14:59 -0700 Message-ID: <394CE886.EAB98742 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:19:41 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Alternative Energy Institute, Inc. reviews ICCF-8 References: <3.0.6.32.20000617173101.007aa460 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WxoWQ.0.gt6.oTEJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35612 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Jed, I think you are being unfair to the Alternative Energy Institute. For one thing, they are providing a very valuable and free service to people interested in cold fusion. The overview of the conference should be useful to casual observers as well as to people in the field. I'm grateful for this service especially because it is being done with considerable competence. As for their supposed uncritical interest in "free" energy, we all have a problem deciding what is real and what is not. Until a phenomenon is completely understood, much of what is observed frequently seems to make no sense. I would rather have access to all strange claims so that I could evaluate their reality myself than have someone sort them into what they think is real. I think it is unfair to shoot the massager just because the message does not agree with present notions. In addition, I'm tired of bending to the distorted demands of skeptics. If being in the company of difficult to accept (understand) claims gives cold fusion a bad name, well that's just tough. The skeptics will find a way to beat up cold fusion no matter what company it keeps. As you have argued so well in the past, we need to get our own act together and make the effect work on demand, rather than worry about what the neighbors are doing. Best regards, Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > www.altenergy.org/iccf8/iccf8.html > > These are brief descriptions of each plenary session presentation. For > example: > > Professor Akito Takahashi has been a leader in studies of cold > fusion at Osaka University for many years, with growing > sophistication. This paper given by Yuji Isobe describes several > different experiments. Real-time measurement of heat and helium > produced in an electrolytic cell showed production of excess > power (2 Watts) as well as helium, but no neutrons. Helium in > the gas and in the Pd was measured. Unfortunately, a > quantitative comparison between energy and helium was not given. > > Ion bombardment studies were described that produced excess > power as well as anomalous electromagnetic radiation and > particle emission. Further information about the results will > have to await publication of the paper. > > The summaries include good-quality photos of the authors, which show them > in a better light than we have ever managed. > > I do not care for the Alternative Energy Institute because they accept all > over-unity claims at face value, without skeptical doubts. A few years ago, > they sent me an early draft of their proposed web-page content. It included > many half-baked rumors and unprovable claims made 60 years ago about > machines that have disappeared without a trace. It features (in bold green > headlines), statements like this: > > It was reported that the discs buzzed with a soft hum, and in > the dark they emanated strange lavender light. > > People who accept everything uncritically give CF a bad name. I suppose > many CF scientists feel that way about me! > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 10:14:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21314; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:10:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:10:37 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <394D029D.208C686D centurytel.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:10:53 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" Resent-Message-ID: <"-Uwb71.0.yC5.CAGJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35613 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jack Smith wrote: I never said that Newton was a "proponent" of "action at a distance"; however, his entire physics seems to rest on action at a distance ... Mitchell Jones wrote: ... Bottom line: mathematical constructs that have been deliberately fitted to experimentally determined data points are *theory neutral*--which means: any proponent of a visualizable model that does not clearly clash with the math [data?] can use it and claim it as his own ... Hi Mitch, You are entirely correct. "rests" is a poor choice of words. I should have said that "action at a distance" does not clash with the data gathered by Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and others. Kepler might have got a better fit with a power series; but conic sections have a mystical beauty. Newton put the whole thing together in The Principia. Based on our agreement about the relationship between data and theory, I would like to comment on some other ideas which do not clash with the data: At any scale in the universe, things seems to dissolve or combine into granularities. Galaxies can be cut into stars, and stars can be cut into solar systems. It seems that some granules cannot be cut into smaller parts. One of the most important of these granules is the photon. An "atom" is not cuttable; but it is also not indestructible. Does the filament of an incandescent bulb conatain all the photns that it will ever emit, like an ovary with a lifetime supply of eggs? Or do the emitted photns "pop" into existence? When a photon strikes a metal plate, doesn't it just pop out of existence? It is hard to conceive of any object which could preserve the photons that strike it. Thoughts of granularity lead to thoughts of discontinuity. Perhaps things other than photons pop in and out of existence. Is motion itself discontinuous? Such a question requires an experimental answer. Action at a distance could explain how Schroedinger's cat meets its fate at the instant something happens millions of light years away. One does not need superluminal particles if action at a distance is a fact of nature. Is the principle of continuity only an axiom from which a train of logic can be deduced? Or is it a statement about nature that is open to demonstration that it does not clash with any body of experimental data? The experiment of adding a third polarizing film in series with two films polarized at right angles to each seems to require that photons pop in and out of existence, although other theories have been advanced which may not clash with this data. Enough rambling for now, Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 10:15:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21614; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:11:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:11:02 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000618131045.007a2950 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:10:45 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"QdY6y3.0.aH5.bAGJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35614 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Prof. Sergio Focardi , who I met at ICCF-8, was kind enough to send me three papers about Piantelli's recent work with Ni-H CF. The papers are in Acrobat Reader .pdf format: Asti.pdf "Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals ," W. J. M. F. Collins (Ed.), SIF,Bologna,1999, "On the Ni-H System," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S.Veronesi Battaglia.pdf IL NUOVO CIMENTO Vol. 112 A, N. 9 Settembre 1999 "Neutron emission in Ni-H systems," A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi focardi.pdf IL NUOVO CIMENTO VOL. 111 A, N. 11 Novembre 1998, "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi I would be happy to pass these on to any Vortex reader. The copyright issues are vague, but I think I should refrain from posting them on my web page. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 10:32:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25583; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:25:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:25:29 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:25:20 -0400 Message-Id: <200006181725.NAA13908 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"qlPRt.0.fF6.9OGJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35615 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace writes: >What is the technique? > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner Good question, Horace! I just wrote to him to get some specifics. He is pretty open about that sort of thing, and refuses to patent anything, so I expect to hear back, shortly. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 11:14:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32460; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:10:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:10:19 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000616191350.00a345c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:06:45 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"Wg1cO1.0.6x7.A2HJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35617 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchel Jones wrote: >>According to "quantum mechanics," the state of the >>photon at B is indeterminate until the other photon's >>state is measured at A. Prior to that time, the two >>photons allegedly exist in a non-specific >>"superposition" of states known as "entanglement." >>It is, by this *ludicrous* view, only after the photon >>is detected at A that the wave function collapses and >>the photon at B assumes a determinate state. > >Ahhh... Now I understand what you are referring to when >you talk about "indeterminism". For some reason I >thought it had something to do with unpredictability, >and I couldn't see that the Aspect experiment provides >a particularly good example of that. > >As far as illustrating superposition of states, consider >a quantum computer [woolly speculations about nonexistent "quantum computers" deleted] > >OK, I don't know much about this subject and may >have made plenty of mistakes in the above >description, but this is a big area of research >at present and I would guess that the simplest >quantum gate cannot be adequately simulated by >conventional logic or computer - or they wouldn't >be trying so hard to build them. > >So, do you reckon they are just stupid and will >never get past a single gate? Or do you reckon >software engineers are dorks because they can't >use numbers to do 2^200 multiplications >simultaneously when all we want is the ONE MOST >LIKELY answer to the final equality comparison? ***{I reckon I'll worry about "quantum computing" if and when it becomes something more than just hot air. --MJ}*** > >Mitchell Jones wrote: >>>(2) You might come up with an experimental result to which >>>a deterministic explanation *could not* be applied. To do >>>that, you would have to demonstrate either that the cause >>>did not precede the effect, or that there was no continuous >>>spatial pathway by which entities could move from the >>>location of the cause to the location of the effect. >William Beaty replied: >>THAT is the key point. As I understand it, the Aspect >>entanglement experiment is easy to explain in deterministic >>terms. Simply acknowledge that distant particles can be in >>superliminal (instantaneous) communication with each other. >>End of story. > >It is not really the end of the story if you are a scientist >and want to be able to defend your beliefs in front of other >scientists. As soon as you accept superluminal communication >or even synchonisation, you have rejected special relativity >(ho hum don't we all) but in so doing you have also said that >there MUST BE a preferred reference frame (the superluminal >effect allows you to synchronise clocks to measure the one >way speed of light in each direction to find out at what >speed you are moving with respect to this preferred reference >frame). ***{The problem with the Aspect experiment is to account for the fact that the probability that the second photon will also go through its polarizer is always a little bit too high. (If P is the probability that the second photon will also go through and A is the angle in degrees between the transmission axes of the two polarizers, then the actual data fit P = cos A better than P = (90 - A)/90.) To account for this discrepancy, proponents of QM propose magic: that the two photons exist in an undefined "superposition" of states until the first photon is detected, and that when that detection occurs, the wave function instantaneously "collapses," thereby telling the other detector what to do. A real explanation, on the other hand, would propose simply that when the first photon hits its detector, a superluminal shock wave is created which propagates in the opposite direction, strikes the other photon from behind, and gives it a push that increases the probability that it will pass through its polarizer. Thus, by this theory, it is the push from the superluminal shock wave that increases the height of the probability curve between its endpoints, and causes the best fit to be to P = cos A rather than to P = (90 - A)/90. Such a theory is pure causal determinism, and allows the two photons to possess defined, and parallel, angular momentum vectors as they fly away from their source, rather than existing in an undefined "superposition" of states. Concerning your point about " preferred reference frames," well, if the question is asked as to what might be the medium through which the "superluminal shock wave" propagates, the answer is obvious: the aether. And, of course, if the aether--i.e., a particulate medium that pervades all of space--exists, then it is itself the "preferred reference frame." --Mitchell Jones}*** > >So then you need to be able to explain why (almost?) all >efforts to detect motion with respect to this preferred >reference frame have failed - ie you need to find the >flaw in the *many* Michelson-Morely type of experiments, >argue aether drag, aberration, etc, etc, which scientists >have given a pretty good going over ***{The obvious interpretation of the Michelson-Morley type experiments is the one given by Michelson: that a pool of aether is gravitationally entrained by the Earth as it moves around the sun, in much the same way that Earth's atmosphere is gravitationally entrained. In that case, since the Michelson-Morley apparatus was at rest with respect to the aether, it was entirely to be expected that the speed of light down the two perpendicular pathways would be the same. Thus Michelson concluded that the experiment proved the entrained aether theory, and believed that until his death. --MJ}*** - with new and quite >different experiments being done relatively recently after >the dipole ansiotropy in the cosmic background radiation >seemed to strongly suggest a preferred reference frame. > >So if you have a working hypothesis which explains the >null result of all of these experiments, then you can >hold your head up high. Ideally you should also be able >to suggest an experiment which will test your working >hypothesis against special relativity - one that hasn't >yet been effectively done. ***{I take it you do not read this group very often, since I have discussed those topics here in detail, on various occasions. If, for example, the aether is gravitationally entrained, then it is reasonable to suppose that the larger and more powerful the gravitational field, the greater the pressure and density of the aether at the surface of a body. In that case, it is reasonable to suppose that causal processes will be slowed down, in much the same way that a swimmer moves more slowly if he is swimming in molasses. Result: clocks would run more slowly in high-gravity situations, elementary particles would decay more slowly, etc. In fact, the aether theory explains all of the tested and verified claims of special and general relativity, and, in addition, accounts for "dark matter" and a lot of other presently unexplained anomalies. (By the entrained aether theory, most of the mass of a galaxy would be aether, not visible matter, and thus it is not surprising that spiral arms rotate much faster than the sum of the visible matter would seem to indicate.) --MJ}*** > >If you haven't even a working hypothesis, then you had >best keep your mouth shut or at least your voice down >because scientists are supposed to set their beliefs by >the result of experiments, not opposite to and in spite >of all experiments. That is the domain of cranks and >crackpots (welcome to the club!). ***{While your admission that you are a member is duly noted, I'm afraid I must decline to join you. Even without me you should have plenty of company in the domain of cranks and crackpots, since all proponents of "quantum mechanics" are there. :-) --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 11:14:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32175; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:07:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:07:30 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000618140713.0079c1c0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:07:13 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Testing two light electrically-powered vehicles In-Reply-To: <0ba901bfd8b2$c3c1cea0$5a9680d8 n8o9m1> References: <3.0.6.32.20000617142635.007a1a80 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000617180234.007a5600 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Jl_zS.0.fs7.Y_GJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35616 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill Wallace wrote: >Was the ebike at www.ebike.com in your consideration? Why choose the lafree >over ebike? The Ebike is impressive, and a little lighter. But I did not find a dealer near my house. I would not buy a bicycle without a test ride. Despite the weight, these electric bicycles are amazing. I took a 12 mile spin this morning, and went up the steepest hills in the area, and I hardly broke a sweat. Both the Ebike and Lafree were designed for electricity from the ground up (literally), with proper suspension and brakes. The electric motor couples to the crankshaft under computer control. That is much better than an add-on package for a regular bicycle with a motor that couples to the tire. >The japanese have many advances - and I wish we had some of the pedestrian >friendly cities like they do - however if the future here is going to be as >crowded as there - I don't know that I am looking forward to it. The future there is less crowded. The population is now stable, and it is on the verge of precipitous decline. I think some decline is now inevitable, even if birthrates pick up suddenly, and I see no sign that birthrates will pick up. If current trends continue, by 2050 the population will drop from 120 to 100 million, the level it was at in 1970. In about hundred years I think it will be back to the levels of the 1920s. Government and industry is worried about that, but I think it would be fine. Japan was crowded enough in 1920. There would be no population boom anywhere on earth if governments would ensure a reasonable level of medical care and old-age pensions. I think the history of the last 20 years shows that the population problem is easier to fix than people realized back in 1965. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 11:26:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04122; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:23:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:23:23 -0700 Message-ID: <394D138D.22BCA701 home.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:23:09 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: A fun article Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------1B497A0FAAC2431CD532138A" Resent-Message-ID: <"w13zi.0.F01.REHJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35618 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1B497A0FAAC2431CD532138A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [source: http://members.xoom.com/gideons/Articles/Experts.htm ] FAMOUS PREDICTIONS .... BY "EXPERTS" Here are some very serious comments made by so-called "experts" of the past that we can all laugh at now. Can we learn some lessons from their false dogmatism of the past? "Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duell, Office of Patents, 1899. "There will never be a bigger plane built." --A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that carried ten people. "Ours has been the first, and doubtless to be the last, to visit this profitless locality." -- Lt. Joseph Ives after visiting the Grand Canyon in 1861. "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932. "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out." --Decca executive, 1962, after turning down the Beatles. "It will be years--not in my time--before a woman will become Prime Minister." --Margaret Thatcher, 1974. "With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the US market." --Business Week, August 2, 1968. "Computers may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular Mechanics, 1949. "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977. "This telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." --Western Union memo, 1876. "No imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urging investment in the radio in the 1920's. "Who wants to hear actors talk?" --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927. "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." --Gary Cooper, after turning down the lead role in Gone With The Wind. "Market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." --Response to Debbi Fields' idea of Mrs. Fields' Cookies. "We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet." --Hewlett Packard excuse to Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computers instead. "I think there's a world market for about five computers." --Thomas J. Watson, chairman of the board of IBM. "The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." --Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project. "Airplanes are interesting toys, but they are of no military value whatsoever." --Marechal Ferdinand Fock, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre. "Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau." --Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929. "No matter what happens, the U.S. Navy is not going to be caught napping." --U.S. Secretary of Navy, December 4, 1941. "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." --Lee DeForest, inventor. "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." --William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899. -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------1B497A0FAAC2431CD532138A Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------1B497A0FAAC2431CD532138A-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 11:29:31 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04530; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:24:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:24:59 -0700 Message-ID: <394D13F3.9F3F041F home.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:24:51 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: Another fun article Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3C05705163BC86E1B3810D9A" Resent-Message-ID: <"hft6o.0.i61.xFHJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35619 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3C05705163BC86E1B3810D9A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [source: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/gideons/Articles/OpenMind.htm ] THE MYTH OF BEING "OPEN-MINDED" Updated 12/23/99 In our western world, many people pride themselves in being "open-minded." It is thought of what is required to be free of being blinded by false ideas and superstitions. As soon as somebody holds to an unusual "belief," our society writes this person off as being "closed-minded." This article's purpose is to point out a few of the many reasons why NOBODY is truly open-minded, and why I think this is important to understand. Few would argue that the human race's past is a history of "closed-mindedness." Traditions were handed down from generation to generation. We were taught what was "right" or "wrong," and "true" or "false." We were taught what to think or not think. We were taught what to do or not do. Anyone straying away from the accepted views or ways were considered foolish, and possibly a danger to the group that the person belonged to. The leaders of the group would attempt to straighten out the foolish person by "education." If that did not work, the leaders would resort to some form of punishment to force the fool to change. The punishment many times included trying to humiliate or discredit the fool, isolating him from participating in the group, and verbally and physically abusing the person. The purpose of the leaders doing any of this was to prevent a breakdown of the power structure that they were in control of. Today, it seems easy to spot "closed-minded" people. We seem to nearly all agree that a "cult" is a group of people who are controlled by strict guidelines and beliefs, and its members are "closed-minded" to outsiders. Many would go as far as saying that all religious groups are "closed-minded." Very few would consider groups outside of "cults" and "religions" as being "closed-minded," unless a group strayed away from what today's "experts" tell us is true or false. Who are these "experts?" Political leaders have always wanted to surround themselves with people who would help them stay in power. The people closest to them were trusted advisors, who were thought of as having great wisdom and access to power. Native American Chiefs had their medicine men, kings had their priests or sorcerers. Today's leaders now turn to the new magicians: "scientists." These modern wizards have been allowed to attain unquestionable authority over our modern society. We have raised them above the rest of humanity. We also believe that those who practice the new wizard's beliefs will rise above humanity also. In the past, we wondered who was really in charge of who in Europe. For example, were the kings in charge of the Pope, or was the Pope in charge of the kings. In light of this, who do you think today is really in charge, politicians or "scientists?" We are told that we now are in the Age of Information. If that is true, then the people who control the information control our society. "Scientists" are the ones who supposedly provide us with the data of what is "right" or "wrong," and "true" or "false." They instruct us through education what to think, and how to think. We are told by them what is the correct way to behave (this of course includes but is not limited to "political" correctness). Anyone straying away from today's accepted "scientific" views are labeled "uneducated," and are considered "failures" of our education system. If the straying person becomes too vocal, today's leaders try to suppress this person by attacking them publicly, by trying to humiliate or discredit them. They will not allow the "fool" to have a voice, especially in "scientific" arenas, such as in their journals. In the late '70's when I was in high school, we were taught the "fact" that we were just STARTING to go into another ice age. I knew of scientists who could not get their papers published in any journal, just because their conclusions disagreed with this ice age theory. Has today's scientists learned any lessons from this? No. I am aware of scientists who recently could not get their papers published, just because they disagree with the belief that the Earth is suffering from a greenhouse effect. Hopefully by now, I hope the reader is starting to see what I mean by my title of this article. If our "scientists" are "closed-minded," then who is "open-minded?" NOBODY is "open-minded." Why is this so important to know? One of the things I learned from my M.A. studies in Counseling Psychology was that each human being constantly lies to themselves. It is a way we protect ourselves from emotional pain. It starts from when we are small children who believe that mommy and daddy are ALWAYS good and right. As we get older, most of us pass through a four stage grief cycle regarding this false belief: One: DENIAL (I can't believe mom or dad was ever bad or wrong). Two: DEPRESSION (I can't handle thinking that my parents were wrong or bad, so I will tune out). Three: ANGER (why were my parents wrong and/or bad?). Four: ACCEPTANCE (I can now see my parents more as they truly are, not all right or wrong, and not all good or bad). A majority of counselors make their living trying to help their clients through JUST THIS ONE PARTICULAR FALSE BELIEF. One major false belief most of us still hold is related to the first one I mentioned: the belief that ANYONE we look up to is ALWAYS right and good. Outside of our families, we at first look up to our teachers, and if we go to a religious group, we also look up to the priest/rabbi/minister/guru/whatever. Most of us get to stage three of the grief cycle during adolescence regarding all authority. Most teachers do not get to see stage four occur in their students, which causes false beliefs to happen in the teacher's head, such as "all kids are animals/stupid/non-people (their stage three)." Once we get through adolescence, do you think most of us learned from this last lesson? No. Look how people think of each other within the dating scene. Everyone is looking for Mr/Ms Right. The typical "love" song puts the object of love on a pedestal for worship. Is the dating scene the only place where most of us "grown-ups" always look up to another? Using my new vocabulary, let me use it to address our commonly held false belief regarding "scientists." Most of us look up to "scientists." Because most of us are only on stage one of the grief cycle for this belief, we both consciously and unconsciously believe that our favorite "scientists" are always right and good. We believe they could never lie to us. If someone else disagrees with them, our knee-jerk reaction is to disagree with the "fools" without considering ANY of their information. We even quote our beloved "scientists" to protect our beliefs, rather than let our beliefs be challenged. Hopefully, the reader can now begin to see that today's most powerful false belief system might not be around any religious group. I think it is around our community of "scientists." With my background in science (I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering), I had great trouble at first with an attack one of my professors made against the Scientific Method. This "method" is considered the cornerstone of all science. He taught that there was a major flaw in its logic, called affirming the consequent. The logical scientific theorizing-to-experimental-testing goes as follows: "IF my theory is correct, THEN the research method that I DECIDE TO USE will give me experimental findings A, B, and C. The findings of my experiment ARE A, B, and C. THEREFORE, my theory is correct." No matter how much a "scientist" would like to claim that the empirical findings of their experiments are immutable facts, the truth is: There are N (unlimited) potential theories to explain any fact pattern. At best, science shows correlation between two things, it cannot "prove" that one thing causes another. As I was taught, "correlation does not prove causality." This is because there is no research method that is perfect, in that the "scientist" can never be sure that he or she has identified all the dependent and independent variables affecting the experiment's outcome, therefore he or she is not able to guarantee a controlled laboratory environment. Granted, we have "discovered" a lot about our world through use of the "Scientific Method," but it is not the end all be all. Everyone including scientists tend to be VERY biased toward their own views. Each person automatically tends to define evidence against their views as minor and unimportant compared to evidence they believe supports their views. This very human factor is what weakens the "Scientific Method" more than anything else. We must reject the notion that "scientists" are above this human tendency. They are just like the rest of us. We need to be able to question EVERYTHING people believe in.. Taking "science" off its pedestal is dangerous for anyone living today. In my opinion, faith in "science" has been taking us closer and closer into another "dark age." I found it interesting what the response is of many "scientific" people when they are cornered with irrefutable evidence against one of their pet beliefs. It is, "I'm not worried. 'Science' will one day find evidence to prove it's right." If that is not what is called being "closed-minded," what is? These people's attitudes are no better than people "blinded" by "cults." So, should we strive to be COMPLETELY "open-minded?" Being totally "open-minded" would NEVER allow a person to make conclusions on ANYTHING. Obviously, there has never been a person who has not made at least one conclusion in their life (thus, my article's thesis is shown to be correct). Being totally "closed-minded" would NEVER allow a person to see beyond ANY of their views to see reality. Only fully psychotic people are totally "closed-minded." The ideal place to be for anyone therefore is somewhere in-between the two, maybe balanced right in the center. It takes a lot of effort to stand at this point, yet I think we must all strive to reach this point if we want to understand reality the best that we can. We must not be scared of ANY view that disagrees with our views, regardless of how "closed-minded" they seem to be. We MUST accept the possibility that there is a great wealth of knowledge to be found in ANY view that we come across, even the ones "science" has decreed as being "wrong" and "foolish." We MUST also accept the fact that it is OK to make conclusions, as long as we are always willing to re-consider them in light of new evidence presented to us. I myself do not deny that I have made many conclusions that some may consider "closed-minded." The reader must realize that EVERYONE has made conclusions that they still believe in that are just as "closed-minded." For many, it would take great shifts and changes of beliefs to accept a lot of what is presented at my web site, and at other sites I have linked to. It is hard for many to consider the possibility of UFO's existing, let alone believing that they could be spirit beings instead. The "end of the world" is too scary a thing for most to consider for obvious reasons. All of us tend to ALWAYS be "closed-minded." It is our way to protect us from the emotional pain of change. We usually only consider becoming truly "open-minded" when our belief system in something reaches a critical breaking point. It has been my experience (intellectually and emotionally) that it is healthy to once in a while allow myself to question EVERY belief that I hold, and to try and discover beliefs I hold that I am not consciously aware of. Some of those who read this last statement, have taken it to mean that I am ALWAYS open to changing EVERY one of my current views. This is simply not true. Many thinking this have sent me massive amounts of information that they thought would change my mind, and that I would drop everything else in my life and make it a priority to consider their information. BEING CLOSED-MINDED IS NOT NECESSARARLY A BAD THING! We HAVE to make assumptions about certain things in life in order to function, and making assumptions about anything is a form of being closed-minded. We assume that the sun will rise again tomorrow roughly at the same time it did today. We assume that we will get paid for what we do at our work. We assume that the chair at our desk we sat in yesterday will hold me and not fall apart. We assume that our car will start when we turn the key. We assume that our marriage/romance/affair will bring us some kind of lasting happiness. We assume that nothing REALLY BAD will happen to us today. It seems obvious that certain assumptions are more likely to be true than others. The fact is, is that EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS AN ASSUMPTION! There another very good word for assumption, but it considered to be something else entirely, since it is used mostly by "religious" people. It is the word, "FAITH." I cover more about this word in my article, What is Faith? We HAVE to make closed-minded assumptions about EVERYTHING IN LIFE, otherwise, we would CONSTANTLY be TESTING, and not living. I would probably not work if I did not assume that I would get paid for it. I would probably never sit in a chair if I did not assume it would hold me up. I would probably never have gotten married if I did not assume that it would bring me some kind of lasting happiness. In life, once we feel that we have enough evidence to support our assumptions, then we TRUST (HAVE FAITH IN) our assumptions. This allows us to move on to testing other assumptions, to see if they are worth trusting, whether or not our tests or assumptions are conscious to us. The real trick is being able to fully understand and recognize the UNCONSIOUS assumptions and tests we are making all the time, in order to not let the illogical or purely emotional ones affect and control us. I do not expect anyone to accept EVERYTHING that I present at my web site. Since I started this web page, I have made a number of changes to various things posted that I was assuming. All I ask is that as you look at the information given, allow yourself to question ANY OR ALL your beliefs and assumptions that would disagree with the information. Try not to throw out ALL the information just because you found SOME of it to be wrong. And please, if you do find some of my information wrong, please e-mail me, so that I might consider questioning certain beliefs and assumptions also. With all this in mind, let us assume that "the truth is out there," and let's try and go find it, regardless of where it leads us. I believe THAT is the attitude of a good "scientist," in spite of the fact that it is also an assumption. -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------3C05705163BC86E1B3810D9A Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------3C05705163BC86E1B3810D9A-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 12:05:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11712; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:57:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:57:00 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: RE: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:45:07 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000618131045.007a2950 pop.mindspring.com> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"XrbqH.0.ws2.yjHJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35620 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Jed, I would like a copy of these papers, please. Thanks! Regards, Fred > > > Prof. Sergio Focardi , who I met at ICCF-8, was kind > enough to send me three papers about Piantelli's recent work > with Ni-H CF. > The papers are in Acrobat Reader .pdf format: > > > Asti.pdf > > "Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals ," W. J. M. F. Collins > (Ed.), SIF,Bologna,1999, "On the Ni-H System," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. > Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S.Veronesi > > Battaglia.pdf > > IL NUOVO CIMENTO Vol. 112 A, N. 9 Settembre 1999 > "Neutron emission in Ni-H systems," A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. > Focardi, V. > Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi > > focardi.pdf > > IL NUOVO CIMENTO VOL. 111 A, N. 11 Novembre 1998, "Large excess heat > production in Ni-H systems," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. > Piantelli, S. Veronesi > > > I would be happy to pass these on to any Vortex reader. The copyright > issues are vague, but I think I should refrain from posting them > on my web > page. > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 13:31:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29249; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:24:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:24:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jim Dickenson To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:13:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"OgVHm.0.x87.a_IJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35621 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Jed, I would be interested in copies of these files. Thank you, Jim Dickenson. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell [SMTP:JedRothwell infinite-energy.com] > Sent: 18 June, 2000 1:11 PM > To: vortex-L eskimo.com > Subject: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF > > Prof. Sergio Focardi , who I met at ICCF-8, was kind > enough to send me three papers about Piantelli's recent work with Ni-H CF. > The papers are in Acrobat Reader .pdf format: > > > Asti.pdf > > "Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals ," W. J. M. F. Collins > (Ed.), SIF,Bologna,1999, "On the Ni-H System," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. > Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S.Veronesi > > Battaglia.pdf > > IL NUOVO CIMENTO Vol. 112 A, N. 9 Settembre 1999 > "Neutron emission in Ni-H systems," A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. > Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi > > focardi.pdf > > IL NUOVO CIMENTO VOL. 111 A, N. 11 Novembre 1998, "Large excess heat > production in Ni-H systems," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. > Piantelli, S. Veronesi > > > I would be happy to pass these on to any Vortex reader. The copyright > issues are vague, but I think I should refrain from posting them on my web > page. > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 15:23:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16919; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:21:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:21:12 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000616191350.00a345c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:19:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"KPyEd.0.D84.NjKJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35622 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip] As soon as you accept superluminal communication >>or even synchonisation, you have rejected special relativity >>(ho hum don't we all) but in so doing you have also said that >>there MUST BE a preferred reference frame (the superluminal >>effect allows you to synchronise clocks to measure the one >>way speed of light in each direction to find out at what >>speed you are moving with respect to this preferred reference >>frame). > >***{The problem with the Aspect experiment is to account for the fact that >the probability that the second photon will also go through its polarizer >is always a little bit too high. (If P is the probability that the second >photon will also go through and A is the angle in degrees between the >transmission axes of the two polarizers, then the actual data fit P = cos A >better than P = (90 - A)/90.) To account for this discrepancy, proponents >of QM propose magic: that the two photons exist in an undefined >"superposition" of states until the first photon is detected, and that when >that detection occurs, the wave function instantaneously "collapses," >thereby telling the other detector what to do. A real explanation, on the >other hand, would propose simply that when the first photon hits its >detector ***Editing error: the last word, above, should have been "polarizer," not "detector." --MJ}*** , a superluminal shock wave is created which propagates in the >opposite direction, strikes the other photon from behind, and gives it a >push that increases the probability that it will pass through its >polarizer. Thus, by this theory, it is the push from the superluminal shock >wave that increases the height of the probability curve between its >endpoints, and causes the best fit to be to P = cos A rather than to P = >(90 - A)/90. Such a theory is pure causal determinism, and allows the two >photons to possess defined, and parallel, angular momentum vectors as they >fly away from their source, rather than existing in an undefined >"superposition" of states. > >Concerning your point about " preferred reference frames," well, if the >question is asked as to what might be the medium through which the >"superluminal shock wave" propagates, the answer is obvious: the aether. >And, of course, if the aether--i.e., a particulate medium that pervades all >of space--exists, then it is itself the "preferred reference frame." > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > [snip] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 15:34:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA19884; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:31:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:31:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:30:30 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Sugar in Space Resent-Message-ID: <"j9Of02.0.cs4.JtKJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35623 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ***{Here is a fascinating item from another list. Maybe one of you chemistry buffs can explain how glycoaldehyde can form in interstellar space, by chance, without life forms being involved. --MJ}*** > Friday, 16 June, 2000, 15:49 GMT 16:49 UK > Sugar in space sweetens > chances of life > > from: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_793000/793988.stm > > By BBC News Online science editor Dr > David Whitehouse > > The Universe, it seems, could have a sweet > tooth. Astronomers have discovered a simple > sugar molecule in space. > > The discovery of the molecule glycolaldehyde > in a giant cloud of gas and dust near the > centre of our own Galaxy was made by > scientists using at 12 m (39 feet) radio > telescope on Kitt Peak, Arizona, US. > > "The discovery of this sugar molecule in a > cloud from which new stars are forming means > it is increasingly likely that the chemical > precursors to life are formed in such clouds > long before planets develop around the stars," > said team member Jan Hollis of the Nasa > Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. > > "This discovery may be an important key to > understanding the formation of life on the early > Earth," said Phillip Jewell of the National Radio > Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. > > Building block > > "Conditions in interstellar clouds may, in some > cases, mimic the conditions on the early Earth, > so studying the chemistry of interstellar clouds > may help scientists understand how > bio-molecules formed early in our planet's > history," he said. > > Some scientists have suggested that Earth > could have been "seeded" with complex > molecules by passing comets. These carry > material from the interstellar cloud that > condensed to form the Solar System. > > Glycolaldehyde is an 8-atom molecule > composed of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. It > can combine with other molecules to form the > more complex sugars ribose and glucose. > Ribose is a building block of nucleic acids such > as RNA and DNA, which carry the genetic code > of living organisms. > > Glucose is the sugar found in fruits. > Glycolaldehyde contains exactly the same > atoms, though in a different molecular > structure, as methyl formate and acetic acid, > both of which have been detected previously > in interstellar clouds. > > And glycolaldehyde is a simpler molecular > cousin to the sugar you stir into your coffee, > the scientists say. > > The sugar molecule > was detected by its > faint radio emission in a > large cloud of gas and > dust called Sagittarius > B2, some 26,000 > light-years away, near > the centre of our > Galaxy. > > So far, about 120 > different molecules > have been discovered > in such clouds. Most of these molecules > contain a small number of atoms, and only a > few molecules with eight or more atoms have > been found. > > "Finding glycolaldehyde in one of these > interstellar clouds means that such molecules > can be formed, even in very rarified > conditions," said Dr Hollis. "But we don't yet > understand how it formed." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 16:29:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30932; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:27:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:27:15 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:24:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"f4V7t2.0.9Z7.JhLJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35624 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In order for there to be a definable entity that merits the label "cold fusion," any ultimate theory of CF must have the following characteristics: (1) It must involve nuclear fusion--i.e., the combination of two or more nuclei into one. (2) The fusion must occur under what may be reasonably termed "cold" conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew experimenter. (3) The theory must provide some mechanism that could enable nuclei to overcome the Coulomb repulsion that, under normal conditions, prevents fusion. (4) The theory must provide a mechanism that explains why deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters. (5) The theory must involve a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--something that, due to chance, has sometimes been present in CF cells and sometimes not, in order to explain the seemingly baffling inconsistency in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication. (6) The theory must make use of *instability*--i.e., some process that tends very strongly *not* to occur--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost Bohr radius? My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, would be: pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew experimenter. (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, above, is a pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the lattice. (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF cells and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling inconsistency in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication. (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, in the catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether it is the missing key ingredient or not. Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is happening, assuming that if CF is real. --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 16:59:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA05373; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:57:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:57:24 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01bfd989$0d76ce20$0e441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Sugar in Space Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:55:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"C8gaN3.0.tJ1.a7MJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35625 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Mitchell Jones To: Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 3:30 PM Subject: Sugar in Space Mitchell Jones wrote: > ***{Here is a fascinating item from another list. Maybe one of you > chemistry buffs can explain how glycoaldehyde can form in interstellar > space, by chance, without life forms being involved. --MJ}*** Try this on for size: Polyacetylene H-C***C-C***C-C***C-H (where C***C is the triple bond) formed in stellar gases can exothermally react with water to form "sugar" molecules Which is about the only way "sugars" can be formed other than by photosynthesis. Or, H2O and CO can react with acetylene to form acrylic acid.CH2=CH-CO-OH which can react with NH3 to form an amino acid. Or ring compounds (Benzene)can be formed from 3 H-C***C-H IOW. All of the "building blocks of life" exist in the high temperature stellar gases which can exothermally react in water to form sugars, proteins and the nucleic acids. A protein can "replicate" by a process of adding on molecules, then splitting and adding more molecules and splitting again and so on. Try a high pressure mix of H2O, CO2, NH3, and Acetylene, and see what you get. :-) Regards, Frederick > > > Friday, 16 June, 2000, 15:49 GMT 16:49 UK > > Sugar in space sweetens > > chances of life > > > > from: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_793000/793988.stm > > > > By BBC News Online science editor Dr > > David Whitehouse > > > > The Universe, it seems, could have a sweet > > tooth. Astronomers have discovered a simple > > sugar molecule in space. > > > > The discovery of the molecule glycolaldehyde > > in a giant cloud of gas and dust near the > > centre of our own Galaxy was made by > > scientists using at 12 m (39 feet) radio > > telescope on Kitt Peak, Arizona, US. > > > > "The discovery of this sugar molecule in a > > cloud from which new stars are forming means > > it is increasingly likely that the chemical > > precursors to life are formed in such clouds > > long before planets develop around the stars," > > said team member Jan Hollis of the Nasa > > Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. > > > > "This discovery may be an important key to > > understanding the formation of life on the early > > Earth," said Phillip Jewell of the National Radio > > Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. > > > > Building block > > > > "Conditions in interstellar clouds may, in some > > cases, mimic the conditions on the early Earth, > > so studying the chemistry of interstellar clouds > > may help scientists understand how > > bio-molecules formed early in our planet's > > history," he said. > > > > Some scientists have suggested that Earth > > could have been "seeded" with complex > > molecules by passing comets. These carry > > material from the interstellar cloud that > > condensed to form the Solar System. > > > > Glycolaldehyde is an 8-atom molecule > > composed of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. It > > can combine with other molecules to form the > > more complex sugars ribose and glucose. > > Ribose is a building block of nucleic acids such > > as RNA and DNA, which carry the genetic code > > of living organisms. > > > > Glucose is the sugar found in fruits. > > Glycolaldehyde contains exactly the same > > atoms, though in a different molecular > > structure, as methyl formate and acetic acid, > > both of which have been detected previously > > in interstellar clouds. > > > > And glycolaldehyde is a simpler molecular > > cousin to the sugar you stir into your coffee, > > the scientists say. > > > > The sugar molecule > > was detected by its > > faint radio emission in a > > large cloud of gas and > > dust called Sagittarius > > B2, some 26,000 > > light-years away, near > > the centre of our > > Galaxy. > > > > So far, about 120 > > different molecules > > have been discovered > > in such clouds. Most of these molecules > > contain a small number of atoms, and only a > > few molecules with eight or more atoms have > > been found. > > > > "Finding glycolaldehyde in one of these > > interstellar clouds means that such molecules > > can be formed, even in very rarified > > conditions," said Dr Hollis. "But we don't yet > > understand how it formed." > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 17:54:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13728; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:52:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:52:04 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.20000619005252.0076dccc pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: vinny pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:52:52 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Vinny Pinto Subject: [vortex] Plasma Discharge, Mysticism, Synchronicity Resent-Message-ID: <"TlWTH3.0.QM3.pwMJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35626 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Folks: I hope this does not get too far off topic for this list, or sound too "fringe". My past postings have usually been technical; this one is more fuzzy and is about mystical interventions and synchronicity. However, this tale nonetheless does touch upon cold fusion, plasmas, research hardware, and even plasmoids and charge clusters. Here goes: I have been experiencing a great amount of synchronicity over the past 15 months since expanding my lab into R & D in various areas, including some of the topics covered in this list. A lot of that synchronicity has been in regard to resources: information which I needed popping up in unrelated casual conversations, persons appearing in my life, via unrelated or almost-unrelated interactions, who turned out to be resource people (for example, a custom labware glassblower, an expert on vacuum technology, an expert on clathrates as catalysts) for things which I needed. Indeed, things seem to just just pop up once I recognize that I need them. I have even had financial and equipment support materialize for my research. The primary variable on my end seems to be this: these phenomena increase drastically when I am able to stay in a state of total appreciation and acceptance of this world and all in it, and when I'm able to send love, care and compassion to the world as well as all aspects of myself. One of the funniest things which I have encountered in my journey was a pair of recent interactions. About two weeks ago, I was in Baltimore for a Thursday afternoon after leaving work early to play in the city. At one point in late afternoon, a woman, a total stranger, approached me out of the blue, and started talking with me. She turned out to be a biker and a truckdriver, and turned out to be Native American -- Cherokee. She had a powerful intensity about her. First, she told me "I saw you in my dreams 2 nights ago. I recognize your t-shirt, you were wearing it in the dream. But, you were supposed to come into the city yesterday, not today." I responded that I had indeed planned on coming into the city (an infrequent occurrence) the day before, but ran into unanticipated emergencies at work. Indeed, the only reason I even made it into the city on Thursday was that a massive power failure had struck my office building, and we had dismissed everyone for the day. She then kinda confronted me and said: "I can see by your aura that you have some kind of very serious spiritual practice or discipline -- my own path is witchcraft, I am a good witch; what is your path?" I then told her a bit about my ongoing spiritual or inner disciplines. She then told me: ". . .you have a research problem you are working on, and you are stuck and not sure what to do next. You have been stuck a while. The answer is at home, all you need is at home. You will know by tomorrow." Well, the foremost technical problem on my mind at the time (although I had not told her anything at all about my research) was, and had been for the past 2 weeks, a homemade adjustable, 0 to 210 volt DC power supply which I was attempting to use for some light-water electrochemical nuclear plasma discharge experiments. Since the reaction cell was drawing a somewhat higher than anticipated current, the power supply could not keep up, and the voltage was drooping way too much. In other words, the power transformer was way too small. I obviously needed a larger, heftier power transformer, but was extremely reluctant to spend over $150 to purchase a transformer of the right size (voltage, power) from a mail-order source, since this plasma nuclear fusion stuff is a sideline inquiry only, and not my primary research focus . I went home that night and went to sleep. Upon awakening on Friday morning, I realized that I had some old "junker" transformers on my front porch which I had considered for the task, but decided (with my mind) that they would not be able to handle the current and power. Now, early in the morning, my intuition was telling me that I had been wrong, and should use one of these transformers. The message the night before from the chance encounter was the only thing which prompted me to listen to the intuition rather than dismiss it as pure wishful thinking. Sure enough, I tried the transformer in the supply that night, and it worked perfectly. I had found the answer at home! Fast-forward two weeks to this past week, again a Thursday. Again I was in the same area in Baltimore in late afternoon, and again was approached by the same woman. This time she said to me ". . . you have time travel in your consciousness". I demurred, saying that while I speculate about it infrequently, it is not a big interest of mine. She then went further (she whom I had told nothing at all about my research), and said ". . . let me fine-tune that: you are working with some kind of a glass cell, with water, and there is an underwater glow. When you are running that cell, you are often inadvertently creating conditions which form a portal to other places times and dimensions. The portal is usually small, but it may remain there when the experiment is shut off. Entities from other times and regions may enter the room through the portal. If you do not notice the entities, your cat will, and she will tell you, she will act strange about that room. Even your dog will warn you. You are able to manage such entities OK if you need to." Well, I did not know what to say to that one! I have heard speculation that many plasma discharges may yield all kinds of anomalous or currently undefined radiation types, and I am also aware that some researchers feel that both gas-tube plasmas and light-water electrochemical discharge plasmas may yield charge clusters, or even emit mini-plasmoids (like ball lightning). I have seen nothing so far in my occasional tinkering with the light-water plasma cell which would indicate that anything the woman said (portal, entities) may yet be a reality. However, one never knows. . .! Her track record so far is not bad, so I am keeping an open mind! Take care! --Vinny Vinny Pinto vinny mindspring.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 18:32:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA22938; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:25:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:25:05 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:30:18 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"PuEOA2.0.Kc5.nPNJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35627 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Folks, What is the non mathmatical physical reason sending a signal faster than light will cause any trouble? On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > [snip] > > As soon as you accept superluminal communication > >>or even synchonisation, you have rejected special relativity > >>(ho hum don't we all) but in so doing you have also said that > >>there MUST BE a preferred reference frame (the superluminal > >>effect allows you to synchronise clocks to measure the one > >>way speed of light in each direction to find out at what > >>speed you are moving with respect to this preferred reference > >>frame). > > > >***{The problem with the Aspect experiment is to account for the fact that > >the probability that the second photon will also go through its polarizer > >is always a little bit too high. (If P is the probability that the second > >photon will also go through and A is the angle in degrees between the > >transmission axes of the two polarizers, then the actual data fit P = cos A > >better than P = (90 - A)/90.) To account for this discrepancy, proponents > >of QM propose magic: that the two photons exist in an undefined > >"superposition" of states until the first photon is detected, and that when > >that detection occurs, the wave function instantaneously "collapses," > >thereby telling the other detector what to do. A real explanation, on the > >other hand, would propose simply that when the first photon hits its > >detector > > > ***Editing error: the last word, above, should have been "polarizer," not > "detector." --MJ}*** > > , a superluminal shock wave is created which propagates in the > >opposite direction, strikes the other photon from behind, and gives it a > >push that increases the probability that it will pass through its > >polarizer. Thus, by this theory, it is the push from the superluminal shock > >wave that increases the height of the probability curve between its > >endpoints, and causes the best fit to be to P = cos A rather than to P = > >(90 - A)/90. Such a theory is pure causal determinism, and allows the two > >photons to possess defined, and parallel, angular momentum vectors as they > >fly away from their source, rather than existing in an undefined > >"superposition" of states. > > > >Concerning your point about " preferred reference frames," well, if the > >question is asked as to what might be the medium through which the > >"superluminal shock wave" propagates, the answer is obvious: the aether. > >And, of course, if the aether--i.e., a particulate medium that pervades all > >of space--exists, then it is itself the "preferred reference frame." > > > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > [snip] > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 18:45:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28344; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:43:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:43:09 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:48:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Voller Sky Car.Re: Flying car specifications In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000615192326.006f6d08 postoffice.ptd.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KRk39.0.jw6.igNJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35628 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: yy Don't forget the voller Sky Car .. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 18:57:10 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31294; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:55:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:55:22 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:00:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: HET method ..Nuclear Waste Remediation In-Reply-To: <200006181725.NAA13908 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"P7EOh3.0.ue7.9sNJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35629 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There have been several "remdiation methods" overthe years, some withflame from solid chmicals and some with flame or heat from gases and other sources. Many of them caused the radioactive material to vaporize ... so it was no longer at the location of the target...this way it was FIXED!.... What happened was the vapor is in the air and the counts on a GM counter or other detector would go down. This is a great way to make and spread homebrew fallout. Be carefull. On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote: > Horace writes: > >What is the technique? > > > >Regards, > > > >Horace Heffner > > Good question, Horace! I just wrote to him to get some specifics. He is > pretty open about that sort of thing, and refuses to patent anything, so I > expect to hear back, shortly. > > Knuke > Michael T. Huffman > Huffman Technology Company > 1121 Dustin Drive > The Villages, Florida 32159 > (352)259-1276 > knuke LCIA.COM > http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 19:06:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00378; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:02:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:02:44 -0700 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:08:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: HEAT method ... correction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Wzf4t.0.q5.4zNJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35630 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, John Schnurer wrote: Heat methods...........> > > There have been several "remdiation methods" over the years, some > with flame from solid chmicals and some with flame or heat from gases and > other sources. Many of them caused the radioactive material to vaporize > ... so it was no longer at the location of the target...this way it was > FIXED!.... What happened was the vapor is in the air and the counts on a > GM counter or other detector would go down. > This is a great way to make and spread homebrew fallout. > Be carefull. > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote: > > > Horace writes: > > >What is the technique? > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Horace Heffner > > > > Good question, Horace! I just wrote to him to get some specifics. He is > > pretty open about that sort of thing, and refuses to patent anything, so I > > expect to hear back, shortly. > > > > Knuke > > Michael T. Huffman > > Huffman Technology Company > > 1121 Dustin Drive > > The Villages, Florida 32159 > > (352)259-1276 > > knuke LCIA.COM > > http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 18 19:35:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA05205; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:29:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:29:37 -0700 Message-ID: <394DA309.6AD1 bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:35:21 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Brookhaven Experiment Doesn't Suck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ve50a2.0.FH1.GMOJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35631 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Big Bang Machine Begins Work - World Survives, So Far http://www.msnbc.com/news/314049.asp 6-17-00 The first spectacular images of atoms smashing together at near-light speed were released Wednesday as part of an experiment scientists say will eventually generate a state of matter that existed a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. A milestone in physics, the researchers' effort has also generated heated debate and several doomsday theories - including one that argues the experiment might release particles called "strangelets," which could gobble the globe. 'We have just detected the most spectacular subatomic collisions ever witnessed by humankind, and are launching a new era for the study of nuclear matter.' - SATOSHI OZAKI Associate laboratory director for RHIC The collisions began June 10 in New York at Brookhaven National Laboratory's $600 million Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider - the most powerful machine of its kind. The first images of particles streaming from a collision point, which was the definitive evidence scientists were waiting for, were produced late Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. "We have just detected the most spectacular subatomic collisions ever witnessed by humankind, and are launching a new era for the study of nuclear matter," said Satoshi Ozaki, associate laboratory director for RHIC. (The acronym is pronounced like "rick.") Scientists will begin analyzing the data collected from continuous collisions held throughout the summer and hope to release the first results at the beginning of next year. LONG-LOST PARTICLE SOUP The experiment aims to smash gold nuclei together at 99.95 percent of the speed of light - creating temperatures of more than a trillion degrees. That would be 10,000 times hotter than the sun. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider will zap beams of atomic nuclei at nearly the speed of light around a 2.4-mile-wide ring - visible at upper left in this aerial photograph. "Under those conditions, neutrons and protons in the atomic nuclei would literally melt into a plasma of quarks. It's a thermodynamic phase transition, like water changing from a solid to a liquid, or a liquid to a gas when it boils," said Tom Ludlam, associate project director for RHIC. Physicists say that the neutrons and protons within ordinary matter are actually built up from combinations of quarks, particles that were first postulated in the 1960s. The quarks are bound together through the exchange of particles whimsically dubbed gluons. Thus, the object of Ludlam's 15-year quest at Brookhaven is to create a brew called quark-gluon plasma. In the first millionth of a second after the universe's beginning, the entire cosmos consisted of this ultradense, ultrahot brew, scientists say. But they have never observed this brew in the current universe - although a less powerful collider experiment at CERN in Switzerland may have provided indirect evidence of its existence last year. Brookhaven's experimenters expect to create tiny bursts of quark-gluon plasma for only a billionth of a trillionth of a second. Then the plasma would coalesce again into ordinary matter, Ludlam said. "The real motivation is to look at this phase transition from ordinary matter to this deconstructed plasma, and then back again - and then try to answer the question of why is it that there are these preferred configurations of quarks, and could there in fact be other configurations. ... It opens up a vast new realm of exploration for people who do nuclear physics." SCIENCE FICTION The magnitude of the mystery is the prime factor behind the collider's allure - and the controversy as well. Last year, physicist Walter Wagner wrote a letter to Scientific American, asking whether the creation of a quark-gluon plasma might create a globe-gobbling black hole. That particular doomsday scenario - as well as another involving a catastrophic transition in the nature of empty space - has been shown to be without foundation. But in his answer to Wagner's letter, Frank Wilczek of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study referred to a speculative scenario involving something called "strangelets." Strangelets would contain "strange" quarks - which are somewhat heavier and less understood than the garden-variety "up" and "down" quarks that make up ordinary protons and neutrons. If a series of highly unlikely conditions apply, strangelets could in theory start consuming ordinary matter, turning the entire Earth into a sphere of strangeness. It's this scenario that has captured the attention of physicists and the press. For example, The Sunday Times of London headlined its story "Big Bang Machine Could Destroy Earth." Chicago Sun-Times columnist Zay N. Smith regularly publishes "Defcon" alerts about RHIC's status. And Wagner, the author of that Scientific American letter, filed federal lawsuits in San Francisco and New York aimed at stopping the collisions at RHIC by court order. Brookhaven's director, John Marburger, issued news releases downplaying the concerns - but also asked a panel of scientists to investigate the potential risks. Last September, the panel ruled out even the worst-case scenario for a strangelet doomsday. "There is a series of unlikelihoods that you'd have to string together like a Rube Goldberg invention," said Robert Jaffe, director of the Center for Theoretical Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who headed up the panel. The panelists said that even if RHIC were able to create strangelets, the evidence indicates that they couldn't persist long enough to cause trouble. And even if strangelets did somehow persist, they wouldn't necessarily be dangerous. "The most likely scenario is that a strangelet would have a positive charge, but a small charge," Jaffe told MSNBC.com when the report was released. In that case, strangelets would be admittedly bizarre but basically harmless - for example, something like grossly overweight helium atoms. But if stable strangelets carried a negative charge, that would create a "dangerous situation," Jaffe acknowledged. Tiny lumps of strange matter would attract ordinary nuclei and consume them like so many dots in a Pac-Man game. "It would kind of burp a few times, and after readjustment it would have a negative charge again," Jaffe said. "It would eat more, and burp and capture, and burp and capture to the point that it has eaten all the matter around it." Could this actually happen? The panelists argued that if such a scenario had any validity, cosmic-ray collisions already should have created enough strange matter to be detected. "The fact that planets and stars have not been converted to strange matter is evidence that this Rube Goldberg string does not exist," Jaffe said. MILESTONE IMMINENT In the wake of such reassurances, RHIC was formally dedicated last October. Since then, Ludlam and his colleagues have been fine-tuning every element of the system, including two collider rings that are each more than 2 miles in circumference, and four detectors looking for signs of the quark-gluon plasma. In this week's first run, collisions were achieved at an energy level of about 30 billion electron volts per nucleon. That's four times more energetic than the CERN collisions. Eventually, the collisions will reach an energy level of 100 billion electron volts. At that level, the colliding ions will for a fraction of a second reach a temperature 100,000 times hotter than the core of the sun. Wagner, meanwhile, is continuing with his legal challenge. In an interview with MSNBC.com, Wagner argued that the Brookhaven experiment opened the way for scenarios that were "qualitatively different" from those involving cosmic rays. In a follow-up e-mail message, he complained that the risks of creating a world-gobbling strangelet were being understated so that the experiment could proceed. "I disagree with that philosophy, as it places the future of all humanity at risk, just for the benefit of a very few," he said. Wagner's New York lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality. In San Francisco, Wagner's requests for a restraining order have been turned down repeatedly, but the case is still on the docket. Ludlam said the doomsday debate hasn't affected the efforts at Brookhaven. "It's just one of those things that certainly does capture the imagination of people, even some people who feel they have some understanding of the science and feel compelled to take strong measures," he said. "But in fact, this has been looked at very thoroughly by people who understand and know how the science of these collisions works. ... You can always invent scenarios, but in fact these are really not scientifically valid scenarios." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 01:34:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA04072; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:31:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:31:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000619162553.00a48510 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:25:53 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics ? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"JrLUF2.0.U_.LfTJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35632 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > What is the non mathmatical physical reason sending a signal >faster than light will cause any trouble? The answer in non mathematical reasoning was there :- >> As soon as you accept superluminal communication >>or even synchonisation, you have rejected special >>relativity but in so doing you have also said that >>there MUST BE a preferred reference frame (the superluminal >>effect allows you to synchronise clocks to measure the one >>way speed of light in each direction to find out at what >>speed you are moving with respect to this preferred reference >>frame). Expanding on it a little:- In order to measure the one way speed of light, one needs to have a clock at a sending point to note when the flash of light was sent on its way, and a second clock at the receiving point to note when it arrived. The difference between these two times and the distance then gives the two speeds. The problem has always been how to synchronise these two clocks to the same time using only light speed signals in a way that is useful for a following speed measurement (it seems to be impossible). However as soon as you can signal faster than light, this problem becomes trivial and it becomes clear from logic alone that once you have such synchronised clocks, a stationary observer doing the measurement, must get different readings from a moving observer doing the same measurement with the same equipment. In fact it becomes obvious that if such an observer adjusts his speed until the time taken for the light to travel in one direction is identical with the time taken to travel in the other direction, then he can truly say that he is "stationary" with respect to absolute space, and can say at what speed everything else is actually moving. This is the proverbial "preferred reference frame" which has proven rather difficult to detect. So the mere acceptance that superluminal signalling is possible, forces on you the fact that light MUST be travelling past you in one direction at a different speed to the opposite direction (UNLESS you just happen by a remarkable chance to be stationary with respect to this absolute space preferred reference frame.) It also becomes obvious that it should *not be necessary* to actually make use of faster than light signalling to measure this effect. So having accepted that light must travel past you at different speeds depending on your motion with respect to absolute space, and that this should be measureable using light speed signals alone, you have to then explain why it has so far proven impossible to detect this motion by experiments such as Michelson-Morely - even in todays world of GPS satellites wizzing around with super accurate clocks on board and keeping track of all these propagation time delays to amazing accuracy (not to mention orbiting remote planets and moving to the outer reaches of the solar system). So sending a signal faster than light doesn't cause any trouble, except that a lot of scientists have to scrap the basic assumptions of relativity and still come up with something that works just as well for GPS engineering calculations as relativity did. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 01:48:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA05479; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:37:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:37:13 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000619163147.00a4b8c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:31:47 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000616191350.00a345c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Ay_6P2.0.XL1.vkTJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35633 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: >...A real explanation, on the >other hand, would propose simply that when the first photon >hits its detector, a superluminal shock wave is created which >propagates in the opposite direction, strikes the other photon >from behind, and gives it a push that increases the probability >that it will pass through its polarizer. Thus, by this theory, >it is the push from the superluminal shock wave ... >...if the question is asked as to what might be the medium >through which the "superluminal shock wave" propagates ... That question seems much less interesting than other questions such as, how does the shock wave hit a target the size of a photon from many meters away (or even light years according to QM)? Can it follow the photons path back through lenses and mirror reflections even though it is obviously not an EM wave? What about the choppers that are put in to steer the photons to differently oriented polarizers after they have left the source and before they are detected - can the shock wave find its way back even though they have switched? Maybe the shock wave propagates in all directions - in which case where does its energy come from if it can spread so widely? Maybe when it detects the photon it is looking for it can "collapse" back to a single point like a wave function giving all its energy just where it is needed? Oh No that sounds too much like QM! We can't have that! Hey now I've got it !!! - The shock wave expands outward in all directions at infinite speed, and since the universe is closed, it is reflected at the spherical boundary or comes back in from all the opposite directions to be focussed perfectly (somehow) back where it is meant to be! Dream on Mich, I haven't got time for this. Don't let me put any more obstacles in the way of your dreams >***{I take it you do not read this group very often, since >I have discussed those topics here in detail, on various >occasions. No, I usually just ignore this sort of stuff. It is a complete waste of time to respond. If I go to trouble to point out obvious reasons or experiments done that show why your "theory" is no good, and you'll immediately suggest a way around it with less than 10seconds thought in a useless handwaving manner that wouldn't hold up to any calculation and think your theory is still good. A gravitationally entrained aether is a good theory Mitch. It was believed in by the ancients who actually did some early experiments, so hang on to it and defend it well - it must be good! >.. the domain of cranks and crackpots, since all proponents >of "quantum mechanics" are there. Still you have to be impressed when these crackpots and their crazy ideas produce real engineerable products that work don't you? Take this one for instance :- PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 480 April 24, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein EXPLOITING QUANTUM "SPOOKINESS" TO CREATE SECRET CODES has been demonstrated for the first time by three independent research groups, advancing hopes for eventually protecting sensitive data from any kind of computer attack. In the latest--and most foolproof--variation yet of the data-encryption scheme known as quantum cryptography, researchers employ pairs of "entangled" photons, particles that can be so intimately interlinked even when far apart that a perplexed Einstein once derided their behavior as "spooky action at a distance." Entanglement-based quantum cryptography has unique features for sending coded data at practical transmission rates and detecting eavesdroppers. .... I guess with the *right* theory of superluminal shock waves your lab will soon be able to crack this technique Mitch ?! :-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 04:51:56 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA28962; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:49:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:49:50 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000619163147.00a4b8c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: <3.0.6.32.20000616191350.00a345c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000615035654.00a2b5c0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.1.32.20000614073345.0136d1d8 earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000612072340.00ee567c earthtech.org> <3.0.6.32.20000613132042.00a23ac0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:48:30 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"ZLRhi1.0.N47.UZWJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35634 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: >>...A real explanation, on the >>other hand, would propose simply that when the first photon >>hits its detector, a superluminal shock wave is created which >>propagates in the opposite direction, strikes the other photon >>from behind, and gives it a push that increases the probability >>that it will pass through its polarizer. Thus, by this theory, >>it is the push from the superluminal shock wave ... > >>...if the question is asked as to what might be the medium >>through which the "superluminal shock wave" propagates ... > >That question seems much less interesting than other questions >such as, how does the shock wave hit a target the size of a >photon from many meters away (or even light years according to >QM)? Can it follow the photons path back through lenses and >mirror reflections even though it is obviously not an EM wave? >What about the choppers that are put in to steer the photons >to differently oriented polarizers after they have left the >source and before they are detected - can the shock wave find >its way back even though they have switched? ***{I think of the aether as a series of substrates, E1, E2, E3, etc., each of which is comprised of successively smaller particles. In other words, the first substrate consists of particles of E1; then, between the particles of E1 there exists a sea of particles of E2, which are smaller; then, between the particles of E2 there exists a sea of particles of E3, which are smaller still; and so on. Each substrate has its own properties--i.e., specific masses, sizes, and other properties of particles, a viscosity, etc. Given such a model. it is easy to imagine that photons leave tracks in one of the substrates that are analogous to ruts in a muddy road, and which take a finite amount of time to close. If so, then the superluminal shock wave would simply follow the path of least resistance. That would carry it down the track back to the point of origin of the two photons, and thence outward along the track left by the other photon, until it slammed into it from behind. Thus the answer to your question is yes. Such a shock wave could easly follow the path back through lenses, rebound off of mirrors, through choppers, etc. And, of course, such an idea is testable: the tracks would eventually close, as the aether flowed back into them, and so there would be a range limit to this experiment. Place the polarizers far enough apart to exceed that range limit, and the probability curve should become a better approximation to P = (90 - A)/90 than it is to P = cos A. (By the way, this notion that particles moving through the aether leaves tracks--channels that take a finite period of time to close--is one I have discussed extensively on vortex before, in connection with explaining the quantization of electron orbits. Thus you should be aware that this is *not* an ad hoc idea that I have concocted solely for present purposes.) --MJ}*** Maybe the shock >wave propagates in all directions - in which case where does >its energy come from if it can spread so widely? Maybe when >it detects the photon it is looking for it can "collapse" back >to a single point like a wave function giving all its energy >just where it is needed? Oh No that sounds too much like QM! >We can't have that! Hey now I've got it !!! - The >shock wave expands outward in all directions at infinite speed, >and since the universe is closed, it is reflected at the >spherical boundary or comes back in from all the opposite >directions to be focussed perfectly (somehow) back where it >is meant to be! > >Dream on Mich, I haven't got time for this. Don't let me >put any more obstacles in the way of your dreams ***{You are becoming more and more uncivil in your comments, John. In your last post, you were rambling on about "the domain of cranks and crackpots," and hinting that I was one of its denizens. And in this post, you are becoming even more sarcastic. For the record, therefore, let me point out that your sarcasm is useless. I am utterly indifferent to your emotional reactions, and you are wasting time by conveying them to me. Since this is apparently a subject with religious significance to you, perhaps you should limit your interaction to persons to share your views. That way, you will not feel threatened, and will not feel the need to lash out. Believe me, I don't care whether you discuss this topic with me or not. --MJ}*** > >>***{I take it you do not read this group very often, since >>I have discussed those topics here in detail, on various >>occasions. > >No, I usually just ignore this sort of stuff. It is a >complete waste of time to respond. ***{Then don't respond. See how easy that problem was to solve? --MJ}*** If I go to trouble to >point out obvious reasons or experiments done that show >why your "theory" is no good, and you'll immediately >suggest a way around it with less than 10seconds thought >in a useless handwaving manner that wouldn't hold up >to any calculation and think your theory is still good. ***{That's yet another insulting remark, John, and is just a classless way to concede an argument. (Nobody hurls insults if he still thinks he can win on the merits.) --MJ}*** > >A gravitationally entrained aether is a good theory >Mitch. It was believed in by the ancients who actually >did some early experiments, so hang on to it and defend >it well - it must be good! > >>.. the domain of cranks and crackpots, since all proponents >>of "quantum mechanics" are there. > >Still you have to be impressed when these crackpots and their >crazy ideas produce real engineerable products that work don't >you? ***{Once again, you reveal that you haven't been listening. I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with the mathematics claimed by QM (for the most part). What I deny is that QM proponents have any more right to claim those mathematical constructs than do their opponents. The reason, which I have stated over and over again, is that formulae which have been deliberately fitted to experimentally measured data points are *theory neutral*. The equations don't care whether a user believes in "entanglement" or in superluminal shock waves. All those who plug in the same numbers and do the same manipulations will get the same answers. --MJ}*** Take this one for instance :- > >PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE >The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News >Number 480 April 24, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein > >EXPLOITING QUANTUM "SPOOKINESS" TO CREATE >SECRET CODES has been demonstrated for the first time by three >independent research groups, advancing hopes for eventually >protecting sensitive data from any kind of computer attack. In the >latest--and most foolproof--variation yet of the data-encryption >scheme known as quantum cryptography, researchers employ pairs >of "entangled" photons, particles that can be so intimately >interlinked even when far apart that a perplexed Einstein once >derided their behavior as "spooky action at a distance." >Entanglement-based quantum cryptography has unique features for >sending coded data at practical transmission rates and detecting >eavesdroppers. .... > >I guess with the *right* theory of superluminal shock waves >your lab will soon be able to crack this technique Mitch ?! :-) ***{You still don't get it, John. I'm not denying the validity of the math when interpolating between experimentally measured data points, or when doing nearby extrapolations. Thus I have no doubt that, until the range limit discussed above is exceeded, this type of cryptography would work. What I do most emphatically deny, however, is the QM *explanation* of the math. I'm saying that I reject all explanations based on action at a distance or indeterminism, because such approaches lay waste to the foundations of human knowledge. Thus I prefer to try to puzzle out the structure of the aether and explain these results that way, despite the enormous complexity of the subject matter, rather than invoke magic, even though it is easy to "explain" anything via magic. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 06:24:04 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA12716; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:21:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:21:34 -0700 Message-ID: <394E1781.49688DD8 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:52:17 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Fwd: ICCF-8 Video recording availability Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8qEAd1.0.c63.UvXJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35635 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 19, 2000 Vortex, I asked again about the payment route: "raw cash" or some third party transaction such as the banks. The latest information received was to send Liras directly. Cash on cash. So much simpler and recommended by the Secretariat with assurance of no trouble. If you have a money dealer handy in town or at some international airport nearby, it's easy to change currency. So with cost of mail included, the video tapes of the ICCF-8 comes to approximately L230000/2000, about $115.00 plus a currency change fee. -AK- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Your ICCF-8 Video recording availability Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:30:09 +0200 From: ICCF8 ENEA To: Akira Kawasaki References: <3.0.1.32.20000615102519.0069cd18 frascati.enea.it> Dear Mr. Kawasaki, I inform you that the cost of videotapes does not include the postage cost which will be more or less 50.000 lire. I spoke with the technician who said is better you send money cash directly to his address which is: Grimaldi Impianti Snc, Via Alta, 54 - 19038 - Sarzana - La Spezia - Italy - You send 180.000 lire for videotapes + 50.000 lire (postage cost)and indicate your address clearly. In case the postage cost is less than 50.000 lire they will be surely refunded to you. Please let me know if you have further problems. Yours sincerely, Simona Ferri At 05.39 15/06/00 -0700, you wrote: >June 15, 2000 > >ICCF8 ENEA's Secretariat. Simona Ferri wrote: > >With snips: >> There are 6 tapes of the whole Conference and each of them costs >> 30.000 italian lire. >> Anyway, let us know as soon as you can. >> Moreover you should indicate if you use a particular system for >> videorecorder, like for example the NTSC. > >Thank you for the response. > >I desire to order the entire six tapes at your quoted price of 30,000 >Lira each. for the total of 180,000 Liras. > >The tape format should be in NTSC S-VHS format prefreably or VHS. > >Now, how is the payment to be made? Credit card, cash in Liras, or >something else? And what would be the postage cost, or is it included? > >Sincerely, >Akira Kawasaki > ICCF8 Secretary Maria Luisa Ciceroni Tel +39-06-94005854 Fax +39-06-94005855 Conference Web site http://www.frascati.enea.it/ICCF8 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 08:59:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25485; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:55:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:55:49 -0700 Message-ID: <394E438F.446CAF11 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:00:26 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nIBvI3.0.3E6.4AaJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35636 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Mitchell, I too have given this subject some thought, as you might expect, and have a few comments. Mitchell Jones wrote: > In order for there to be a definable entity that merits the label "cold > fusion," any ultimate theory of CF must have the following characteristics: > > (1) It must involve nuclear fusion--i.e., the combination of two or more > nuclei into one. The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous nuclear activity. > > > (2) The fusion must occur under what may be reasonably termed "cold" > conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew > experimenter. > > (3) The theory must provide some mechanism that could enable nuclei to > overcome the Coulomb repulsion that, under normal conditions, prevents > fusion. And provide a mechanism for dumping the energy into the lattice rather than into individual nuclear products. > > (4) The theory must provide a mechanism that explains why deadly neutron > and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters. > > (5) The theory must involve a heretofore unidentified key > ingredient--something that, due to chance, has sometimes been present in CF > cells and sometimes not, in order to explain the seemingly baffling > inconsistency in those results, and the parallel difficulties in > replication. This is entirely a different theory. The first several criteria involve the nuclear interaction while this criteria involves the chemical environment. For example, the presence of boron makes palladium stronger so that it does not crack as easily. Consequently, the required high concentration of deuterium can be achieved more easily if some boron is present. Other impurity elements have both a negative and positive effect on this behavior, a problem which makes an interpretation of the results very complex. The problem is to sort these effects into the correct explanation, i.e. which factors change the ability to achieve the high loading, which are important to the unique environment that allows the nuclear reaction to occur, and which are involved in the nuclear reaction, as you suggest. > > > (6) The theory must make use of *instability*--i.e., some process that > tends very strongly *not* to occur--in order to explain why CF was not > discovered long ago. This criteria has more of a psychological aspect than a scientific one. For a long time, since the alchemists, science did not think this was possible, hence ignored all evidence. Considerable evidence was published but was ignored. However, in the case of the Pons-Fleischmann effect, the use of palladium, with its very nonuniform properties, has made this particular approach very difficult to reproduce. Some of the other methods do not have this problem. > > > With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most > common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, > in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question > involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The > protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a > question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice > location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost > Bohr radius? My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing > altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle > which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a > hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, > while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, > would be: You are describing the hydrex proposed by Dufour on the basis of some very good experimental observation. > > > pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 > > 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 Unfortunately, no evidence exists to support the idea that boron is involved in any CF reaction. People find that the effects occur with or without boron being present. In addition, the measured relationship between energy and helium production is very close to 24 MeV, not 8.7 MeV. > > > The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: > > (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. > > (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" > conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew > experimenter. > > (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is > not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. > > (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters > because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, above, is a > pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will > quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the > lattice. > > (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., > 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF cells > and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling inconsistency > in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication. > > (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable > protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. > > The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by > deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, in the > catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether > it is the missing key ingredient or not. I'm afraid this test has already been made. Boron has been used over a wide range of concentrations (although not in the Case cell) with no clear relationship being seen, > > > Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is > happening, assuming > that if CF is real. On this we can agree. Apparently, a range of nuclear reactions can be initiated depending on the chemical environment. For example, tritium can be produced under some conditions while He-4 or neutrons are produced under other conditions. Conditions have been discovered that accelerate radioactive decay while other conditions cause production of heavy elements apparently by transmutation. The picture is now far more complex than you realize. If the phenomenon is not real, nature is playing tricks which have a very complex structure. Ed Storms > > > --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 08:59:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25746; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:57:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:57:08 -0700 Message-ID: <394E43EE.F27FF3BC ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:02:01 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF References: <3.0.6.32.20000618131045.007a2950 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7Pbt33.0.BI6.KBaJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35637 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, I would greatly appreciate receiving copies of these papers. Ed Storms Jed Rothwell wrote: > Prof. Sergio Focardi , who I met at ICCF-8, was kind > enough to send me three papers about Piantelli's recent work with Ni-H CF. > The papers are in Acrobat Reader .pdf format: > > Asti.pdf > > "Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals ," W. J. M. F. Collins > (Ed.), SIF,Bologna,1999, "On the Ni-H System," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. > Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S.Veronesi > > Battaglia.pdf > > IL NUOVO CIMENTO Vol. 112 A, N. 9 Settembre 1999 > "Neutron emission in Ni-H systems," A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. > Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi > > focardi.pdf > > IL NUOVO CIMENTO VOL. 111 A, N. 11 Novembre 1998, "Large excess heat > production in Ni-H systems," S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. > Piantelli, S. Veronesi > > I would be happy to pass these on to any Vortex reader. The copyright > issues are vague, but I think I should refrain from posting them on my web > page. > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 10:00:15 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA14935; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:54:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:54:02 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000619125352.007a1ab0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:53:52 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF In-Reply-To: <394E43EE.F27FF3BC ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000618131045.007a2950 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"lWwUz3.0.5f3.f0bJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35638 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think I sent to copies of the Piantelli papers to everyone who requested them. If anyone requested them but did not get them, please contact me again. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 10:08:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00914; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005101bfda10$1a7b8de0$15637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000618131045.007a2950 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000619125352.007a1ab0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:02:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"0alL4.0.AE.3CbJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35639 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, I didn't get them yet, but I only requested them a few hours ago. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF > I think I sent to copies of the Piantelli papers to everyone who requested > them. If anyone requested them but did not get them, please contact me again. > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 10:25:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24828; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:21:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:21:25 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FA9 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:16:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"rIp-N.0.s36.JQbJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35641 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: John Schnurer[SMTP:herman antioch-college.edu] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 6:30 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > Dear Folks, > > What is the non mathmatical physical reason sending a signal > faster than light will cause any trouble? > You can't send a signal faster than light. Things that happen "faster than light" but have no signal, that is, carry no information and communicate nothing are allowed. EPR may involve a super luminecent event, but since no information can be sent to the observer's frame (note: this is different from the moving frame of the affected particle that allows no more than the maxium information that can be extracted from it so that the uncertainty principle is not violated with the other particle...) relativity allows it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 10:25:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02745; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000619131532.007a2630 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:15:32 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Alternative Energy Institute, Inc. reviews ICCF-8 In-Reply-To: <394CE886.EAB98742 ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000617173101.007aa460 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"pijZY.0.og.4LbJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35640 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >Dear Jed, >I think you are being unfair to the Alternative Energy Institute. For one >thing, they are providing a very valuable and free service to people >interested in cold fusion. Yes, they are, which is why I listed them here. >As for their supposed uncritical interest in "free" energy, we all have a >problem deciding what is real and what is not. Until a phenomenon is >completely understood, much of what is observed frequently seems to make no >sense. I agree, but I still think the Alternative Energy Institute is biased. It seems to me they should pick one of two modes of reporting: 1. Filter the news and report only developments which seem worthwhile. That is how I report things, because I figure that my readers are smart enough to find the other news anyway, without my help. Especially with the Internet. This is like a movie guide listing only the films the author thinks are worth seeing. 2. Report everything relevant, with no filters. That means good and bad news, replications and non-replications, and a broad range of expert opinion, including negativists. This is analogous to a comprehensive movie guide listing every film. An Alternative Energy Institute movie guide would give every film a five-star endorsement. They should indicate that some claims are more solid and less controversial than others. They should tell the readers that some inventors have refused to share information or allow independent testing of their machines. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 11:03:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03861; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:00:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:00:02 -0700 Message-ID: <394E60B6.D6F1D309 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:04:43 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Alternative Energy Institute, Inc. reviews ICCF-8 References: <3.0.6.32.20000617173101.007aa460 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000619131532.007a2630@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ygzDy.0.9y.X-bJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35642 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > 2. Report everything relevant, with no filters. That means good and bad > news, replications and non-replications, and a broad range of expert > opinion, including negativists. This is analogous to a comprehensive movie > guide listing every film. An Alternative Energy Institute movie guide would > give every film a five-star endorsement. They should indicate that some > claims are more solid and less controversial than others. They should tell > the readers that some inventors have refused to share information or allow > independent testing of their machines. I think one of the reasons they do not evaluate some claims is because, at this point, they do not have the experts in house to do a proper job. Rather than each claim being given a five star endorsement, I suggest the listing is neutral, without any endorsement. They have used my services to evaluate the cold fusion field, which will help. However, I realize you probably think I'm less critical than you would like, but that is the kind of variation I expect to see when any field is viewed through different eyes. Actually, I'm less critical in print than I would like to be because this field is still in its infant stage. No point is served by kicking people who are trying to do a good job under difficult circumstances. The skeptics are good enough at this to need no more help. Consequently, I and many other people limit our criticisms to private discussion. Unfortunately, this makes skeptics think we are all in agreement and equally crazy, which is not true. Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 11:17:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA06943; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:24 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:06:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"7EEeb.0.Pi1.B9cJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35643 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 4:24 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > [snip] > With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most > common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, > You can suppose it, but I doubt that is the case, because lattice defects seem to have a great deal of effect on the tritium output in the Los Alamos experiment. This indicates defects, not boron impurities, are the dominate factor. > in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question > involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The > protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a > question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice > location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost > Bohr radius? > After absorbing hydrogen, the metal hydrides I know of have an increased number of defects. From that I'll conclude that if there is enough energy for the recombination of nuclie and electron to deform the lattice, they can deform the lattice and recombine. > My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing > altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle > which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a > hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, > while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, > would be: > The quantum argument might allow for a particle to be wrapped as a half wave around the nuclius, but it doesn't appear to be one of the solutions to the hydrogen atom problem, so I doubt my intuition about a half wave being possible is correct. I'll go with Kim's bose einstein condensate. > pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 > > 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 > Is that a 8.68 MeV gamma, or is it associated with the alpha particles? If it is a gamma, Russ George would have found it. Another problem I have with boron; those other four electrons. I can see how hydrogen's only electron can become smeared out due to the fermi principle and thus leaving hydrogen and it's isotopes able to make a closer approach. But Boron has 5 electrons, leaving a nice fat atom to keep hydrogen nuclie at a distance. Hydrogen's going to grab one of those electrons before it gets close enough to fuse. > The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: > > (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. > > (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" > conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew > experimenter. > > (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is > not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. > > (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters > because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, above, is a > pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will > quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the > lattice. > Humm. Since you have an electron going INTO the reaction, seems to me they should also find a beta- particle being ejected, and there should be a characteristic x-ray or gamma from that. George only found the K (?) x-ray of palladium when he looked at x-rays. > (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., > 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF cells > and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling inconsistency> > in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication.> > Russ George found .00438 moles of helium-4 in his vessel and He-4 production was still going at an increasing rate. That would come out to 1/3*0.00438 moles * ~ 11 Grams/mole or 0.016 grams of boron fuel as a contaminate in his 10 grams of .2 % (by weight) palladium, or 0.02 grams Pd. Now, that boron contaminate can't be in the Pd, because you'd then have more boron than Pd and IIRC from the fisher catalog, that Pd is suppose to be 4 nines pure. Doesn't look good to me for the Boron idea. > (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable > protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. > I don't see how that would make it undiscovered until recently. > The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by > deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, in the > catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether > it is the missing key ingredient or not. > I think it can be ruled out based on the data already available. > Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is > happening, assuming that if CF is real. > > > > --Mitchell Jones > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 11:45:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA16472; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:39:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:39:05 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000619143852.007a93f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:38:52 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Electric bicycle range probably ~20 miles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"orq3k.0.B14.5ZcJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35644 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The battery on this Lafree bicycle appears to go the rated distance, per the specifications, which is about 20 miles per charge in moderately hilly terrain. This morning I went to the office, the bank, the barber, home and back to the office, a distance of about 8 or 9 miles, and the charge indicator still shows 60%. I deliberately "leaned" on the motor, using as much electric power as I could. When you go slowly, putting minimum pressure on the pedals in low gear, you can climb the steepest hill in Chamblee with little effort. I think I will buy a frictionless odometer to test the performance more systematically. Or I could measure the distance less accurately for a hundred times more money, using a Palm pilot and a GPS . . . More High Tech = Better. Ask the NHE. The battery alone weighs 25 lbs (11 kg), which is more than my other bicycle. If the battery ran out midway through a trip, the rider would be in trouble. The bike is so heavy that without the motor boost, most people would not be able to go up even a small hill. The battery has an integral transformer. You can remove the battery pack in a jiffy, take it inside a building, and recharge it at a 3-pronged grounded plug. If you ran out of power halfway home, I guess you might stop at a fast food place for refreshment and beg permission to plug into the wall for a half-hour. The manual says it takes three hours to fully recharge. I guess after a half-hour you would have enough juice to go several miles. For a person in moderately good shape, within a range of 10 miles per day, this bicycle is only a little less convenient than a small automobile. It would be much less convenient at this moment, because it is pouring rain outside. (That's good news. Georgia is having the worst drought since record keeping began in 1895. See "Dry2k: State failed to plan for drought" http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_93d4ba6 be57cd098004b.html) As I said before, the biggest limitation to using a bicycle in the U.S. is cultural. In today's Atlanta Journal "Vent" section, one rider said: Note to Atlanta motorists: It IS LEGAL for cyclists to ride in the street, with traffic, on the right side of the road. Do not honk, flash your lights, or scream obscenities at me. Don't worry. The "Hot Doughnuts Now" sign will still be on once you get your fat self to Krispy Kreme. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 12:01:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA14930; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200006191857.OAA25736 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:52:33 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7Oj2O1.0.7f3.rqcJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35645 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > You can't send a signal faster than light. That's not a proof. Its an assumption and a logical fallacy. > Things that happen "faster than light" but have no signal, that > is, carry no information and communicate nothing are allowed. 'Allowed' in that meaning is a word that should never have been used. Just because well accepted theory does not 'allow' something to happen, does not mean it won't. If anyone here thinks faster than light signal transfer is impossible, I kindly request that you prove it. Not with a theory, metaphysical assumption or mathematical equation, but something that really means something. The preceding was not meant to be a flame, rather a vent from someone tired of the useless assumptions our science has become. --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 12:21:18 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA28594; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:13:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:13:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:18:35 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex Subject: Nice little tesx Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA28395 Resent-Message-ID: <"zpNEg1.0.W-6.G3dJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35646 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:09:03 +0900 From: cyrano aqua.ocn.ne.jp Reply-To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics egroups.com To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics egroups.com, milo wolff Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] [iso-8859-1] Sur la Relativité et l'éther.Par Daniel Lapadatu Little on relativity and aether. This is about the fact that retractors of relativity theory seem to overlook the evidence in favour of this theory. Their understanding of this theory do not go beyond the equations and because of this they don't understand neither the true physical meaning of the theory nor its limitation and where and how one can break it. Statements like: "we found evidence that signals can travel faster than light and therefore Einstein's theory is wrong" show simply the ignorance of those people in what concerns the relativity theory. The relativity theory (RT) is based on the relativity principle and not on speed of light as absolute speed limit: Physics is the same in all reference frames, no matter what is their state of movement. Or: Uniform movement cannot be distinguished from rest no matter what measurement one performs. This principle implies that if one wants to measure fundamental quantities like speed of light, electron charge, Planck constant etc. one would always find the same numbers, no matter how the reference frame moves. Relativity will be wrong when and only when one will be able to tell apart the rest state from the movement with constant speed state. This principle alone predicts the Hubble's law for the expanding Universe. The Universe looks the same no matter how you move and where and when you examine it. In brief: the Universe has to be dynamic in order to hold the relativity principle. Background space. Does such a space, void of matter, have any meaning? No. You need observable matter, observable events if you want to measure something. And you need an etalon, a reference for your measurement. Consider just empty geometrical space. If there are no objects in it, how can one measure the distance between two of its points? How can one identify those points versus others? It's an absurdity. That's what most of the people arguing against relativity don't want to understand!!! Relativity uses a spacetime in which the events (its points) are REAL events. Things that everyone can observe: a collision between two particles, the emission of a photon, the absorbtion of a photon etc. Relativity is so powerful that actually you do not need a metric for its spacetime to reach its physical conclusions. I will try to explain you how this is possible. You have to look at the net of events and worldlines. Identify two events, A and B. If someone asks you how can he reach event B starting from event A (as a tourist does: how can I reach Buckingham Palace if we sit now at the Big Ben?) you can answer in this way: from event A follow the first worldline that goes to the right and reach event C. From event C follow the second worldline that goes left and you will reach B. Worldlines are like streets and events are like intersections of streets. That makes the relativity spacetime to be a TOPOLOGICAL structure. This structure is ABSOLUTE. No matter how you move this topology is unchanged. You do not need distances and durations to explain physics. You need them if you want to make accurate predictions. If you want to use a metric (that is define the location of other events in terms of distances from a reference event) you will need a rod and a clock (or simply a rod; since the time and space are on equal footing). This rod has to be made out of REAL particles which will move and therefore the rods will be affected by the movement. That's why lengths and durations are relative. But not the succession of events and their relativ connectivity. You will notice that this is a complete different situation with respect to quantum mechanics (QM). In QM we know the empirical equations without knowing the physical meaning, without knowing what the principles mean. For this reason QM is weak, incomplete and maybe faulty. We use some math without having a clue why that math is how it is and when it breaks down. Can the speed of light be overcome? The standard RT says NO, but one has to take into account what are the conditions in which this answer is valid. RT does not forbid after all faster than light particles (tachyons). It says that if you start from below (or from above) the speed of light with a particle that has mass you cannot tresspass the speed of light because the particle mass goes to infinity and we cannot acquire an infinite energy to keep on increasing the speed. Yet: 1. When the masses grow that huge the RT will loose its validity since the QM will start playing a decisive role. The situation is somehow similar to other limits of RT: neutron stars, black holes, where QM cannot be neglected. (After all such objects cannot be trustfully described today because they are compinations of RT and QM and these theories are not fully compatible with each other.) 2. The speed of light is a property of *perfect* vacuum. The real spacetime does not contain a perfect vacuum. The real vacuum swirls with short living particles, is full with fields (EM and gravitational) which contains energy. 3. The spacetime of RT is simply connected while the real spacetime at the quantum level is not like that. Therefore, I guess that in the QM world, due to a different spacetime topology, signals may travel faster than light in some specific conditions. Afterall, we do have materials today inside which other signals travel faster than light (FTL). As long as the outside vacuum is not the perfect one, it may not be impossible to exceed the speed of light with other sort of signals and/or in specially designed materials. Therefore if in QM people will discover FTL signals it will not mean the failure of relativity, but a DIFFERENT topology for the spacetime with respect to the macroscopic one (currently in use). RT can be re-worked for the new topology. For instance we have not checked the speed of signals INSIDE of elementary particles (where the matter density is huge). We've measured it only in what we call vacuum or in macroscopic bodies which are made out of 99.99% vacuum and 0.01% nucleons, speaking in volume). Certainly, I do not expect that the speed of light inside a nucleon (or a quark) is 300 000 km/h. I expect to be higher. Exactly as the speed of sound is higher in metals than in air. A neutron star would be a macroscopic object with the density of matter as in nucleons. It will be interesting to measure the propagation of signals through such a star. Aether. Assume that it exists and its some sort of homogenous fluid. We will need some means of detecting it, some means to express our movent relative to it. That means that some aether regions has to be different from the average aether (background) to identify them as references. But, those will be nothing else but particles and we will be back to RT because these particles will move (you cannot have a STABLE STATIC pattern in the fluidic aether). What about using waves on the aether to asses our speed with respect to it, by using the Doppler effect? OK, let's say that the aether is filled with a fundamental wave that keeps a universal clock (its frequency) and a universal rod (its wavelength). This seems to work apparently, but it's flawed as you will see. Real objects are made out of atoms evenly spaced in periodic potential depressions, which are formed by the EM waves (or the aether waves). Therefore if we move with respect to the aether, the wavelength of the universal clock will change due to the Doppler effect, but with it ALL the lengths and durations of the physical phenomena will change in the same ratio (objects will adjust their sizes and durations to the new pattern of energy minima). Since all our reference objects change with the same ratio we will notice NOTHING. Example1: Say you are at rest with respect to the aether. You take a physical object to use as device under test for the length. >From one end of the object to the other end you have N1 atoms lying in N1 minima of N0 wavelengths of the fundamental aether clock (where N0 is an integer multiple of N1). So we count those N0 wavelengths and right them down as being the length of our object. Now we start the movement along the length of the object. The Dopples effect says that the universal wavelength should decrease. So it does. But when this happens, our N1 atoms will be pulled closer to each other in order to stay in the energy minima of the aether wave. Our object shrinks. If you are at rest with respect to the object and count again the wavelengths of the aether you will find the same number N0 and assume you are still at rest with respect to the aether. On the other hand, another observer will see your length shrinking! But this is exactly what RT says!!! We are stuck with the measurement problem and we cannot evade it, unless we go outside the Universe and look at it from above. Example2: Can the background radiation be used as absolute reference frame? The background radiation has a spectral distribution which has a peak around a temperature of 4 K. Let's say that one measures this spectral distribution and checks where the peak is and if it is at 4 K then he concludes it's at rest with respect to the background. If it's shifted due to the Doppler effect, then he concludes he moves. Does this work? NO. It doesn't. Because of the expansion of the Universe and the Hubble's law and ultimateley because of the relativity principle. Let's see way. The background radiation comes from all objects in the Universe. The near ones moves slower, the distant one moves faster, according to Hubble's low. The peak in radiation is given by the NEARBY objects which moves slow, the tails in the spectrum come from the distant objects. Now, let's change our speed. If we look to the sky we see the same stuff (because of Hubble's law): the nearby galaxies move slow, the distant ones move faster. No matter what speed we have we see always the SAME UNIVERSE. As a consequence the peak of the background radiation remains where it is. It doesn't shift as long as we move with CONSTANT SPEED. Uniform movement cannot be distinguished from rest no matter what measurement we perform and this is the principle of relativity. However, the peak will shift if we accelerate!! The shift in the background radiation peak will indicate accelerations, but not the speed. In this respect the aether, if it exists, keeps indeed an universal clock, but we will be synchroneous with this clock when we move with *constant speed* and not when we are at an "absolute" rest. So these aether theories if they are logically consistent will all end up confirming the relativity theory. A little on the speed of light and why it has to be constant in all frames. In spacetime there is no difference between space and time, therefore what we call "speed" is actually a pure algebric NUMBER (a scalar). The speed of light is the scalar called ONE. It defines the scale in the spacetime, exactly in the same way as number ONE sets the scale for the numbers in algebra. ONE will be ONE in all frames. In the same way the electron charge sets the scale for the charges and has to be the same in all frames. In the same way Planck's constant sets the scale for the spin and has to be the same in all frames. All those are SCALARS and should've been ONE. Unfortunately our macroscopic scale (world) was inappropriate when they were first introduced. A little on Ross theory. Although he assumes a fluidic aether, his theory is RT consistent. Because he identifies particles with DETECTABLE density patterns inside the aether and the distances/durations are measured with respect to those and not with a fictious background space. At a more detailed look I could say that his aether has exactly the same properties of the RT spacetime. You can put an equal sign between the two. So, in this respect Ross theory is consistent with Einstein's theory. What Ross (and Milo) add is about the nature of particles. Einstein's theory says nothing (it's not concerned with) about particles origin or why the spacetime curves when you put matter in it. Einstein's theory is a general one which has to be valid for any kind of particles, for any kind of internal workings of these particles. If Ross is right, he will revolutionise the QM, while holding (and improving) the RT. For instance, if particles are indeed higher pressurised aether, then logically the speed of light inside them will be much higher than in vacuum. One can imagine some sort of wires made out of chained neutrons, for instance, through which we will be able to send signals faster than light in vacuum (like the telegraph vs. air born sounds). Einstein's GRT predicts (and there is some experimental confirmation, but not 100 % flawless) the frame drag, which simply means that a chunk of spacetime slides over the general spacetime, like a surfer slides on the ocean's surface. Yet, Einstein's theory will not tell us how to achieve this, because it doesn't deal with the modelling of particles. Ross' and Milo's theories do that and may help in practically achieving the frame drag. I think it is also worth remembering that Einstein's relativity has not been accepted for a long time. Einstein got a Nobel prize several years after GRT, but not for his relativity theory :-). People hanged to old concepts. Just during the 30's, when the progresses in cosmology and QM (which drove the technique towards building relativistic machines) the evidence in favour of RT and GRT started to flow in. And the evidence was so strong that RT got finally accepted and established. I think this is the best evidence that the existing evidence is good enough :-). We should use our energies in building something on such a wonderfull foundation instead of trying to demolish it and built something shabby from scratch, just because Euclidian space looks nicer than Riemannian ones. After all "Nature cannot be fooled" and is doing what it's doing and not what we want her to do. Cheers, Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying Backup Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files. Install today: http://click.egroups.com/1/5667/5/_/187292/_/961403023/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe eGroups.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 12:24:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31191; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:20:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:20:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:25:33 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "LaJoie, Stephen A" cc: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" , "Kyle R. Mcallister" Subject: Modulated : FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FA9 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"al3Nz3.0.Fd7.n9dJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35647 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear S., Wht non mathmatical reason is there that a signal carrying Country and Western music cannot go from here to there, say 1000 feet? By What non mathmatical reason will a signal know it is carrying C and W ... or not? On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: > > > > ---------- > > From: John Schnurer[SMTP:herman antioch-college.edu] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 6:30 PM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > > > > Dear Folks, > > > > What is the non mathmatical physical reason sending a signal > > faster than light will cause any trouble? > > > You can't send a signal faster than light. > > Things that happen "faster than light" but have no signal, that > is, carry no information and communicate nothing are allowed. > > EPR may involve a super luminecent event, but since no information > can be sent to the observer's frame (note: this is different from the > moving frame of the affected particle that allows no more than the maxium > information that can be extracted from it so that the uncertainty principle > is not violated with the other particle...) relativity allows it. > > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 12:39:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01880; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:31:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:31:39 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:31:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie Reply-To: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: <200006191857.OAA25736 fh105.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"bbV4A3.0.DT.QKdJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35648 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > You can't send a signal faster than light. > > That's not a proof. Its an assumption and a logical fallacy. It is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, a conclusion based on that theory, and is logically consistent with it. Anything moving faster than light is not in this universe, and thus is unphysical. Mathematically, it's just a plug in chug into the transformation with v/c > 1. That works for me. > > Things that happen "faster than light" but have no signal, that > > is, carry no information and communicate nothing are allowed. > > 'Allowed' in that meaning is a word that should never have been used. Just > because well accepted theory does not 'allow' something to happen, does not > mean it won't. True. On the other hand, the theory of relativity has been tested and it's predictions consistent with virtually all test. The theory would be rejected if a faster than light communication system was found to exist. > If anyone here thinks faster than light signal transfer is impossible, I > kindly request that you prove it. Not with a theory, metaphysical > assumption or mathematical equation, but something that really means > something. Not with a mathematical equation? But something that really means something? If theory and equations don't mean something, both being based on our best experimental observations and the theory made to fit reality, then what does? It is very hard to "prove" a negative, like nothing faster than light that carries information can exist. You can disprove it by finding one good exception. Do you have one good exception? I possibly can think of one. To make a complete set of Feynmann (spl) diagrams you often have to consider reactions that would require a faster than light interaction. Still, I find these reactions fall into the same type of informationless reactions as the EPR. > The preceding was not meant to be a flame, rather a vent from someone tired > of the useless assumptions our science has become. Without science, this species called homo sapiens would be cheetah kibble, and our numbers would be in the thousands, not billions. Everyone from tigers to the giant cave squirrel would be hunting us down for food. (Instead, we ate all the giant cave squirrels. And the great bison, the woolly mammoths, the giant cave bears, the giant tree sloth, and so on...) I don't see anything assumptive about science, to be honest. Reality is assumed, and it is assumed to be knowable and the same for all observers, and that seems reasonable given that it is both successful and we've never observed an exception to these "assumptions". I suppose if we did find an exception, we'd have a real cause to change science. > --Kyle R. Mcallister > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 13:11:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA17954; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:07:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:07:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:02:18 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"w8oVL3.0.SO4.DsdJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35649 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > That works for me. It doesn't for me. Relativity is a good thing, and it is a beautiful theory, but it is not necessarily the end all of science. > Not with a mathematical equation? But something that really means > something? If theory and equations don't mean something, both being based > on our best experimental observations and the theory made to fit reality, > then what does? They aren't the finality. If someone gets a 'theory of everything' and it works for 500 years, and then someone does an experiment that shows something even very tiny that does not fit into the theory, the theory should be trash-canned. > It is very hard to "prove" a negative, like nothing faster than light that > carries information can exist. You can disprove it by finding one good > exception. Exactly. You can't prove a negative. That was my point. > Do you have one good exception? No. > Without science, this species called homo sapiens would be cheetah kibble, > and our numbers would be in the thousands, not billions. I am not anti-science. I just don't like the 'experts' running around saying we shouldn't devote funding to superluminal effect research because some theory says it can't happen. That is not science, it is stupidity. > I don't see anything assumptive about science, to be honest. Reality is > assumed, and it is assumed to be knowable and the same for all observers, > and that seems reasonable given that it is both successful and we've never > observed an exception to these "assumptions". I suppose if we did find an > exception, we'd have a real cause to change science. It is very assumptive on some issues. Take quantum mechanics...but that is a whole other can of worms, and a messy one at that. Suppose I could sent binary, or Morse code from point to point, faster than light can cross the same distance. Is that a viable signal? --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 13:15:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18751; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:09:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:09:57 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:09:44 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Got dem crazy ZPE feet? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"crOUa3.0.ta4.KudJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35650 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts - We have geckos all over the house here. Knew there had to be something special about them. Seems their mysterious sticky feet really do have some sort of magic: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20000607_2322.html - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 13:19:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20363; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:13:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:13:02 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <394E438F.446CAF11 ix.netcom.com> References: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:11:28 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"50n6g3.0.3-4.DxdJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35651 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Dear Mitchell, > >I too have given this subject some thought, as you might expect, and have a >few comments. > >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> In order for there to be a definable entity that merits the label "cold >> fusion," any ultimate theory of CF must have the following characteristics: >> >> (1) It must involve nuclear fusion--i.e., the combination of two or more >> nuclei into one. > >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous >nuclear activity. ***{Ed, with respect, you don't know whether it is limited to fusion or not, and you will not know until the theoretical issues are definitively settled. The point of my post was to consider the requirements of an explanatory theory, given the assumption that "cold fusion" is, in fact, an appropriate description of what is going on. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> (2) The fusion must occur under what may be reasonably termed "cold" >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew >> experimenter. >> >> (3) The theory must provide some mechanism that could enable nuclei to >> overcome the Coulomb repulsion that, under normal conditions, prevents >> fusion. > >And provide a mechanism for dumping the energy into the lattice rather than >into individual nuclear products. ***{Correct, but in the absence of neutron or gamma radiation, given conservation of energy, the energy of fusion is quickly going to take the form of heat in the lattice, so such a mechanism is more or less implied. (Especially given the hypothetical missing ingredient that I propose below, which is a pure alpha emitter.) --MJ}*** > >> >> (4) The theory must provide a mechanism that explains why deadly neutron >> and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters. >> >> (5) The theory must involve a heretofore unidentified key >> ingredient--something that, due to chance, has sometimes been present in CF >> cells and sometimes not, in order to explain the seemingly baffling >> inconsistency in those results, and the parallel difficulties in >> replication. > >This is entirely a different theory. The first several criteria involve the >nuclear interaction while this criteria involves the chemical environment. >For example, the presence of boron makes palladium stronger so that it does >not crack as easily. Consequently, the required high concentration of >deuterium can be achieved more easily if some boron is present. Other >impurity elements have both a negative and positive effect on this behavior, a >problem which makes an interpretation of the results very complex. The >problem is to sort these effects into the correct explanation, i.e. which >factors change the ability to achieve the high loading, which are important to >the unique environment that allows the nuclear reaction to occur, and which >are involved in the nuclear reaction, as you suggest. > >> >> >> (6) The theory must make use of *instability*--i.e., some process that >> tends very strongly *not* to occur--in order to explain why CF was not >> discovered long ago. > >This criteria has more of a psychological aspect than a scientific one. ***{No, the above criterion is based on something very specific--to wit: there are a number of theories that have been proposed to explain CF which have the common fault of suggesting that the CF-inducing agent is *stable*--i.e., long lived in the environment. For example, Mills' theory proposes the existence of a "hydrino" which is defined as a stable form of hydrogen that has its electron orbiting below the ground state radius. Result: for maximally shrunken hydrinos, we would have an essentially neutral, *stable* particle capable of behaving very much like a neutron, and inducing pretty much the same sorts of nuclear reactions. The problem I have with his theory is that this condition of *stability* suggests very strongly that we ought to be up to our armpits in hydrinos (the universe, after all, consists mostly of hydrogen) and bathed in deadly radiation triggered by hydrinos in their maximally shrunken state. Likewise, Fred Sparber has proposed a "light lepton" theory, which, again, has the defect of stability, and leads to the same consequences as the hydrino theory. In essence, these theories explain OU results at too great a cost. By proposing agents that act with very loose constraints, they do explain OU results, but they also (a) render it implausible that the agents were not noticed long ago, and (b) they leave us wondering why, if such agents exist, we are not all dead. The protoneutron theory, however, is not vulnerable to such concerns: the central characteristic of the protoneutron, as I have defined it, has been that of being *wildly unstable*. Thus it is no surprise that protoneutrons have not been noticed before, and it is entirely to be expected that, in nature, they would induce very little radiation, and thus would not be a threat to human life. --MJ}*** For a >long time, since the alchemists, science did not think this was possible, >hence ignored all evidence. Considerable evidence was published but was >ignored. However, in the case of the Pons-Fleischmann effect, the use of >palladium, with its very nonuniform properties, has made this particular >approach very difficult to reproduce. Some of the other methods do not have >this problem. > >> >> >> With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most >> common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, >> in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question >> involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The >> protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a >> question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice >> location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost >> Bohr radius? My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing >> altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle >> which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a >> hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, >> while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, >> would be: > >You are describing the hydrex proposed by Dufour on the basis of some very >good experimental observation. ***{Proposed when? And where? I put forth the protoneutron concept publicly on sci.physics.fusion more than 5 years ago, on 11 Sep 1995 at 10:52:42 a.m. (I thought of it shortly after the brouhaha about the original P & F announcement got under way, but this was my first mention of the idea on the internet.) --MJ}*** > >> >> >> pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 >> >> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 > >Unfortunately, no evidence exists to support the idea that boron is involved >in any CF reaction. People find that the effects occur with or without boron >being present. In addition, the measured relationship between energy and >helium production is very close to 24 MeV, not 8.7 MeV. ***{Has anyone deliberately and carefully investigated the boron hypothesis, or are you merely saying that if there were a correlation with the presence of boron, it would have been noticed? In any case, even if the boron hypothesis is incorrect, I think *something of this sort*--i.e., some ingredient X, analogous to boron--is required, if the CF hypothesis is to be sustained. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: >> >> (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. >> >> (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew >> experimenter. >> >> (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is >> not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. >> >> (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters >> because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, above, is a >> pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will >> quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the >> lattice. >> >> (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., >> 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF cells >> and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling inconsistency >> in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication. >> >> (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable >> protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. >> >> The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by >> deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, in the >> catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether >> it is the missing key ingredient or not. > >I'm afraid this test has already been made. Boron has been used over a wide >range of concentrations (although not in the Case cell) with no clear >relationship being seen, ***{Very interesting. Have the results of such investigations been published? If so, where are they to be found? --MJ}*** > >> >> >> Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is >> happening, assuming >> that if CF is real. > >On this we can agree. Apparently, a range of nuclear reactions can be >initiated depending on the chemical environment. For example, tritium can be >produced under some conditions while He-4 or neutrons are produced under other >conditions. Conditions have been discovered that accelerate radioactive decay >while other conditions cause production of heavy elements apparently by >transmutation. The picture is now far more complex than you realize. ***{I am very aware of the sorts of claims that you describe above, and have been involved in discussing them for literally years, on this group and elsewhere. To repeat: my post was intended to lay out the theoretical requirements that must be satisfied *if* the CF label is, ultimately, destined to be vindicated. --MJ}*** If the >phenomenon is not real, nature is playing tricks which have a very complex >structure. ***{True. But nature has done that before, and will doubtlessly do so again. Until we find the missing ingredient, or accumulate such an immense mountain of positive results that we can accept the phenomenon without being able to produce it on demand, uncertainty will continue to reign. --MJ}*** > >Ed Storms > >> >> >> --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 13:44:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31954; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:41:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:41:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000619164111.007a86f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:41:11 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Alternative Energy Institute, Inc. reviews ICCF-8 In-Reply-To: <394E60B6.D6F1D309 ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000617173101.007aa460 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000619131532.007a2630 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"KMDoR.0.6p7.jLeJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35652 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >I think one of the reasons they do not evaluate some claims is because, at this >point, they do not have the experts in house to do a proper job. Well . . . I appreciate their interest and enthusiasm, and I myself am no expert. At the same time, I feel that people who are *completely* unable to evaluate claims should, perhaps, refrain from commenting. The other day I read a Time magazine issue devoted to "the future" which included many fatuous and confused statements. One article about computers predicted that "processor speed" would increase by many "megabytes." It was as uniformative -- to put it politely. In my dealings with customers, I have worked with many people who do not grasp the difference between RAM memory capacity, disk space, and processor speed, or the difference between Windows and applications. That's fine. I expect they can do their jobs well and there is no need for them to learn the minutea of computers, any more than I should learn the ins and outs of dry cleaning equipment. But such people should not be writing articles about computer for Time magazine! > Rather than >each claim being given a five star endorsement, I suggest the listing is >neutral, without any endorsement. I think a neutral source would also include negative information, such as the fact that serious attempts to replicate experiments X and Y, by Scott Little, for example, failed. The negative information is available too, from the same sources as the positive. If you attend a CF conference you will learn that many experiments fail to generate heat, and some appear to contradict others. A neutral source would include more bad & frustrating news. The Alternative Energy Institute (AEI) site may give readers the false impression that many claims are robust and we are on the verge of commercialization. When commercialization does not occur in a few years, readers may feel dismayed, or betrayed, or they may buy into one of these conspiracy theories. If the AEI made it clear how tenuous these results are, and how difficult it is to evaluate or replicate most of them, readers would have more realistic expectations. >Actually, I'm less >critical in print than I would like to be because this field is still in its >infant stage. I note that you are a lot more critical during on-the-spot, live evaluations at conferences than in print. Anyway, I do not see how the kid glove treatment helps. People making (apparently) stupid mistakes should be critisized. If it turns out they are not actually making mistakes, they will usually tell you after you critisize them. Also, muddled presentations should be condemned, even though the presentation quality has nothing to do with the content of the research. A New York Times article described a conference about neutrinos: Language problems at meetings like this are often exacerbated by poorly prepared exhibits. Physicists commonly illustrate their technical talks with diagrams, graphs and tables scrawled on transparencies that are projected on a screen. But the equations and words crammed into these transparencies, usually prepared in haste, are often so small and messy that only audience members with binoculars can read them. "You can always tell which speakers are professors and which are graduate students," said Maurice Goldhaber, former director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island. "The professors know that it isn't enough to understand your own experiment. You must be able to make it intelligible to an audience." - June 16, 1998, "International Language of Physics Ties Physicists' Tongues," Malcolm W. Browne > No point is served by kicking people who are trying to do a good >job under difficult circumstances. The skeptics are good enough at this to >need no more help. When a friend who critisizes your work, it hurts your feelings but you are likely to take his words to heart and act upon them. When a harsh "skeptic" who knows nothing about your work critisizes, you ignore him. >Consequently, I and many other people limit our criticisms >to private discussion. I do not understand why. Do you also limit praise to private discussions? I cannot imagine how something like the software industry would flourish if our public discussions and trade magazines carried only friendly comments. > Unfortunately, this makes skeptics think we are all in >agreement and equally crazy, which is not true. Not just skeptics. Neutral observers will also get that impression. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 15:28:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03997; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:24:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:24:31 -0700 Message-ID: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:29:03 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EvZko1.0.N-.VsfJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35653 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > >Dear Mitchell, > > > >I too have given this subject some thought, as you might expect, and have a > >few comments. > > > >Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >> In order for there to be a definable entity that merits the label "cold > >> fusion," any ultimate theory of CF must have the following characteristics: > >> > >> (1) It must involve nuclear fusion--i.e., the combination of two or more > >> nuclei into one. > > > >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically > >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). > >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous > >nuclear activity. > > ***{Ed, with respect, you don't know whether it is limited to fusion or > not, and you will not know until the theoretical issues are definitively > settled. The point of my post was to consider the requirements of an > explanatory theory, given the assumption that "cold fusion" is, in fact, an > appropriate description of what is going on. --MJ}*** The problem we seem to have is agreeing on what is experimentally known and what we should call this knowledge. Experimentally, people now claim to produce nuclear reactions under low-energy conditions, the products of which can not result from fusion. The "cold fusion" community has adopted these results as being an extension of the basic process that would also apply to fusion, if it occurs. Because of this expansion, the term "cold fusion" is no longer accurate, although frequently used. However, if you want to focus only on the reaction which makes heat and helium or tritium or neutrons, that's fine. > >> > >> > >> (2) The fusion must occur under what may be reasonably termed "cold" > >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew > >> experimenter. > >> > >> (3) The theory must provide some mechanism that could enable nuclei to > >> overcome the Coulomb repulsion that, under normal conditions, prevents > >> fusion. > > > >And provide a mechanism for dumping the energy into the lattice rather than > >into individual nuclear products. > > ***{Correct, but in the absence of neutron or gamma radiation, given > conservation of energy, the energy of fusion is quickly going to take the > form of heat in the lattice, so such a mechanism is more or less implied. > (Especially given the hypothetical missing ingredient that I propose below, > which is a pure alpha emitter.) --MJ}*** Implied but not explained unless the theory contains the necessary mechanism. Overcoming the Coulomb barrier and getting rid of the energy are two separate processes. The more successful explanations have these two processes as natural parts of the basic process. > > >> > >> (4) The theory must provide a mechanism that explains why deadly neutron > >> and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters. > >> > >> (5) The theory must involve a heretofore unidentified key > >> ingredient--something that, due to chance, has sometimes been present in CF > >> cells and sometimes not, in order to explain the seemingly baffling > >> inconsistency in those results, and the parallel difficulties in > >> replication. > > > >This is entirely a different theory. The first several criteria involve the > >nuclear interaction while this criteria involves the chemical environment. > >For example, the presence of boron makes palladium stronger so that it does > >not crack as easily. Consequently, the required high concentration of > >deuterium can be achieved more easily if some boron is present. Other > >impurity elements have both a negative and positive effect on this behavior, a > >problem which makes an interpretation of the results very complex. The > >problem is to sort these effects into the correct explanation, i.e. which > >factors change the ability to achieve the high loading, which are important to > >the unique environment that allows the nuclear reaction to occur, and which > >are involved in the nuclear reaction, as you suggest. > > > >> > >> > >> (6) The theory must make use of *instability*--i.e., some process that > >> tends very strongly *not* to occur--in order to explain why CF was not > >> discovered long ago. > > > >This criteria has more of a psychological aspect than a scientific one. > > ***{No, the above criterion is based on something very specific--to wit: > there are a number of theories that have been proposed to explain CF which > have the common fault of suggesting that the CF-inducing agent is > *stable*--i.e., long lived in the environment. For example, Mills' theory > proposes the existence of a "hydrino" which is defined as a stable form of > hydrogen that has its electron orbiting below the ground state radius. I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part of "cold fusion". The nuclear-active-environment (NAE) is stable once it is formed, which is not an easy task. However, this environment is slowly destroyed by the energy being released and by loss of deuterium should the conditions change. Consequently, the NAE is not long lived in nature. > > Result: for maximally shrunken hydrinos, we would have an essentially > neutral, *stable* particle capable of behaving very much like a neutron, > and inducing pretty much the same sorts of nuclear reactions. The problem I > have with his theory is that this condition of *stability* suggests very > strongly that we ought to be up to our armpits in hydrinos (the universe, > after all, consists mostly of hydrogen) and bathed in deadly radiation > triggered by hydrinos in their maximally shrunken state. Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact with the nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. On the other hand, a number of other people, including yourself, suggest that a different form of shrunken hydrogen can interact. The only problem is finding ways to produce this little beast. Apparently, this is not easy to do. Dufour uses various gas discharge techniques which seem to work better than just loading palladium with deuterium. > Likewise, Fred > Sparber has proposed a "light lepton" theory, which, again, has the defect > of stability, and leads to the same consequences as the hydrino theory. In > essence, these theories explain OU results at too great a cost. By > proposing agents that act with very loose constraints, they do explain OU > results, but they also (a) render it implausible that the agents were not > noticed long ago, and (b) they leave us wondering why, if such agents > exist, we are not all dead. A good point and a good reason the theories you cite are generally rejected. > The protoneutron theory, however, is not > vulnerable to such concerns: the central characteristic of the > protoneutron, as I have defined it, has been that of being *wildly > unstable*. Thus it is no surprise that protoneutrons have not been noticed > before, and it is entirely to be expected that, in nature, they would > induce very little radiation, and thus would not be a threat to human life. > --MJ}*** The problem you have, I suggest, is suggesting just how these *wildly unstable* critters form in the first place. What unique environment causes their formation, regulates the kind of nuclear reactions they produce, then allows the nuclear energy to be dumped into the general environment without producing X rays? So far, you have discussed only a small part of the problem . > > > For a > >long time, since the alchemists, science did not think this was possible, > >hence ignored all evidence. Considerable evidence was published but was > >ignored. However, in the case of the Pons-Fleischmann effect, the use of > >palladium, with its very nonuniform properties, has made this particular > >approach very difficult to reproduce. Some of the other methods do not have > >this problem. > > > >> > >> > >> With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most > >> common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, > >> in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question > >> involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The > >> protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a > >> question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice > >> location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost > >> Bohr radius? My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing > >> altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle > >> which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a > >> hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, > >> while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, > >> would be: > > > >You are describing the hydrex proposed by Dufour on the basis of some very > >good experimental observation. > > ***{Proposed when? And where? I put forth the protoneutron concept publicly > on sci.physics.fusion more than 5 years ago, on 11 Sep 1995 at 10:52:42 > a.m. (I thought of it shortly after the brouhaha about the original P & F > announcement got under way, but this was my first mention of the idea on > the internet.) --MJ}*** This idea was suggested by many people early in the field's history. However, because of the other problems cited above could not be solved, the idea was largely dropped. Then J. Dufour in France started to see some strange phenomenon in his gas discharge apparatus which gave the idea more substance. In his papers, he took to calling the shrunken hydrogen a hydrex. Now he believes the hydrex does not cause fusion, but a process whereby many of these particles become attached to a large nucleus, such as palladium, by dipole interaction and cause alpha particles to be emitted. Thus, helium is formed along with a lighter nucleus, for example zinc when palladium is used. This explains the presence of transmutation products as well as helium. Naturally, the theory has many holes. > > >> pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 > >> > >> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 > > > >Unfortunately, no evidence exists to support the idea that boron is involved > >in any CF reaction. People find that the effects occur with or without boron > >being present. In addition, the measured relationship between energy and > >helium production is very close to 24 MeV, not 8.7 MeV. > > ***{Has anyone deliberately and carefully investigated the boron > hypothesis, or are you merely saying that if there were a correlation with > the presence of boron, it would have been noticed? In any case, even if the > boron hypothesis is incorrect, I think *something of this sort*--i.e., some > ingredient X, analogous to boron--is required, if the CF hypothesis is to > be sustained. --MJ}*** Palladium has been made containing a wide range of boron content. This study was done not only to explore boron as being involved in the nuclear reaction, but also to change the properties of palladium. These studies show no clear relationship between the ability to produce the effect and the boron content, although some of the batches had a higher success rate than other ones. I agree, some other atoms clearly must be involved. People have suggested the full spectrum of possibilities, but to no avail. Too many other variables are operating to allow this variable to be isolated. > > >> > >> The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: > >> > >> (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. > >> > >> (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" > >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew > >> experimenter. > >> > >> (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is > >> not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. > >> > >> (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters > >> because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, above, is a > >> pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will > >> quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the > >> lattice. > >> > >> (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., > >> 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF cells > >> and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling inconsistency > >> in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication. > >> > >> (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable > >> protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. > >> > >> The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by > >> deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, in the > >> catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether > >> it is the missing key ingredient or not. > > > >I'm afraid this test has already been made. Boron has been used over a wide > >range of concentrations (although not in the Case cell) with no clear > >relationship being seen, > > ***{Very interesting. Have the results of such investigations been > published? If so, where are they to be found? --MJ}*** Most of the work is described in ICCF Proceedings which are not generally available. You would have additional problems finding the information because many investigators are involved using batches of Pd that contained, mostly by chance, different but known amounts of boron. Boron is a natural impurity in palladium so that its effect can be seen by examining those samples for which the boron content was determined. To make matters worse, anomalous energy is now seen using platinum, gold, and titanium. Boron is not present in these metals, nor is deuterium in the first two. However, because Pyrex is used, some small but unknown amount of boron might be present on the surface. > >> > >> > >> Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is > >> happening, assuming > >> that if CF is real. > > > >On this we can agree. Apparently, a range of nuclear reactions can be > >initiated depending on the chemical environment. For example, tritium can be > >produced under some conditions while He-4 or neutrons are produced under other > >conditions. Conditions have been discovered that accelerate radioactive decay > >while other conditions cause production of heavy elements apparently by > >transmutation. The picture is now far more complex than you realize. > > ***{I am very aware of the sorts of claims that you describe above, and > have been involved in discussing them for literally years, on this group > and elsewhere. To repeat: my post was intended to lay out the theoretical > requirements that must be satisfied *if* the CF label is, ultimately, > destined to be vindicated. --MJ}*** A worthy effort, but I only suggest you need to expand your criteria. > > > If the > >phenomenon is not real, nature is playing tricks which have a very complex > >structure. > > ***{True. But nature has done that before, and will doubtlessly do so > again. Until we find the missing ingredient, or accumulate such an immense > mountain of positive results that we can accept the phenomenon without > being able to produce it on demand, uncertainty will continue to reign. > --MJ}*** Alas, all so true. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 17:00:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00818; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:56:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:56:26 -0700 Message-ID: <000601bfda49$e5bb7a40$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:55:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"dRodb2.0.ZC.fChJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35654 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle R. Mcallister To: Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:02 PM Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > That works for me. > > It doesn't for me. Relativity is a good thing, and it is a beautiful > theory, but it is not necessarily the end all of science. Nope. It isn't the "end of all science". But unless you have something better in your back pocket, that explains all it does and a few things releativity doesn't, it's what we have today. :-) > > Not with a mathematical equation? But something that really means > > something? If theory and equations don't mean something, both being based > > on our best experimental observations and the theory made to fit reality, > > then what does? > > They aren't the finality. If someone gets a 'theory of everything' and it > works for 500 years, and then someone does an experiment that shows > something even very tiny that does not fit into the theory, the theory > should be trash-canned. Well, we've had Newton for a long time. We haven't stopped teaching Newtonian physics because it's so dang USEFUL. We all know what context we can use it in, and it works well in that domain. Yes, there are a number of "somethings" that are not explained by it, but we simply note where it is valid, that we have something better in our back pockets, and keep using it. > > It is very hard to "prove" a negative, like nothing faster than light > that > > carries information can exist. You can disprove it by finding one good > > exception. > > Exactly. You can't prove a negative. That was my point. Not "can't", but very hard. On the other hand, not being able to do so means nothing. The only way to prove a negative is by an exhaustive search. I can prove there are no tigers in my house by searching everything that a tiger may be in. Sitting here I cannot prove there are no tigers in my house except to say my dog has a keen nose, being part hound, and he hates cats and he's resting at my feet under my desk right now. My dog's inactivity is a strong predictor that there are no tigers here, but not proof. Relativity is a strong predictor, but not proof. An exhaustive search would be nearly impossible. > > Do you have one good exception? > > No. I guess I don't understand your grievance, then. > > Without science, this species called homo sapiens would be cheetah > kibble, > > and our numbers would be in the thousands, not billions. > > I am not anti-science. I just don't like the 'experts' running around > saying we shouldn't devote funding to superluminal effect research because > some theory says it can't happen. That is not science, it is stupidity. First, it's political, not scientific. Second, they have a good reason for saying it can't happen knowing what we know now. We also know it's pretty pointless to fund perpetual motion machines. Without even a theory that allows it, we don't know the first place to look.. Now, if someone came across strange experimental results, people would look at it, as they have the EPR prediction; but they have turned up nothing. > > I don't see anything assumptive about science, to be honest. Reality is > > assumed, and it is assumed to be knowable and the same for all observers, > > and that seems reasonable given that it is both successful and we've > never > > observed an exception to these "assumptions". I suppose if we did find an > > exception, we'd have a real cause to change science. > > It is very assumptive on some issues. Take quantum mechanics...but that is > a whole other can of worms, and a messy one at that. What about quantum mechanics? It works. > Suppose I could sent binary, or Morse code from point to point, faster than > light can cross the same distance. Is that a viable signal? The theory of relativity predicts that information carrying signals cannot move faster than light. We have no theory that predict otherwise at this time. So there is no theoretical basis for research into faster than light signals. Further, as far as we can test relativity, the "no faster than light signals" rule predicted by relativity seems to hold. Now, if there was an experiment that showed other wise, or even an alternative theory that predicts it, you'd have a reason for predicting it. > --Kyle R. Mcallister > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 17:12:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03892; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:06:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:06:25 -0700 Message-ID: <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:05:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"IllOL3.0.jy.0MhJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35655 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms To: Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > Result: for maximally shrunken hydrinos, we would have an essentially > > neutral, *stable* particle capable of behaving very much like a neutron, > > and inducing pretty much the same sorts of nuclear reactions. The problem I > > have with his theory is that this condition of *stability* suggests very > > strongly that we ought to be up to our armpits in hydrinos (the universe, > > after all, consists mostly of hydrogen) and bathed in deadly radiation > > triggered by hydrinos in their maximally shrunken state. > > Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact with the > nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. On the other hand, a number of other > people, including yourself, suggest that a different form of shrunken hydrogen can > interact. The only problem is finding ways to produce this little beast. > Apparently, this is not easy to do. Dufour uses various gas discharge techniques > which seem to work better than just loading palladium with deuterium. I don't see why a shrunken hydrogen atom is essentual. What's essentual is that the barrier to fusion becomes lower and thinner, and that's what happens in a crystal lattice. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 17:51:04 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17002; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:48:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:48:48 -0700 Message-ID: <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:53:57 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54@ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0@federation> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DV3pe1.0.a94.mzhJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35656 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve Lajoie wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Edmund Storms > To: > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:29 PM > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > > > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > Result: for maximally shrunken hydrinos, we would have an essentially > > > neutral, *stable* particle capable of behaving very much like a neutron, > > > and inducing pretty much the same sorts of nuclear reactions. The > problem I > > > have with his theory is that this condition of *stability* suggests very > > > strongly that we ought to be up to our armpits in hydrinos (the > universe, > > > after all, consists mostly of hydrogen) and bathed in deadly radiation > > > triggered by hydrinos in their maximally shrunken state. > > > > Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact with > the > > nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. On the other hand, a number > of other > > people, including yourself, suggest that a different form of shrunken > hydrogen can > > interact. The only problem is finding ways to produce this little beast. > > Apparently, this is not easy to do. Dufour uses various gas discharge > techniques > > which seem to work better than just loading palladium with deuterium. > > I don't see why a shrunken hydrogen atom is essentual. What's essentual is > that > the barrier to fusion becomes lower and thinner, and that's what happens in > a crystal lattice. A shrunken hydrogen is not essential but it does explain a few observations. On the other hand, if you propose the lattice is involved, you will have other problems. Simply saying the lattice lowers the barrier is not enough. What is the process and why do not all lattices work? Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 19:07:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11755; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:04:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:04:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200006200204.WAA15311 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:59:13 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-Hkj21.0.Ut2.s4jJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35657 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Suppose I could sent binary, or Morse code from point to point, faster > than > > light can cross the same distance. Is that a viable signal? > > The theory of relativity predicts that information carrying signals cannot > move > faster than light. That's not what I ask. Its funny, I seem to get this kind of response everywhere I go. I will rephrase it: Please answer the following question, yes or no. Then expand upon it if you desire: Question: If I send S.O.S. in Morse code from here to a receiver 1000 feet away, and the signal arrives at the destination in 1/10 the time it takes light to cross the same distance in free space, is that an acceptable demonstration of superluminal signaling? This is not continuous wave, but discrete pulses, so phase/group/etc. velocity arguments are made moot. The rise time of the pulse is very high, so the 'tail' is out of consideration. --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 20:43:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA11730; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:41:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:41:29 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01bfda69$56f6cf60$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54@ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0@federation> <394EC088.69F0F1A0@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:40:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"sNyUg.0.6t2.fVkJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35658 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms To: Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF [snip] > A shrunken hydrogen is not essential but it does explain a few observations. On > the other hand, if you propose the lattice is involved, you will have other > problems. Simply saying the lattice lowers the barrier is not enough. What is > the process and why do not all lattices work? > > Ed Storms So, you're saying that you think it's this spun down electron occupying an eigenstate unknown to physics until now and that simple hydrogen is fusing with a Boron contaminate. I don't think I see how you're going to get a electron in this intermediate state. It simply should either be found in the nucleus by electron capture, or it should be in the allowed orbital, not in some QM forbidden area. I don't see where all this boron is coming from, unless Cold fusion cells are routinely hit by Ronald Reagan's 20 Mule Team Borax wagons. :-) Actually, that's unfairly sarcastic, but kinda funny. My problem is, the boron reaction produces a small 8 MeV for three alpha particles, and the results of Case and George show they are getting more like 23 MeV for each alpha particle. Besides, George doesn't have enough Pd to contaminate with boron; it would be better said that the boron is contaminated with Pd. I didn't realize that there were so many positive results out there with simple hydrogen. The d+boron-11 reaction doesn't produce three alphas... Maybe d+ boron 10, huh? I have no idea what that reaction produces, maybe three alphas? I don't know, I'm asking. Personally, I think that the lattice plays the role of lowering the potential barrier BUT defects in the lattice are needed so deuterons can collect at a single location and form a Bose-Einstein condensate. That lattice defects are needed was demonstrated by the Los Alamos tritium production experiments, where they showed that work hardened Pd produced 3x the tritium as stress relieved Pd. The Bose Einstein condenstate idea comes from Dr. Kim at Purdue. Now, to address your question.... I don't know. But I believe that hydrogen, like other metals, gives up it's outer electron. All of us have read something similar to Leighton's "Principles of Modern Physics", pg 379, which says "... Thus an electron in a given energy eigenstate is equally likely to be found in the neighborhood of any of the atoms of the crystal and cannot be regarded as associated with any individual atom." So basically you have all these indistinguishable fermions with a very large Delta X making a raisin pudding of the whole metal, neutralizing the positive charges. That unlocalized electron, with a smeared out probability function in x, means that the barrier between particles partly negated. I believe Ti works better as a hydride than most metals because it has a electron band in the right place for hydrogen to contribute it's electron. I could be wrong on that one, I'm still looking for a source. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 20:48:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA14390; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:46:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:46:01 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01bfda69$f87e20e0$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006200204.WAA15311 fh105.infi.net> Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:45:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"fBuXa.0.lW3.vZkJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35659 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle R. Mcallister To: Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 6:59 PM Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > Suppose I could sent binary, or Morse code from point to point, faster > > than > > > light can cross the same distance. Is that a viable signal? > > > > The theory of relativity predicts that information carrying signals > cannot > > move > > faster than light. > > That's not what I ask. Its funny, I seem to get this kind of response > everywhere I go. I will rephrase it: > > Please answer the following question, yes or no. Then expand upon it if you > desire: > > Question: If I send S.O.S. in Morse code from here to a receiver 1000 feet > away, and the signal arrives at the destination in 1/10 the time it takes > light to cross the same distance in free space, is that an acceptable > demonstration of superluminal signaling? It would be if you could do it. But you can't do that. If you can, if you found a way, please inform the Nobel Prize committee. I think you're on to something to do with EPR, but that doesn't work. > This is not continuous wave, but > discrete pulses, so phase/group/etc. velocity arguments are made moot. The > rise time of the pulse is very high, so the 'tail' is out of consideration. > > --Kyle R. Mcallister > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 22:00:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA05485; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:56:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:56:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200006200456.AAA17501 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:51:30 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_QhB31.0.dL1.NclJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35660 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > It would be if you could do it. But you can't do that. If you can, > if you found a way, please inform the Nobel Prize committee. Why can't I? Prove that I cannot do this. The remark about the Nobel prize committee seems a bit overboard. If you find something like that, you don't go calling them, you publish your results in a journal so other scientists can reproduce your results. Or was it just a smart remark? > I think you're on to something to do with EPR, but that doesn't > work. I'm not talking about EPR. I think we both agree EPR cannot be used to communicate faster than light. --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 19 22:29:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA15564; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:26:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:26:52 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01bfda78$0cde7720$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006200456.AAA17501 fh105.infi.net> Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:26:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"Jm__H2.0.6p3.S2mJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35661 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle R. Mcallister To: Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 9:51 PM Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > It would be if you could do it. But you can't do that. If you can, > > if you found a way, please inform the Nobel Prize committee. > > Why can't I? My best guess is, you don't know how. > Prove that I cannot do this. The transformation for a signal going faster than light is unphysical, thus not real. You can only do things that are real. Thus, you cannot do this. It sort of has to do with the relativistic gamma going imaginary. I've never measured off imaginary distance, or clocked an imaginary time. You do have to give me a break here. I don't know any better than relativity and quantum mechanics, and you've not said anything that leads me to think anything different. > The remark about the Nobel prize > committee seems a bit overboard. Not really. It would be a significant find. > If you find something like that, you don't > go calling them, you publish your results in a journal so other scientists > can reproduce your results. Or was it just a smart remark? Well, why bother with the journal? If you can do this, just go straight to the Nobel committe and collect your prize. With a brain like yours, why waste your efforts taunting us little people on vortex? You have remarkable work to do! I think it would be absolutely super if you could do this! Why, I can think of several applications for it myself. What with stuff essentually going backwards in time, I can think of one or two laws of thermodynamics that you might be able to viciously violate. And that would be very profitable. Not to mention buying lotto tickets! > > I think you're on to something to do with EPR, but that doesn't > > work. > > I'm not talking about EPR. I think we both agree EPR cannot be used to > communicate faster than light. Well, great! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 06:02:31 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA23487; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:00:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:00:28 -0700 Message-ID: <394F6BF5.9720BA8E bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:04:53 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Something Found on Mars? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZMxS51.0.qk5.hhsJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35662 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: http://www.nasawatch.com/ Terry <><><><><><><><><> 19 June 2000: Major Mars Announcement From NASA? Editor's note: 3:50 PM 19 June: Word has it that NASA recently briefed the White House on a potential major discovery on Mars. An announcement of some sort is rumored to be planned for next week and that it involves Mars Global Surveyor. <><><><><><><><><> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 07:32:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17028; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:27:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:27:19 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000620102706.007a4900 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:27:06 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: ICCF-8 web site: no list of participants Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"znq_m3.0.x94.6ztJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35663 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [A message posted at http://www.frascati.enea.it/ICCF8/listpart.htm] ICCF8/78 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS In the last session of the Lerici Conference, it was announced that we would put on our webpage the adjourned list of participants, including addresses. We realized that this could be a violation of the laws on privacy, and thus we decided not to do it. We are now mailing a printed copy to each participant. Please let us know whether there are incorrect data. To all thanks for participating to ICCF8 and best wishes for the future, Franco Scaramuzzi and Antonella De Ninno From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 08:07:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29074; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:01:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:01:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200006201501.LAA31348 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:56:16 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YvnPR3.0.767.FTuJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35664 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > The transformation for a signal going faster than light is unphysical, thus > not real. You can only do things that are real. Thus, you cannot do this. > > It sort of has to do with the relativistic gamma going imaginary. I've > never measured off imaginary distance, or clocked an imaginary time. First, let me apologize for my bad attitude yesterday. It has been 'one of those weeks.' Second, the above is mathematical, and not necessarily related to what really happens. To determine what really happens, we must perform many careful experiments. > Well, why bother with the journal? If you can do this, just go straight to > the Nobel committe and collect your prize. With a brain like yours, why > waste your efforts taunting us little people on vortex? You have > remarkable work to do! I think it would be absolutely super if you could > do this! I'm not trying to taunt anyone. I posted some questions a while back to get information and opinions. I also don't think the Nobel committee would just hand over a prize if I had something that could send information faster than light. They'd want it published first. And I agree, it would be wonderful if I could do this. One last note, I haven't said I found something...what I will say is that I am currently working on the problem, and have posted questions to the list for information, and opinions. I wanted to know where I would most likely take heat should I publish, should I find something. My philosophy is to not claim results when I am not willing to explain how what I claim to have built works. For right now, everyone here should think of me as a person just trying to learn a little more than he currently knows. --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 08:13:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32740; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:10:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:10:30 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000620111004.007cd2f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:10:04 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? In-Reply-To: <394F6BF5.9720BA8E bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"-mSBh.0.Q_7.abuJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35665 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >From: > >http://www.nasawatch.com/ > >Terry > > <><><><><><><><><> > >19 June 2000: Major Mars Announcement From NASA? Any idea what this is about, Terry? Could it be those odd, tree-like structures that someone pointed out here recently? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 08:30:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08185; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:25:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:25:41 -0700 Message-ID: <394F8E15.D5BC9456 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:30:29 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? References: <3.0.6.32.20000620111004.007cd2f0 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Kum9a1.0.p_1.rpuJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35666 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >From: > > > >http://www.nasawatch.com/ > > > >Terry > > > > <><><><><><><><><> > > > >19 June 2000: Major Mars Announcement From NASA? > > Any idea what this is about, Terry? Could it be those odd, tree-like > structures that someone pointed out here recently? Not at this time. Researchers have contacted Keith Cowing of Nasa Watch and he refuses to disclose any additional information. The last time NASA "briefed the White House" was regarding alleged signs of life in the Martian Meteorite. Of course Richard Hoagland thinks there's evidence of an ancient civilization in the thousands of images released by Malin Space Sciences recently. See an example at: http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp4.htm Hoagland also thinks he sees an ancient asteroid mining operation in the space probe NEAR's images of EROS. See: http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/eros.jpg This one *is* quite interesting. I'll keep the list updated. Meanwhile, maybe we should consult Dick Morris' prostitutes. One allegedly forced an early announcement on the Mars Meteorite after Dickie blabbed to her. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 08:38:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12194; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:35:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:35:04 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAC xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:28:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"sDCOe.0.R-2.cyuJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35667 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Kyle R. Mcallister[SMTP:stk sunherald.infi.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:56 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > Second, the above is mathematical, and not necessarily > related to what really happens. > I agree. This is according to the accepted theory, which has served us well as a predictor. But one must not believe it is "what really happens", as you say. One can suspect it is "what really happens", tho'. I can think of no reason at this time why it isn't a good predictor. > To determine what really happens, we must > perform many careful experiments. > You seem to have a handle on where to start. With the theory saying no, and with no experimental evidence that even hints the theory is wrong, I have no idea where to start, as in I have no idea how to even DESIGN the experiment that has not already been done to show otherwise. > > Well, why bother with the journal? If you can do this, just go straight > to > > the Nobel committe and collect your prize. With a brain like yours, why > > waste your efforts taunting us little people on vortex? You have > > remarkable work to do! I think it would be absolutely super if you could > > do this! > > I'm not trying to taunt anyone. I posted some questions a while back to get > information and opinions. I also don't think the Nobel committee would just > hand over a prize if I had something that could send information faster > than light. They'd want it published first. And I agree, it would be > wonderful if I could do this. > > One last note, I haven't said I found something...what I will say is that I > am currently working on the problem, and have posted questions to the list > for information, and opinions. I wanted to know where I would most likely > take heat should I publish, should I find something. My philosophy is to > not claim results when I am not willing to explain how what I claim to have > built works. For right now, everyone here should think of me as a person > just trying to learn a little more than he currently knows. > > --Kyle R. Mcallister > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 10:00:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26812; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:27:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:27:29 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000620121625.007a5eb0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:16:25 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <394F96BE.B7F58B66 ix.netcom.com> References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> <000a01bfda69$56f6cf60$0601a8c0 federation> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"CtMwa.0.rY6.mjvJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35669 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >Unfortunately, the situation with Ti is complex. When Ti forms a hydride, the >structure breaks up and the region turns to powder. As a result, the hydride >is lost from the cathode as fast as it forms. . . . >Consequently, >when excess energy is formed using Ti, it does not involve the hydride >structure. Before a person attempts to explain this phenomenon, he should >take all of the observations into account. Well, he should try to take these observations into account, but he should remember that the reports are still tentative. I do not know of many people who have seen excess heat from Ti hydrides, so I would still classify this one as "iffy." I hope that Dash's work can be replicated. I recall there was some fairly solid Ti gas loading work early on, but I can't remember the authors . . . It is difficult to decide what to do with all the "iffy" evidence in this field. A person trying to devise a theory that takes into account every anomaly reported would make no progress. He could not even keep up with the reports! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 10:09:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA07712; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAD xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:44:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"lPVa5.0.Qu1._HwJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35670 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 9:07 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > > Steve Lajoie wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Edmund Storms > > To: > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:53 PM > > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > [snip] > > I don't think I see how you're going to get a electron in this intermediate > > state. It simply should either be found in the nucleus by electron capture, > > or it should be in the allowed orbital, not in some QM forbidden area. > > I number of people have explained how this can happen. Like all explanations > in this field, no one believes the other guy. > I've not seen an explaination I could follow. Could be me, could be that the explaination isn't one that can be followed. [snip] > > I didn't realize that there were so many positive results out there with > > simple > > hydrogen. > > The "simple" hydrogen effects are another branch of the field which produce > transmutation rather than fusion. > Okay, what do you mean by "transmutation" if it does not mean nuclear fusion? Are you saying there is fission going on? As in the p+B-> excited carbon-> 3 alphas reaction? [snip] > > Personally, I think that the lattice plays the role of lowering the > > potential > > barrier BUT defects in the lattice are needed so deuterons can collect at > > a single location and form a Bose-Einstein condensate. That lattice defects > > are needed was demonstrated by the Los Alamos tritium production > > experiments, where they showed that work hardened Pd produced 3x > > the tritium as stress relieved Pd. > > I suggest this conclusion can not be obtained from the Claytor work because too > many other variables were operating at the same time. In any case, when > palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resulting stress totally changes the > conditions present within the original palladium metal. > What other variables obscured their observation that work hardening had a positive effect on tritium production? They found that purity and hydriding played a part, but found " that the dislocation density must play a very important role in the tritium production." I agree with them. Why do you think otherwise? Loading Pd with hydrogen does stress the Pd, but I don't see how this is relevant. More stress meant more tritium production. > Basically, the electrons in PdD exist in three different conditions. One is a > localized orbit which bonds the atoms together, the second are localized orbits > surrounding the palladium atom, and the third is a conduction band where the > electrons are unlocalized as you said. The positive charged are only > neutralized over the average structure, not at the local regions. I suggest > your model is much too simple. > How does a metal hydride absorb hydrogen, how does it get in there and how does it move in the lattice? I seem to recall that the intersticial spacing was too small for hydrogen to exist there. I'm asking. You have rejected my explaination, I'd like to know a better one. > > I believe Ti works better as a hydride than most metals because it has a > > electron band in the right place for hydrogen to contribute it's electron. > > I could be wrong on that one, I'm still looking for a source. > > Unfortunately, the situation with Ti is complex. When Ti forms a hydride, the > structure breaks up and the region turns to powder. As a result, the hydride > is lost from the cathode as fast as it forms. When Ti is electrolyzed in an > acid electrolyte, this loss is slow but real, with no significant hydrogen> > remaining in the solid metal. When Ti is electrolyzed in a basic electrolyte,> > TiO2 forms on the surface and prevents any entry of hydrogen. Consequently, > when excess energy is formed using Ti, it does not involve the hydride > structure. Before a person attempts to explain this phenomenon, he should take > all of the observations into account. > Perhaps they shouldn't be loading the Ti by electrolysis. Put the Ti into a vessel with a deuterium gas, no oxygen, and raise the temperature to 400-600 C to eliminate the oxide layer. Then it will load, according to the sandia labs hydride database. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 10:27:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02167; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:19:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:19:24 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:24:34 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" cc: Schnurer Subject: FTL and physics In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAC xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GYDYG1.0.nX.RUwJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35671 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Folks, It may be more accurate to say mathmatic work indicates FTL signalling is not probable * within some given mathamtical framework *. In my opinion terms such as can not, impossible and so on... are sweeping generalizations which tend to lump the entire universe and all of the entities in and of it into one fixed group. The only thing that can be assured is that things change. J On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: > > > > ---------- > > From: Kyle R. Mcallister[SMTP:stk sunherald.infi.net] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:56 AM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > > > > Second, the above is mathematical, and not necessarily > > related to what really happens. > > > I agree. This is according to the accepted theory, which has served us > well as a predictor. But one must not believe it is "what really happens", > as you say. One can suspect it is "what really happens", tho'. I can think > of no reason at this time why it isn't a good predictor. > > > To determine what really happens, we must > > perform many careful experiments. > > > You seem to have a handle on where to start. With the theory saying no, > and with no experimental evidence that even hints the theory is wrong, I > have no idea where to start, as in I have no idea how to even DESIGN the > experiment that has not already been done to show otherwise. > > > > Well, why bother with the journal? If you can do this, just go straight > > to > > > the Nobel committe and collect your prize. With a brain like yours, why > > > waste your efforts taunting us little people on vortex? You have > > > remarkable work to do! I think it would be absolutely super if you could > > > do this! > > > > I'm not trying to taunt anyone. I posted some questions a while back to get > > information and opinions. I also don't think the Nobel committee would just > > hand over a prize if I had something that could send information faster > > than light. They'd want it published first. And I agree, it would be > > wonderful if I could do this. > > > > One last note, I haven't said I found something...what I will say is that I > > am currently working on the problem, and have posted questions to the list > > for information, and opinions. I wanted to know where I would most likely > > take heat should I publish, should I find something. My philosophy is to > > not claim results when I am not willing to explain how what I claim to have > > built works. For right now, everyone here should think of me as a person > > just trying to learn a little more than he currently knows. > > > > --Kyle R. Mcallister > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 10:30:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02568; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:21:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:21:12 -0700 Message-ID: <394FA920.ABBF0DF8 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:26:01 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> <000a01bfda69$56f6cf60$0601a8c0 federation> <3.0.6.32.20000620121625.007a5eb0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aNFwe1.0.yd.7WwJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35672 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > >Unfortunately, the situation with Ti is complex. When Ti forms a hydride, > the > >structure breaks up and the region turns to powder. As a result, the hydride > >is lost from the cathode as fast as it forms. . . . > >Consequently, > >when excess energy is formed using Ti, it does not involve the hydride > >structure. Before a person attempts to explain this phenomenon, he should > >take all of the observations into account. > > Well, he should try to take these observations into account, but he should > remember that the reports are still tentative. I do not know of many people > who have seen excess heat from Ti hydrides, so I would still classify this > one as "iffy." I hope that Dash's work can be replicated. I recall there > was some fairly solid Ti gas loading work early on, but I can't remember > the authors . The gas loading only made neutrons. Heat was never measured. Apparently, some kind of nuclear reaction was initiated when the TiH2 went through a phase change at low temperature. > . . > > It is difficult to decide what to do with all the "iffy" evidence in this > field. A person trying to devise a theory that takes into account every > anomaly reported would make no progress. He could not even keep up with the > reports! A very good point. Nevertheless, a good theory would have sufficient room to include unexpected observations. I suspect those theories which concentrate only on PdD are doomed. Ed Storms > > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 10:48:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10233; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:39:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:39:36 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Re: FTL and physics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VARw_3.0.pV2.OnwJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35673 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, John Schnurer wrote: > > Dear Folks, > > It may be more accurate to say mathmatic work indicates FTL > signalling is not probable * within some given mathamtical framework *. No, our presently accepted theory says it's impossible. That's different than "not probable". If hope springs eternal, you have to depend on the "accepted theory" part. Even if you take the theory in the extreme, and plug and chug a faster than light 'v' into the equations, you have just transformed your coordinate system out of our universe. At the speed of light, you found that you occupied BOTH ends of our universe at the same time, and that the universe you knew has expired (if you tried to slow down). If you are not in this universe, you are "unphysical", some say. In any event, if you go "faster than light", you're not here for us to measure your speed so it becomes a moot point if you're faster or not. > In my opinion terms such as can not, impossible and so on... are > sweeping generalizations which tend to lump the entire universe and all of > the entities in and of it into one fixed group. But the theory doesn't say that there is a "probability". It says "impossible". > The only thing that can be assured is that things change. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 11:02:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA16798; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <394FAF3C.A212DB04 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:52:08 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAD xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BuOBv.0.N64.tuwJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35674 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > > ---------- > > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 9:07 AM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > > > > > > Steve Lajoie wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Edmund Storms > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:53 PM > > > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > [snip] > > > > I don't think I see how you're going to get a electron in this intermediate > > > state. It simply should either be found in the nucleus by electron capture, > > > or it should be in the allowed orbital, not in some QM forbidden area. > > > > I number of people have explained how this can happen. Like all explanations > > in this field, no one believes the other guy. > > > I've not seen an explaination I could follow. Could be me, could be that > the explaination isn't one that can be followed. I have the same problem. > > > [snip] > > > > I didn't realize that there were so many positive results out there with > > > simple > > > hydrogen. > > > > The "simple" hydrogen effects are another branch of the field which produce > > transmutation rather than fusion. > > > Okay, what do you mean by "transmutation" if it does not mean > nuclear fusion? Are you saying there is fission going on? As in > the p+B-> excited carbon-> 3 alphas reaction? Transmutation is any nuclear reaction other than fusion. For example K + H = Ca would be transmutation. > > > [snip] > > > > Personally, I think that the lattice plays the role of lowering the > > > potential > > > barrier BUT defects in the lattice are needed so deuterons can collect at > > > a single location and form a Bose-Einstein condensate. That lattice defects > > > are needed was demonstrated by the Los Alamos tritium production > > > experiments, where they showed that work hardened Pd produced 3x > > > the tritium as stress relieved Pd. > > > > I suggest this conclusion can not be obtained from the Claytor work because too > > many other variables were operating at the same time. In any case, when > > palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resulting stress totally changes the > > conditions present within the original palladium metal. > > > What other variables obscured their observation that work hardening had > a positive effect on tritium production? They found that purity and hydriding > played a part, but found " that the dislocation density must play a > very important role in the tritium production." The samples contained various impurities, as one variable. The dislocation idea is hard to prove because when the hydride forms using any source of palladium, many dislocations form. It is hard to measure the amount and relate this to tritium production. In any case, Claytor can see no clear relationship to the source of palladium except that certain batches work better than others and the better batches had more of certain impurities than did the other batches. Unfortunately, palladium is always very nonuniform in its impurity content so that the small wires used by Claytor are not always representative of the average batch. It is still too early to know what variables are important. > > > I agree with them. Why do you think otherwise? > > Loading Pd with hydrogen does stress the Pd, but I don't see how this is > relevant. More stress meant more tritium production. This is true only if certain assumptions are made about the initial palladium. Many exceptions are also seen. To make matters worse, the tip of the cathode gets sufficiently hot to relieve any stress. > > > > Basically, the electrons in PdD exist in three different conditions. One is a > > localized orbit which bonds the atoms together, the second are localized orbits > > surrounding the palladium atom, and the third is a conduction band where the > > electrons are unlocalized as you said. The positive charged are only > > neutralized over the average structure, not at the local regions. I suggest > > your model is much too simple. > > > How does a metal hydride absorb hydrogen, how does it get in there and how > does it move in the lattice? I seem to recall that the intersticial spacing was too > small for hydrogen to exist there. I'm asking. You have rejected my explaination, > I'd like to know a better one. Hydrogen enters as H+, with the electron going into the conduction band. It diffuses through the lattice in the same manner as any foreign atom does in any lattice, by moving from a lattice site to a nearby empty site. The interstitial spacing adjusts to accommodate the hydrogen. Carbon, oxygen, gold, etc. all dissolve in Pd and the lattice adjusts its size to accommodate the larger atom. This is the way alloy formation works. > > > > > I believe Ti works better as a hydride than most metals because it has a > > > electron band in the right place for hydrogen to contribute it's electron. > > > I could be wrong on that one, I'm still looking for a source. > > > > Unfortunately, the situation with Ti is complex. When Ti forms a hydride, the > > structure breaks up and the region turns to powder. As a result, the hydride > > is lost from the cathode as fast as it forms. When Ti is electrolyzed in an > > acid electrolyte, this loss is slow but real, with no significant hydrogen> > > remaining in the solid metal. When Ti is electrolyzed in a basic electrolyte,> > > TiO2 forms on the surface and prevents any entry of hydrogen. Consequently, > > when excess energy is formed using Ti, it does not involve the hydride > > structure. Before a person attempts to explain this phenomenon, he should take > > all of the observations into account. > > > Perhaps they shouldn't be loading the Ti by electrolysis. Put the Ti into a vessel > with a deuterium gas, no oxygen, and raise the temperature to 400-600 C to eliminate > the oxide layer. Then it will load, according to the sandia labs hydride database. Yes, this works and the metal turns into a powder. As yet, no one has attempted to measure anomalous energy using this method. However, neutron emission has been measured when the TiH2 is cooled to about -30° C. Ed. Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 11:08:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17255; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:00:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:00:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20000620175329.62533.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ftl signals Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:53:29 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"S0fcU.0.WD4.J5xJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35675 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: please define a "signal" or event which could not be used to impart some form of information? At the least anything I can think of could be used in multiple for a binary message. Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 11:14:09 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA22489; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000620141107.007a69f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:11:07 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <394FA920.ABBF0DF8 ix.netcom.com> References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> <000a01bfda69$56f6cf60$0601a8c0 federation> <3.0.6.32.20000620121625.007a5eb0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"8WHbb1.0.IV5.LFxJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35676 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >The gas loading only made neutrons. Heat was never measured. Apparently, some >kind of nuclear reaction was initiated when the TiH2 went through a phase change >at low temperature. Yeah. Who did that? I am trying to recall. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 11:25:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24603; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:23:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:23:16 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAE xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:56:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"P-0fg.0.K06.KQxJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35677 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Edmund Storms[SMTP:storms2 ix.netcom.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:52 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > > "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: [snip] > > Okay, what do you mean by "transmutation" if it does not mean > > nuclear fusion? Are you saying there is fission going on? As in > > the p+B-> excited carbon-> 3 alphas reaction? > > Transmutation is any nuclear reaction other than fusion. For example K + H = Ca would > be transmutation. > I don't understand. A proton is fused with a potasium atom, and calcium is formed. How is that not fusion? I agree it is a transformation. I thought maybe you were going to use something like a beta minus decay or an electron capture. [snip] > The samples contained various impurities, as one variable. The dislocation idea is > hard to prove because when the hydride forms using any source of palladium, many > dislocations form. It is hard to measure the amount and relate this to tritium > production. In any case, Claytor can see no clear relationship to the source of > palladium except that certain batches work better than others and the better batches > had more of certain impurities than did the other batches. Unfortunately, palladium > is always very nonuniform in its impurity content so that the small wires used by > Claytor are not always representative of the average batch. It is still too early to > know what variables are important. > I think we shall diagree on this. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 11:29:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26820; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:28:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:28:08 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAF xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: ftl signals Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:17:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"MWV_h2.0.tY6.tUxJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35678 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Adam Cox[SMTP:merlyn_x hotmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:53 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: ftl signals > > please define a "signal" or event which could not be used to impart some > form of information? > > At the least anything I can think of could be used in multiple for a binary > message. > IIRC, in the case of this EPR thing, what you get at the "receiving" end appears to be random. When you compare your random events to what was sent (by slower than light communications) you can then go AH-HA! There's the signal! Bell interpreted it in terms of socks at one point. It's been a long time since I read his book. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 11:51:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00438; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:47:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:47:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:52:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ftl signals In-Reply-To: <20000620175329.62533.qmail hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Xh2Pn3.0.m6.qmxJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35679 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Folks, I consider a useful FTL signal (s) to be Country and Western, R and B and Classical. All should be able to be conveyed at the nominal FTL rate, say, for example 1.5 C or above. Analog amplitude or frequency modulation in the 1 meg cps carrier range is fine, BW of 300 cps to 3,000 cps. What non mathmatical reason is there for this to not work? On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Adam Cox wrote: > please define a "signal" or event which could not be used to impart some > form of information? > > At the least anything I can think of could be used in multiple for a binary > message. > > Merlyn > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 12:04:56 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06072; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:00:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:00:52 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB0 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: ftl signals Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:55:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"56bSA1.0.iU1.XzxJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35681 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: John Schnurer[SMTP:herman antioch-college.edu] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:52 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: ftl signals > > > > Dear Folks, > > I consider a useful FTL signal (s) to be Country and Western, R > and B and Classical. All should be able to be conveyed at the nominal FTL > rate, say, for example 1.5 C or above. Analog amplitude or frequency > modulation in the 1 meg cps carrier range is fine, BW of 300 cps to 3,000 > cps. > > What non mathmatical reason is there for this to not work? > You know, my second degree was in engineering. We are far more use to the question "what mathematical reason is there that leads you to believe it works?" followed by "prove by testing in the lab that it works per your math!" If you don't have a good reason for it to work, it doesn't work. If you have a good reason for it to work, it might work. Design doesn't happen by accident. And as one person said, if you can't express it mathematically, you don't know anything about it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 12:07:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01690; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:57:20 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"BqPpI.0.KQ.CwxJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35680 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:30 AM 6/20/0, Terry Blanton wrote: >Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >> >http://www.nasawatch.com/ [snip] >http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp4.htm Wow, the above are interesting, but to me nothing compared to the image: This is really stunning and leaves one (me) without explanation or even wild speculation, other than the obvious. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 12:08:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07442; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:05:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:05:27 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:00:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"uG-a52.0.5q1.r1yJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35682 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > ---------- > From: hheffner mtaonline.net[SMTP:hheffner@mtaonline.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:57 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? > > At 11:30 AM 6/20/0, Terry Blanton wrote: > >Jed Rothwell wrote: > > [snip] > >> >http://www.nasawatch.com/ > > [snip] > >http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp4.htm > Wow. Wind erosion and some impact craters. > Wow, the above are interesting, but to me nothing compared to the image: > > > Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. > This is really stunning and leaves one (me) without explanation or even > wild speculation, other than the obvious. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 12:11:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08692; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:08:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:08:32 -0700 Message-ID: <394FC24B.6013652B ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:13:32 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> <000a01bfda69$56f6cf60$0601a8c0 federation> <3.0.6.32.20000620121625.007a5eb0 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000620141107.007a69f0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JBHDV3.0.k72.m4yJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35683 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > >The gas loading only made neutrons. Heat was never measured. Apparently, > some > >kind of nuclear reaction was initiated when the TiH2 went through a phase > change > >at low temperature. > > Yeah. Who did that? I am trying to recall. Menlove measured the temperature at LANL. Scaramuzzi discovered the effect. Ed > > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 12:32:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA19333; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:31:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:31:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:29:45 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA19293 Resent-Message-ID: <"UWh4t2.0.xj4.yPyJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35684 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ***{Here is some info from another list. --MJ}*** > Major Mars Announcement From NASA? > By Peter Robbins > > Steve Bassett of the Paradigm Research Group, Based in Washington, > D.C., emailed us this morning with a potentially huge news item. > Yesterday afternoon NASA supposedly "briefed the White House on a > potential major discovery on Mars" (NASA's language), and that "an > announcement of some sort is rumored to be planned for next week and > that it involves Mars Global Surveyor." > > Bassett and colleagues who have been following Mars-related > developments feel that something huge may be about to break and will > keep us posted in the event they learn more. Today at 1:00 PM the > House Science Committee will be holding hearings on NASA's Mars > Program to be webcast live. Hearings will include testimony from > Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, Dr. Edward Stone, Director, Jet > Propulsion Laboratory, Dr. Pedro Rustan, Colonel (retired), U.S. Air > Force, and Dr. Alan Binder, Director of the Lunar Research Institute. > Any provocative developments will be reported immediately by > UFOcity.com. In any case, we will be following this story carefully > and keeping you appraised of all significant developments. > > From NASAWatch website: > http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html > > · 19 June 2000: Major Mars Announcement From NASA? > > Editor's note: 3:50 PM 19 June: Word has it that NASA recently briefed > the White House on a potential major discovery on Mars. An > announcement of some sort is rumored to be planned for next week and > that it involves Mars Global Surveyor. > > Update: A "Space Science Update" from NASA's Office of Space Science > is apparently in the planning stages at NASA HQ for 29 June 2000. > > · 20 June 2000: "The Young Report, Part II", Hearings on NASA's Mars > Program before the House Science Committee (postponed from 11 May > 2000) > > · Witnesses: > Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator > Dr. Edward Stone, Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory > Dr. Pedro Rustan, Colonel (retired), U.S. Air Force > Dr. Alan Binder, Director, Lunar Research Institute > > · Time/place: 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm; 2318 Rayburn House Office Building > > · These hearings will be webcast live. > > Special thanks to Steve Bassett and Paradigm Research Group > > Mark From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 12:49:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA26858; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:46:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:46:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:45:11 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"aWGIX2.0.ZZ6.xdyJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35685 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:00 PM -0700 6/20/00, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. Apparently you wouldn't know a deep desert sandworm if one bit you on the ass. ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 13:05:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30495; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:02:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:02:53 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:03:41 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"ZJZkH1.0.PS7.ityJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35686 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:00 PM 6/20/0, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. Good speculation! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 13:20:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14188; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:12:39 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"1Cp_d1.0.cT3.I1zJv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35687 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The natural arched curve of the sand dunes creates an illusion of raised curvature, IMO. There is no tube, only a channel funneling wind with dunes in it. Look carefully at the surrounding features and craters having sand piled up in one end, and the sand streaks. It takes some eye work to hammer down the illusion of tubing, especially with the dark material bordering to the left side, but it's pretty clear that it is just a channel. At least to me... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 13:30:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06456; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:28:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:28:37 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB2 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:23:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"vqTGD.0.ja1.qFzJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35688 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > ---------- > From: Rick Monteverde[SMTP:rick highsurf.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:45 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? > > At 12:00 PM -0700 6/20/00, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: > > >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. > > Apparently you wouldn't know a deep desert sandworm if one bit you on the ass. > Is that a deep desert sandworm? Is that "Dune"? Are you Gurney Hallack? > ;) > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 13:33:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08116; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:31:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:31:49 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB3 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:26:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"0PrYO3.0.j-1.rIzJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35689 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > ---------- > From: hheffner mtaonline.net[SMTP:hheffner@mtaonline.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:03 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? > > At 12:00 PM 6/20/0, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: > > >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. > > Good speculation! > If it is a lava tube, and has SiO2 walls, seal it up, blow air into it and make a Mars human colony out of it. It's been there awhile is appears to be stable. > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 13:38:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10806; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:36:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:36:16 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000620153302.0137b9d8 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:33:02 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? In-Reply-To: References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"eSf1_.0.le2._MzJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35690 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The original image in various file formats is at: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400291.html There's a bit more to the image there than on Hoagland's site and you can see three of the things sorta intersecting. One of them (leading off to the right) is barely visible as if mostly buried. I'm presently leaning towards sandworm skeletons. The scale is given on the NASA site and the "rib cage" is about 100 meters across! That's about as big as the huge one Mau Deeb (sp?) tamed in Dune. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 13:56:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16975; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:55:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:55:18 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB2 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB2 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:55:02 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"j2nKd.0.994.sezJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35691 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 1:23 PM -0700 6/20/00, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: >Are you Gurney Hallack? Yes. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 14:00:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18409; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:58:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:58:28 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:56:59 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"LaZeQ.0.SU4.jhzJv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35692 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> ---------- >> From: hheffner mtaonline.net[SMTP:hheffner@mtaonline.net] >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:57 AM >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? >> >> At 11:30 AM 6/20/0, Terry Blanton wrote: >> >Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >http://www.nasawatch.com/ >> >> [snip] >> >http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp4.htm >> >Wow. Wind erosion and some impact craters. > > >> Wow, the above are interesting, but to me nothing compared to the image: >> >> >> >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. ***{As far as I can tell, it bears no apparent resemblance to any lava tubes on Earth. (See, for example, http://www.undara-experience.com.au/geo/page2.html, or http://mttaylor.com/slide-shows/lava-tubes/lava-tubes.htm#s2, or http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/gallery/kilauea/erupt/19990924-SRB-07_caption.html.) If this is incorrect, please be so kind as to point us to an image that bears some resemblance to the Mars images. Thanks. --MJ}*** > >> This is really stunning and leaves one (me) without explanation or even >> wild speculation, other than the obvious. >> >> Regards, >> >> Horace Heffner >> >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 14:31:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21527; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB4 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"AtXNN3.0.HG5.o7-Jv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35693 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I think it's a lava tube because it's down low, where lava would flow, it has the ridges commonly seen across such lava tubes (the white bands going across it) and because they are long and appear to be cylindrical in nature upon a substrate of similar crud. What is that white shiny spot on it? Well, it seems to be some sort of white shiny spot. The fact that they're big doesn't surprise me. Due to low gravity, Mars geological (Marological?) features dwarf many of their earth counter parts. Or, as been suggested, It's a sand worm, and it has a huge blister. > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:56 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? > > >> ---------- > >> From: hheffner mtaonline.net[SMTP:hheffner@mtaonline.net] > >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:57 AM > >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >> Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? > >> > >> At 11:30 AM 6/20/0, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> >Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >> >> >http://www.nasawatch.com/ > >> > >> [snip] > >> >http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp4.htm > >> > >Wow. Wind erosion and some impact craters. > > > > > >> Wow, the above are interesting, but to me nothing compared to the image: > >> > >> > >> > >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. > > ***{As far as I can tell, it bears no apparent resemblance to any lava > tubes on Earth. (See, for example, > http://www.undara-experience.com.au/geo/page2.html, or > http://mttaylor.com/slide-shows/lava-tubes/lava-tubes.htm#s2, or > http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/gallery/kilauea/erupt/19990924-SRB-07_caption.html.) > None of those was taken from space. > If this is incorrect, please be so kind as to point us to an image that > bears some resemblance to the Mars images. Thanks. --MJ}*** > > > > >> This is really stunning and leaves one (me) without explanation or even > >> wild speculation, other than the obvious. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Horace Heffner > >> > >> > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 14:34:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28708; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:32:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:32:28 -0700 Message-ID: <394FE407.12475AD1 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:37:11 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? References: <3.0.6.32.20000620111004.007cd2f0 pop.mindspring.com> <394F8E15.D5BC9456@bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LAc003.0.O07.iB-Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35694 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: > Of > course Richard Hoagland thinks there's evidence of an ancient > civilization in the thousands of images released by Malin Space > Sciences recently. From: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html Many measurements led to the conclusion that the internal clock period is actually closer to 25 hours; that is, the biological clock was thought to drift toward a 25-hour day unless it is set back an hour each day by exposure to morning light and to external clocks. AND from: http://calspace.ucsd.edu/marsnow/library/exploration_strategy.html Giovanni Cassini (1625 - 1712) observes Mars and determines that the rotational period, or length of one Mars day is 24h, 40m. Did we migrate from Mars? :-) Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 14:42:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA32402; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:40:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:40:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:39:14 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: 1H1 + 5B11 --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV Resent-Message-ID: <"DA0WF1.0.Cw7.VJ-Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35695 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Those interested in the reaction 1H1 + 5B11 --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV should check out http://www.icone-conf.org/icone8/program/abstracts/8660.html. I'm busy with other things right now, but will respond to related points as soon as time permits. --MJ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 14:52:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03562; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:50:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:50:20 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB5 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: 1H1 + 5B11 --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:45:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"CEKmT2.0.Zt.RS-Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35696 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The four PDF papers available here are recommended if you're into technical stuff. http://fusion.ps.uci.edu/beam/introb.html > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 2:39 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: 1H1 + 5B11 --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV > > Those interested in the reaction 1H1 + 5B11 --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV should > check out http://www.icone-conf.org/icone8/program/abstracts/8660.html. > > I'm busy with other things right now, but will respond to related points as > soon as time permits. > > --MJ > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 15:32:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA19577; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:30:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:30:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:30:48 -0400 Message-Id: <200006202130.RAA12861 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: BG radioactive reports Resent-Message-ID: <"DQ-Hb3.0.on4.Y2_Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35697 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, Here is the reply that I got from George Wiseman, re: his remediation technology. Knuke >Michael, > >I have copies of the test reports that I can photocopy and send for a fee >of $10 to cover my costs. I'll send them to anyone who wants a copy. >Send check to: >Eagle-Research, PO Box 118, Porthill, Idaho, 83853. > >Thank you for your interest and helping discussions on the technology :))) > >>Hi George, >> >>I belong to the Vortex Group, and have been reporting to them some of the >>things that I have found in your newsletter that I thought might be of >>interest to them. One of the things that I reported from your previous >>newsletter was that Brown's Gas had been proved to be effective in >>remediating nuclear waste and proven to do so by the Canadian Government. >>Now I read that it has been proven by other labs as well, and I'm getting >>questions about the technique. Most of the researchers in that group are >>familiar with your work, but this is new stuff. Can you give us some >>specifics about the technique, and possibly some lab reference data or >>whatever for them to analyse? I would appreciate it. >> >>Thanks, and keep up the good work! >> >>Knuke >> >>Michael T. Huffman >>Huffman Technology Company >>1121 Dustin Drive >>The Villages, Florida 32159 >>(352)259-1276 >>knuke LCIA.COM >>http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm >> >> > > >George Wiseman >President, CEO of Eagle-Research >http://www.eagle-research.com > > > Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 15:38:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21289; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:36:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:36:44 -0700 Message-ID: <394FF19A.563F1E0B telus.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:35:07 -0700 From: AL & Jan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD TELUS.NET_x86_NCom (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Something Found on Mars? References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Y4is42.0.UC5.x7_Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35698 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Has anyone read the book, (Alien Bases on the Moon)? or what Nasa has not told us about the Moon missions. I have a copy and its a pretty good book, the seismic readings and other evidence are very interesting. AL F "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > > ---------- > > From: hheffner mtaonline.net[SMTP:hheffner@mtaonline.net] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:57 AM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? > > > > At 11:30 AM 6/20/0, Terry Blanton wrote: > > >Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > [snip] > > >> >http://www.nasawatch.com/ > > > > [snip] > > >http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp4.htm > > > Wow. Wind erosion and some impact craters. > > > Wow, the above are interesting, but to me nothing compared to the image: > > > > > > > Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. > > > This is really stunning and leaves one (me) without explanation or even > > wild speculation, other than the obvious. > > > > Regards, > > > > Horace Heffner > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 15:39:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21560; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:37:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:37:50 -0700 Message-ID: <394FF20C.2EED2E68 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:37:01 +0300 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,tr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? References: <3.0.6.32.20000620111004.007cd2f0 pop.mindspring.com> <394F8E15.D5BC9456@bellsouth.net> <394FE407.12475AD1@bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WXnpg1.0.oG5.z8_Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35699 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: > > http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html > > Many measurements led to the > conclusion that the internal clock period is > actually closer to 25 hours; that is, the > biological clock was thought to drift toward > a 25-hour day unless it is set back an hour > each day by exposure to morning light and > to external clocks. > > > Great! 25 hours is just my cycle. I had never followed day cycle naturally. I have a continuous shift of about one hour. The conflict between my cycle and the earth cycle often cause more disorder that I go to random sequences. >Did we migrate from Mars? :-) Who knows? :) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 15:40:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA22376; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:39:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:39:04 -0700 Message-ID: <394FF22B.6B9047E2 telus.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:37:31 -0700 From: AL & Jan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD TELUS.NET_x86_NCom (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Something Found on Mars? References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB1 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fmtZs1.0.YT5.7A_Jv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35700 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Kind of reminds me of the movie DUNE, big sandworms in that show. AL F Rick Monteverde wrote: > At 12:00 PM -0700 6/20/00, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: > > >Wow, Lava tubes. Neat. > > Apparently you wouldn't know a deep desert sandworm if one bit you on the ass. > > ;) > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 19:31:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA04070; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:31:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:31:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3950466B.23A9 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:36:59 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: SPACE.com NEWS FLASH: A WET MARS] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"f3_Si3.0.V_.kZ2Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35702 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from mail5.bellsouth.net (mail5.bellsouth.net [205.152.150.5]) by mail5.atl.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id UAA24931 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:34:35 -0400 (EDT) From: spacenews space.com Received: from lists.space.com (lists.space.com [204.254.83.157]) by mail5.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id UAA29321 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mirwse6603 ([10.1.1.186]) by lists.space.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA26785 for commengr bellsouth.net; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:21:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:21:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006210021.UAA26785 lists.space.com> To: Subject: SPACE.com NEWS FLASH: A WET MARS **NASA to Announce Evidence of Water on Mars SPACE.com has learned that the Mars Global Surveyor has found evidence of water on the Red Planet’s surface. The finding, which involves evidence of seasonal deposits that could be associated with surface springs, has significant implications for the poss ibility of life on Mars. http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/email/gate.cgi?lk=SP1&date=500004&go=/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_water_000620.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 19:32:04 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03004; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:29:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:29:20 -0700 Message-ID: <395045FA.5E53 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:35:06 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? References: <3.0.6.32.20000620111004.007cd2f0 pop.mindspring.com> <394F8E15.D5BC9456@bellsouth.net> <394FE407.12475AD1@bellsouth.net> <394FF20C.2EED2E68@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NfR9q3.0.sk.0Y2Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35701 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: hamdi ucar wrote: > > Terry Blanton wrote: > > > > http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html > > > > Many measurements led to the > > conclusion that the internal clock period is > > actually closer to 25 hours; that is, the > > biological clock was thought to drift toward > > a 25-hour day unless it is set back an hour > > each day by exposure to morning light and > > to external clocks. > > > > > > > > Great! > > 25 hours is just my cycle. I had never followed day cycle naturally. I have a continuous shift of about one hour. The conflict between my cycle and the earth cycle often cause more disorder that I go to random sequences. > > >Did we migrate from Mars? :-) > > Who knows? :) Actually, it could be calculated how long we have been on Earth if true. Recent research has identified the gene which controls the circadian clock. The mean deviation of the general population from the (long term variable) revolution period of Mars would be related to the rate of "mutation" of the gene. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 19:53:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29927; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:52:55 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"Hkz2F2.0.UJ7.Kt2Kv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35703 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:33 PM 6/20/0, Scott Little wrote: >I'm presently leaning towards sandworm skeletons. The scale is given on >the NASA site and the "rib cage" is about 100 meters across! That's about >as big as the huge one Mau Deeb (sp?) tamed in Dune. Say, 100 meters is just about right to cover a 4 lane highway. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 20 19:54:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA00393; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:53:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <61.4b0cc76.268187d6 aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:52:06 EDT Subject: Re: Three .pdf papers about Piantelli's Ni-H CF To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"fv2Ec1.0.x5.Gu2Kv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35704 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 06/18/2000 10:15:19 AM, JedRothwell infinite-energy.com wrote, re the PDF files from Focardi: << I would be happy to pass these on to any Vortex reader. >> I'd be interested in a copy, too, thanks. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 06:44:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA18553; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:41:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:41:41 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000621094106.0079fe30 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:41:06 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RCCNT-8 Announcement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LR6-j3.0.pX4.LOCKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35705 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [Originally from "Gnedenko" ] Russian Academy of Sciences Russian Physical Society Nuclear Society of Russia Mendeleev Chemical society of Russia Moscow Lomonosow State University Russian Peoples' Friendship State University State Technical University (MADI) ___________________________________________________________ Dear Colleges, The 8th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation (RCCNT-8) is to be held during October 4 - October 11, 2000. The place of the Conference is in Dagomys near the city of Sochi that is the best recreation and holiday place on the Black See shore. The program of the Conference includes the following subjects: *Experimental research in cold fusion, transmutation and ball lightning *Theoretical models with respect to cold fusion effects *Applied technologies and divices The Organizing Committee of the Conference is pleased to invite everybody to attend the Conference. The terms of your participation are as follows: The full cost is $900 which will include the registration fee, hotel reservation and living, 3 daily buffet meals, conference proceedings, transportation from the Sochi airport and back, social dinner and special excursion. The languages of the Conference are Russian and English. The total cost can be reduced down to $800 if transfered before August 20 to the account of the Organizing Committee. The number of the bank account and the routing number will be sent on your request. If you make a decision to take part in the Conference please let us know before July 20 about the title and abstract of your report. Contact telephones: Tel. (7)(095)-1967117; Fax. (7)(095)-1966108 e-mail gnedenko kiae.ru Tel. (7)(095)-1510333; Fax.(7)(095)-1510331 e-mailbazhutov erzion.madi.msk.su Address: Moscow 105077, p/o box 169, Yu. Bazhutov Address: 123182, Moscow, Russia, Kurchatov Sq.1, I. Goryachev Organizing Committee RCCNT-8 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 08:20:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA26008; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:18:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:18:05 -0700 Message-ID: <011a01bfdb9b$fcc8dfe0$398e1d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: "Goodman, Steve" , Subject: Re: Light Leptons (Positrinos-Negatrinos) and Lightning Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:15:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFDB61.40A180E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"pGNRA3.0.IM6.joDKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35706 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFDB61.40A180E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If the Solar Ultraviolet (~200 to ~300 nanometers, ~6.0 to ~4.0 ev) is creating the LLs in the upper atmosphere, it would explain a lot of the mystery as to how these electrical shows gets started. :-) http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/ Regards, Frederick ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFDB61.40A180E0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="A Lightning Primer from the GHCC.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="A Lightning Primer from the GHCC.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/ [InternetShortcut] URL=http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/ Modified=E059D4E19ADBBF0123 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFDB61.40A180E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 10:21:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14681; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:17:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:17:48 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000621131740.007a5820 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:17:40 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: More on electric bicycle performance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Tap6f3.0.Jb3.xYFKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35707 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The specifications for this Lafree bicycle indicate the range is 20 miles and the battery can be fully recharged in three hours. I think these numbers are exaggerated. Perhaps the battery performance improves after several charge-discharge cycles. I did not measure the distance precisely, but I think it went about 17 miles before pooping out. The display has five LEDs which supposedly indicate 20, 40, 60, 80 or 100% battery charge remaining, and one green LED indicating the transformer has automatically switched off from the mains. I checked the status every 30 minutes: 0:00 Start with fully discharged battery 3:00 60% 3:20 80% 3:40 80% 4:00 80% 4:30 100% (but red LED still on) 5:00 Green LED indicates complete charge I have finished the "as received" evaluation. I am customizing the machine by installing toe clips, nail pullers, a carrier and various other gadgets a bicycle should have. I remain very impressed by the performance and practicality of this machine. It isn't meant for afficionados or purists. It does not feel anything like a lightweight road racing bicycle. The extra mass, huge tires and shock absorbers make it ponderous and insensitive to road conditions. I doubt it can go much faster than 25 mph. You could not use it for a 100 km open-road tour. A fuel cell electric bicycle might work for that . . . When many people ride a bicycle to work, in places like Japan, they need a "fallback" mode of transportation during inclement weather. The problem is everyone needs a fallback on the same day, so traffic increases and taxis are hard to find. People who walk or bicycle to work are well advised to check the Weather Channel web site showing the local doppler radar. (http://www.weather.com/) You can see if any thunderstorms are developing in your area. With the time-lapse loop you can guage how soon they will reach you. (This suggestion came from an airplane pilot downstairs, who is impressed by the bicycle.) A person who commutes to work with a bicycle and an Internet doppler radar display uses a good combination of old and new technology! (Also, pack a lightweight plastic poncho, when all else fails.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 11:31:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA09240; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:29:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:29:41 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <394F96BE.B7F58B66 ix.netcom.com> References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54@ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> <000a01bfda69$56f6cf60$0601a8c0 federation> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:28:14 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"eIWch3.0.7G2.LcGKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35708 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Steve Lajoie wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Edmund Storms >> To: >> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:53 PM >> Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF >> >> [snip] >> >> > A shrunken hydrogen is not essential but it does explain a few >> observations. On >> > the other hand, if you propose the lattice is involved, you will have >> other >> > problems. Simply saying the lattice lowers the barrier is not enough. >> What is >> > the process and why do not all lattices work? >> > >> > Ed Storms >> >> So, you're saying that you think it's this spun down electron occupying an >> eigenstate unknown to physics until now and that simple hydrogen is fusing >> with a Boron contaminate. > >No I'm not saying this. Mitchell Jones said this. ***{Correct. As I said in the original post: the protoneutron is defined by a question. The question is: what happens when a proton meets an electron at a lattice location where there isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the innermost Bohr radius? From a classical, deterministic perspective, the proton and the electron will clearly still be attracted to one another, even if there isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the n = 1 level, and so the logical supposition is that it spirals down to grazing altitude above the nucleus. The assumption underlying such reasoning, of course, is that the electron and proton are real entities with definite form which follow continuous spatial pathways as they move from one place to another. This means that the QM or "Copenhagen" interpretation of the math--that these entities only exist in the "preferred" states--is wrong. It means that when, for example, an electron makes a transition from the n = 2 orbit to the n = 1 orbit, it does *not* do so by simply vanishing from the former position and reappearing in the latter one. Instead, it follows a continuous spatial pathway from the n = 2 orbit to the n = 1 orbit. And, similarly, it is logical to suppose that an electron can exist between the n = 1 orbit and the nucleus. Thus I interpret the preferred orbits classically, as merely being orbits that are stable rather than unstable. By this interpretation, when an electron is pushed below a preferred orbit, it enters a region where it is buffeted by destabilizing forces which cause it to spiral quickly down to the next stable orbit; or, if there is none, then it goes to "grazing altitude" above the nucleus. What is the nature of those destabilizing forces? Simple: I assume that the cross section of the electron varies according to the relation w = h/mV (the de Broglie equation). Result: as it moves it cuts a track through the aether which has a variable cross section, and, when the length of an orbit is an integral number of w, the orbit is stable. The reason: in that case the oscillations of the electron match the shape of the track it is running in, on second and successive passes through the orbit. On the other hand, if the orbit length is *not* an integral multiple of w, then the electron will be continuously reconfiguring the shape of its track on subsequent passes through the orbit. Result: it will have to do work, will emit energy, and will spiral down to a level where, once again, the orbit length is an integral multiple of w. (By the way, this classical, deterministic interpretation of the "preferred" orbits implies that "hydrinos" do not exist: given this mechanism, there can be no stable orbits below the n = 1 level.) Bottom line: I interpret the "preferred" states classically, as *stable* states, rather than "quantum mechanically" as being the only states in which the electron can exist. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> >> >> I don't think I see how you're going to get a electron in this intermediate >> state. It simply should either be found in the nucleus by electron capture, >> or it should be in the allowed orbital, not in some QM forbidden area. > >I number of people have explained how this can happen. Like all explanations >in this field, no one believes the other guy. ***{Those who are comfortable in a magical world where things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing are comfortable with QM's interpretation of the math. For the rest of us, the QM interpretation simply appears to be nonsense. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> I don't see where all this boron is coming from, unless Cold fusion cells >> are routinely hit by Ronald Reagan's 20 Mule Team Borax wagons. :-) >> Actually, that's unfairly sarcastic, but kinda funny. My problem is, the >> boron reaction produces a small 8 MeV for three alpha particles, and >> the results of Case and George show they are getting more like 23 MeV >> for each alpha particle. Besides, George doesn't have enough Pd to >> contaminate >> with boron; it would be better said that the boron is contaminated with >> Pd. > >Clearly, boron is not an essential ingredient. However, if it is present, it >might enter into a nuclear reaction along with the other reactions that are >going on. ***{As I said, the boron idea is just a hypothesis. I do, however, think it merits some careful investigation, rather than out-of-hand dismissal. If, for example, this is a surface effect--as your platinum results seem to suggest--then a pinch of boron in the electrolyte might do wonders for your results. The reason I think the idea merits a serious look is that the boron fusion reaction has the right stuff: there are no neutrons or gammas, and all the energy would be quickly dissipated via heat-producing collisions in the lattice. Logically, CF researchers would focus their efforts on such things, rather than stabbing blindly in the dark, as most of them seem to be doing. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> I didn't realize that there were so many positive results out there with >> simple >> hydrogen. > >The "simple" hydrogen effects are another branch of the field which produce >transmutation rather than fusion. It seems that a wide spectrum of nuclear >reactions can be initiated, some not even involving hydrogen of any kind. But >then, many people do not believe these observations to be real. We shall see. > >> The d+boron-11 reaction doesn't produce three alphas... Maybe >> d+ boron 10, huh? I have no idea what that reaction produces, maybe three >> alphas? I don't know, I'm asking. > >Your guess is as good as mine on this one. ***{It produces three alphas. See http://www.icone-conf.org/icone8/program/abstracts/8660.html. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> Personally, I think that the lattice plays the role of lowering the >> potential >> barrier BUT defects in the lattice are needed so deuterons can collect at >> a single location and form a Bose-Einstein condensate. That lattice defects >> are needed was demonstrated by the Los Alamos tritium production >> experiments, where they showed that work hardened Pd produced 3x >> the tritium as stress relieved Pd. > >I suggest this conclusion can not be obtained from the Claytor work >because too >many other variables were operating at the same time. In any case, when >palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resulting stress totally changes the >conditions present within the original palladium metal. > >> >> >> The Bose Einstein condenstate idea comes from Dr. Kim at Purdue. >> >> Now, to address your question.... >> >> I don't know. But I believe that hydrogen, like other metals, gives up >> it's outer electron. All of us have read something similar to Leighton's >> "Principles of Modern Physics", pg 379, which says "... Thus an electron >> in a given energy eigenstate is equally likely to be found in the >> neighborhood >> of any of the atoms of the crystal and cannot be regarded as associated >> with any individual atom." So basically you have all these indistinguishable >> fermions with a very large Delta X making a raisin pudding of the whole >> metal, neutralizing the positive charges. That unlocalized electron, with a >> smeared out probability function in x, means that the barrier between >> particles partly negated. > >Basically, the electrons in PdD exist in three different conditions. One is a >localized orbit which bonds the atoms together, the second are localized >orbits >surrounding the palladium atom, and the third is a conduction band where the >electrons are unlocalized as you said. The positive charged are only >neutralized over the average structure, not at the local regions. I suggest >your model is much too simple. > >> >> >> I believe Ti works better as a hydride than most metals because it has a >> electron band in the right place for hydrogen to contribute it's electron. >> I could be wrong on that one, I'm still looking for a source. > >Unfortunately, the situation with Ti is complex. When Ti forms a hydride, the >structure breaks up and the region turns to powder. As a result, the hydride >is lost from the cathode as fast as it forms. When Ti is electrolyzed in an >acid electrolyte, this loss is slow but real, with no significant hydrogen >remaining in the solid metal. When Ti is electrolyzed in a basic electrolyte, >TiO2 forms on the surface and prevents any entry of hydrogen. Consequently, >when excess energy is formed using Ti, it does not involve the hydride >structure. Before a person attempts to explain this phenomenon, he should >take >all of the observations into account. > >Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 12:12:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09554; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <052301bfdbb3$63cbe900$3c8380d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000621131740.007a5820 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: More on electric bicycle performance Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:03:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"8qN-W2.0.CL2.TCHKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35709 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > use it for a 100 km open-road tour. A fuel cell electric bicycle might work > for that . . . Fuel Cell indeed - what do you think Jed? http://www.mhtx.com/media_center/pressrelease24.htm > When many people ride a bicycle to work, in places like Japan, they need a > "fallback" mode of transportation during inclement weather. The problem is > everyone needs a fallback on the same day, so traffic increases and taxis > are hard to find. A Rhoades car with proper weather protection and undercarriage protection and you can even go in the weather - hook up a fuel cell from the above MHTX and voila - no insurance bills either - it is not a car! I still must have Air Conditiong though! :-) http://www.rhoadescar.com/4w4p-a.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 12:44:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA04684; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:42:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:42:32 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB4 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:41:14 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"xdypl.0.391.dgHKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35710 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I think it's a lava tube because it's down low, where lava would flow, it >has the ridges >commonly seen across such lava tubes (the white bands going across it) and >because >they are long and appear to be cylindrical in nature upon a substrate of >similar crud. ***{I repeat: it bears *zero* resemblance to any photos of lava tubes on Earth that I can find, and that specifically includes the white ridges. If you have seen images that resemble the Mars photos, where are they to be found? Please supply a reference. Thanks. --MJ}*** > >What is that white shiny spot on it? Well, it seems to be some sort of >white shiny >spot. > >The fact that they're big doesn't surprise me. Due to low gravity, Mars >geological >(Marological?) features dwarf many of their earth counter parts. > >Or, as been suggested, It's a sand worm, and it has a huge blister. ***{I hesitate to guess what the thing is, but it doesn't look natural. It can't be a lava tube, because the point where the three structures intersect is obviously sunken below the levels of the tubes. Result: all three of them would have had to either flow into it, with the result that they would have filled it up with lava, or it would have to be their source, with, again, the result that it would be filled up with lava. However, clearly, that didn't happen. Thus your explanation seems very implausible to me. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 13:23:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19741; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:21:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:21:37 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000621162127.007a6280 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:21:27 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: More on electric bicycle performance In-Reply-To: <052301bfdbb3$63cbe900$3c8380d8 n8o9m1> References: <3.0.6.32.20000621131740.007a5820 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wtwS4.0.Hq4.GFIKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35712 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill Wallace` wrote: >A Rhoades car with proper weather protection and undercarriage protection >and you can even go in the weather - hook up a fuel cell from the above MHTX >and voila - no insurance bills either - it is not a car! You'd have to pay bail instead of insurance. In Atlanta, anyway, you are not allowed to operate things like golf carts and experimental vehicles on the roads. Only unlicensed bicycles or licensed automobiles, motorcycles and the like. In Peachtree city, south of Atlanta, the houses and stores are connected with 70 miles of golf cart trails, and everyone drive golf carts. I think it would be prudent to subject Rhoades cars to licensing and safety testing before allowing them on the road. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 13:25:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19652; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:21:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:21:17 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FB9 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:16:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"ylh1a2.0.vo4.yEIKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35711 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:28 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > >Steve Lajoie wrote: > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Edmund Storms > >> To: > >> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:53 PM > >> Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> > A shrunken hydrogen is not essential but it does explain a few > >> observations. On > >> > the other hand, if you propose the lattice is involved, you will have > >> other > >> > problems. Simply saying the lattice lowers the barrier is not enough. > >> What is > >> > the process and why do not all lattices work? > >> > > >> > Ed Storms > >> > >> So, you're saying that you think it's this spun down electron occupying an > >> eigenstate unknown to physics until now and that simple hydrogen is fusing > >> with a Boron contaminate. > > > >No I'm not saying this. Mitchell Jones said this. > > ***{Correct. As I said in the original post: the protoneutron is defined by > a question. The question is: what happens when a proton meets an electron > at a lattice location where there isn't enough room for the electron to > orbit at the innermost Bohr radius? From a classical, deterministic > perspective, the proton and the electron will clearly still be attracted to > one another, even if there isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at > the n = 1 level, and so the logical supposition is that it spirals down to > grazing altitude above the nucleus. > The idea of orbits with sharply defined positions is a really, really bad learning tool. In quantum mechanics, solving the wave equation for the bound electron gives discrete energy eigenstates. Each eigenstate gives you a state function of the electron. You can't find where the electron is, strictly speaking, by the math, you can only find the probability that the electron will be found in a given region if an experiment is done. If you don't do the experiment is a whole other can of worms! So what you get is a probability that you'll find the electron in a given region of space. Each eigenstate of the electron will have it's own probability of finding the electron in that space. It is true that the lowest level eigenstate has the electron most tightly bound. It requires the most energy to free the electron from this state, and the probability is such that you will find the electron much closer to the nucleus than in other eigenstates. In that sense, it IS smaller. However, no more tightly bound eigenstate exist, according QM. As for the spiraling down between orbits idea... Since there is a finite probability that an electron can be found in region X (some small volume) for ALL the bound eigenstates of the electron, it makes no sense to speak of an electron spiraling between "orbits" or existing in unallowed eigenstates. If you find the electron in the small region X, you know very little about it's eigenstate because of the uncertainty principle. > The assumption underlying such reasoning, of course, is that the electron > and proton are real entities with definite form which follow continuous > spatial pathways as they move from one place to another. > It makes no sense to speak of "spiral pathways". > This means that > the QM or "Copenhagen" interpretation of the math--that these entities only > exist in the "preferred" states--is wrong. > No it doesn't; but anyway, the interpretations are required to be consistent with the theory of Quantum mechanics, with is a mathematical theory. In other words, the interpretations MUST all predict the same as the math, there can be no 'wrong' interpretations unless one conflicts with the math. > It means that when, for example, > an electron makes a transition from the n = 2 orbit to the n = 1 orbit, it > does *not* do so by simply vanishing from the former position and > reappearing in the latter one. Instead, it follows a continuous spatial > pathway from the n = 2 orbit to the n = 1 orbit. And, similarly, it is > logical to suppose that an electron can exist between the n = 1 orbit and > the nucleus. > 1) This really doesn't make sense in a QM context. 2) There are no more tightly bound states predicted by the commonly accepted QM model of the hydrogen atom. > Thus I interpret the preferred orbits classically, as merely > being orbits that are stable rather than unstable. > 1) Orbits don't make sense. 2) This is not a classical situation. QM applies. > By this interpretation, > when an electron is pushed below a preferred orbit, it enters a region > where it is buffeted by destabilizing forces which cause it to spiral > quickly down to the next stable orbit; or, if there is none, then it goes > to "grazing altitude" above the nucleus. > > What is the nature of those destabilizing forces? Simple: I assume that the > cross section of the electron varies according to the relation w = h/mV > (the de Broglie equation). Result: as it moves it cuts a track through the > aether > aether? Say again? > which has a variable cross section, and, when the length of an orbit > is an integral number of w, the orbit is stable. The reason: in that case > the oscillations of the electron match the shape of the track it is running > in, on second and successive passes through the orbit. On the other hand, > if the orbit length is *not* an integral multiple of w, then the electron > will be continuously reconfiguring the shape of its track on subsequent > passes through the orbit. Result: it will have to do work, will emit > energy, and will spiral down to a level where, once again, the orbit length > is an integral multiple of w. (By the way, this classical, deterministic > interpretation of the "preferred" orbits implies that "hydrinos" do not > exist: given this mechanism, there can be no stable orbits below the n = 1 > level.) > Yes, it is true you can "predict" the "radius" of the hydrogen atom with it's electron in various states by taking the DeBroglie wavelength of the electron, multiplying by an integer "n", and then taking n * the wavelenth and using that as a circumference of a circle and finding the radius of that circle. The radius found will be the classical radius of the hydrogen atom as measured by experiments done with many, many atoms. This reflects the AVERAGE location of the electron. It is not unlike finding the average value on a 6 sided die being 3.5. Roll a die a million times and you'll get a value close to 3.5 for the average. But note that a single die roll can have a value anywhere between 1 and six, and NEVER will you roll a 3.5! Thus, it makes no more sense to speak of one atom as having the behavior of a million rolls than it is speak of the behavior of an atom as having the behavior of a mole of atoms. [snip] > ***{Those who are comfortable in a magical world where things can leap into > existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing are comfortable with QM's > interpretation of the math. For the rest of us, the QM interpretation > simply appears to be nonsense. --MJ}*** > Regardless of how QM appears to any individual, it is an excellent predictor of the behavior of experiments, thus it is very useful. > >> I don't see where all this boron is coming from, unless Cold fusion cells > >> are routinely hit by Ronald Reagan's 20 Mule Team Borax wagons. :-) > >> Actually, that's unfairly sarcastic, but kinda funny. My problem is, the> > >> boron reaction produces a small 8 MeV for three alpha particles, and > >> the results of Case and George show they are getting more like 23 MeV > >> for each alpha particle. Besides, George doesn't have enou> gh Pd to > >> contaminate > >> with boron; it would be better said that the boron is contaminated with > >> Pd. > > > >Clearly, boron is not an essential ingredient. However, if it is present, it > >might enter into a nuclear reaction along with the other reactions that are > >going on. > > ***{As I said, the boron idea is just a hypothesis. I do, however, think it > merits some careful investigation, rather than out-of-hand dismissal. If, > for example, this is a surface effect--as your platinum results seem to > suggest--then a pinch of boron in the electrolyte might do wonders for your > results. The reason I think the idea merits a serious look is that the > boron fusion reaction has the right stuff: there are no neutrons or gammas, > and all the energy would be quickly dissipated via heat-producing > collisions in the lattice. Logically, CF researchers would focus their > efforts on such things, rather than stabbing blindly in the dark, as most > of them seem to be doing. --MJ}*** > I've made my point. I will not annoy you by repeating it just because you've ignored it. :-) We will just have to disagree. > >> I didn't realize that there were so many positive results out there with > >> simple > >> hydrogen. > > > >The "simple" hydrogen effects are another branch of the field which produce > >transmutation rather than fusion. It seems that a wide spectrum of nuclear > >reactions can be initiated, some not even involving hydrogen of any kind. But > >then, many people do not believe these observations to be real. We shall see. > > > >> The d+boron-11 reaction doesn't produce three alphas... Maybe > >> d+ boron 10, huh? I have no idea what that reaction produces, maybe three > >> alphas? I don't know, I'm asking. > > > >Your guess is as good as mine on this one. > > ***{It produces three alphas. See > http://www.icone-conf.org/icone8/program/abstracts/8660.html. --MJ}*** > Yes, I know that p + 11B -> 3 4He + 8.7 MeV. My question was, since the results of George, Arata, Case, McKubre and so on have found that: 1) Simple Protium doesn't react. Deuterium does. which leads me to believe that if boron was involved, then the reaction would have to be something involving deuterium, like... d + 10 B -> ? Possibly 3 4He + 8.? MeV Which is the reaction I was asking about. Further, since ... 2) The energy per alpha is around 23-24 MeV, not around 3 MeV. 3) The amount of helium produced in George's cell would require more boron than Pd. Which leads me to believe that the reaction doesn't involve Boron at all. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 13:39:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26677; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:37:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:37:32 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FBA xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:32:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"fTA-r2.0.jW6.BUIKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35713 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:41 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? > > >I think it's a lava tube because it's down low, where lava would flow, it > >has the ridges > >commonly seen across such lava tubes (the white bands going across it) and > >because > >they are long and appear to be cylindrical in nature upon a substrate of > >similar crud. > > ***{I repeat: it bears *zero* resemblance to any photos of lava tubes on > Earth that I can find, and that specifically includes the white ridges. If > you have seen images that resemble the Mars photos, where are they to be > found? Please supply a reference. Thanks. --MJ}*** > Due to viscous flow of lava through the tube, the outer hot lava comes cooler, and even more vicious than the lava in the "core". This manifest it self as cylinders of quickly solidifying lava rock that move a short way out and solidify. This would repeat the length of the lava tube. If this was a lava tube, I would expect it to have lines across the cyclinder. It would also, like water, flow downwards and is more likely to be in a low spot. And that's what we see. I think what we need is a photo of a lava tube taken from above. > >What is that white shiny spot on it? Well, it seems to be some sort of > >white shiny > >spot. > > > >The fact that they're big doesn't surprise me. Due to low gravity, Mars > >geological > >(Marological?) features dwarf many of their earth counter parts. > > > >Or, as been suggested, It's a sand worm, and it has a huge blister. > > ***{I hesitate to guess what the thing is, but it doesn't look natural. It > can't be a lava tube, because the point where the three structures > intersect is obviously sunken below the levels of the tubes. Result: all > three of them would have had to either flow into it, with the result that > they would have filled it up with lava, or it would have to be their > source, with, again, the result that it would be filled up with lava. > However, clearly, that didn't happen. Thus your explanation seems very > implausible to me. --MJ}*** > > I think the white spots are what's know as "skylights", or holes in the top of the lava tube. :-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 14:02:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29240; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> References: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:54:04 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"eetCQ1.0.l87.WoIKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35714 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> >Dear Mitchell, >> > >> >I too have given this subject some thought, as you might expect, and have a >> >few comments. >> > >> >Mitchell Jones wrote: >> > >> >> In order for there to be a definable entity that merits the label "cold >> >> fusion," any ultimate theory of CF must have the following >>characteristics: >> >> >> >> (1) It must involve nuclear fusion--i.e., the combination of two or more >> >> nuclei into one. >> > >> >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically >> >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). >> >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous >> >nuclear activity. >> >> ***{Ed, with respect, you don't know whether it is limited to fusion or >> not, and you will not know until the theoretical issues are definitively >> settled. The point of my post was to consider the requirements of an >> explanatory theory, given the assumption that "cold fusion" is, in fact, an >> appropriate description of what is going on. --MJ}*** > >The problem we seem to have is agreeing on what is experimentally known >and what >we should call this knowledge. Experimentally, people now claim to produce >nuclear >reactions under low-energy conditions, the products of which can not >result from >fusion. The "cold fusion" community has adopted these results as being an >extension of the basic process that would also apply to fusion, if it occurs. >Because of this expansion, the term "cold fusion" is no longer accurate, >although >frequently used. However, if you want to focus only on the reaction which >makes >heat and helium or tritium or neutrons, that's fine. ***{I do not deny that non-fusion nuclear processes may occur as a consequence of a CF reaction--e.g., transmutations due to low-level, CF related neutron production--and I agree that such reactions ought to be lumped under the generalized CF category, if CF is ever demonstrated to exist. But before we reach the point of extending the concept in that way, we must first demonstrate that CF exists. And the point of my list was to identify conditions that must be met, in order to perform such a demonstration. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> >> >> >> (2) The fusion must occur under what may be reasonably termed "cold" >> >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew >> >> experimenter. >> >> >> >> (3) The theory must provide some mechanism that could enable nuclei to >> >> overcome the Coulomb repulsion that, under normal conditions, prevents >> >> fusion. >> > >> >And provide a mechanism for dumping the energy into the lattice rather than >> >into individual nuclear products. >> >> ***{Correct, but in the absence of neutron or gamma radiation, given >> conservation of energy, the energy of fusion is quickly going to take the >> form of heat in the lattice, so such a mechanism is more or less implied. >> (Especially given the hypothetical missing ingredient that I propose below, >> which is a pure alpha emitter.) --MJ}*** > >Implied but not explained unless the theory contains the necessary mechanism. >Overcoming the Coulomb barrier and getting rid of the energy are two separate >processes. The more successful explanations have these two processes as >natural >parts of the basic process. ***{It pretty much follows from the equation, does it not? After all, given the validity of 1H1 + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV, it seems clear that if we can shrink the 1H1 down into a neutral protoneutron (pn), then the equation becomes pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV. Since, in the latter case, there is no Coulomb barrier to be overcome, it seems clear that the reaction ought to go. Thus the only remaining issue would seem to be experimental rather than theoretical. Someone simply needs to play around with 5B11, to see if its presence inside an active lattice or as a surface contaminant is capable of enhancing the yield of the CF reaction. And the person who does that needs, obviously, to be someone who already has the capability to produce CF on demand, or at least with good reliability. Do you know anyone like that? :-) --MJ}*** > >> >> >> >> >> (4) The theory must provide a mechanism that explains why deadly neutron >> >> and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters. >> >> >> >> (5) The theory must involve a heretofore unidentified key >> >> ingredient--something that, due to chance, has sometimes been present >>in CF >> >> cells and sometimes not, in order to explain the seemingly baffling >> >> inconsistency in those results, and the parallel difficulties in >> >> replication. >> > >> >This is entirely a different theory. The first several criteria >>involve the >> >nuclear interaction while this criteria involves the chemical environment. >> >For example, the presence of boron makes palladium stronger so that it does >> >not crack as easily. Consequently, the required high concentration of >> >deuterium can be achieved more easily if some boron is present. Other >> >impurity elements have both a negative and positive effect on this >>behavior, a >> >problem which makes an interpretation of the results very complex. The >> >problem is to sort these effects into the correct explanation, i.e. which >> >factors change the ability to achieve the high loading, which are >>important to >> >the unique environment that allows the nuclear reaction to occur, and which >> >are involved in the nuclear reaction, as you suggest. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> (6) The theory must make use of *instability*--i.e., some process that >> >> tends very strongly *not* to occur--in order to explain why CF was not >> >> discovered long ago. >> > >> >This criteria has more of a psychological aspect than a scientific one. >> >> ***{No, the above criterion is based on something very specific--to wit: >> there are a number of theories that have been proposed to explain CF which >> have the common fault of suggesting that the CF-inducing agent is >> *stable*--i.e., long lived in the environment. For example, Mills' theory >> proposes the existence of a "hydrino" which is defined as a stable form of >> hydrogen that has its electron orbiting below the ground state radius. > >I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part of "cold >fusion". ***{No one? I do. Am I not a person? :-) Seriously, I am very aware that Mills has taken steps to distance himself from "cold fusion," for rather obvious reasons. However, if you look closely at his theory, the connection is rather obvious: the maximally shrunken hydrinos would be virtually electrically neutral, due to the close proximity between their positive and negative charges, and, as a result, would behave very much like protoneutrons--which means: if "hydrinos" exist, then they are capable of inducing "cold fusion." --MJ}*** The nuclear-active-environment (NAE) is stable once it is formed, which >is not an easy task. However, this environment is slowly destroyed by the >energy >being released and by loss of deuterium should the conditions change. >Consequently, the NAE is not long lived in nature. > >> >> Result: for maximally shrunken hydrinos, we would have an essentially >> neutral, *stable* particle capable of behaving very much like a neutron, >> and inducing pretty much the same sorts of nuclear reactions. The problem I >> have with his theory is that this condition of *stability* suggests very >> strongly that we ought to be up to our armpits in hydrinos (the universe, >> after all, consists mostly of hydrogen) and bathed in deadly radiation >> triggered by hydrinos in their maximally shrunken state. > >Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact with the >nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. ***{If he said otherwise, then he would be tarred with the "cold fusion" brush, now wouldn't he? :-) --MJ}*** On the other hand, a number of other >people, including yourself, suggest that a different form of shrunken >hydrogen can >interact. The only problem is finding ways to produce this little beast. >Apparently, this is not easy to do. Dufour uses various gas discharge >techniques >which seem to work better than just loading palladium with deuterium. > >> Likewise, Fred >> Sparber has proposed a "light lepton" theory, which, again, has the defect >> of stability, and leads to the same consequences as the hydrino theory. In >> essence, these theories explain OU results at too great a cost. By >> proposing agents that act with very loose constraints, they do explain OU >> results, but they also (a) render it implausible that the agents were not >> noticed long ago, and (b) they leave us wondering why, if such agents >> exist, we are not all dead. > >A good point and a good reason the theories you cite are generally rejected. > >> The protoneutron theory, however, is not >> vulnerable to such concerns: the central characteristic of the >> protoneutron, as I have defined it, has been that of being *wildly >> unstable*. Thus it is no surprise that protoneutrons have not been noticed >> before, and it is entirely to be expected that, in nature, they would >> induce very little radiation, and thus would not be a threat to human life. >> --MJ}*** > >The problem you have, I suggest, is suggesting just how these *wildly >unstable* >critters form in the first place. What unique environment causes their >formation, >regulates the kind of nuclear reactions they produce, then allows the nuclear >energy to be dumped into the general environment without producing X rays? So >far, you have discussed only a small part of the problem . ***{I went into vast detail about such things literally *years* ago. The basic idea is that proton meets electron *inside* the lattice, at a location that is too cramped to permit the electron to orbit at the innermost Bohr radius. In the case of unloaded palladium, those conditions are never met, because there is enough space in the octagonal unit cells for the electron to orbit at the n = 1 radius. Once a neutral H or D forms there, the fit is snug, but possible. All that would happen would be that the lattice would expand slightly at that location, due to the repulsion between the electron shell of the H or D and that of the six Pd outer shells that are virtually touching it. Thus as palladium is loaded, the lattice should expand a bit, but until high loading is achieved, the probability would be high that protons would meet electrons in unloaded cells, and, thus few protoneutrons would be formed. However, at high levels of loading, the likelihood is great that protons entering the lattice will meet electrons within cells that have already been loaded. In that case, there will be insufficient room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius, and it will spiral down to grazing level above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable protoneutron. Bottom line: at high levels of loading, lots of protoneutrons should be created in the lattice. Unfortunately, the only way protoneutrons can accumulate in the lattice is if there are cold spots--locations where thermal activity is essentially zero. (If the protoneutrons are moving at velocities typical of thermal neutrons, they will quickly exit the lattice. Once outside, they will acquire enough energy for the electrons to boost up to the ground state radius, and the protoneutrons will cease to exist.) The question, therefore, is whether there are cold spots in the lattice. To get at the answer, recall the old experiment from high school physics, where the instructor spread black grains of sand evenly on the white surface of a horizontal drumhead, and gave it a thump. What happened was that the particles settled into the nodes of the wave pattern on the drumhead, where they thereafter remained essentially undisturbed, as the instructor continued to give the drum additional whacks. Now, since thermal motion in a crystal lattice is not random, but instead takes the form of synchronized dancing known as "the lattice wave," and since the lattice wave, like waves on the surface of a drumhead, is going to have nodes, it follows that it should be possible for protoneutrons to accumulate in the nodes of the lattice wave, just as the grains of sand accumulate in nodes on the drumhead. Under those conditions, they would *not* be thermalized, and, hence, would remain in confined conditions long enough to have a chance to react with a nearby nucleus. Result: the question becomes one of *what* nucleus. Reflecting on that, we quickly reach the conclusion that the fewer the number of electron shells, the better, since the chance of a protoneutron reaching a neighboring nucleus will increase as the number of shells through which it must pass decreases. On the other hand, its chance will increase as the size of the target nucleus increases. Thus, taking both of these considerations into account, it seems plausible to me that there may be an optimal, or preferred, target nucleus and that lattice impurities which are known to produce pure alpha or beta- decays upon neutron absorption--e.g., 5B11--ought to be systematically investigated. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> >> >> For a >> >long time, since the alchemists, science did not think this was possible, >> >hence ignored all evidence. Considerable evidence was published but was >> >ignored. However, in the case of the Pons-Fleischmann effect, the use of >> >palladium, with its very nonuniform properties, has made this particular >> >approach very difficult to reproduce. Some of the other methods do not have >> >this problem. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most >> >> common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an >>impurity, >> >> in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question >> >> involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The >> >> protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a >> >> question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice >> >> location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost >> >> Bohr radius? My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing >> >> altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle >> >> which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a >> >> hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, >> >> while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, >> >> would be: >> > >> >You are describing the hydrex proposed by Dufour on the basis of some very >> >good experimental observation. >> >> ***{Proposed when? And where? I put forth the protoneutron concept publicly >> on sci.physics.fusion more than 5 years ago, on 11 Sep 1995 at 10:52:42 >> a.m. (I thought of it shortly after the brouhaha about the original P & F >> announcement got under way, but this was my first mention of the idea on >> the internet.) --MJ}*** > >This idea was suggested by many people early in the field's history. However, >because of the other problems cited above could not be solved, the idea was >largely dropped. ***{As explained above, I believe the protoneutron theory solves these problems. If some problem remains that I did not address, please explain. --MJ}*** Then J. Dufour in France started to see some strange phenomenon >in his gas discharge apparatus which gave the idea more substance. In his >papers, >he took to calling the shrunken hydrogen a hydrex. Now he believes the hydrex >does not cause fusion, but a process whereby many of these particles become >attached to a large nucleus, such as palladium, by dipole interaction and >cause >alpha particles to be emitted. ***{Thus it is a different theory than the protoneutron theory. --MJ}*** Thus, helium is formed along with a lighter >nucleus, for example zinc when palladium is used. This explains the >presence of >transmutation products as well as helium. ***{The protoneutron theory explains them as well: non-optimal fusion reactions will occur at a low level, due to chance. To obtain significant excess energy, however, the optimal atomic species must be identified and implanted in or on the lattice. --MJ}*** Naturally, the theory has many holes. > >> >> >> pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 >> >> >> >> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 >> > >> >Unfortunately, no evidence exists to support the idea that boron is >>involved >> >in any CF reaction. People find that the effects occur with or without >>boron >> >being present. In addition, the measured relationship between energy and >> >helium production is very close to 24 MeV, not 8.7 MeV. >> >> ***{Has anyone deliberately and carefully investigated the boron >> hypothesis, or are you merely saying that if there were a correlation with >> the presence of boron, it would have been noticed? In any case, even if the >> boron hypothesis is incorrect, I think *something of this sort*--i.e., some >> ingredient X, analogous to boron--is required, if the CF hypothesis is to >> be sustained. --MJ}*** > >Palladium has been made containing a wide range of boron content. This >study was >done not only to explore boron as being involved in the nuclear reaction, >but also >to change the properties of palladium. These studies show no clear >relationship >between the ability to produce the effect and the boron content, although >some of >the batches had a higher success rate than other ones. ***{Were these studies done by people who had a demonstrated ability to produce the CF effect, and who were highly motivated to investigate 5B11 in a persistent, exhaustive way? Or were these studies conducted by people who were pretty much stabbing in the dark, and hence unlikely to persist? --MJ}*** I agree, some other atoms >clearly must be involved. People have suggested the full spectrum of >possibilities, but to no avail. Too many other variables are operating to >allow >this variable to be isolated. > >> >> >> >> >> The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: >> >> >> >> (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. >> >> >> >> (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" >> >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew >> >> experimenter. >> >> >> >> (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is >> >> not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. >> >> >> >> (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters >> >> because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, >>above, is a >> >> pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will >> >> quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the >> >> lattice. >> >> >> >> (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., >> >> 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF >>cells >> >> and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling >>inconsistency >> >> in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication. >> >> >> >> (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable >> >> protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. >> >> >> >> The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by >> >> deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, >>in the >> >> catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether >> >> it is the missing key ingredient or not. >> > >> >I'm afraid this test has already been made. Boron has been used over a >>wide >> >range of concentrations (although not in the Case cell) with no clear >> >relationship being seen, >> >> ***{Very interesting. Have the results of such investigations been >> published? If so, where are they to be found? --MJ}*** > >Most of the work is described in ICCF Proceedings which are not generally >available. You would have additional problems finding the information because >many investigators are involved using batches of Pd that contained, mostly by >chance, different but known amounts of boron. Boron is a natural impurity in >palladium so that its effect can be seen by examining those samples for >which the >boron content was determined. To make matters worse, anomalous energy is >now seen >using platinum, gold, and titanium. Boron is not present in these metals, >nor is >deuterium in the first two. However, because Pyrex is used, some small but >unknown >amount of boron might be present on the surface. ***{The results you are describing do not suggest to me that the researchers were motivated to persistently check out the boron hypothesis, and, thus, their negative results do not carry much weight with me. I would repeat my earlier suggestion: various fusion reactions that produce nothing but alphas or beta- particles need to be deliberately, systematically, and persistently investigated. In other words, use the known fact that these excess heat reactions do not produce large gamma or neutron fluxes, to narrow the focus of the investigation. What we need to do is look at possible contaminants that have a hydrogen fusion reaction that does not emit dangerous radiation. To that end, the 5B11 reaction is only one example, albeit a particularly intriguing one. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> >> >> >> Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is >> >> happening, assuming >> >> that if CF is real. >> > >> >On this we can agree. Apparently, a range of nuclear reactions can be >> >initiated depending on the chemical environment. For example, tritium >>can be >> >produced under some conditions while He-4 or neutrons are produced >>under other >> >conditions. Conditions have been discovered that accelerate >>radioactive decay >> >while other conditions cause production of heavy elements apparently by >> >transmutation. The picture is now far more complex than you realize. >> >> ***{I am very aware of the sorts of claims that you describe above, and >> have been involved in discussing them for literally years, on this group >> and elsewhere. To repeat: my post was intended to lay out the theoretical >> requirements that must be satisfied *if* the CF label is, ultimately, >> destined to be vindicated. --MJ}*** > >A worthy effort, but I only suggest you need to expand your criteria. ***{Agreed. The 5B11 reaction was intended only as an illustrative example of what we must look for. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> If the >> >phenomenon is not real, nature is playing tricks which have a very complex >> >structure. >> >> ***{True. But nature has done that before, and will doubtlessly do so >> again. Until we find the missing ingredient, or accumulate such an immense >> mountain of positive results that we can accept the phenomenon without >> being able to produce it on demand, uncertainty will continue to reign. >> --MJ}*** > >Alas, all so true. > >Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 14:20:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08932; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:17:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:17:57 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FBA xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:12:42 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"aUkpV.0.PB2.24JKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35715 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> ---------- >> From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:41 PM >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? >> >> >I think it's a lava tube because it's down low, where lava would flow, it >> >has the ridges >> >commonly seen across such lava tubes (the white bands going across it) and >> >because >> >they are long and appear to be cylindrical in nature upon a substrate of >> >similar crud. >> >> ***{I repeat: it bears *zero* resemblance to any photos of lava tubes on >> Earth that I can find, and that specifically includes the white ridges. If >> you have seen images that resemble the Mars photos, where are they to be >> found? Please supply a reference. Thanks. --MJ}*** >> >Due to viscous flow of lava through the tube, the outer hot lava comes >cooler, and even more vicious than the lava in the "core". This manifest >it self as cylinders of quickly solidifying lava rock that move a short way >out and solidify. This would repeat the length of the lava tube. ***{It doesn't explain what we see. At the intersection point of the three tubes, they go down into a hole. But, within the confines of the hole, the lava would puddle, as it does on Earth. That is not what we see in these Mars photos. Instead, the tubes retain their form, and remain separate from the walls, as they go down into the hole. --MJ}*** If this was >a lava tube, I would expect it to have lines across the cyclinder. It would >also, like water, flow downwards and is more likely to be in a low spot. > >And that's what we see. ***{Why didn't the lava puddle, and fill up the hole? --MJ}*** > >I think what we need is a photo of a lava tube taken from above. > >> >What is that white shiny spot on it? Well, it seems to be some sort of >> >white shiny >> >spot. >> > >> >The fact that they're big doesn't surprise me. Due to low gravity, Mars >> >geological >> >(Marological?) features dwarf many of their earth counter parts. >> > >> >Or, as been suggested, It's a sand worm, and it has a huge blister. >> >> ***{I hesitate to guess what the thing is, but it doesn't look natural. It >> can't be a lava tube, because the point where the three structures >> intersect is obviously sunken below the levels of the tubes. Result: all >> three of them would have had to either flow into it, with the result that >> they would have filled it up with lava, or it would have to be their >> source, with, again, the result that it would be filled up with lava. >> However, clearly, that didn't happen. Thus your explanation seems very >> implausible to me. --MJ}*** >> >> >I think the white spots are what's know as "skylights", or holes in >the top of the lava tube. :-) ***{"Skylights" is a term that refers to the holes as seen from *within* the lava tube. It is dark in the tube, and so holes let sunlight in, hence the term "skylight." However, what we see in this case is from a vantage point *above* the tube, and the bright spot, if due to a hole, suggests that there is a powerful energy source operating inside the tube. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 14:21:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09071; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:18:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:18:13 -0700 Message-ID: <004d01bfdbc5$5958df20$8d9680d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000621131740.007a5820 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000621162127.007a6280@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: More on electric bicycle performance Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:12:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"ksObS3.0.fD2.K4JKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35716 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Huh? You must be confused Jed - It is not a golf cart - it is a recumbant bicycle they claim is street legal. You must not have explored the original link - again http://www.rhoadescar.com/qanda.htm > Bill Wallace` wrote: > > >A Rhoades car with proper weather protection and undercarriage protection > >and you can even go in the weather - hook up a fuel cell from the above MHTX > >and voila - no insurance bills either - it is not a car! > > You'd have to pay bail instead of insurance. In Atlanta, anyway, you are > not allowed to operate things like golf carts and experimental vehicles on > the roads. Only unlicensed bicycles or licensed automobiles, motorcycles > and the like. In Peachtree city, south of Atlanta, the houses and stores > are connected with 70 miles of golf cart trails, and everyone drive golf > carts. > > I think it would be prudent to subject Rhoades cars to licensing and safety > testing before allowing them on the road. > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 14:25:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03020; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005f01bfdbc5$fec61d60$8d9680d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000621131740.007a5820 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000621162127.007a6280@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: More on electric bicycle performance Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:16:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"dZiFB2.0.3l.i8JKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35717 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Speaking of golf carts - wasn't that the preferred mode of transportation by members of "The Village" in the Prisoner? Are you a number or a free man? :-) > In Peachtree city, south of Atlanta, the houses and stores > are connected with 70 miles of golf cart trails, and everyone drive golf > carts. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 14:26:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11217; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:25:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:25:25 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:23:50 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: LANL CF Results Resent-Message-ID: <"qGe_E2.0.Bl2.5BJKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35718 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ***{Hi Steve. I posted the following on sci.physics.fusion today in response to one of your posts there. However, since you apparently no longer read that group, I am also posting it here. --MJ}*** >Steve Lajoie wrote: > > Please feel free to explain how you think you can get a plasma > temperature of 22 million Kelvins with a 2 kV, 5 Amp arc. ***{I'll take a stab at this. First, the 2,000 volt arc will give an energy of 2 keV to any deuteron that shoots across the plasma unimpeded, which, in the case of a rarified plasma, will be most of them. Let us, therefore, calculate the temperature of an ideal monoatomic gas for which the average particle has an energy of 2 keV and a mole weighs of 2 grams. The internal energy per mole (U) of such a gas is the sum of the rotational and translational kinetic energy of the elements of which it is comprised, and, since it is presumed to be monoatomic, collisions will be perfectly elastic, and the rotational component can be neglected. Under such conditions the average specific heat, C, will be such that C = (3/2)(R/M), where R is the universal gas constant and M is the molecular weight of the gas. Thus we can multiply both sides by the absolute temperature, T, obtaining: TC = (3/2)(R/M)(T). Substituting U for TC, we have U = (3/2)(R/M)(T). Solving for T, we have: T = 2U/3(R/M). Taking the average kinetic energy of translation to be 2 keV, a mole of monoatomic deuterium gas will consist of 2 grams, and will contain 6.02x10^23 atoms (Avogadro's number). Thus U = (6.02x10^23)(2)(1.6x10^-12) = 1.93x10^12 ergs. Since R = 8.317x10^7 ergs per deg. K per mole, it follows that T = 2U/3(R/M) = 2(1.93x10^12)/[3(8.317x10^7)/2] = 30,967 degrees K. Of course, the above very rough calculations neglect pressure energy, which will be due not merely to the internal energy per mole, but also to the mutual repulsion of the particles as a result of stripping off some of their outer electrons. Thus if we assume that outer electrons are *completely removed* from every deuterium atom, then that mutual repulsion would become *stupendous*. Result: to contain them all within the same volume as before might very well result in a temperature rise to 22 million degrees. However, in my view the attempt to argue on such grounds that the effective temperature in this sort of plasma is 22 million degrees would be absurd. The reason: only a tiny fraction of the deuterium atoms actually have their electrons completely stripped away. For the others--the vast majority--"ionization" merely means that their electrons have been boosted up into the n = 2 through n = 5 orbits. Thus most of the atoms in such a plasma remain electrically neutral, albeit with expanded outer shells, and the enormous pressures and temperatures that would be required to contain them (at constant volume) if they were completely bereft of electrons simply do not apply. Of course, since I am a latecomer to this thread, I really have no idea how the 22 million degree figure was obtained. Was a detailed calculation ever posted? If so, what were the assumptions on which that result was based? --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 15:43:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13808; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:39:22 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"a9eJ03.0.eN3.AHKKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35719 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: RE: Lava tubes - I'm about as fringy as they come on this list, and still think there's a suspicious symmetry to the base of the "face" structure that deserves further analysis, but... Come on, look carefully at the patterns and orientations of the crescent shapes and compare them to other images. Winds rushing along the ravine blows sand up into dunes. This can be seen other photos. Of course Hoagland called those other images tracks from the treads of giant mining vehicles, but whatever. The "tube" is an illusion caused by the shape of the dunes and the coloration, particularly the dark region along the sides of the bottom channel where the sand has accumulated. There is no tube, just a dry "river" bed. Might actually have been a river at one time, I don't know the specific geologic origins of that particular site. But I can see that there is no tube there. Can't you guys see that too? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 16:21:19 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18615; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:19:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:19:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:24:26 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex , jlnlabs@egroups.com cc: Schnurer Subject: My 44 cents worth... FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum In-Reply-To: <000601bfda49$e5bb7a40$0601a8c0 federation> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"H3xDL1.0.nY4.orKKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35720 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear All, SDee notes... comments and all the good stuff... below... On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Steve Lajoie wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kyle R. Mcallister > To: > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:02 PM > Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical > Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism I don't know what was working for anyone ... but here comes my thinking on the subject backed with a strong body of investigation into the underpinnings of present day theory... and personal experience... > > > > That works for me. > > > > It doesn't for me. Relativity is a good thing, and it is a beautiful > > theory, but it is not necessarily the end all of science. > > Nope. It isn't the "end of all science". But unless you have something > better in > your back pocket, that explains all it does and a few things releativity > doesn't, > it's what we have today. :-) There are many models and theories and useful experimental observations in many fields of investigation which DO NOT answer or try to answer.. the whole of any given theory plus some... > > > > Not with a mathematical equation? But something that really means > > > something? If theory and equations don't mean something, both being > based > > > on our best experimental observations and the theory made to fit > reality, > > > then what does? In our present day science we often rely on the observation of others... and, even more shakey ..we rely on thier interpretation of the observation. Example: 1] Millikan's celebrated oil drop experiment was off the marke... big time... and this error was not detected until the 1930s . To put some jam on the pancakes...... the explanation for the error ..which is being off by many volts in the measure of the potential applied to the drops ... even the explaination for the error suggested in 1960 and 1961 was incorrect. 2] We did not even know there WAS a neutron until 1932... and then it took YEARS to find out it only lasts about 1,000 seconds ! How many of the readers know of the above and of the youth of the area of physics? > > > > They aren't the finality. If someone gets a 'theory of everything' and it > > works for 500 years, and then someone does an experiment that shows > > something even very tiny that does not fit into the theory, the theory > > should be trash-canned. I personally do not think all of each model is wrong.... nor do I think all or each model is right. > > Well, we've had Newton for a long time. We haven't stopped teaching > Newtonian physics because it's so dang USEFUL. We all know what > context we can use it in, and it works well in that domain. Yes, there > are a number of "somethings" that are not explained by it, but we simply > note where it is valid, that we have something better in our back pockets, > and keep using it. > > > > It is very hard to "prove" a negative, like nothing faster than light > > that > > > carries information can exist. You can disprove it by finding one good > > > exception. > > Will someone please show a non mathmatical reasoning for the speed of light being immutable? Will someone show the root mathmatics indicating a modulated signal cannot exceed light speed? What prevents it being produced? Now will you demonstrate a non mathmatical or observationally based reasoning that faster than light signals cannot be produced? > > Exactly. You can't prove a negative. That was my point. > > Not "can't", but very hard. On the other hand, not being able to do so > means nothing. The only way to prove a negative is by an exhaustive > search. I can prove there are no tigers in my house by searching everything > that a tiger may be in. Sitting here I cannot prove there are no tigers in > my house except to say my dog has a keen nose, being part hound, and > he hates cats and he's resting at my feet under my desk right now. My > dog's inactivity is a strong predictor that there are no tigers here, but > not proof. > > Relativity is a strong predictor, but not proof. An exhaustive search > would be nearly impossible. Relativity is NOT a strong predictor. Relativity is a predictor of SOME effects, under SOME conditions, some of the time. > > > Do you have one good exception? If you look at Joe and Saly playing baseball on a sunday in the park then you see modulated light carrying information at light speed. If your seat is behind the plate and the ball is pitched toward you then the light from the ball is going light speed plus the ball speed .. AND carrying information and you are detecting it.... the ball.... the light.....the information..... and the information the ball is moving toward you ...at some speed which is above zero miles per second. > > > > No. > > I guess I don't understand your grievance, then. > > > > Without science, this species called homo sapiens would be cheetah > > kibble, > > > and our numbers would be in the thousands, not billions. > > > > I am not anti-science. I just don't like the 'experts' running around > > saying we shouldn't devote funding to superluminal effect research because > > some theory says it can't happen. That is not science, it is stupidity. > > First, it's political, not scientific. Second, they have a good reason for > saying it > can't happen knowing what we know now. We also know it's pretty pointless > to fund perpetual motion machines. Without even a theory that allows it, we > don't > know the first place to look.. Where did Farnsworth "know where to look" to invent the raster scan for television? What Theory was used? Now, if someone came across strange > experimental > results, people would look at it, as they have the EPR prediction; but they > have turned up nothing. > > > > I don't see anything assumptive about science, to be honest. Reality is > > > assumed, and it is assumed to be knowable and the same for all > observers, > > > and that seems reasonable given that it is both successful and we've > > never > > > observed an exception to these "assumptions". I suppose if we did find > an > > > exception, we'd have a real cause to change science. > > > > It is very assumptive on some issues. Take quantum mechanics...but that is > > a whole other can of worms, and a messy one at that. > > What about quantum mechanics? It works. QM works in SOME cases under SOME guidlines for SOME of the time. > > Suppose I could sent binary, or Morse code from point to point, faster > than > > light can cross the same distance. Is that a viable signal? > > The theory of relativity predicts that information carrying signals cannot > move > faster than light. Please show me any such statement by Einstein which globally states this without codicil and without mathmatical restriction.... please. I think you may find theory of reletivity and signals and the speed of light are described as a mathmatical construct. > > We have no theory that predict otherwise at this time. We have no open theory without restriction NOW which claims FL is impossible. ---------------- So there is no > theoretical > basis for research into faster than light signals. Further, as far as we can > test > relativity, the "no faster than light signals" rule predicted by relativity > seems to > hold. > Will you please make the above more clear? A "rule" ??? ------------- > Now, if there was an experiment that showed other wise, or even an > alternative > theory that predicts it, you'd have a reason for predicting it. > > > --Kyle R. Mcallister > > The best "theory" for FTL is theat there is no global unrestricted theory counter to it! > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 16:30:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA22544; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:28:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:28:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:08:42 -0400 Message-Id: <200006212208.SAA17604 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: More on electric bicycle performance Resent-Message-ID: <"fSxMN2.0.9W5.e-KKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35721 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill writes: >Speaking of golf carts - wasn't that the preferred mode of transportation by >members of "The Village" in the Prisoner? Are you a number or a free man? >:-) > >> In Peachtree city, south of Atlanta, the houses and stores >> are connected with 70 miles of golf cart trails, and everyone drive golf >> carts. They all drive them down here in The Villages, but the twist is nobody can remember their number. ;) Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 17:18:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08310; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:16:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:16:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:32:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Steve Lajoie cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Question... FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical In-Reply-To: <001e01bfda78$0cde7720$0601a8c0 federation> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3vZaU3.0.U12.uhLKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35722 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Folks.... Uh..... please look to note below.... On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Steve Lajoie wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kyle R. Mcallister > To: > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical > Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > > > > > It would be if you could do it. But you can't do that. If you can, > > > if you found a way, please inform the Nobel Prize committee. > > > > Why can't I? > > My best guess is, you don't know how. > > > Prove that I cannot do this. > ---------FLAG NOTE The sentence below... does this mean "math TELLS me I cannot do thus and such?" > The transformation for a signal going faster than light is unphysical, thus > not real. You can only do things that are real. Thus, you cannot do this. > ???????? ------------------------ NOTE: Q: > It sort of has to do with the relativistic gamma going imaginary. I've > never measured off imaginary distance, or clocked an imaginary time. > I thought this was sending SOS 1,000 feet... what is gamma....? > You do have to give me a break here. I don't know any better than > relativity and quantum mechanics, and you've not said anything that > leads me to think anything different. > > > The remark about the Nobel prize > > committee seems a bit overboard. > > Not really. It would be a significant find. > > > If you find something like that, you don't > > go calling them, you publish your results in a journal so other scientists > > can reproduce your results. Or was it just a smart remark? > > Well, why bother with the journal? If you can do this, just go straight to > the Nobel committe and collect your prize. With a brain like yours, why > waste your efforts taunting us little people on vortex? You have > remarkable work to do! I think it would be absolutely super if you could > do this! > > Why, I can think of several applications for it myself. What with stuff > essentually going backwards in time, I can think of one or two laws of > thermodynamics that you might be able to viciously violate. And that > would be very profitable. Not to mention buying lotto tickets! > Please let me know one commercial application for sending an SOS Morse Code signal at 1.5 times C a distance of 1,000 feet... please... > > > I think you're on to something to do with EPR, but that doesn't > > > work. > > > > I'm not talking about EPR. I think we both agree EPR cannot be used to > > communicate faster than light. > > Well, great! > How many different ways is FTL signalling of an electric message such as SOS in Morse Code impossible? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 17:39:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03068; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:35:13 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Something Found on Mars? Resent-Message-ID: <"VlETs2.0.ol.K-LKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35723 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >RE: Lava tubes - > >I'm about as fringy as they come on this list, and still think >there's a suspicious symmetry to the base of the "face" structure >that deserves further analysis, but... > >Come on, look carefully at the patterns and orientations of the >crescent shapes and compare them to other images. Winds rushing along >the ravine blows sand up into dunes. ***{No, this doesn't work. Look at http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg , which shows the hole from which the three tubes originate. (It is way down at the bottom of the tall, narrow jpg file.) If you will look at that part of the picture, you will see that the "sand dunes" that are right next to one another, but part of different "tubes," are perpendicular to one another. That is clearly impossible if they are, in fact, windblown sand dunes, because the wind can only blow in one direction at a time. --MJ}*** This can be seen other photos. >Of course Hoagland called those other images tracks from the treads >of giant mining vehicles, but whatever. The "tube" is an illusion >caused by the shape of the dunes and the coloration, particularly the >dark region along the sides of the bottom channel where the sand has >accumulated. There is no tube, just a dry "river" bed. Might actually >have been a river at one time, I don't know the specific geologic >origins of that particular site. But I can see that there is no tube >there. > >Can't you guys see that too? ***{I can't. In addition to the problem mentioned above, the series is too well defined to be a series of dunes, and, besides, it simply doesn't look like dunes. Here are the possibilities that spring to my mind: (1) It could be a gigantic fungal rhizome that has been uncovered by the wind, but that makes no sense to me: fungi live on decaying organic matter, and I find it incomprehensible that there could be enough decaying organic matter in the area to support a fungus of that size. (2) It could a tunnel that is under construction, and destined to be covered up when finished. However, the irregular variability of the thing argues against the notion that it is the result of intelligent design. (3) It could be some sort of huge, slow-growing, water-conserving, cactus-like plant, adapted to the Martian conditions. This possibility fits in with the apparent forest of gigantic, squatty trees that appears near the southern polar icecap. (4) It could be three lava tubes, emanating from the hole at the bottom of the jpg image referenced above, if we assume lava with bizarre characteristics unlike any that emerges from volcanos on Earth. Since (1), (2), and (4) seem very unlikely to me, if I were forced to guess, I would opt for (3). Truth be told, however, I really don't know what it is. --Mitchell Jones}*** . --MJ}*** > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 20:07:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05184; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:03:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:03:54 -0700 Message-ID: <001401bfdbf6$67701660$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: Subject: Re: LANL CF Results Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:03:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"Tqfs_3.0.sG1.P8OKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35724 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Mitchell Jones To: Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:23 PM Subject: LANL CF Results > >Steve Lajoie wrote: > > > > Please feel free to explain how you think you can get a plasma > > temperature of 22 million Kelvins with a 2 kV, 5 Amp arc. > > ***{I'll take a stab at this. First, the 2,000 volt arc will give an energy > of 2 keV to any deuteron that shoots across the plasma unimpeded, which, in > the case of a rarified plasma, will be most of them. Let us, therefore, > calculate the temperature of an ideal monoatomic gas for which the average > particle has an energy of 2 keV and a mole weighs of 2 grams. I don't think it's that simple. The energy per atom isn't going to be 2 keV, that assumes that each and every atom drops across the entire 2 keV potential. Actually, they fall across something more like a micrometer (whatever the mean free path is, we don't have enough data to calculate it from what's given) of what ever the local field strength is, somewhere about 1 micro-meter or so * 2 kV divided by the plate to the wire distance. Then you have a collision, the particles radiate some energy away, and the particle moves on in a random direction. 2 keV per atom? Nope. More like 13 eV per atom, as the glowing plasma indicates. As I tried to explain, you can tell the temperature of the plasma from it's color just like in the flame of a candle. The coolest being the red glow and the hotest the blue. This plasma was orange. You know, a boltzman distribution. If it was 2 keV in temperature, it would be white to us, and would be emitting x-rays and not orange. You ask how I get 22 million Kelvins from 2 keV. Well, I could explain it, but I doubt you'll believe me. So, I suggest going to: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/energy.html and put in a 2, a 3 for the exponet, select electron volts for the units, and covert to Kelvins. Press convert factor and show and you get: 2.32 x 10^6 Kelvins. Or, you can look in your CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Page 1-32 in my 71st edition, and note that there is 1.16045x10^4 Kelvins per eV. You probably noticed that this is 1/ Boltzman's constant with Boltzman's constant in eV/K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 20:07:18 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05824; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:05:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:05:26 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:04:49 EDT Subject: Problem with pdf.zip files To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"Su4iY1.0.wQ1.s9OKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35725 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The three pdf files from Focardi downloaded ok and unzipped ok, but they wouldn't open. I've had this problem with zip files before. Are the files available as straight, uncompressed PDF files? That would take twice as long to download, but with a 56K modem it's just a matter of a few minutes more. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 20:37:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17029; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:35:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:35:58 -0700 Message-ID: <39516BC1.1BDA2993 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:28:33 +0300 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,tr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"48B4S2.0.-94.TcOKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35726 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > > >RE: Lava tubes - > > > >I'm about as fringy as they come on this list, and still think > >there's a suspicious symmetry to the base of the "face" structure > >that deserves further analysis, but... > > > >Come on, look carefully at the patterns and orientations of the > >crescent shapes and compare them to other images. Winds rushing along > >the ravine blows sand up into dunes. > > ***{No, this doesn't work. Look at > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg , which shows the > hole from which the three tubes originate. (It is way down at the bottom of > the tall, narrow jpg file.) If you will look at that part of the picture, > you will see that the "sand dunes" that are right next to one another, but > part of different "tubes," are perpendicular to one another. That is > clearly impossible if they are, in fact, windblown sand dunes, because the > wind can only blow in one direction at a time. --MJ}*** > You are right. There is an other clue the hole section. Curves of the traces on all of the path are on the correct direction if they are seen as 3-D objects assuming the tubes are going down there. If the curve directions were random due to an unknown pro cess there will be 2^3 = 8 possibility. The proof of the wind is not responsible for this "tubes" is also in the hole section. It is impossible to wind to start in the vicinity of a hole or a valley wall without a turbulence. if the wind is turbulent I guess it would not produce regular patterns or any patterns at all because it had no consistent direction. The overall view of the "tubes" suggest they are distinct objects. Clearly they not follow the large contrast change and texture changes on the place they sat. The bright dotted balloon section is a very good example. (Rick) Believe to your eyes. :) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 20:59:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA24201; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:57:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:57:38 -0700 Message-ID: <39518FBC.50642C58 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:02:11 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5DO3H1.0.zv5.nwOKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35727 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > >Implied but not explained unless the theory contains the necessary mechanism. > >Overcoming the Coulomb barrier and getting rid of the energy are two separate > >processes. The more successful explanations have these two processes as > >natural > >parts of the basic process. > > ***{It pretty much follows from the equation, does it not? After all, given > the validity of 1H1 + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV, it seems clear > that if we can shrink the 1H1 down into a neutral protoneutron (pn), then > the equation becomes pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV. Since, in > the latter case, there is no Coulomb barrier to be overcome, it seems clear > that the reaction ought to go. Thus the only remaining issue would seem to > be experimental rather than theoretical. Someone simply needs to play > around with 5B11, to see if its presence inside an active lattice or as a > surface contaminant is capable of enhancing the yield of the CF reaction. > And the person who does that needs, obviously, to be someone who already > has the capability to produce CF on demand, or at least with good > reliability. Do you know anyone like that? :-) --MJ}*** We do not seem to be communicating here. The problem I'm discussing involves coupling the nuclear energy to the lattice. When a "normal" nuclear reaction of the type you propose occurs, the energy is proportioned between the three He atoms. As a result, 2.9 MeV alpha particles would be produced. As these particles are slowed down by the surrounding atoms, many electrons would be raised to a higher energy state and these would give off X-rays as they returned to their normal energy states. Such X-rays are not normally detected. Therefore, one has to assume that the energy goes into many atoms rather than just a few, thereby preventing the expected X-rays. How does this process work in your model? > > > >I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part of "cold > >fusion". > > ***{No one? I do. Am I not a person? :-) Seriously, I am very aware that > Mills has taken steps to distance himself from "cold fusion," for rather > obvious reasons. However, if you look closely at his theory, the connection > is rather obvious: the maximally shrunken hydrinos would be virtually > electrically neutral, due to the close proximity between their positive and > negative charges, and, as a result, would behave very much like > protoneutrons--which means: if "hydrinos" exist, then they are capable of > inducing "cold fusion." --MJ}*** That is an assumption not consistent with experimental observation. If hydrinos were being made, some of the measured energy would result from their formation. Only a small fraction of these hydrinos would produce a nuclear reaction. According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not react with oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino concentrations in the gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. Such a pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. > > > > >Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact with the > >nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. > > ***{If he said otherwise, then he would be tarred with the "cold fusion" > brush, now wouldn't he? :-) --MJ}*** Good point. In addition, he would have to explain the experimental facts as noted above. > > ***{I went into vast detail about such things literally *years* ago. The > basic idea is that proton meets electron *inside* the lattice, at a > location that is too cramped to permit the electron to orbit at the > innermost Bohr radius. > > In the case of unloaded palladium, those conditions are never met, because > there is enough space in the octagonal unit cells for the electron to orbit > at the n = 1 radius. Once a neutral H or D forms there, the fit is snug, > but possible. All that would happen would be that the lattice would expand > slightly at that location, due to the repulsion between the electron shell > of the H or D and that of the six Pd outer shells that are virtually > touching it. Thus as palladium is loaded, the lattice should expand a bit, > but until high loading is achieved, the probability would be high that > protons would meet electrons in unloaded cells, and, thus few protoneutrons > would be formed. However, at high levels of loading, the likelihood is > great that protons entering the lattice will meet electrons within cells > that have already been loaded. In that case, there will be insufficient > room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius, and it will > spiral down to grazing level above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable > protoneutron. Bottom line: at high levels of loading, lots of protoneutrons > should be created in the lattice. But why would a hydrogen atom even enter the lattice in the first place if there were insufficient room? To do so would require extra energy. Where does this energy come from in an electrolytic cell? After all, it is hard enough to get a normal hydrogen to enter the lattice at high loading. > > > Unfortunately, the only way protoneutrons can accumulate in the lattice is > if there are cold spots--locations where thermal activity is essentially > zero. (If the protoneutrons are moving at velocities typical of thermal > neutrons, they will quickly exit the lattice. Once outside, they will > acquire enough energy for the electrons to boost up to the ground state > radius, and the protoneutrons will cease to exist.) The question, > therefore, is whether there are cold spots in the lattice. To get at the > answer, recall the old experiment from high school physics, where the > instructor spread black grains of sand evenly on the white surface of a > horizontal drumhead, and gave it a thump. What happened was that the > particles settled into the nodes of the wave pattern on the drumhead, where > they thereafter remained essentially undisturbed, as the instructor > continued to give the drum additional whacks. Now, since thermal motion in > a crystal lattice is not random, but instead takes the form of synchronized > dancing known as "the lattice wave," and since the lattice wave, like waves > on the surface of a drumhead, is going to have nodes, it follows that it > should be possible for protoneutrons to accumulate in the nodes of the > lattice wave, just as the grains of sand accumulate in nodes on the > drumhead. Under those conditions, they would *not* be thermalized, and, > hence, would remain in confined conditions long enough to have a chance to > react with a nearby nucleus. An interesting idea. On the other hand, regions also exist on the drumhead having very high energy. Other people have been exploring just what this extra energy might do. > > Result: the question becomes one of *what* nucleus. Reflecting on that, we > quickly reach the conclusion that the fewer the number of electron shells, > the better, since the chance of a protoneutron reaching a neighboring > nucleus will increase as the number of shells through which it must pass > decreases. On the other hand, its chance will increase as the size of the > target nucleus increases. Thus, taking both of these considerations into > account, it seems plausible to me that there may be an optimal, or > preferred, target nucleus and that lattice impurities which are known to > produce pure alpha or beta- decays upon neutron absorption--e.g., > 5B11--ought to be systematically investigated. > > --Mitchell Jones}*** If this is the case, why choose boron over lithium? After all, d + Li6 = 2 He is a known reaction with no harmful radiation and lithium is always present. > > Then J. Dufour in France started to see some strange phenomenon > >in his gas discharge apparatus which gave the idea more substance. In his > >papers, > >he took to calling the shrunken hydrogen a hydrex. Now he believes the hydrex > >does not cause fusion, but a process whereby many of these particles become > >attached to a large nucleus, such as palladium, by dipole interaction and > >cause > >alpha particles to be emitted. > > ***{Thus it is a different theory than the protoneutron theory. --MJ}*** Yes, but both models use the same raw material, i.e. a shrunken hydrogen. > > > >Palladium has been made containing a wide range of boron content. This > >study was > >done not only to explore boron as being involved in the nuclear reaction, > >but also > >to change the properties of palladium. These studies show no clear > >relationship > >between the ability to produce the effect and the boron content, although > >some of > >the batches had a higher success rate than other ones. > > ***{Were these studies done by people who had a demonstrated ability to > produce the CF effect, and who were highly motivated to investigate 5B11 in > a persistent, exhaustive way? Or were these studies conducted by people who > were pretty much stabbing in the dark, and hence unlikely to persist? > --MJ}*** They were done by people who have seen EP produced by various samples and knew the boron content of those samples. The amount of EP did not correlate to the amount of boron present. However, boron containing Pd showed a more frequent production of EP than did very pure samples. Because of the effect of impurities, including boron, on the ability of Pd to retain D, it is very difficult to separate the variables no matter how well done the work may be. > > ***{The results you are describing do not suggest to me that the > researchers were motivated to persistently check out the boron hypothesis, > and, thus, their negative results do not carry much weight with me. I would > repeat my earlier suggestion: various fusion reactions that produce nothing > but alphas or beta- particles need to be deliberately, systematically, and > persistently investigated. In other words, use the known fact that these > excess heat reactions do not produce large gamma or neutron fluxes, to > narrow the focus of the investigation. What we need to do is look at > possible contaminants that have a hydrogen fusion reaction that does not > emit dangerous radiation. To that end, the 5B11 reaction is only one > example, albeit a particularly intriguing one. --MJ}*** This is certainly one possible way to examine the problem. However, another way also exists. The gamma that results from "hot" fusion, i.e. d + d = He results because another particle is required to carry away the momentum. Such particles are not present in a low density plasma. Suppose, however, the reaction could involve more than one d in a high density lattice, i.e. d+d+d = 3Li6*= He + d so that the momentum could be shared between the He and another d. No gamma would be necessary and the energy would result only in X-rays. Some experimental evidence does seem to support this idea. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 21 22:37:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA18306; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:35:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:35:14 -0700 Message-ID: <3951A591.20342B73 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:35:14 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptics To: ars dircon.co.uk, r.wiseman@herts.ac.uk, psyqrw@herts.ac.uk, E.K.Greening herts.ac.uk, C.OKeeffe@herts.ac.uk, p.rogers@herts.ac.uk, h.l.petrie herts.ac.uk, J.V.Thomas@herts.ac.uk, jse@allenpress.com, JamesRandi compuserve.com, jref@randi.org, mjwade@bio.indiana.edu, hkibbey indiana.edu, paramod@clubinternet.fr, km@math.uh.edu, jhuntres tenagra.com, vstenger@hawaii.edu, jinsings@aol.com, lasmanos earthlink.net, formanfarm@aol.com, ggmurray@uri.edu, dnovak etal.uri.edu, zumm@flash.net, riley@ctel.net, raven roadrunner.com, johnp@arlingtoninstitute.org, galingale chariot.net.au, physics.guide@about.com, opa@aps.org, blue pilot.msu.edu, halfox@uswest.net, brian_martin@uow.edu.au, letters csicop.org, europe@csicop.org, SkeptInq@aol.com, Erik.Baard dowjones.com, globalvisionary@cybernaute.com Subject: Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"twrTp1.0.tT4.HMQKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35728 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 June 21 2000 The well-known, notorious in ancien regime scientific circles, Rupert Sheldrake acquits his research well on his website: www.sheldrake.org , which gives most of his papers in full on an ordinary dog that shows in over a hundred videotaped sessions the ability to go wait at the window when his miles away mistress decides at unpredictable times to get in a car and drive home-- even more touching than Roentgen's 1896 crude X-ray photo of his wife's wedding ring, a dark circle around the stark bone of her finger, undeniable evidence of the unexpected, the unexplainable, that ended an age of science, and helped start the proud 20th century avalanche of relativity and quantum physics. But what will ensue in the 21st century? For this loving, terrier mutt on a hundred videotaped sessions shows a robust, obvious effect, going from 4 % time at the window for the empty hours of his beloved's absence to 55 % time as soon as she randomly starts, miles away across scores of London streets, driving home. "How much is that doggie in the window?" asks the corny '50s song-- enough to paralyze the the thinking of able, good men like Richard Wiseman, James Randi, and James Maddox, doing their best to keep passing checks, drawn on formerly lush accounts, inexplicably, inexorably bankrupt, drained to the last penny by that most dangerous, out-of-control aspect of scientific life-- a single little fact, for an unfixable leak at the foundation suffices to drain away a lifetime of surities. No doubt, theory, liberated from the comfortable confines of simple notions about time, space, and casuality, will bloom vigorously, wilder than relativity, weirder than quantum mechanics, a vast lush, lurid garden covering many old messes, but, as always, revealing an even vaster horizon of unknowns, as we progress into knowing ever more profoundly how much we don't know. Oh, in fifty years, how they will laugh at us, posturing in our naive ignorances, and in another fifty years, they will in turn be laughed at. That's science... Thank you, Jaytee! Rich Murray Room For All rmforall earthlink.net 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 ******************************************************* ars dircon.co.uk http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/wiseman.html DR. RICHARD WISEMAN Richard Wiseman started his career as a conjurer, and like Randi is a skilled illusionist. He is well known in Britain as a media Skeptic, and regularly appears on radio and TV programmes as a debunker of psychical phenomena. In addition, he tirelessly promotes the Skeptical cause through public lectures. When my experiments with the dog Jaytee were first publicized in Britain in 1994, journalists sought out a skeptic to comment on them, and Richard Wiseman was an obvious choice. He put forward a number of points that I had already taken into account. But rather than argue academically, I suggested that he did some experiments with Jaytee himself, and arranged for him to do so. I had already been doing videotaped experiments with this dog for months, and I lent him my videocamera. Pam Smart, Jaytee's owner, and her family kindly agreed to help him. With the help of his assistant, Matthew Smith, he did four experiments with Jaytee, two in June and two in December 1995, and in all of them Jaytee went to the window to wait for Pam when she was indeed on the way home. As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant. When Wiseman's data were plotted on graphs, they showed essentially the same pattern as my own. In other words Wiseman replicated my own results. I was astonished to hear that in the summer of 1996 Wiseman went to a series of conferences, including the World Skeptics Congress, announcing that he had refuted the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. He said Jaytee had failed his tests because he had gone to the window before Pam set off to come home. In Sepember 1996 I met Wiseman and pointed out that his data showed the same pattern as my own, and that far from refuting the effect I had observed, his results confirmed it. I gave him copies of graphs showing my own data and the data from the experiments that he and Smith conducted with Jaytee. But he ignored these facts. He reiterated his negative conclusions in a paper he submitted to the British Journal of Psychology together with Smith and Julie Milton. This paper appeared in August, 1998, with a fanfare of skeptical publicity in the British media, initiated by a press release accompanying the publication of the paper. (Wiseman, R., Smith, M and Milton, J. Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology 89, 453-462) Meanwhile, Wiseman continued to appear on TV shows claiming he had refuted Jaytee's abilities, and even as recently as February 2, 2000 he was still making this claim in his public lectures. Unfortunately, his presentations are deliberately misleading. He makes no mention of the fact that Jaytee waits by the window far more when Pam is on her way home, nor does he refer to my own experiments. He gives the impression that my evidence is based on one experiment filmed by a TV company, rather than on more than two hundred experiments, and he implies that he has done the only rigorous scientific tests of this dog's abilities. I confess that I am amazed by his persistence in this deception. I have written a detailed commentary on the paper of Wiseman, Smith and Milton, which you can read by clicking HERE (Sheldrake, R. (1999) Commentary on a paper by Wiseman, Smith and Milton on the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 63, 306-311) [in full at http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/ ] Wiseman, Smith and Milton published a reply to my commentary in the January 2000 issue of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (64, 46-49). In it they attempt to justify the way they publicized their skeptical claims in the media. Nevertheless, they say they were "appalled" by the way some of the newspaper items portrayed Pam Smart. But although they helped initiate this media coverage, triggered by the press release accompanying the publication of their paper, they consider themselves blameless: "We are not responsible for the way in which the media reported our paper and believe that these issues are best raised with the journalists involved." In their reply they raise three main points: 1. They say that the pattern of behaviour whereby Jaytee was at the window most when his owner is on the way home could be because he simply went to the window more and more as time went on. 2. They say the my analysis of their data "was clearly post hoc and would not provide compelling evidence of psi ability unless it was supported by a larger body of research." 3. They justify their failing to mention my own research with Jaytee on the grounds that it had not yet been published when they submitted their paper to the British Journal of Psychology, and add that "the experiments appear to contain design problems (Blackmore, 1999)". They also object to the way I reported their research in my book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home. My reply to their remarks has been published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 64, 126-128 (April 2000). Here is the full text: The "Psychic Pet" Phenomenon In the January issue of the Journal Richard Wiseman, Matthew Smith & Julie Milton published a reply to my note (Sheldrake, 1999a) about their claim to have refuted the "psychic pet" phenomenon. This claim was made in the British Journal of Psychology (Wiseman, Smith & Milton, 1998) and widely publicized in the media. It was repeated as recently as February 2 this year in a presentation given by the first author at the Royal Institution entitled "Investigating the Paranormal". At my invitation, Wiseman and Smith carried out 4 videotaped experiments with a dog called Jaytee, with whom I have carried out more than 100 videotaped experiments (Sheldrake, 1999b). My experiments showed that Jaytee usually waited by the window for a far higher proportion of the time when his owner was coming home than when she was not. This occurred even when his owner, Pam Smart, came at non-routine, randomly-selected times and travelled by unfamiliar vehicles such as taxis. This pattern was already clearly apparent months before Wiseman et al. carried out their tests. In the 3 experiments that Wiseman and Smith carried out at Pam's parents' flat, the pattern of results was very similar to my own. Their data show a large and statistically significant effect: Jaytee spent a far higher proportion of time at the window when Pam was on the way home than when she was not (Sheldrake, 1999a). The difference between our interpretations of these experiments arose because Wiseman et al. had a different agendum from mine. I was engaged in a long-term study of this dog's anticipatory behaviour, whereas they seemed more interested in trying to debunk a "claim of the paranormal". They themselves defined an arbitrary "claim" for Jaytee's "signal" and judged this by disregarding most of their own data. They argue that since they specified their criterion in advance (or rather criteria, since they changed the criterion as they went along), the agreement of their pattern of results with mine is irrelevant. "Testing this claim did not require plotting our data and looking for a pattern" (Wiseman, Smith & Milton, 2000, p. 46). Although they refused to look at the pattern shown by their own data, I plotted their data for them, together with plots of my own data showing the same obvious pattern. I gave them these graphs before they submitted their paper to the British Journal of Psychology in 1996. Both in their paper and in their sceptical claims in the media, they chose to ignore what their own data showed. "We tried the best we could to capture this ability and we didn't find any evidence to support it, " Smith was quoted as saying, in an article entitled "Psychic pets are exposed as a myth" (Irwin, 1998). "A lot of people think their pet might have psychic abilities but when we put it to the test, what's going on is normal not paranormal'" Wiseman asserted in the press release accompanying their paper. These are examples of the comments they now describe as reponsible and accurate." Wiseman, Smith & Milton try to justify ignoring the pattern shown by their data on the grounds that it was "post hoc". I cannot accept this argument. First, I had been plotting data on graphs right from the beginning of my research with Jaytee. Second, their dismissal of post hoc analysis would deny the validity of any independent evaluation of any published data. The whole point of publishing scientific data is to enable other people to examine and analyze them. Of necessity, the critical analysis of published data in any field of research can only be post hoc. And third, the plotting of graphs is not normally regarded as a controversial procedure in science. Consequently I do not agree with them that my representation of their results in my book (Sheldrake, 1999, Figure 2.5) is "misleading". In their recent note, they raise two scientific, as opposed to legalistic, points. First, they suggest that Jaytee may simply have gone to the window more and more the longer Pam was out, and hence been there most when she was on the way home. But a comparison of Jaytee's behaviour during Pam's short, medium and long absences shows that this was not the case (Sheldrake, 1999b). Moreover, in control experiments in which Pam did not come home, Jaytee did not go to the window more and more as time went on (Sheldrake, 1999b, Figure B.2). Second, they say that my experiments "appear to contain design problems (Blackmore, 1999)". Susan Blackmore's comments were made in an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement , which concluded: "There are better ways to spend precious research time than chasing after something that lots of people want to be true, but almost certainly is not." She thought she had spotted "design problems" in my experiments with Jaytee (Sheldrake 1999b) because "Pam was never away for less than an hour". (In Wiseman Smith & Milton's experiments Pam was likewise never away for less than an hour.) This is why Blackmore thought there was a problem: "Sheldrake did 12 experiments in which he bleeped Pam at random times to tell her to return..... When Pam first leaves, Jaytee settles down and does not bother to go to the window. The longer she is away, the more often he goes to look.... [Y]et the comparison is made with the early period when the dog rarely gets up." But anybody who looks at the actual data (Sheldrake, 1999b, Figure B.4) can see for themselves that this is not true. In 5 out of the 12 experiments, Jaytee did not settle down immediately she left. In fact he went to the window more in the first hour than during the rest of Pam's absence, right up until she was on the way home, or just about to leave. In the light of Blackmore's comments, I have reanalyzed the data from all 12 experiments excluding the first hour. The percentage of time that Jaytee spent by the window in the main period of Pam's absence was actually lower when the first hour was excluded (3.1%) than when it was included (3.7%). By contrast, Jaytee was at the window 55.2% of the time when she was on the way home. Taking Blackmore's objection into account strengthens rather than weakens the evidence for Jaytee knowing when his owner was coming home, and increases the statistical significance of the comparison. (Including the first 60 minutes of Pam's absence in the analysis, by the paired-sample t test, t=-5.72, p=0.0001; excluding the first 60 minutes, t=-5.99, p<0.0001.) Blackmore's claim illustrates once again the need to treat what sceptics say with scepticism. In conclusion, I agree with Wiseman, Smith & Milton (2000, p.49) that my analysis of their data "would not provide compelling evidence of psi ability unless it were supported by a larger body of research." It is in fact supported by a large body of research, summarized in my book (Sheldrake, 1999b) and soon to be published in detail in a peer-reviewed journal. [J. Scientific Exploration, June 2000, 14(2), 235-255 www.jse.com ] RUPERT SHELDRAKE REFERENCES Blackmore, S (1999) If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet. Times Higher Education Supplement, 27 August, 18. Irwin, A. (1998) Psychic pets are exposed as a myth. Daily Telegraph , 27 August. Sheldrake, R. (1999a) Commentary on a paper by Wiseman, Smith and Milton on the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. JSPR 63, 306-311. Sheldrake, R. (1999b) Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home. London: Hutchinson. Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (1998) Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology 89, 453-462. Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (2000) The 'psychic pet' phenomenon: A reply to Rupert Sheldrake. JSPR 64, 46-49. ***************************************************** http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/randi.html JAMES RANDI The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests. I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too. I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so." Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape. www.randi.org JamesRandi compuserve.com 954-467-1112 ******************************************************* http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/maddox.html SIR JOHN MADDOX John Maddox is my longest-standing critic. His "Book for Burning" attack in Nature on my first book in 1981 has been followed by a series of hostile reviews in Nature and in British newspapers. Maddox reviewed Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home in Nature on October 28, 1999 (Nature 401, 849-850). This is how he began: Rupert Sheldrake is steadfastly incorrigible in the particular sense that he persists in error. That is the chief import of his eighth and latest book. Its main message is that animals, especially dogs, use telepathy in routine communications. The interest of this case is that the author was a regular scientist, with a Cambridge PhD in biochemistry, until he chose pursuits that stand in relation to science as does alternative medicine to medicine proper. Maddox then alludes to his attack on my first book, paraphrases my ideas about morphic fields and morphic resonance and traces their development over the years, concluding that "Even Sheldrake's fiercest critics will applaud his consistency." He gives an overview of Dogs That Know... and summarizes some of the experiments with Jaytee. He then raises a number of questions: By conceding that the data gathered during these observations are statistically significant, one does not sign up for Sheldrake's interpretation that the underlying mechanism is dog-Homo telepathy. Too many variables are uncontrolled. Did the accuracy of anticipation vary with the length of time elapsed since Pam's departure (suggesting that the dog used its sense of the passage of time to signal its sense of when return was due)? Were there people in the room with the dog (allowing them to communicate somhow with the eager waiter)? And while Jaytee appears to have been chosen for videotaping as a result of his acumen in earlier trials, does not the interpretation of his behaviour require an understanding of the variability of dogs' capacity for anticipation in general? The appendix in which these details are meticulously described is not so much a log of research under way as a record of one of those sets of observations preliminary to the design of properly controlled observations. Maddox concludes his review as follows: Especially because people's fondness for their pets often takes the form of projecting onto them human or even superhuman perceptiveness, even more than 1,000 records on the Sheldrake website do not prove telepathy. I doubt that Sheldrake will take the point. He makes plain his distaste for what he calls orthodox science, which is "all too often equated with a narrow-minded dogmatism that seeks to deny or debunk whatever does not fit in with the mechanistic view of the world". He is habitually courteous and cheerful, but holists of his ilk would not dream of letting controls get in the way of revealed truth. On December 6, 1999, I wrote to Maddox as follows, taking up the scientific points he raised. He has not replied. A letter to Sir John Maddox from Rupert Sheldrake: Dear Sir John, I have read with interest your review of my book in Nature, and appreciate your having taken the time and trouble to read it. In relation to the questions you ask about the experiments with the dog Jaytee, I think I have eliminated the idea that the dog used the passage of time to signal its sense of when the return was due. As you will see from my book, the longer the absence, the longer the time the dog took to start waiting at the door when Pam was on her way home. A tatistical analysis comparing the long, medium and short experiments ruled out the passage of time argument (p.249 of the British edition). So did the control experiments carried out when Pam was not coming home, shown in Figure B.2 (p. 250 in the British edition). So I think this question is already answered by the data. Your second questions is, were there people in the room with the dog? As I make clear in my account, in experiments at Pam's parents flat, her parents were in the room, but since they did not know when she was coming home, especially in the experiments with randomized return times, the only way they could have communicated this information to her would be if they themselves picked up telepathically when she was on her way. In experiments at Pam's sister's house, her sister was present but again, only a person-to-person telepathy argument would provide a real alternative. And then we carried out fifty experiments with the dog alone in Pam's flat. He still showed his reactions to a statistically significant extent when completely alone, as shown in Figure B.5 (p. 255). Your third question about the variability for dogs' capacity for anticipation in general is obscure. At least it is too vague to answer - though I do have much data on dogs' anticipatory behaviour in general. I enclose a recently published paper of mine in which I analyse the data of Richard Wiseman and his colleagues from their own experiments with Jaytee, conducted at my invitation (but in my absence). Their data agree remarkably well with my own, in spite of Wiseman's misleading portrayal of them in the media as a refutation of Jaytee's abilities. In your final remark, you say "holists of his ilk would not dream of letting controls get in the way of revealed truth." If you mean other unspecified persons, then it is meaningless and irrelevant. If you mean me, then what you say is unjust and untrue. I have done thousands of experiments over the years involving controls, as you can see by looking at my many published papers. And of course I use controls in my research with animals - as, for example, in Figure B.2 shown in this book, and also in my other experiments, as in Figure 16.2, p.233, summarizing the results of my tests on the sense of being stared at. I have never regarded animal telepathy as revealed truth; it is certainly no article of faith for any religion, nor is it even mentioned in most books on parapsychology. I entered this field of enquiry with an open mind about what animals can and cannot do, and would not otherwise have spent years in empirical investigations of their abilities. However, I am pleased that you express an interest in controls, and I would like to ask for your help in one of my current projects. As you see from the enclosed papers from the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Skeptical Inquirer, I am proposing an experiment to test whether experimenter effects occur in the physical and biological sciences, using experiments with blind controls. If you could help in promoting this research I would be grateful. Yours sincerely, Rupert Sheldrake ****************************************************** http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/pwru/ Homepage Welcome to the pages of the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire. The unit was established in September 1995 with the aid of the Perrott-Warrick fund administered by Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. Richard Wiseman r.wiseman herts.ac.uk +44 01707 284612 psyqrw herts.ac.uk +44 01707 284628 Emma K. Greening E.K.Greening herts.ac.uk +44 01707 285057 Ciaran O'Keeffe Paul Rogers http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/mm/about_us.html THE MIND MACHINE ABOUT US The Perrott Warrick Research Unit is based within the Psychology Department at the University of Hertfordshire and funded through Trinity College, Cambridge. We carry out scientific research into alleged paranormal phenomena, and reports of our work have been published in five books and over sixty papers in academic journals, including Nature - the world's leading science magazine. The Unit is also committed to promoting the public understanding of science, and we have helped to carry out several huge participatory experiments in the mass media. These experiments have employed the combined resources of BBC1's Tomorrow's World and The Daily Telegraph, reaching over 18 million people. Our work has been featured on over two hundred television and radio programmes including QED, Horizon, Equinox, Science Now and Start The Week. We have also been invited to speak at The International Science Festival, the Festival of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Society and The Royal Television Society. Our latest project, the Mind Machine, represents a unique combination of research and public education, and is our most ambitious project to date. Dr Richard Wiseman Head, Perrot Warrick Research Unit http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/mm/experiment.html THE EXPERIMENT The Mind Machine programme has been written by multimedia software company Geomica, with a soundtrack by You Jump First and is presented by Dr Richard Wiseman. The programme first explains the purpose of the project and then asks people to answer four quick questions (e.g., whether they are male or female, and a sceptic or believer) by simply touching the computer screen. Everyone is then given four attempts to psychically predict or influence a computerised coin toss. For each attempt people are first asked to call either heads or tails. The computer then uses a pseudo random number generator to decide the outcome of the toss. The programme is not a test of any one individual's psychic ability. Instead, everyone's results are stored in the computer and will be combined at the end of the project. By chance one would expect 50% of the calls to be correct and 50% to be incorrect. However, if significantly more than 50% of the calls are correct then this will suggest that psychic ability might actually exist. http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/pwru/RWhomepage.html Dr Richard Wiseman Dr Richard Wiseman started his working life as an award-winning professional magician and was one of the youngest members of The Magic Circle. He then obtained a first class honours degree in Psychology from University College London and a doctorate from Edinburgh University. In 1995 he was awarded a prestigious five year Perrott Warrick Fellowship (administered through Trinity College Cambridge) to research a wide range of psychological phenomena, and communicate the methods and results of this work to the public. Dr Wiseman and his team are currently based within the Psychology Department at the University of Hertfordshire, and carry out research into several topics including; the psychology of the paranormal, lying and deception, intuition and false memory syndrome. He has published five books and his work has been reported in some of the world's leading science journals, including Nature, Science and Psychological Bulletin. His research has been featured on over two hundred television and radio programmes, including BBC2's Horizon, Channel Four's Equinox, ITV's In Action and Radio 4's Start The Week and The Today Programme. Dr Wiseman has made regular appearances on BBC1's Tomorrow's World, presented segments within Carol Vorderman's Out of This World series (BBC1) and was the resident psychologist on Angus Deaytons' Lying Game (BBC2). He has also given invited addresses at The Royal Society, The Royal Television Society, The Royal Statistical Society, and in 1998 gave the Christmas Lecture at The Royal Society for the Arts. A significant proportion of Dr Wiseman's work has involved promoting the public understanding of science. He has devised several large-scale public participatory MegaLab experiments that have reached an estimated 18 million people via the combined resources of the Daily Telegraph and Tomorrow's World. In 1999 he launched The Mind Machine - an interactive multimedia kiosk that allows the public to take part in a national psychology experiment. This Machine will collect over a quarter of a million datapoints during a year-long tour of Britain's largest shopping centres and science festivals. Other projects have combined science communication and the performing arts. In 1998 Dr Wiseman brought together psychologists, historians, magicians and professional actors to stage 'Séance' - an off West-end show that encouraged the public to think critically about claims of the paranormal. Dr Wiseman's work has been funded by over £400,000 of grants from various organisations, including; Trinity College Cambridge, The Leverhulme Trust, Hertfordshire University, COPUS, Harvard University and the Millennium Award Scheme. In November 1999 Dr Wiseman was awarded Britain's first Readership in the Public Understanding of Psychology. ******************************************************** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 00:11:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA07899; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:09:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:09:55 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:10:50 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Water on Mars Resent-Message-ID: <"HGxA61.0.Lx1.3lRKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35729 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The NASA announcement to be broadcast at 11 AM ET tomorrow, June 29, 2000, is going to be in regard to finding underground water on Mars, located by identifying surface movements. See: and Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 01:22:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA19772; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:22:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:22:10 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39516BC1.1BDA2993 verisoft.com.tr> References: <39516BC1.1BDA2993 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:22:01 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Something Found on Mars? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"WGrRz2.0.sq4.noSKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35730 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi - >> (Rick) Believe to your eyes. :) I do believe them, but to make a determination of what I'm seeing, I'm apparently looking at more images and using more data than you guys are. ***Look at other images for comparison!*** - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 06:03:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA22572; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:02:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:02:38 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <39520E8A.4AFC1133 centurytel.net> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:03:06 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 References: <3951A591.20342B73 earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" Resent-Message-ID: <"Vn8-j.0.cW5.kvWKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35731 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich Murray wrote: Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 June 21 2000 ... For this loving, terrier mutt on a hundred videotaped sessions shows a robust, obvious effect, going from 4 % time at the window for the empty hours of his beloved's absence to 55 % time as soon as she randomly starts, miles away across scores of London streets, driving home. ... Hi Rich, My wife claims that, when approaching home, she shares thoughts with our beagle, Nuby, that he is expecting us. I generally laugh at her remarks -- I don't get any vibes -- but who knows. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 06:34:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02347; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:33:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:33:27 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000622093304.0079ecb0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:33:04 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"WKmn23.0.Xa.cMXKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35732 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: >The three pdf files from Focardi downloaded ok and unzipped ok, but they >wouldn't open. I've had this problem with zip files before. Huh? They were not zipped. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 06:50:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09092; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:49:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:49:28 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000622094902.007a38e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:49:02 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: More on electric bicycle performance In-Reply-To: <004d01bfdbc5$5958df20$8d9680d8 n8o9m1> References: <3.0.6.32.20000621131740.007a5820 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000621162127.007a6280 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"4qXXg3.0.-D2.dbXKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35733 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bill Wallace` wrote: >Huh? You must be confused Jed - It is not a golf cart - it is a recumbant >bicycle they claim is street legal. . . . Oops! I must have clicked wrong. I hit http://www.rhoadescar.com/4w4p-a.htm. That shows the four-wheeled pedal vehicle, which I got mixed up with the fuel cell bicycle. I still think it might be a good idea to consider licensing for the recumbant 4-wheel peddle vehicle. The one-person Rhoades car weighs 75 lbs. That's too much, I am afraid. My electric bicycle weighs a little more than that. When it ran out of power the other day and I had to peddle it up moderate hills, it was a struggle! The Rhoades car can go as slowly as you like, because it will not tip over at a walking pace, but I think it would be a lot of work to push it up a hill. Here is an interesting quote from an interview with Gary Starr, president of Zapworld.com, the electric bicycle and car maker. He spent many years developing electric cars: As Gary Starr likes to point out, put an electric motor and batteries in a car and you get something that still can't compete in range with its gasoline counterpart. But, put an electric motor and simple, inexpensive lead acid batteries on a bicycle and you actually improve the performance of the bike. That's from http://www.evworld.com/ - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 07:20:04 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA18520; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:19:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:19:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200006221419.KAA06439 mercury.mv.net> Subject: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:20:15 -0400 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"LxlOP2.0.DX4.Y1YKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35734 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A All, Check this out! http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg Any of you think this is geology or ordinary chemical reactions? Look at the circular zones converging on one another. Look at the preferential quality on the illuminated sides of the "dunes" -- look at the sharp margin with the plain area that has no such "blobs". This to me has all the hall marks of life... Closest thing to this would be green mold and cheese and we KNOW that Mars is not made of "green cheese," don't we? This may be a historic day. Makes the "water on Mars" story pale. Best, Gene Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Infinite Energy Magazine & New Energy Research Laboratory (NERL) Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com 603-228-4516 Phone 603-224-5975 Fax From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 07:22:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA20146; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:21:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:21:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200006221421.KAA07096 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:22:38 -0400 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"Bmf_p1.0.iw4.f3YKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35735 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Full credit to Ed Wall: He calls this the "Mars Dalmation." Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 09:30:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12333; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:29:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:29:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FAB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:26:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"ETiWR3.0.d03.KxZKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35736 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > [snip] > >> With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most >> common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, >> >You can suppose it, but I doubt that is the case, because lattice defects >seem to have a great deal of effect on the tritium output in the Los Alamos >experiment. ***{The phrase that follows "because" has no clear causal relation to the boron hypothesis. Thus the statement boils down to the following: "You can suppose it, but I doubt that is the case." Thus in the above, all you do is report on your state of mind. There is no scientific content in such statements. --MJ}*** This indicates defects, not boron impurities, are the dominate >factor. ***{Two points: (1) "Dominate" is a verb, not an adjective. The word you want here is "dominant." (2) Impurities--e.g., boron atoms sprinkled about in a Pd lattice--cause defects, so your conclusion does not follow even if your premise is true. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> in order for the CF reaction to occur, and that the reaction in question >> involves the fusion of a protoneutron with an atom of 5B11. The >> protoneutron, as old hands in this group will recall, is defined by a >> question--to wit: what happens if a proton meets an electron in a lattice >> location where there isn't enough room for it to orbit at the innermost >> Bohr radius? >> >After absorbing hydrogen, the metal hydrides I know of have an increased >number of defects. From that I'll conclude that if there is enough energy for >the recombination of nuclie and electron to deform the lattice, they can >deform the lattice and recombine. ***{That energy would have to be supplied by the lattice wave. There would have to be sufficient oscillation between adjacent atoms in the lattice to open up the space needed for the full-sized H atom to form. Such conditions would exist only at or near the anti-nodes of the lattice wave, and protoneutrons would not be able to exist there. On the other hand, at the nodes of the lattice waves, where crests meet troughs and cancel, that energy would *not* be available. It is in those locations that I propose that protoneutrons form. --MJ}*** > >> My hypothesis is that the electron spirals down to 'grazing >> altitude' above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable, neutral particle >> which I have labeled a *protoneutron* (pn). (Note: a protoneutron and a >> hydrino are *not* the same thing. The protoneutron is wildly unstable, >> while the hydrino is alleged to be stable.) The reaction, in that case, >> would be: >> >The quantum argument might allow for a particle to be wrapped as a >half wave around the nuclius, but it doesn't appear to be one of the >solutions to the hydrogen atom problem, so I doubt my intuition about >a half wave being possible is correct. ***{The permitted orbits, according to the mathematical framework originally established by Bohr, are integral multiples of the de Broglie wavelength--which means: there are no solutions below n = 1. However, whether or not such a state of affairs is significant depends on how we *interpret* the math. By Bohr's original "Copenhagen interpretation," particles in the microcosm literally did not exist except when they were in the "preferred" states. That meant, in the case of hydrogen, that an electron transiting from one orbit to another, or from the K-shell into the nucleus, simply vanished from its position at one location and reappeared in the other, without passing through the intervening space. Such a postulate is metaphysical nonsense, and impossible, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, and I'll not repeat that here. For present purposes, it is sufficient to merely note that there is an alternative, classical interpretation of the math: that orbits which are an integral multiple of the de Broglie wavelength are stable, whereas the other orbits are subject to destabilizing perturbations. (For a discussion of the causes of those perturbations, see my recent post to Ed Storms.) In other words, the preferred states may simply be stable states, and the non-preferred states may simply be unstable. If the math merely pertains to stable states, then, since the protoneutron is acknowledged to be an unstable state, there is no real conflict between the math and the protoneutron hypothesis. The only conflict is between the classical, deterministic interpretation of the math, and the QM interpretation. --MJ}*** > >I'll go with Kim's bose einstein condensate. > >> pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* (1 >> >> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.68 MeV (2 >> >Is that a 8.68 MeV gamma, or is it associated with the alpha particles? >If it is a gamma, Russ George would have found it. ***{It is kinetic energy of the alpha particles. No gammas are produced. --MJ}*** > >Another problem I have with boron; those other four electrons. I can see >how hydrogen's only electron can become smeared out due to the fermi >principle and thus leaving hydrogen and it's isotopes able to make a closer >approach. But Boron has 5 electrons, leaving a nice fat atom to keep >hydrogen nuclie at a distance. Hydrogen's going to grab one of those >electrons before it gets close enough to fuse. ***{We are talking about protoneutrons, not a naked hydrogen nucleus. The protoneutron already has an electron--orbiting at grazing altitude above its nucleus--and thus is electrically neutral and not in need of an electron. --MJ}*** > >> The above reactions get us past all the questions on my list, as follows: >> >> (1) Reaction number (1, above, is a nuclear fusion reaction. >> >> (2) The fusion occurs under what may be reasonably termed "cold" >> conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew >> experimenter. >> >> (3) The Coulomb repulsion that under normal conditions prevents fusion is >> not a problem here, since the protoneutron is a neutral particle. >> >> (4) Deadly neutron and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters >> because no neutrons or gammas are produced: reaction number (2, above, is a >> pure alpha decay, and alphas are benign, short range particles that will >> quickly dissipate their energy via collisions, producing heat in the >> lattice. >> >Humm. Since you have an electron going INTO the reaction, seems >to me they should also find a beta- particle being ejected, and there >should be a characteristic x-ray or gamma from that. George only >found the K (?) x-ray of palladium when he looked at x-rays. ***{Look at the original reaction: 1H1 + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV. Note that these are atoms, not nuclei. That means the hydrogen has 1 electron, the boron has 5 electrons, the intermediate carbon has 6 electrons, and the byproduct heliums each have 2 electrons. That's a total of 6 electrons at each step in the process, and the equation balances perfectly. There are no electrons left over. (If free electrons come into existence temporarily, at some stage in the process, there is always going to be a nucleus with the opposite charge present to snap them up.) And when the 1H1 has been shrank down to form a pn, the equation becomes pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV, and the same considerations apply. --MJ}*** > >> (5) The theory involves a heretofore unidentified key ingredient--i.e., >> 5B11--which in the past has undoubtedly sometimes been present in CF cells >> and sometimes not, thereby explaining the seemingly baffling inconsistency> >> in those results, and the parallel difficulties in replication.> >> >Russ George found .00438 moles of helium-4 in his vessel ***{Incorrect. On day 27, Russ George calculated that there were 5x10^16 atoms of 2He4 in his cell. [See *Cold Fusion Times*, vol. 7, no. 2, pg. 12.] Since a mole contains 6.02x10^23 atoms (Avogadro's number), it follows that he found (5x10^16)/(6.02x10^23) = 8.31x10^-8 moles--i.e., .0000000831 moles. That is 5 orders of magnitude less than you state, above. --MJ}*** and He-4 production >was still going at an increasing rate. That would come out to 1/3*0.00438 >moles * >~ 11 Grams/mole or 0.016 grams of boron fuel as a contaminate in his 10 grams >of .2 % (by weight) palladium, or 0.02 grams Pd. ***{Incorrect: it was .4% Pd by weight, not .2%, which means there were .04 grams of palladium in the 10 grams of catalyst. [Op. cit., pg. 11.] --MJ}*** Now, that boron contaminate can't be in the Pd, because you'd then have more boron than Pd and IIRC from >the fisher catalog, that Pd is suppose to be 4 nines pure. > >Doesn't look good to me for the Boron idea. ***{Two points: (1) "Contaminate" is a verb, not a noun. The word you want here is "contaminant." (2) Since Russ George calculated that there were 5x10^16 atoms of 2He4 in his cell on day 27, that means at least (5x10^16)/3 = 1.667x10^16 atoms of 5B11 had to be present as contaminants in the cell from the beginning, assuming all of the helium was produced by the boron fusion reaction. Since 11 grams (i.e., a mole) of 5B11 contains 6.02x10^23 atoms, it follows that [(1.667x10^16)/(6.02x10^23)](11) = 3x10^-7 grams of boron were required. If the boron were the only contaminant in the .04 grams of Pd, then the purity would be (.04 - 3x10^-7)/.04 = .9999924--which is five nines pure, not four. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> (6) The theory makes use of *instability*--i.e., wildly unstable >> protoneutrons--in order to explain why CF was not discovered long ago. >> >I don't see how that would make it undiscovered until recently. ***{As I explained in vast detail in a post to Ed Storms, if such agents were stable, then (a) we would be up to our armpits in them, and (b) since they would induce nuclear reactions, we would be constantly bathed by lethal radiation, and would all be dead. Thus if CF is real, the agent that gives rise to it *cannot* be stable. --MJ}*** > >> The above, of course, is a mere hypothesis. Until people test it by >> deliberately placing 5B11 in their electrolytes, in their cathodes, in the >> catalyst of a Case type cell, etc., I will have no way of knowing whether >> it is the missing key ingredient or not. >> >I think it can be ruled out based on the data already available. ***{Not based on anything you said above. --MJ}*** > >> Whether it is or isn't, something like the above has to be what is >> happening, assuming that if CF is real. >> >> >> >> --Mitchell Jones ***{P.S. I normally ignore grammatical errors when I post. However, you have misused verbs such as "contaminate" and "dominate" literally hundreds of times, first on sci.physics.fusion, and now here. Result: I decided to make an exception in this case. No offense is intended, and I would encourage others in this group to begin mentioning such errors, when they see them repeated often enough to be sure they are not merely due to insufficient editing. There is no reason why the learning process in a group such as this must be restricted to science. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 09:50:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20770; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:41:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:41:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000622113823.013815ec earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:38:23 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "VORTEX" From: Scott Little Subject: Re: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! In-Reply-To: <200006221419.KAA06439 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"NUUSI1.0.Q45.F7aKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35737 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:20 AM 6/22/00 -0400, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg That is incredible! It is instructive to look at: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0306104.html which shows a zoomed out view that reveals that the sand dunes appear to be windswept collections in the bottom of the crater. Note that the neighboring crater has a similar dune in it located congruently. This suggests a prevailing wind that has driven the dune building process. Yes, the black spots like exactly like living colonies of something that has rooted on the sand. They're pretty big, as much as 50 meters across. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.earthtech.org Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little earthtech.org (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 10:06:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32275; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:01:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:01:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006221419.KAA06439 mercury.mv.net> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:51:38 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"UFrxM1.0.8u7.IPaKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35738 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >All, > >Check this out! > > >http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg > >Any of you think this is geology or ordinary chemical reactions? Look at >the circular zones converging on one another. Look at the preferential >quality on the illuminated sides of the "dunes" -- look at the sharp >margin with the plain area that has no such "blobs". This to me has all >the hall marks of life... Closest thing to this would be green mold and >cheese and we KNOW that Mars is not made of "green cheese," don't we? > >This may be a historic day. Makes the "water on Mars" story pale. ***{Yep. My "best guess" in an earlier post has been smashingly vindicated! The damn thing is a gigantic succulent--an enormous, slow-growing, water-conserving, cactus-like plant, adapted to the dry Martian conditions. The spots we see scattered about on the ridges are common on cacti here on Earth, as any cactus aficionado is aware. And it is growing in a ravine for obvious reasons: more water, and less wind to dry it out. Moreover, the enormous size is logical: surface area increases as the square of the radius, while volume increases as the cube, giving an advantage to large life forms in cold, dry climates. This is smoking gun proof not merely of life on Mars, but of gigantic life forms! And where there are plants this size, will there not also be animals? I'll bet there are! By the way, I suggest that everyone copy these images and store them in a safe place, before they disappear off of these government websites for "national security reasons." --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Best, Gene > >Dr. Eugene F. Mallove >Infinite Energy Magazine & >New Energy Research Laboratory (NERL) >Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. >P.O. Box 2816 >Concord, NH 03302-2816 > >editor infinite-energy.com >www.infinite-energy.com > >603-228-4516 Phone >603-224-5975 Fax From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 10:47:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10803; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:38:05 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"V_o601.0.je2.kyaKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35739 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: note: FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser delay in the result, but still effect happens after cause. Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 10:59:52 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA27617; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:58:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:58:02 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:56:27 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Location of Gene's and Ed's Image? Resent-Message-ID: <"l_Cjh3.0.Rl6.fEbKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35740 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To Gene Mallove or Ed Wall: I am trying to find the generalized region on Mars where the image M0306104.jpg was located. My starting point is the overview map at http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/narrowangles.html. By clicking on one of the subordinate regions of that photo, a blow-up of that region appears, and on the blow-up photo, there are various regions demarcated in blue. Placing the mouse pointer on a blue area gives a URL where a high-res photo of that area is to be found. My question is: where is the blue area that, if I click on it, will give me the M0306104.jpg photo? Thanks in advance. --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 11:12:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02904; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:10:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:10:52 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:09:32 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Resent-Message-ID: <"iT4NM2.0.Dj.hQbKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35741 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >note: > >FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser delay >in the result, but still effect happens after cause. ***{Absolutely correct. --MJ}*** > > >Merlyn >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 11:29:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA09712; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:28:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:28:01 -0700 Message-ID: <00ca01bfdc77$08493e60$a2637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: Subject: Re: Location of Gene's and Ed's Image? Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:23:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"HuuYi1.0.bN2.ngbKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35742 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry, Mitchell, I can't even get the site to open the central image. My guess is that they are experiencing some heavy traffic. Ed Wall ----- Original Message ----- From: Mitchell Jones To: Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 1:56 PM Subject: Location of Gene's and Ed's Image? > To Gene Mallove or Ed Wall: > > I am trying to find the generalized region on Mars where the image > M0306104.jpg was located. My starting point is the overview map at > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/narrowangles.html. By clicking on one of > the subordinate regions of that photo, a blow-up of that region appears, > and on the blow-up photo, there are various regions demarcated in blue. > Placing the mouse pointer on a blue area gives a URL where a high-res photo > of that area is to be found. My question is: where is the blue area that, > if I click on it, will give me the M0306104.jpg photo? > > Thanks in advance. > > --Mitchell Jones > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 11:57:05 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24138; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00ca01bfdc77$08493e60$a2637dc7 computer> References: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:42:29 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Location of Gene's and Ed's Image? Resent-Message-ID: <"vIIdy2.0.1v5.CwbKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35743 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Sorry, Mitchell, I can't even get the site to open the central image. My >guess is that they are experiencing some heavy traffic. > >Ed Wall ***{No surprise there: this is the discovery of the century, if not the millennium. By the way: thinking about the enormous, cactus-like plant that the image seems to indicate, and drawing parallels to existing cacti, I would imagine that the outer shell of the thing is enormously strong, and that within it there are vast open passages, with chambers tens or hundreds of meters across. I would also guess that the structure is held up by air pressure generated by metabolic reactions that take place within it. For all we can know, the pressure may be close to 1 atm, and there may be a vast community of other life forms, including many species of plants and animals, living within it. Nor can the possibility that one of those life forms is an intelligent species be discounted. The mind reels at the implications! --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 12:08:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26078; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: playing with diamagnet maglev Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FizNA2.0.JN6.s6cKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35744 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hey, check out M. Lamb's cool page on passive diamagnetic levitation: http://users2.50megs.com/diamagnetics/ Maglev-based Seismograph http://users2.50megs.com/diamagnetics/page014.html John Lahr's page http://www.lahr.org/john-jan/physics/maglev/magnet.html Scitoys: maglev http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/suspension.html ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 12:32:09 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA02674; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:26:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:26:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:32:07 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics In-Reply-To: <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iW95B3.0.hf.sXcKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35745 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I agree with the note below ... FTL just means a shorter time from a to b ... and maybe some better understanding of events. On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Adam Cox wrote: > note: > > FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser delay > in the result, but still effect happens after cause. > > > Merlyn > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 12:42:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09484; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:39:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:39:33 -0700 Message-ID: <012801bfdc81$8145f240$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:38:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"LYoRP2.0.6K2.qjcKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35746 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Cox To: Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 10:38 AM Subject: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical > note: > > FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser delay > in the result, but still effect happens after cause. What do you base this on? Theory? Experimental results? I can find no experimental results that conflict with relativity. If you know of one, I'd like to hear about it. Current theory, for which no experiment has refuted thus far, says: x'=gamma*(x-v*t) and t'=gamma*(t-v*x/c^2) Where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) first note the disaster when v = c, you get gamma -> infinity (undefined) and your x' -> infinity, and t' -> infinity. What's happened is that the x in the original frame has disappeared. You've just left the universe (which is good, because it just expired before you got to c anyway...), and are thus unphysical. If you abuse the equations even more, and let v > c, gamma become imaginary. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 12:51:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14074; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:44:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:44:53 -0700 Message-ID: <012f01bfdc82$40779060$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:43:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"hJ-jt2.0.pR3.qocKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35747 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Mitchell Jones To: Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 9:26 AM Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > [snip] > > > >> With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the most > >> common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an impurity, > >> > >You can suppose it, but I doubt that is the case, because lattice defects > >seem to have a great deal of effect on the tritium output in the Los Alamos > >experiment. > > ***{The phrase that follows "because" has no clear causal relation to the > boron hypothesis. Thus the statement boils down to the following: "You can > suppose it, but I doubt that is the case." Thus in the above, all you do is > report on your state of mind. There is no scientific content in such > statements. --MJ}*** > > This indicates defects, not boron impurities, are the dominate > >factor. > > ***{Two points: > > (1) "Dominate" is a verb, not an adjective. The word you want here is > "dominant." Oh, I didn't realize we were playing the same game as on sci.physics.fusion. Well, good for you. Do correct my English. It is, after all, what matters. You're physics is all wrong. I'll discuss physics with those that want to discuss physics and not English. And you need to give up the idea of "orbitals" as a discrete path that the electron follows. That just isn't QM. I can understand your objections to quantum if it is characterized by such misconceptions. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 13:22:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27205; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:18:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:18:55 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000622113823.013815ec earthtech.org> References: <3.0.1.32.20000622113823.013815ec earthtech.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:16:26 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"dB3gF3.0.we6.lIdKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35748 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:38 AM -0500 6/22/00, Scott Little wrote: >Yes, the black spots like exactly like living colonies of something that >has rooted on the sand. They're pretty big, as much as 50 meters across. I suppose I'd be out of place here suggesting that the dark areas are different from the light areas because the highly reflective ice/CO2-whatever frost has sublimated away from the dark material that the soil there is actually made of? The polygon structures common in the upper part of the photo are evidence of permafrost. This is also apparent in the "conifer forests" where highly reflective ice crystals have disappeared and left darker material uncovered beneath in windswept triangles behind protruding structures of rock and soil. Another thing, these photos are processed to bring out detail in images that are all almost white to make visible the differences in that near-whate range of pixel values. So anything in the lower range is going to drop off to black. Those spots might not really be as dark as they appear, that is, as close to originally black pixels as they are now. I'd wonder if they really aren't discolorations from microbial activity though. But I think we can as a practical matter rule out gigantic hard-shelled intelligent cactus! Wow, what an imagination some of you have. No more Star Trek for you, Mitchell! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 13:35:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01273; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:30:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:30:41 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39518FBC.50642C58 ix.netcom.com> References: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:28:27 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"lz0fy2.0.pJ.nTdKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35749 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> >> > >> >Implied but not explained unless the theory contains the necessary >>mechanism. >> >Overcoming the Coulomb barrier and getting rid of the energy are two >>separate >> >processes. The more successful explanations have these two processes as >> >natural >> >parts of the basic process. >> >> ***{It pretty much follows from the equation, does it not? After all, given >> the validity of 1H1 + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV, it seems clear >> that if we can shrink the 1H1 down into a neutral protoneutron (pn), then >> the equation becomes pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV. Since, in >> the latter case, there is no Coulomb barrier to be overcome, it seems clear >> that the reaction ought to go. Thus the only remaining issue would seem to >> be experimental rather than theoretical. Someone simply needs to play >> around with 5B11, to see if its presence inside an active lattice or as a >> surface contaminant is capable of enhancing the yield of the CF reaction. >> And the person who does that needs, obviously, to be someone who already >> has the capability to produce CF on demand, or at least with good >> reliability. Do you know anyone like that? :-) --MJ}*** > >We do not seem to be communicating here. The problem I'm discussing involves >coupling the nuclear energy to the lattice. When a "normal" nuclear >reaction of >the type you propose occurs, the energy is proportioned between the three He >atoms. As a result, 2.9 MeV alpha particles would be produced. As these >particles are slowed down by the surrounding atoms, many electrons would >be raised >to a higher energy state and these would give off X-rays as they returned >to their >normal energy states. Such X-rays are not normally detected. Therefore, >one has >to assume that the energy goes into many atoms rather than just a few, thereby >preventing the expected X-rays. How does this process work in your model? ***{As I explained to you earlier, protoneutrons can form and exist only at the nodes of the lattice wave, which, clearly, *cannot* be at the surface of the metal. Thus the alphas are emitted internally, and any x-rays they produce are contained within the lattice. (X-rays do not penetrate metals very well, as you can observe by looking at a few medical x-rays, where any metallic objects show up as completely black on the film.) --MJ}*** > >> > >> >I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part of "cold >> >fusion". >> >> ***{No one? I do. Am I not a person? :-) Seriously, I am very aware that >> Mills has taken steps to distance himself from "cold fusion," for rather >> obvious reasons. However, if you look closely at his theory, the connection >> is rather obvious: the maximally shrunken hydrinos would be virtually >> electrically neutral, due to the close proximity between their positive and >> negative charges, and, as a result, would behave very much like >> protoneutrons--which means: if "hydrinos" exist, then they are capable of >> inducing "cold fusion." --MJ}*** > >That is an assumption not consistent with experimental observation. ***{It is if you believe, as I do, that hydrinos do not exist. --MJ}*** If hydrinos >were being made, some of the measured energy would result from their >formation. ***{True. As the electron dropped to a fractional orbit, it would emit energy in some form--as phonons, according to Mills. --MJ}*** >Only a small fraction of these hydrinos would produce a nuclear reaction. ***{Maximally shrunken hydrinos, if they were possible, would be neutral particles and would behave like neutrons: they would slip through the Coulomb barrier and into a nucleus with ease, inducing myriad nuclear reactions. Since the universe is mostly hydrogen, it follows that we ought to be up to our armpits in maximally shrunken hydrinos, if they existed, and so we ought to be bathed in the lethal radiation which they would produce. Since we aren't, I conclude that they do not exist. --MJ}*** >According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not >react with >oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino concentrations >in the >gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. ***{This doesn't follow: even normal hydrogen is small enough to diffuse through the walls of any container, however constructed, and maximally shrunken hydrinos, like neutrons, would pass through the walls of a container as if it literally did not exist. --MJ}*** Such a >pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. ***{It wouldn't be expected even if hydrinos existed, and is doubly not to be expected, since they don't exist. :-) --MJ}*** > >> >> > >> >Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact >>with the >> >nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. >> >> ***{If he said otherwise, then he would be tarred with the "cold fusion" >> brush, now wouldn't he? :-) --MJ}*** > >Good point. In addition, he would have to explain the experimental facts >as noted >above. > >> >> ***{I went into vast detail about such things literally *years* ago. The >> basic idea is that proton meets electron *inside* the lattice, at a >> location that is too cramped to permit the electron to orbit at the >> innermost Bohr radius. >> >> In the case of unloaded palladium, those conditions are never met, because >> there is enough space in the octagonal unit cells for the electron to orbit >> at the n = 1 radius. Once a neutral H or D forms there, the fit is snug, >> but possible. All that would happen would be that the lattice would expand >> slightly at that location, due to the repulsion between the electron shell >> of the H or D and that of the six Pd outer shells that are virtually >> touching it. Thus as palladium is loaded, the lattice should expand a bit, >> but until high loading is achieved, the probability would be high that >> protons would meet electrons in unloaded cells, and, thus few protoneutrons >> would be formed. However, at high levels of loading, the likelihood is >> great that protons entering the lattice will meet electrons within cells >> that have already been loaded. In that case, there will be insufficient >> room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius, and it will >> spiral down to grazing level above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable >> protoneutron. Bottom line: at high levels of loading, lots of protoneutrons >> should be created in the lattice. > >But why would a hydrogen atom even enter the lattice in the first place if >there >were insufficient room? To do so would require extra energy. Where does this >energy come from in an electrolytic cell? After all, it is hard enough to >get a >normal hydrogen to enter the lattice at high loading. ***{Not a hydrogen atom: a proton--that is, a hydrogen atom that has lost its outer electron. Protons are small enough to easily pass into the lattice, even though neutral hydrogen atoms are not. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> Unfortunately, the only way protoneutrons can accumulate in the lattice is >> if there are cold spots--locations where thermal activity is essentially >> zero. (If the protoneutrons are moving at velocities typical of thermal >> neutrons, they will quickly exit the lattice. Once outside, they will >> acquire enough energy for the electrons to boost up to the ground state >> radius, and the protoneutrons will cease to exist.) The question, >> therefore, is whether there are cold spots in the lattice. To get at the >> answer, recall the old experiment from high school physics, where the >> instructor spread black grains of sand evenly on the white surface of a >> horizontal drumhead, and gave it a thump. What happened was that the >> particles settled into the nodes of the wave pattern on the drumhead, where >> they thereafter remained essentially undisturbed, as the instructor >> continued to give the drum additional whacks. Now, since thermal motion in >> a crystal lattice is not random, but instead takes the form of synchronized >> dancing known as "the lattice wave," and since the lattice wave, like waves >> on the surface of a drumhead, is going to have nodes, it follows that it >> should be possible for protoneutrons to accumulate in the nodes of the >> lattice wave, just as the grains of sand accumulate in nodes on the >> drumhead. Under those conditions, they would *not* be thermalized, and, >> hence, would remain in confined conditions long enough to have a chance to >> react with a nearby nucleus. > >An interesting idea. On the other hand, regions also exist on the >drumhead having >very high energy. Other people have been exploring just what this extra >energy >might do. ***{Such regions cannot be the site of the action, unless the protoneutron theory is wrong--which, of course, is yet to be determined. So far, it's just a hypothesis. --MJ}*** > >> >> Result: the question becomes one of *what* nucleus. Reflecting on that, we >> quickly reach the conclusion that the fewer the number of electron shells, >> the better, since the chance of a protoneutron reaching a neighboring >> nucleus will increase as the number of shells through which it must pass >> decreases. On the other hand, its chance will increase as the size of the >> target nucleus increases. Thus, taking both of these considerations into >> account, it seems plausible to me that there may be an optimal, or >> preferred, target nucleus and that lattice impurities which are known to >> produce pure alpha or beta- decays upon neutron absorption--e.g., >> 5B11--ought to be systematically investigated. >> >> --Mitchell Jones}*** > >If this is the case, why choose boron over lithium? After all, d + Li6 = >2 He is >a known reaction with no harmful radiation and lithium is always present. ***{I have no particular preference for boron over lithium. The boron hypothesis is just one idea. Any reaction having the required properties needs to be carefully investigated. --MJ}*** > >> >> Then J. Dufour in France started to see some strange phenomenon >> >in his gas discharge apparatus which gave the idea more substance. In his >> >papers, >> >he took to calling the shrunken hydrogen a hydrex. Now he believes the >>hydrex >> >does not cause fusion, but a process whereby many of these particles become >> >attached to a large nucleus, such as palladium, by dipole interaction and >> >cause >> >alpha particles to be emitted. >> >> ***{Thus it is a different theory than the protoneutron theory. --MJ}*** > >Yes, but both models use the same raw material, i.e. a shrunken hydrogen. ***{Agreed, but I think that we should try to concentrate on models that are without obviousl logical flaws. The hydrex just sounds to me like another stable agent, analogous to "light leptons" and "hydrinos," and invalid for the same basic reasons: if such an agent were real, we would all be dead. --MJ}*** > >> > >> >Palladium has been made containing a wide range of boron content. This >> >study was >> >done not only to explore boron as being involved in the nuclear reaction, >> >but also >> >to change the properties of palladium. These studies show no clear >> >relationship >> >between the ability to produce the effect and the boron content, although >> >some of >> >the batches had a higher success rate than other ones. >> >> ***{Were these studies done by people who had a demonstrated ability to >> produce the CF effect, and who were highly motivated to investigate 5B11 in >> a persistent, exhaustive way? Or were these studies conducted by people who >> were pretty much stabbing in the dark, and hence unlikely to persist? >> --MJ}*** > >They were done by people who have seen EP produced by various samples and >knew the >boron content of those samples. The amount of EP did not correlate to the >amount >of boron present. However, boron containing Pd showed a more frequent >production >of EP than did very pure samples. Because of the effect of impurities, >including >boron, on the ability of Pd to retain D, it is very difficult to separate the >variables no matter how well done the work may be. > >> >> ***{The results you are describing do not suggest to me that the >> researchers were motivated to persistently check out the boron hypothesis, >> and, thus, their negative results do not carry much weight with me. I would >> repeat my earlier suggestion: various fusion reactions that produce nothing >> but alphas or beta- particles need to be deliberately, systematically, and >> persistently investigated. In other words, use the known fact that these >> excess heat reactions do not produce large gamma or neutron fluxes, to >> narrow the focus of the investigation. What we need to do is look at >> possible contaminants that have a hydrogen fusion reaction that does not >> emit dangerous radiation. To that end, the 5B11 reaction is only one >> example, albeit a particularly intriguing one. --MJ}*** > >This is certainly one possible way to examine the problem. However, >another way >also exists. The gamma that results from "hot" fusion, i.e. d + d = He >results >because another particle is required to carry away the momentum. Such >particles >are not present in a low density plasma. Suppose, however, the reaction could >involve more than one d in a high density lattice, i.e. d+d+d = 3Li6*= He >+ d so >that the momentum could be shared between the He and another d. No gamma >would be >necessary and the energy would result only in X-rays. Some experimental >evidence >does seem to support this idea. ***{That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the vanishingly low cross section of a 3-body reaction. Such a hypothesis needs a mechanism to get around that difficulty. Here is my suggestion: dn + dn + dn --> 3Li6* --> 2He4 + 1H2. Note: the "dn" symbolizes the type of protoneutron that forms when a bare deuterium nucleus meets an electron in a lattice location where there isn't enough room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius. Like the more ordinary type of protoneutron, the dn is a wildly unstable, neutral particle. Hence, it would have a high enough cross section to get past the low probability which a 3 body reaction entails. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 13:35:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01583; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:31:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:31:20 -0700 Message-ID: <013401bfdc83$3c4a6c00$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:50:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"G81mP3.0.fO.OUdKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35750 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You have no theory that predicts this, except one that was proven to not predict experimental results. You have no experiment to point to that even hints at this. Releativity explains all the things that could not be explained with Newtonian mechanics like Maxwell's equations, which do not follow the Galilean transformation; and the consistancy of the speed of light.. While the relativity theory has been tested and shown to be an accurate predictor time and time again. So why do you say it? ----- Original Message ----- From: John Schnurer To: Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:32 PM Subject: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics > > > I agree with the note below ... FTL just means a shorter time > from a to b ... and maybe some better understanding of events. > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Adam Cox wrote: > > > note: > > > > FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser delay > > in the result, but still effect happens after cause. > > > > > > Merlyn > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 13:57:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11197; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:53:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:53:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <012f01bfdc82$40779060$0601a8c0 federation> References: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:40:15 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"19SwH2.0.nk2.JpdKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35751 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mitchell Jones >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 9:26 AM >Subject: RE: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > >> > [snip] >> > >> >> With the above considerations in mind, let us suppose that 5B11--the >most >> >> common isotope of Boron--must be present in the Pd lattice as an >impurity, >> >> >> >You can suppose it, but I doubt that is the case, because lattice defects >> >seem to have a great deal of effect on the tritium output in the Los >Alamos >> >experiment. >> >> ***{The phrase that follows "because" has no clear causal relation to the >> boron hypothesis. Thus the statement boils down to the following: "You can >> suppose it, but I doubt that is the case." Thus in the above, all you do >is >> report on your state of mind. There is no scientific content in such >> statements. --MJ}*** >> >> This indicates defects, not boron impurities, are the dominate >> >factor. >> >> ***{Two points: >> >> (1) "Dominate" is a verb, not an adjective. The word you want here is >> "dominant." > >Oh, I didn't realize we were playing the same game as on sci.physics.fusion. > >Well, good for you. > >Do correct my English. It is, after all, what matters. ***{As I said, no offense was intended. I simply got tired of looking at the same mistake, over and over and over again, and decided to point it out to you. In the future, if you make the same error, you will hear not a peep out of me, because it will be apparent to me that you are doing it deliberately. --MJ}*** > >You're physics is all wrong. I'll discuss physics with those that want to >discuss physics and not English. > >And you need to give up the idea of "orbitals" as a discrete path that the >electron follows. That just isn't QM. ***{Did I say it was QM? I despise QM. Is that clear enough? --MJ}*** I can understand your objections >to quantum if it is characterized by such misconceptions. ***{I'm sure we will have ample opportunity to discuss my "misconceptions," since they are going to be "in your face" whenever I have anything to say about such topics. I make no bones about my loathing for the "Copenhagen interpretation" and its modern variants, and you are welcome to attack my views on the subject--or my grammar, for that matter--whenever the urge strikes you. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 13:59:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11259; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:53:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:53:44 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000622113823.013815ec earthtech.org> <3.0.1.32.20000622113823.013815ec earthtech.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:51:11 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"CqvR8.0.ol2.OpdKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35752 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 11:38 AM -0500 6/22/00, Scott Little wrote: > >>Yes, the black spots like exactly like living colonies of something that >>has rooted on the sand. They're pretty big, as much as 50 meters across. > >I suppose I'd be out of place here suggesting that the dark areas are >different from the light areas because the highly reflective >ice/CO2-whatever frost has sublimated away from the dark material >that the soil there is actually made of? The polygon structures >common in the upper part of the photo are evidence of permafrost. >This is also apparent in the "conifer forests" where highly >reflective ice crystals have disappeared and left darker material >uncovered beneath in windswept triangles behind protruding structures >of rock and soil. > >Another thing, these photos are processed to bring out detail in >images that are all almost white to make visible the differences in >that near-whate range of pixel values. So anything in the lower range >is going to drop off to black. Those spots might not really be as >dark as they appear, that is, as close to originally black pixels as >they are now. > >I'd wonder if they really aren't discolorations from microbial >activity though. But I think we can as a practical matter rule out >gigantic hard-shelled intelligent cactus! ***{I didn't say it was intelligent, Rick. --MJ}*** Wow, what an imagination >some of you have. No more Star Trek for you, Mitchell! ***{On a low gravity world where there is abundant life, what will be the direction of evolution, if the atmosphere gradually bleeds off over billions of years? Under such circumstances, the world will gradually become a desert, and cacti will have the advantage, in natural selection terms. And, since surface area increases as the square of the radius, while volume increases as the cube, the larger cacti will have the advantage, in terms of their ability to hold on to their water. Over eons, natural selection will favor them. It will be survival of the fittest, and they, being the fittest, will be what survives. Moreover, as the air becomes thinner and thinner, and the planet becomes colder and colder, other life forms--animals and smaller plants--will survive only if they move *inside* the gigantic cacti. The result, I think, is what you see in the Mars photo that Gene Mallove posted. Mars is *not* a dead world. Rather: it is a world in which the entire ecosystem lives inside gigantic cacti, which are crudely apparent on the photo, in my opinion. --MJ}*** > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 14:19:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA23077; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:05 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:17:52 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: No life on Mars, eh? Look at this!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"L6gYv.0.Ve5.H9eKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35753 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For those who can not get to the photos I can send you copy (if there are not too many requests.) I have saved them on my hard drive. However, if you keep trying you eventually get in to the web server like I just did. My first thought when I saw it was that it might be lichen, as supposed decades ago. However, upon looking at the wide angle photo it appeared to me that the center of the crater appears to be volcanic (or similar to volcanic) in nature. Possibly a meteor pierced the crust down to an underground reservoir of some material, possibly water, or some mixture. The central mount in the subject crater appears much more broad than those in neighboring craters, suggesting possible growth of the central mount after initial formation. Also, if you look closely at the top of the central mount you can see what may pass as a flue. The rippled mottled stuff that is the subject of discussion appears to have issued from the flue and flowed down the sides of the central mount. It is also possible the black areas are formed from fast cooling ejecta that fell on the "magma like substance" near the flue and then drifted down the sides of the central mount along with the magma like substance. The rippling effect that looks like dunes is more easily interpreted as magma ripples when you see that they lie on what may be a fairly steep slope. It is of interest that the suggested substance can not be ice, but might have been a water soluble substance that solidified upon the evaporation of its water constituant, or possibly gelled or crystalized upon cooling. It may be a substance like silica gell. Well, there is another interpretation in the hat! Any more guesses? 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 14:42:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01291; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:41:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:41:13 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:41:04 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: VORTEX cc: sciclub-list eskimo.com Subject: Martian diffusion-crystals? In-Reply-To: <200006221419.KAA06439 mercury.mv.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DXmZ-1.0.1K.vVeKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35754 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > All, > > Check this out! > > > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg > (Mars water image) WOW! Note for those of us on slow connections: the important part is at the very bottom of this enormous image. > Any of you think this is geology or ordinary chemical reactions? Look at > the circular zones converging on one another. Could be chemistry: there's a science-toy where you grow crystals suspended in a tube of gel. The crystals appear as spherical blotches, and the pattern looks very much like this "dalmation" photo. It's similar to some of the patterns you get when doing simple chromotography. Important point: the gel forces the crystallization to operate in "diffusion mode" rather than in "density current mode," and the result looks more like snowflakes than like large polyhedra. If the Mars photo depicts a region of sand that was briefly flooded in the past, then we might expect that the water would dissolve any soluble minerals... and the minerals would recrystallize as the sand dried out. If this happened quickly, the resulting crystals would be as uniform as the sand. But if it happened extremely slowly, there would be time for the solute to diffuse across many meters distance of wet sand, and if crystals started growing in one spot, they would exhaust the solute around themselves, leaving clear zones which separate the patches of crystals. So, is Mars covered with a combination of sand and colored salt? Just add water, and weird patterns appear! > Look at the preferential > quality on the illuminated sides of the "dunes" -- look at the sharp > margin with the plain area that has no such "blobs". As I understand the diffusion crystallization process, the rule is this: the faster the crystal growth, the smaller and more numerous the blotches of crystals. The tops of the dunes would dry out faster, so the blotches there should be small and numerous. That also explains the smaller blotches at the edge of the "wet" region. If the pattern is caused by crystals, then it suggests that sand dried out very slowly. If the sand is many meters thick, it makes sense that the drying would be very slow, no? Another point: the dunes only appear in the "wet zone". This suggests that the whole landscape is sand, but it was baked into a hard crust, and the water was able to dissolve the "glue" which trapped the sand particles. Maybe the presence of blotches and the presence of dunes are connected? Also: the dunes must be "stuck", otherwise they would disrupt the blotches as they slowly marched along over the landscape. Ah, but as the sand dried out, essentially a crust of salt would form again, locking the particles in place. Those dunes today might resemble something like concrete sculptures, like a frozen moment in the life of a sand dune. This would explain why there are no dunes downwind. Outside of the "wet" area, the sand would remain dry and powdery forever, and would have blown away long ago. Also: if Martian sand is full of soluble stuff that behaves this way, it suggests that Mars hasn't seen rain in quite a while. These blotches wouldn't appear on Earth dunes, since the soluble minerals would long ago have been washed into the oceans. I wonder what color those blotches might be? Copper salts? Iron? Earth oceans are colored by dissolved minerals. Would the red sands of Mars lead to red oceans of Mars (or at least some red ponds which soak into the sand and leave blotches?) If somebody was to mix up a combination of white sand and colored salt solution (copper chloride or something), spread it in a tray and then allow it to dry very slowly (with controlled humidity), maybe similar blotches would form within a few days. Maybe try sculpting the sand into humps, and see if smaller blotches form at the peaks. Sell it as a science toy, while interest remains high! ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 15:56:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA30063; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:54:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:54:27 -0700 Message-ID: <39529A24.C3B6C55F ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:58:52 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"shYpq3.0.dL7.ZafKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35756 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > >Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >> > >> > > >> >Implied but not explained unless the theory contains the necessary > >>mechanism. > >> >Overcoming the Coulomb barrier and getting rid of the energy are two > >>separate > >> >processes. The more successful explanations have these two processes as > >> >natural > >> >parts of the basic process. > >> > >> ***{It pretty much follows from the equation, does it not? After all, given > >> the validity of 1H1 + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV, it seems clear > >> that if we can shrink the 1H1 down into a neutral protoneutron (pn), then > >> the equation becomes pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV. Since, in > >> the latter case, there is no Coulomb barrier to be overcome, it seems clear > >> that the reaction ought to go. Thus the only remaining issue would seem to > >> be experimental rather than theoretical. Someone simply needs to play > >> around with 5B11, to see if its presence inside an active lattice or as a > >> surface contaminant is capable of enhancing the yield of the CF reaction. > >> And the person who does that needs, obviously, to be someone who already > >> has the capability to produce CF on demand, or at least with good > >> reliability. Do you know anyone like that? :-) --MJ}*** > > > >We do not seem to be communicating here. The problem I'm discussing involves > >coupling the nuclear energy to the lattice. When a "normal" nuclear > >reaction of > >the type you propose occurs, the energy is proportioned between the three He > >atoms. As a result, 2.9 MeV alpha particles would be produced. As these > >particles are slowed down by the surrounding atoms, many electrons would > >be raised > >to a higher energy state and these would give off X-rays as they returned > >to their > >normal energy states. Such X-rays are not normally detected. Therefore, > >one has > >to assume that the energy goes into many atoms rather than just a few, thereby > >preventing the expected X-rays. How does this process work in your model? > > ***{As I explained to you earlier, protoneutrons can form and exist only at > the nodes of the lattice wave, which, clearly, *cannot* be at the surface > of the metal. Thus the alphas are emitted internally, and any x-rays they > produce are contained within the lattice. (X-rays do not penetrate metals > very well, as you can observe by looking at a few medical x-rays, where any > metallic objects show up as completely black on the film.) --MJ}*** Granted, most of the X-rays would be absorbed. However, when watts of EP are being produced, we would have one Hell of an X-ray source. Some of this radiation, especially that which was formed near the surface should be detectable. On the other hand, people have occasionally detected X-rays when film was placed within the cell. This would be consistent with your explanation. > > > >> > > >> >I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part of "cold > >> >fusion". > >> > >> ***{No one? I do. Am I not a person? :-) Seriously, I am very aware that > >> Mills has taken steps to distance himself from "cold fusion," for rather > >> obvious reasons. However, if you look closely at his theory, the connection > >> is rather obvious: the maximally shrunken hydrinos would be virtually > >> electrically neutral, due to the close proximity between their positive and > >> negative charges, and, as a result, would behave very much like > >> protoneutrons--which means: if "hydrinos" exist, then they are capable of > >> inducing "cold fusion." --MJ}*** > > > >That is an assumption not consistent with experimental observation. > > ***{It is if you believe, as I do, that hydrinos do not exist. --MJ}*** I suggest that hydrinos may exist, but they do not necessarily have to cause nuclear reactions. That is the assumption I was referring to. > > > If hydrinos > >were being made, some of the measured energy would result from their > >formation. > > ***{True. As the electron dropped to a fractional orbit, it would emit > energy in some form--as phonons, according to Mills. --MJ}*** > > >Only a small fraction of these hydrinos would produce a nuclear reaction. > > ***{Maximally shrunken hydrinos, if they were possible, would be neutral > particles and would behave like neutrons: they would slip through the > Coulomb barrier and into a nucleus with ease, inducing myriad nuclear > reactions. Since the universe is mostly hydrogen, it follows that we ought > to be up to our armpits in maximally shrunken hydrinos, if they existed, > and so we ought to be bathed in the lethal radiation which they would > produce. Since we aren't, I conclude that they do not exist. --MJ}*** I suppose you realize that this logic is not correct and I assume you are throwing this out for the sake of discussion. First of all, you assume hydrinos would behave like neutrons. Then you assume their entry into a nuclear reaction can occur under any common condition. Even neutrons do not interact with every atom they might encounter. A cross-section for such reactions exists as well as a probability function. Consequently, you could just as well conclude that hydrinos exist, but the cross-section for a nuclear reaction under common conditions is too small to measure. > > >According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not > >react with > >oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino concentrations > >in the > >gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. > > ***{This doesn't follow: even normal hydrogen is small enough to diffuse > through the walls of any container, however constructed, and maximally > shrunken hydrinos, like neutrons, would pass through the walls of a > container as if it literally did not exist. --MJ}*** Hydrogen can be well contained in many materials, otherwise my tank of hydrogen would be gone by now. On the other hand, Mills, you, and I agree that the hydrino should pass easily through matter. If this occurred, it would leave behind the orphaned oxygen and this would cause the pressure within the cell to increase. > > Such a > >pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. > > ***{It wouldn't be expected even if hydrinos existed, and is doubly not to > be expected, since they don't exist. :-) --MJ}*** See the comment above. > >> > > >> >Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact > >>with the > >> >nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. > >> > >> ***{If he said otherwise, then he would be tarred with the "cold fusion" > >> brush, now wouldn't he? :-) --MJ}*** > > > >Good point. In addition, he would have to explain the experimental facts > >as noted > >above. > > > >> > >> ***{I went into vast detail about such things literally *years* ago. The > >> basic idea is that proton meets electron *inside* the lattice, at a > >> location that is too cramped to permit the electron to orbit at the > >> innermost Bohr radius. > >> > >> In the case of unloaded palladium, those conditions are never met, because > >> there is enough space in the octagonal unit cells for the electron to orbit > >> at the n = 1 radius. Once a neutral H or D forms there, the fit is snug, > >> but possible. All that would happen would be that the lattice would expand > >> slightly at that location, due to the repulsion between the electron shell > >> of the H or D and that of the six Pd outer shells that are virtually > >> touching it. Thus as palladium is loaded, the lattice should expand a bit, > >> but until high loading is achieved, the probability would be high that > >> protons would meet electrons in unloaded cells, and, thus few protoneutrons > >> would be formed. However, at high levels of loading, the likelihood is > >> great that protons entering the lattice will meet electrons within cells > >> that have already been loaded. In that case, there will be insufficient > >> room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius, and it will > >> spiral down to grazing level above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable > >> protoneutron. Bottom line: at high levels of loading, lots of protoneutrons > >> should be created in the lattice. > > > >But why would a hydrogen atom even enter the lattice in the first place if > >there > >were insufficient room? To do so would require extra energy. Where does this > >energy come from in an electrolytic cell? After all, it is hard enough to > >get a > >normal hydrogen to enter the lattice at high loading. > > ***{Not a hydrogen atom: a proton--that is, a hydrogen atom that has lost > its outer electron. Protons are small enough to easily pass into the > lattice, even though neutral hydrogen atoms are not. --MJ}*** OK, to be totally exact, I will use the term proton. I say again, it is hard enough to get a normal proton to enter the lattice at high loading. This is an experimental fact. In an electrolytic cell, the proton that is presented to the surface by electrolytic action has two choices. It can enter the PdH lattice or it can combine with other proton to form H2. As the hydrogen concentration increase, the proton finds that formation of H2 results in a lower energy compared to entering the lattice. That is why achieving a high concentration is so difficult. > >> > >> > >> Unfortunately, the only way protoneutrons can accumulate in the lattice is > >> if there are cold spots--locations where thermal activity is essentially > >> zero. (If the protoneutrons are moving at velocities typical of thermal > >> neutrons, they will quickly exit the lattice. Once outside, they will > >> acquire enough energy for the electrons to boost up to the ground state > >> radius, and the protoneutrons will cease to exist.) The question, > >> therefore, is whether there are cold spots in the lattice. To get at the > >> answer, recall the old experiment from high school physics, where the > >> instructor spread black grains of sand evenly on the white surface of a > >> horizontal drumhead, and gave it a thump. What happened was that the > >> particles settled into the nodes of the wave pattern on the drumhead, where > >> they thereafter remained essentially undisturbed, as the instructor > >> continued to give the drum additional whacks. Now, since thermal motion in > >> a crystal lattice is not random, but instead takes the form of synchronized > >> dancing known as "the lattice wave," and since the lattice wave, like waves > >> on the surface of a drumhead, is going to have nodes, it follows that it > >> should be possible for protoneutrons to accumulate in the nodes of the > >> lattice wave, just as the grains of sand accumulate in nodes on the > >> drumhead. Under those conditions, they would *not* be thermalized, and, > >> hence, would remain in confined conditions long enough to have a chance to > >> react with a nearby nucleus. > > > >An interesting idea. On the other hand, regions also exist on the > >drumhead having > >very high energy. Other people have been exploring just what this extra > >energy > >might do. > > ***{Such regions cannot be the site of the action, unless the protoneutron > theory is wrong--which, of course, is yet to be determined. So far, it's > just a hypothesis. --MJ}*** You assume the shrunken hydrogen results because of a temporary close encounter between the proton and an electron. I think you will agree that as long as the electron is near the nucleus, the combination is in a higher energy state compared to a "normal" hydrogen atom. The other approach to this problem being used by other scientists assumes that this close encounter can be encouraged by the presence of a higher than normal energy. Once formed, the consequences are the same as you outline. > >> > >> Result: the question becomes one of *what* nucleus. Reflecting on that, we > >> quickly reach the conclusion that the fewer the number of electron shells, > >> the better, since the chance of a protoneutron reaching a neighboring > >> nucleus will increase as the number of shells through which it must pass > >> decreases. On the other hand, its chance will increase as the size of the > >> target nucleus increases. Thus, taking both of these considerations into > >> account, it seems plausible to me that there may be an optimal, or > >> preferred, target nucleus and that lattice impurities which are known to > >> produce pure alpha or beta- decays upon neutron absorption--e.g., > >> 5B11--ought to be systematically investigated. > >> > >> --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > >If this is the case, why choose boron over lithium? After all, d + Li6 = > >2 He is > >a known reaction with no harmful radiation and lithium is always present. > > ***{I have no particular preference for boron over lithium. The boron > hypothesis is just one idea. Any reaction having the required properties > needs to be carefully investigated. --MJ}*** Agreed. Once we find out how to make the nuclear-active-environment on command, such studies will be made. > >> > >> Then J. Dufour in France started to see some strange phenomenon > >> >in his gas discharge apparatus which gave the idea more substance. In his > >> >papers, > >> >he took to calling the shrunken hydrogen a hydrex. Now he believes the > >>hydrex > >> >does not cause fusion, but a process whereby many of these particles become > >> >attached to a large nucleus, such as palladium, by dipole interaction and > >> >cause > >> >alpha particles to be emitted. > >> > >> ***{Thus it is a different theory than the protoneutron theory. --MJ}*** > > > >Yes, but both models use the same raw material, i.e. a shrunken hydrogen. > > ***{Agreed, but I think that we should try to concentrate on models that > are without obviousl logical flaws. The hydrex just sounds to me like > another stable agent, analogous to "light leptons" and "hydrinos," and > invalid for the same basic reasons: if such an agent were real, we would > all be dead. --MJ}*** Once again, you make one additional assumption in your logic which you do not state. > > >> > > >> >Palladium has been made containing a wide range of boron content. This > >> >study was > >> >done not only to explore boron as being involved in the nuclear reaction, > >> >but also > >> >to change the properties of palladium. These studies show no clear > >> >relationship > >> >between the ability to produce the effect and the boron content, although > >> >some of > >> >the batches had a higher success rate than other ones. > >> > >> ***{Were these studies done by people who had a demonstrated ability to > >> produce the CF effect, and who were highly motivated to investigate 5B11 in > >> a persistent, exhaustive way? Or were these studies conducted by people who > >> were pretty much stabbing in the dark, and hence unlikely to persist? > >> --MJ}*** > > > >They were done by people who have seen EP produced by various samples and > >knew the > >boron content of those samples. The amount of EP did not correlate to the > >amount > >of boron present. However, boron containing Pd showed a more frequent > >production > >of EP than did very pure samples. Because of the effect of impurities, > >including > >boron, on the ability of Pd to retain D, it is very difficult to separate the > >variables no matter how well done the work may be. > > > >> > >> ***{The results you are describing do not suggest to me that the > >> researchers were motivated to persistently check out the boron hypothesis, > >> and, thus, their negative results do not carry much weight with me. I would > >> repeat my earlier suggestion: various fusion reactions that produce nothing > >> but alphas or beta- particles need to be deliberately, systematically, and > >> persistently investigated. In other words, use the known fact that these > >> excess heat reactions do not produce large gamma or neutron fluxes, to > >> narrow the focus of the investigation. What we need to do is look at > >> possible contaminants that have a hydrogen fusion reaction that does not > >> emit dangerous radiation. To that end, the 5B11 reaction is only one > >> example, albeit a particularly intriguing one. --MJ}*** > > > >This is certainly one possible way to examine the problem. However, > >another way > >also exists. The gamma that results from "hot" fusion, i.e. d + d = He > >results > >because another particle is required to carry away the momentum. Such > >particles > >are not present in a low density plasma. Suppose, however, the reaction could > >involve more than one d in a high density lattice, i.e. d+d+d = 3Li6*= He > >+ d so > >that the momentum could be shared between the He and another d. No gamma > >would be > >necessary and the energy would result only in X-rays. Some experimental > >evidence > >does seem to support this idea. > > ***{That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the vanishingly low cross > section of a 3-body reaction. Such a hypothesis needs a mechanism to get > around that difficulty. Here is my suggestion: > > dn + dn + dn --> 3Li6* --> 2He4 + 1H2. > > Note: the "dn" symbolizes the type of protoneutron that forms when a bare > deuterium nucleus meets an electron in a lattice location where there isn't > enough room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius. Like the > more ordinary type of protoneutron, the dn is a wildly unstable, neutral > particle. Hence, it would have a high enough cross section to get past the > low probability which a 3 body reaction entails. Granted, the cross-section is low for a three body reaction. However, the cross-section would be very sensitive to the concentration of deuterium, thus consistent with the observed fact that very high concentrations must be achieved for the effect to work. In addition, the idea does not require formation of dn, hence is relieved of one major assumption. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 15:56:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16217; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:38:41 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Mars photo attached Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1915785203-1128044582-961713521=:20274" Resent-Message-ID: <"kUeYV1.0.Gz3.uLfKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35755 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1915785203-1128044582-961713521=:20274 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --1915785203-1128044582-961713521=:20274 Content-Type: IMAGE/JPEG Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wBDAAgGBgcGBQgHBwcJCQgKDBQNDAsLDBkSEw8UHRofHh0a HBwgJC4nICIsIxwcKDcpLDAxNDQ0Hyc5PTgyPC4zNDL/2wBDAQkJCQwLDBgNDRgyIRwhMjIyMjIy MjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjL/wAARCAIpATEDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHAAAAQUBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAABgADBAUHAgEI/8QASBAAAQMDAgQDBQUGBQMDAgcB AQIDEQAEBRIhBjFBURMiYRRxgZGhBzKx0fAVI0JSweEWU2KS8TNyoiRUYzSCCDZDZJOy0sL/xAAU AQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/8QAFBEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8AyHgu 5xlrnw5lVKSx4SgkpBPnkRsOnOvoexytvoDTeo2aG0Fh0JKgqUqMDnMBNfNvDFraX3EVnaXq1IZf WW5TM6iCEcv9WmjbhvJZvE8RfsfUtbIUUFuR5U/zD8aDcmHW3mC424laJIJBESDBBPpBmpKlqSRo En49TP699Z3n8/ccI2NncIRcXalJDKtbkJkSdZHLV5le/wCFXmJ4rQ7gsfePtLQ7crTb6FIKpJPM ncwQOvWgIlsqWFL0yrTt5Qek/Dp869bbKUJ8wO3P4e6qvA8U2eaQ6kFTF2yVIeYcI1IWJ7c+sVcl YWuEnly35fH0j8KBhTKUpU4rmZ3H69PrTCtFu2pQBKlKjbnuf1zqcQknyqMnZO8c5/t8qZKEjUU/ dkxB+X9KCKlorWVEqO2xgGP0Y+lcuNaWgHFAydxHPlP5e6pTrkEgkyf4eW5Hz7VFWHFLTKQkb7Aw efu9aD1DHiEHYmQIPTv+vWpbbSVKGoQd9/gZ6+gHwrhJCUBJP3SEhMT/AF9B9acICiEJGkEQQOg/ X1NA4EFSzpKTp5H1Pw2/5pxIRqUSQT2+H/FeISQgKACTBETsN4/XxrpImSVbq6Tvz2oH0aSgySQC ZJO36/tXGhGx3MGlIUlaUxuY23ppw7FKXN+Z+p/A0DhVpX97cJ5Ajb3kcqYc0lxKU6dBJBHUmYHL 0BpNvtODxS4NE/eJ370g4yQZkDmTP6/RoEpCJB5iI7RtH5VHCgolWkDeAo7dga4XftuPqZZQoMNE BCWwYPcmfWfpXOs60lY0jlAEASe3woHSAUQCNxIHTeuS1zncpESTG39OZr1TiS2la+RPT8f12rlL qHiA2ryhREkQBzB50DbrqgpC0wo8kp6Qfn6Vy+8R5N1EHv8AX8K6U8kr8o0lR2nc+/6UolOrkn0/ XoKCOV+H1UT123Mg9KcQ4lWrUQAkGPkaaCfFIhJBX91J5xSKSJSncknY/r9RQTHH0JRo2JMTt6+7 41CdLS3FKUEjykmeZO0e+ulOFJSlZAg77fr30wpoqegdCAJnbmJ99A6HkgFI0hXMweX6/KuTcK1q J0kpHMmK9LOlOoJ5GTvMbfHtTIW6p0hU6SQkJSPhQduJCz4ckgfeEc+dOtAgJQIQI3HQ9I/Xamjr bIUpIUs7xEnvH6716lxIQR5Q4RAG0UErxJClFciY5CTv/wAfKkoJWhML1FQnfoKbQqNOpJ2OwifT 4dacadGgEzIAgAchNB0pIKgVjmeZ6cxHv5UyqUkhPu2O00+qFKlcQD/MJj9AU04gEGJEk6STG+3b 3/Sg6bMvTI2BkTzgR+VeNkKXuBPUDekAQlelIgDtvypIKg4kSZBkkiAOX9/nQd6T/Ir5ilpP8ivm K81K7OfM0tSuznzNB8rYa8ax2bsL15KlNW9y26sIEqKUqBMT12rU3eDMyxxwm9snNLK3C4HSZgEz BrHhzFfVGByac1jbO9bbShT7KHSkKnSVJBiYExy+FA3k0Ns4i4cvbdNy220pamwnVqgTsKZ4Xztn m8Yh+2t1MpSdOhaY0kdqtbpKwopWNjTLKWmkFKEhI7ARQZ59pGFv2b5rN4kqQpJl0snSqRyVtz7V ZfZ7xw9lrddlfKT7U0ISZjxBI39+1Fl0ttLS1OrSlAG5UdgKy9GAbyHGTt7iMqwhEhxPgwSg+o67 0GxNLSEahO87999/6da7U6pJCUD7okAbbD1+RqpxmRF624UFt5pC9IeaIKYA3mTuR1PLcVYsltxs KQ4hbbiQsQeaSJB90Cg5DhKlHY6jttE+74z06UmEJSSpIEn0369f1z9KcI1IhOkkzHlJgbb9e1OF JjSRI66hMx39JoOmgVKASAQN1E7gcuXy7dTUlMpJCRJk9J6g/wBPpXDAWPuk7CAog/OO5/rTraiV EAmB26kR/XrQdFKwAAr0n57/AI00taUJM6thG59/I9TXji0+IE76irUCBy9Y91RAIbIUQD0SFGQN /wBfGgmspBElQknkD79q4DcqWoCdUyAANzUMPLSgtspcCyfKrcn9c/pTqVKbswgqdJ0xKd1fDeg9 cbbccUpWlCAoK8vU+o9341wiVEiTo1ddyev507CFCF6gBtygxXpLaWzKgkJ8vKgaVrSolCEpWdxI n1H4UwXFoQpGlSyCEklZJPLr8aeS4uST2MkD8PrTBWXX1NpSoxMq35np86BxaglgqXCk8yANyT8f U03rHs5KbdRcBJAXtv6/Wu1LIdCU8gd1K3+VNNKWZb59SsgR2j60HRCAdCiBHlWAJI/W1OJKPDCS FSec79P18qbKAkAGNX8WkdYk1IGsAmCRBJKT+u9B5oSgqWZ1qJkE9DPvpt1tZISkaVDvIp5DZhM8 weZmJ5jnXvhaJXJKo5jt2E8thPx60EVLGkzOpSucK2SDO30ryFgr8obSZIg9xMn41KUAWwR5FT5Q Ocx/ePhXobQGw5uYPXc/regi6AAY5kzBIBmPp0pwMpVChBCZVq5DsP606llRO4BSBG/yj4xXigFh YB8omYPy/EfKgaUyHU7qSdRPwn/ifSmU226lmdRSY1dN/X41K0KUtQJnV8enaKcKAtYAAJOxA/P5 /OgjeFpBKTB6xt0P511p30kDfcmOXTtT6oJ8h2J1EhUz8B7xXinIagEEgykxtP6mgZKigmNUxHu5 V4AsLIO5PlBIiADua8BS6pQSoEj8Zj+lewvSSIjlv6yY+v0oEdkSep5nf9dK5ShsKMk/dMjsOn4U 4UpgkxAHKes/kK8aSBAO87AE9Img5n/Uj5mlP+pHzNd+Kr/Lb+tLxVf5bf1oPkStf+yVzKWoD6gT j3UlIB7gxI+UVkFa7wJe5JH2b3j1iEvXFpcrQwhQ5JhKiPX7yjQGvHnEN/iMe3cWTaVFS4UViQBF VfB/El7nLdz2y28N1G+tA8p/vVpw7kf8R4BCslbt+0EELaIkH4VneUyeW4f4jeLJVbpSrU2wP+mt A9KDSs1jDlMPc2hWUF1spCu1Y3b47McGZQX1w04lptYSpaN0qB6fSti4bzjfEWJRdISW1glDiD/C oVa3ONt71hTD6EutrEFKhM0AzgMrirjS9jbRSr5DCn0tJSUagsjUOxMgTUvPl6wzuMyzCW2mEILd 2tx3QNMeWRyIEnp1q6aax+GYbSlLTKEJ0pJgQO1RszjrXiPEO2TqiWXQIWg7ggyCPlQJPFVivGLv bTVeJS6poi3TyOrb6deW3OrOwy9leseO1cNFBWUpJUARphJ584JiRtuO9CXBfCf7DavUv25DpcKA 5r1B1voY6c+Ve2yMzw1l12OOxCbnDlKnEQvzJJ3KQTy36UB2m7ZlcPIJa/6igseUc9+22/uin40o HIoP3Y5H+3/NUCLezvcfevptFsXl/b/vmkq0unyQBPQ7RUTGX7mHsMZZ5O2ufFuFqt0EkLUkDca1 D0HrQXrinFeVQXKohIEf8/nTbbTaCSsBUCdIA335e71P5VLWnUgkxpUNyOvy6b8qYW5KgCADAgSD HI8vdQMFRLmlBgdYTz7z+utTSSYCNWxA5c9oqE8rwWglBCVK5wSdPKB8K6t1rCEAmQNzKp+vyHwo HkNqQSqdSztJOwjl+ddOKCAdQATEnfqdv17q91hLUiCI78/X6VGK0k+ZGpSt9PWOW/woHErUGyUj znn5p3plKwUDSgaQNyB8evumvC2+ppTchCjsT2p5ph0lBJ2GwBjnIH9OVBw2kqdABKSTsQfgfrXq UKClFSzufKDtAgD+hNPNpHlAUZEcgSR+hXunxCCRJ23H0/rQNKTpGnTISOR+f5U4GxC1TB0ztt6A V4EAFM84J9x/Q/Gu9EI07KRvEmJ5iT8yaBaiVq8hCRuJ5kc5p5Z1iUe7ef6fCuAz/FzUonpz+nqP lXYTKVle5gfd9TNBwUyCRICp2mSTJr1KuYEQOcnpNeuLg6QoATO42/XKkYlE6YTMmSB+t6Bp8uP+ QBe0bA+XlzgHlvUZKXENkAqKgYK1j13gfrnUi5FwLdXs7gQSBqUd+2wn5UxoOhJXqPQmeXu2/W1A 40khsqVzMRHMmK9gyo7pJAI2Pf8AIUkBSkJIIgSIj+/6inVJS2EKURJIPfeP7UEbwl6vvayep3PW uFNpB3UQOe3Lrt76kSF7CT0g9edchoKJUoJhXc9+v0oG0pSAjY6SOUbAR+vlXYTKySVaeZk7e+K9 Da08le4zB+Pz/Cu4cJiDpPm5GBQcKCt1ckgfdHbrTiDChKd9huem9dbBIk9d0zSAVIKTuOpPb/k0 DXn/AJlf7/70vP8AzK/3/wB6e0Odj8/70tDnY/P+9B8d1qX2TJdu8TxBYh9xKCGyhIJhKiFgkDof KN+sDtWW0e/ZI8hri18KUkKXZrSgKVGo60GB3MAn4UFvwvi89huLC2oL8HV5yT5VCtUznCtlxBYp Vcs/vEplKhzHxqg4ryGXx9szdYu1Q7pXDoKZMelGvD+Q9vxrJfR4TykAqbV0NAH41nH4BTeOQtDT jqiUJUd1nr76Ig5pHOmM1i2k5Bt5baVKSZQojdJ9O1ep3EHkR1oM4+0TKWGVa9iavgm5ZXOmdlek 1c/Z1YZG2xAF09+6WZQgmSkUC8Z8Oey8Q+I26lKX1yApUESaOrW/PCnCrdytC7pLekQg9/XtQamj HqRZB3UIisv4t+0lnB3AYsQ3dPJUQ5Ctk+h9a1Hh2/bz3DDF2yFpQ83qCVCCPSst4j+zSxyVxdOM LWxcLUVAHdM0FrwtmMdxO8jMIa8O8bb8JYncAmY9RNWfGORyFhgnLnEspeuW1AwpOqB1IHehjgHh W74d9oNyRrXCYSZEDrXtweOMbb3im02+QT4pLQUnzBPPaI6dOe9BeYjN3V5wuvI3Da7R9tla1ICJ TIE6tMSeX1NSMfm3FWjDt/aFLarIXK7pkFSCdpTpiQeZjt8YTWbtbS2x7WSKLS6u0gJaI5qgSPrV VxW1xOnI2DmDcR7Ikw40QIJnr6R2oCG3dssjCre6ZfG5SELkTzPLlzHzqUpEIUoEwRsqdo5TQpc2 zuEtXuJ1tPM3jbKg7asrBQoBczuNpA39PdTXCfHtrm7R1BYDC7eCGdcyk8yFGJPM/wDM0BU0XVXK k6THQkknn/epTbBUdSjpgTA5cvzj6UmlsL0eC+hRXK06TMgHc+u5Hzp5xpSikAGIHryBI/XOgbcQ GmwmRqOxmZ91IK0u7qCkjmSes0lNrXCCoSYjl6Rsfh8zXQQpS9iqBEbfH8vlQOKSFgDkQIInsP0P nXqmiEpGkTvsSATv/WvUEp3O23U8++3y+ddKJE6lDlHOB/SgZDQACgkbRz2mPwpQABHUSJPPb3U5 Or7u5M7e8n8q7AmJgkmIHPrv36/WgYCVvGUQEkGD6V0UpCt5UB8wOVPBJ0kRB7gnv/euJ0t7jmN0 zzmNvoaD1IUQDpG4ggg8weVNlCdcFYkkQDP4e+u1al/dSdyDsJnpz9SBSKUJO8pAVzVzPQ7e+g4e GtBQkEgQVSrly7cvx514sJCdEAEmJPv6/OukuJc1QFBIgCRE/wBoFN+Grx1uKcUAAQEgcuY/XwoO wG0NrcUZgTJ69fTbeobKHDdLuCCQG06SOvwHL+9OPAGUqJVPQDYxt0p1CUpaKRPmEfe+fuoEFqAO rYwY83KKUfvFJKio7p2Pw/KuHAPFUEJkJkGJ3Pz91dlCgVkqIJVvJ+ZoPASqSAQmN46zv9N/lXUS SSQAOnp2+lchMJII3j9fiacKFlHKSSfwnlQJCQ5JOwMDme8/lTqgNuYTyMGD+v700DHU7dB8B+Fd QlQneAOg99BxqV/p+X9qWpX+n5f2p6R/kq+ZpSP8lXzNB8aUS8A3LNpxtjHXlBKNakAkE+ZSFJSN vUihqp+EuWrPO465fVpaZum3FqiYSFAkwPSg+k1vp8Fwq2EEk1i+K4iyzPFiHGLx12XoCdZIInlF bAlYXqRsQdqFrT7Llo4kavrd8JtQsL09QZmKDUcoC9hre5WkpWpEkHoaomXNXeiu9sXnMOhog+RM E0MBkWqdxO+9AF8e8Hu5xbN/aKh5saVI7iedXvDOFds8Qi0vnA+CmNCkzFXzbjZ+8QBVPc8ZYO2v 1WBum03AOmCDAPYmgK7nIOcP4aztLC0cWq5PghbSfKztsSKqVNXdg4hF/cF95W5UUwd+nwoj4bul qxjb18WgtIlRSfKPdNVHEd5aP3odt3kOgnfSoGg9aWCalEIKNqp2XIEg7E1YsuJKCVCY5UELK2Nh dOWa7xlhYbdkLWoAtmCQR33AHTnVwbRXs4cRBT3rGvtYzls+8xjkFxD7KtZUkwnfp760vgm8W/8A Z3YuKfLqgkpJPMb8qCwfSl9hbS0BSSIII2IrAeIMDkuHeKgbJpxLS3Sq3LY2Inl/St2YuAZClV64 zbvEam0qKTIKhMUA/wAPv5YIxpuLRKrdTaluuOq87CzBASO3p+VWic4zZ4p+6RcjIFl9tlxLZghc pQoDt3juTvvUjI2LGRxb9hcJIadTpVpOk/Oge44mxuNy1zw7btKtnHgEG6CQYcIEKI6mY3oNPbKF JTBmdymZIG3r8/lXUBI0gRA29N+fvoCXbZ+ztBcX+XXdM25ad027Q8RenmOY2Ox+dLDfafjL6+cs 7lQbdLhShSUwgonYkn05zQHawtWqNgfujf3f1/CuUpT5gAYPKD6yB+NctuNPNh1EKQoDSpJ2UDvt 8vlThO26fMBBE/Pf4xQcgGQY2iBvz/UU4ApvYoJUrtvSQoSTvsRqVH67/Wmy6lyEpmD7t+UfAUHX ilUmNERNJK0mQZHWf6imipeomPLqlRHP8u1SG1pEnzc+siYn58/pQcplKpITM8o6z67d6T6if3aZ AHXlA9DTyVp1aTJ7x267/OmnFJUIKgJ2gxJG52HyoG2xAUhSfLy5c+c1wUwmApRH+o/Pme2/xrtX MAGeYiPWmysABY+6eXT9f29KDlZ0phHmJ22BIEfqadKNII+8YjaOp98dvnXIWhJBVA3Agn0j+ldq U3IlYSCAYJ3MztNAyFwtSk6lDmZk9p+dduLKUkqVJk9die34fCmk3CnHQEt+RUkqT8zv7ifma9UE qdSmNXmhI0iJmee/6FA4gg8hsd4PPn2+FOAEoTJMqIkzBPf+tNtpCQNyDyJiI93zpxE/eCtgBEqi Y9fhQcHmUxA5QAdxtXRTzIEyqB7gY6e+m2FLcShS5KlRqg7Dfv7/AOtdKIC9PlSmBPTaKBzx3u3/ AJj8qXjvdv8AzH5Uz7S5/lj/AHml7S5/lj/eaD47pDnSpUH0Vi8g3eW9vdNBQbebS4hKuYBEwfnR 3i3SGgdNZZwHcC+wGPcUjdLQaAG+yPL9dM/Gi7H5PMMcSve0eypwjLJWpwrCSggDmZ/QoKLififj PF5TJq8ZbNiFgMJLY06I2IJG89fWnuHs/dZrH+LeW62nhsTEBXqKssPxl/iVh9jI2jPhu7spACtI 57nrTWtCXFpSmADttQCuS4lzOP4tZs/ZQ5YuqAGlJJIPMz6dqo+KeB793MHIY9tTrNwvUoA7oJ/p WhpSlx1J0gkHYxyqzduGsfj3Lq6XoYaGpSo5CguOFcap/hhGOyh8RKmtDu8SI71T5vhG0wlyX7Zx xWsCJVO39aveF8pjs5ZrFu63c2zkoX1B7gineLLRtqzZbYAS22gJSByAHKgGWFQkCasbZ1KUbiZq nAcDCg1pLoGwPKa5YbyOQwKmnli1vFtwVNEkIV6GgreLvs3e4pfTf2jiGno0kLMBQ+FF+H4Vc4e4 MTY+KVHcqIPX0oGzeU4u4V4cxlk3dpcuH1OFdzo1FISBCd/eflTXBfGmRvGrvFZBy4KlypK1nUAe vPl7qAotkOtLIUZg9avrUIKfMnfrNDfjqKwkrPOiDGfvXkoJ+9yoKl3ivCqyTmPTetJuUKKVIUY3 HQHrUd/h/FZDKNZBdshdwj7q/wA6B/tW4Iu2M0rJ45oqadILiGxulXeOxoo4GbybGBYayI/eJHl1 fe0+tAQXrttaNJReOtttunw061QCT0rMOIuAWsWbnKWi1+ypSVhpI8w25A9q1DIY22ySWxeMpdSh YcSFdFDkaddabcbLaoKSIII50GccE8cvvOt49ISl5S0R4zhgpGx09BAAgRG1afiM1aZltS7ckeGt TbqVfeSoRKT336jvQdkOGGrS0uXsDbMNX8hba1JHlPpPLaa5vMqnhzBtXl/7M3m3Wi024lBgrMHe OkwaDQXgdOnqdpPQfofWukoCSUgEBI0jqedUeCyNw7ZWdnf+Cb823ir86SCfcDJ67x6VByXHdvZr KmrNx+0bgP3P3Q2VDYEdfMCCIkUBYpaEq0wkqB1EyP1yNNQlXIcpTMc4Mf0P0oda45xzC7e2v3W2 nXUKc8RBBaCZ2kgyJEHeKv23k3TaXWVBaViRp327+s7UHpe0nnMkkkj07/PrUJ5talIcKuSpAPQb f2+lTHlJQADzmAfn/T07VHKm0JLhUgAyoT1PP3/T0oHQ8TsqARAgn9frvXq1lO/l28u/fl9B8qbD qVKCkqMqOxnnz/Ol7OTJUdz1KuQ+I9P60Dal+Ho2UpayN45Ax+dcqc8Q/fUoc0o1STt/xTqW0gCJ UreSNp2rhTJbgpB8TTAABPun9dKBhq6U0laVQ3pSTI6/nt79zTrF4pxKPKo6huR+Hqefyr1r94lK QUKUmJCiCP1HU04hKlPanJSBAIkGB7vnQdpWChKlgzGyYmOR93auvI8khSCpPIjaFCRS8zjsCI6S R3jt7vlXPmGolZVEnykgbUD6VJSgkI0AR5QByHaPhUFRUFEtyjWqSoHfn9dgBXr6iCAlJKxzMmBt XifEbQmSNjpKh39PjQPe0L/1fX86XtC/9X1/Oo/tv/7V/wCafzpe2/8A7V/5p/Og+SKVKlQbt9kD qX+EHFPFttFtcraCyYGmErkk+qzSHBLljxS41dKu3sLklhXtTR1AEq1QrvBj3ihj7JcnYXDeQ4Xz IUbC/WktnkEOEEHfnJhMdtPrW543h++4atRaIyfteLCD4bbqfOhU9D1HOgEXeD04fNKeRch1hI0s wIgdzTV2nQswedEOSeSsEq5j1oddcS65E7z1NAgq6asn37VkvPNoKkN/zHtVfwzxS/xQLrG5TG+G NOkgJOk9CDPI0a4NhltALpSmR1NCvEn2gYnh3LvWreOU4pKoU4ggAq/rQPYvIYPgTKt4tDbzAujr 8VW6JJgSaNeJFG7whWCTAkFJqkx72I4uxlveeAh1HNIcQJQe1XR0Is1MQAgCAKDHuFuM8lk86qwu rNCUgkEpkFMd5rUbRaYBjeqVFlbW904tDTaVrMqUEgE++vXc1bWF22w+622XVQ2CrdR9KAttbVWS u12l/b2rmMLY8MmdYXJmekRQFxra3HBzrZxGOaXbKJ1KUCTMzz6UdYu51IKlKCUDr2qu4syltkcI +1g760uckymfDKwrrv6d6AHy2UuLLAM5hqzWSoJU4yTugEb70V8D5tnNWTN2wgpJ2UlXNJrOcBxR l8xkP2RdW1utCwouKUggaQI0xRr9n776Uv2j9kLV22d0+UQlQ70BNxVdIS4Er0hRHInnQ/jMoxdO OIt3ULU0rSsJM6T2NefaXwNc8RP29/a3Km3EI0KBJ0kTz9+9Z/auP8C2S7rQzePrd0uqQsnSkcpN BsCP3je9VeYuUWgQyh0JubiUMSCQVxtJHKuOHOIGc9iGrptBbUobpJ3Sais8Z4JGdVi7t3TdNuFI K0eUK9D7jQC/DWV4oRm3LHKsrW0mdSyiI9xjcVQ8Z5m8e4k9hvbIKsm1jwwU7x3BrX7hTYf1CCDy I61Q8UJs28YvIP2oWbYawdIn4UFdlLtrFmxzDrdsi2ZShCHy3LrWxkeoIgekk0WcMsYHL4V+8xrL HgOnz6WwJO53HxNZvZ8U4/ivGv424t1BwIJQ1I85HQHvRf8AZM3aoxF1bW6lyVyttfNs/wAs8jyN B3e8FYx/NftIEoUsaX2gJQ6mIgjp0+VV+Y4e/wAOWv7YxN1e6rRYeFl45LShMqEe4mrbi/NXHDiE vNWS7lOuFwY0jvUO9vWOK+GLhqxuQlbzemZ3Sex/CgsuHeJ7TiTGJuU6i/qAdZAgtq5/LfnVwlls OLWtRlcEpmI6bVlvAWFymNulC8fLHhuhSdMEnuPcRA+E86P7TKC58UXjK7QB9TLZcOnxADsRvzP5 0FsEpCikRojZI3H49ortAYWjUJA6hPvj47CuBboKkpbCADvpkdgN+vQVy+ktLIJAInSFHf8AW9B0 sKSAEr0DqR09PqahuupU1DodCDuNI8x9R9BzqR4urzaTqMhPx9PdprhbK3FKKgAnbedzQREtamIS F69ylIkxtyme/wCFO26VpSpT65UZOswd+8bU6hshZAcKyqACff8A810s6gARuRuVbzPy7Gg6Q3pQ GxqIiFKBAj3+vP5mnNBiC4eZ1EqmZqMySl6XCpuTqIgADtT76xALZ/h8onl+ooPW2yoAknTpmOp3 9Pl8abWykOpWrdKVSTsdyd/615KghQ1KHYJE77iJ99PIVCQpWkRMFW07Tt3/ALUDPju/+3PzP5Uv Hd/9ufmfyqRru/5F/MflS13f8i/mPyoPj2lSpUGj/Yxb295xZdW90krbFoXUpJMa0uI0mO41K+Zr 6Dvb5Qs/DJPlEb18x/Zi8hj7QsUtxaEAqdSCtYSJLSwB7ySAO52raMlZZoYa8trfJhVwpwrYdWN0 pO+maB27uUrWQTG/eottZ+K/IVzpjE2145jWRk9PtadllJ2Pr76JMbYNpWkzNAN8c8KZbMY6zdxL q9VqoqWylRGsHqO5Hb1NUh4OTc4q4Vm7e5tH7ZsLVcLR5FD171puR4qw3DV3bsZB7Q4+JQkJJ2H/ ADRFdXGN4h4dWtgtP2ziShQ6EdjQfOw4s/w5j2Bw+8h1rUfHKmzqKp5EHkIrTcRmBnuHWLtaPDU8 3JTMQeVD2K4Etl3OSbyNkG2Uu6mFJXsUyT+Gxp/N5jB8NY9htK0jwzrZaaXGrodxtyJ586CuxV/n Hsve2+RtNDLayGnUCAoTtz57RUrL4G0zSmDcpVLS9SSkwfdV1YX1pkbJq9tlBbLqQQoVL8BtQ1bC g5XiU5fBv4tbzjSHkBOtKtwJn+m/pT2O4T4a4QsQ7fXzYvFN+XWoSR3Cefeu8Lc47PtXVg1cJcQk lp0trgpMdxyq2yCOC81cey3rjT9/bp8BakE60DfYkdjPPrQZxZLdHEr91bNWT9i6kw+zsodQDvvV nbcR3Vzhb68x9moXluSkMrG+ofjtUayxeMw1w63jXy8y4rVrKpn9b1PsMrbftZywDSkvBAcJ0wlQ 5bGgNuHcp/iXhBu7cYW04tB1IMyCNjWIrwVhZcevYxN2s+IDLa0khU7xPI1vGEWg2ymkgAHoKAuI VY6y4vaYes1e2uI/dvluUxvtq7/mKBzE4tnGMBm2GlI6Css+0K0asuNUOo1IcdCVqPQnl/StZbfC XQkc4mKCPtSVYC2tnXQPbp/d9JTO9Ac4+0eVhLR0OBwFsGedOv2rd7YuW1w2lba0lKgeRFR+Dnzm uBmUkLaV4eg6TBHSQal461VjrRFst9b5QILjplSveetAFYj7PmMTmjdNuqWgGUJV0rzPcW3PBvEl rZY22bS24Q8+NP3yo9K0K3baAGkJSOyRAoC+0u8GORZXjVm288h3/qLTOke/1oD3K6chYsXugpS6 iSlQ5bULYbhyyxV3cO2qVI8dWpQ1SB6AVf8ACmXRxbwih4JCHW9nEDoa4TbeGsgrEg8qDN/tIYy1 tfW11ZqeRahMBTSiIVvM1d4jJM/4LZueKVFCA8nwlFJKirooAbzzo1Qu2dd9ldQSdIIUpPlVz2B7 7Vxf4m0v7c2tyy24wehFBA4Ox37PsHUtZBV1auOBy2ccUSoIIBgz1mT/AM1bm2DayuJUoEqUZPIe 7lHv5ULZnh27YYavcO+q3ucek+E2hZKXkATpUNoMz+oh3g/jJvicuW7zHgXjAhbJJO3ffpO2/egv UPOa5WI/7Bv+tqnAlUoO+0ADr0EfIV24C03+7bClyFAFUSe+/Su25abSSJUtQBg++ff/AGoGdCw3 Ox2hInl193b6U062othtEkRzI58+nXnUtYAbAMAkctpgf8fQU4mNJ80rJJg8z+jQVrbCgoqLa4QY 820/Dt8qcIQCCrY7SBHPfaf10qYoaUlJKSqd4genwplSAqTyUoxQNJkkeXnykSOu89f7V0jWtoJW SVk+ZQnkN/TsaReCQARJ08hHy+lctEuLc1EHWYgEeoj9djQPeb/IH1/Kl5v8gfX8qZ0I/lT8h/8A 5paEfyp+Q/8A80HyHSpUqCxwF0zZcRYy6uCEssXbTi1QTCQoEnbcxFbYrifI/wCIBYP4tabdSylL yTIjoeXxrAq+jMfkEZDFW9+GlfvmkuhEbiRMUEwXViFpsXrpKXnRpSlTkLPu6z7qJrC29nsYbOpQ T5SszPvNZ3kuFU5++ssm0py3dSUqWk7KAG45ciKmjO8TYnMm0ftPGxz1wENuITCkpIEEH03O46UB hnOBW+McdbuvgMXbMltxO8eh7jYV59nbgcx2SxiydVuogfuiiYMHarW24ou7PJt4x3CPqaWUeHco MpWkjcnbYg7Qarv2q9g8hl7LL3DjrTy4TkG2wkpCuUkJiRyPuoEpLF9b3TKHkuIlTThbXuk8iJHI 1j/HPDLuLxts1aNF9ltStTqxJQD02rW3FLtr4ushr2V3/qqGyirYA7c+3yqo4k9qVjLg2AQbjT5A oTNBmv2eZG9tL9eIdYm0WkuIUP4VRv8AA1pLuSsrVlZuLpptCCEqKlgaSRsD8xWZ2XGWTtMlbt32 NaOtQbWUNFK4JiR7u1FWR4UOdyzniOH2G5bSXEg+ZLiTAI+E0D1xZf4AwWSzmGSp9y6dR5SJShJ6 7dJP1p3hv7QrK7eL6cGhOUWdKnvDhKp5kgGSfzosts7hMDd2PDV4w6svMABRRqQlP3Rq79alXLGI c9ltsXjUB32hamnmG1LQUCZOrTudh5RuOfI0GbHKuHMPpyItbQeKtLISdEgHsaI7ZpKlpWDJ71Wc X42zz7zLlwlO4K0qbRo2JnlJqZjQUlDTfJICR7qCw4rzmR4WwNrkMe0HEeOlNwo76Unr84HxqQ7x DY8RMsvNlPtJbC1Ij8KmcQXOJtuGLqxyr6UG5t1BpKk6iVcgQOpBUDQRiFN2r4YKWQ4ywAdOxGrf l7qCbmMsrDoXcuWxct0JEKbMqme3b1qnzOGY48xdre27qkLSPJIjruCPhV3cuouEFpaApKhBSRIN Tcfj75NsynFlljw1pMLT5SgHcelBacB402OLfx4WpTtuEhYUmIkSPfXl/wCM3cKbUI58qltcQ2uH 4uZxuQf8Bu5th4ZWiErXPRX4z6V5foS5el1bIStMpSuQZSTMg9jAoBLiTiQ8I45hbbCrgOrMgrPl 686nW2Qx3EnDXtrjQLS0HxG1iYjnUHjotjhi5WtgOhIHlImh/wCznMMZG2XiXGQ2AkkRyUORoCr7 J77BTkLPFOuypRUW3TvHKR6Vd3bDrWTWkiEVXcKcBWnD+dVkbZawFSEoKtkg9KuuIby2Rkiyl5Hj 6dRbCvN74oIjN5aOXxtfFQX0J1aCdwOUxQTlr7i2z40IYSp3HLUClMDRp9T0NEFgxbu5BV+GdFxu 2VKTCikH8NpqVxNb+3YF7wXHkuhMzbmFyN4HvoHsTmbbIIdLCwstrLSwP4VDmKyvI8Q3GF+0h+6a ZLLSl+G4mPvp6nf6UR4riHHYi2s27xTls/dHdL6NKirkVKgfWp3GLVhbYpWXVbIfuEQGyEg7mgN8 deN3tml5CkkGQNO8HfmY57/WpwAIKdROo9enzHu71nH2YZ+3urR+2S0ptfilagTOoq35keg+ArSE uJIgCBEgQY/R/pQcqAgLBSocyrn6/l869DxB5AAHqduW/wBIpEJgwSodI9Ph7qhpDi1lTZIQo7gD c/qI9aB+ZlR2kc+fSuTuQonnBVv0n3d9/lXq0KSg7qWJB06dup7RTSSHZKdUDYCOsRv+NB2kBad5 MiCZ7/H3/WutlLgak7dukCP6dq5cSlCVGY7SYnp1+Nc+MUnaTMDkPKep/Gg88drsr6fnS8drsr6f nS0//Ifmfypaf/kPzP5UHyFSpUqBDnW08J8SY5fDDLi1qaFiyhl0K5ggASB2MVi1ab9nNnicjYrD 4HtKQtlxrX99Bg6o+Mf/AG0B9heNsFkHGGWLhQdeX4aUqbI83btvRUq8AvLdhqwduit1KS4kAoRM 7k9Ijt1oe4f4b4eat0i2Sy77K4qXJBKV9ZPcUMrxV9is7aLwmTdTirx0PIuQ4QgLBiFnlHeg22z4 isF3K7FvxTcsrUhTTcKUAAFSUzMdJj6GaG8k5nbK4vzZMsXDV6oLbt722KVQANpmFEb8zPyobxmZ Qji1vLXSGU36FFt8W0rQ4ndJUnc+cRMe6iHH8Uv3t09YouHCGQEqZugPEn+ZJ+97wZ36igg5LiG3 wuLZuMyE27jogtoBV5uoFVTHEthkW2HGC5pfUUolsjcdD2rvizB23ELKGbsrbW2olCx0mJH0quv7 tGHYsrdm2dfQpSWpQJKRH3j8qBnMvFV81bs2AW8W1LZuFIBQhQGwJqSxccQWXBqrxNuh7KJG6UiQ BPOB1ApnN2V7kcS43YPlh8kFKpj3iaMOHHGrO2tLbIXbfjuJCJUY8RUbwOvegr8yXMlw/icm9bWT 7CUqRdaLgIcDpA8gUTEbKBSZoxx7hxGKRbWrLDFt4YU20VKJJIBUfESd+vQb0IYTG/4ec4hYx17j shbLK3UW760qS24lWohSInYA8u3McwT3jl45aTdWzTWtA0LYc8iwdz5ZI7b86ADy1y5k8q86GyJV 03q0wuOfS+wvwwUFULJO4Hf51DyOUxWJLrN66u38olwIJ+9sNJA3P4VbYTG5a04bdt7K/L96lBLT 1wNUmZ69I23oBzLZi8zHHH7DvFJxbVi6VNuLRKXkKTEqMbAifTf0q+4jtrFm5Js2kJBjdPX3elCt k+zxFlXbq+vWhdXJ8PUkFB8mwSmehg++iO8acMJ07JET6UFBdG7btnHbO39ofSJS3Maqh5C74mvk 2gxrjtld2bIeu7VIgETzn+IR0ozxlnCwpQFPcfW92rhNAx6XWy+6lFy+wYWlsAmCecEgD40FLhsE vivDO3uZv03TpXNs8hsIdYmNSCI5bCiBuyTZ2KLcOqWG0hIKjJgUBYziHIcNYVv2ezHgvPa1LcSo hSQkDSPXYUX4/P4/iC1D9m5qjZxB2Ug9iKBXLSLhlxpxIUhadJB6isfxNxecN8bqYatiEKd0BASf MgnaPpWygJLkat+1W+OxVlcXSH1sNl5H3V6QSKCW2yX7BtS0qQPKrmQZBkcqHM5jLJ26GS8FPtoT oLk7xVLe/akq0v32L7QbBNw403paIUkJUQPf0n+lT7+4Y4g4ZuHrK9SllxslNwg/cj8DQM2niKWA knnRLjrFKmXUqA1K3O1BHDIubLh5T1xdIu1iSlxJ1Aj31UcL/ajeniVFrdsJ8FbmkRsRvFB39pWA cXYi5YtvEuGFyCkSQmN/fvFWnA105xDw8Wslb6ViWzKdjtsRNGPEBbdd8VAGlYke6oOO1NqhtAHw oBFbGJ4MyGPsBktNyHCp1ISNTqVAgBXQDcfKtNYLLrIUjQZEAj1A/Osh+1i0Xb31hlhapWZ0uLIM GIgEfOj/AIOyzeVwlvcRBUkbA7AxEUBAttUgHzFXMn9fT3V4lCUInTsNoHp+X6iu1QpQSgADmT6f r4V0oJgJEAjbYcun03oGdbRII0kmAdiAIjt7/WuVJb2bGnYfw+759/jTqo5ORBPM9NtgYA71whKU y4ChKTBn16fjQNuNxEqCUjnB/XcmuVtgpnnA/X9KeBUoyFbb7FRV+uX0ptCApWqIJMgAxz/Xeg58 Nf8AmI/XxpeGv/MR+vjUnWf/AIv/AB/OlrP/AMX/AI/nQfGtKlSoFWi/ZNYM3ORvbpYJctggIj/V qn/+o+tZ1WgfZGp5fElywh4oaNuXVogeYpUAPX+M8qDYdePsVrYTdN2j11MBBSFFZ/iEjc+/tRFc 461yXCrtneslduW9b6UffhInygfxSBQLxBwRb52+t783DrLzESUnmAZ+Bqw4d+0LAv4p+zySnlIh TC5ZUPEBBHrG08zQR1ZBhrEYpOIZv7TwNQb9rtEKRdE8yFSd0gCP+KrLZQuMllbBx1Xtb7YWh0Ey DEkAnfmd961H/DuAu+FrUKCfZm/3rFwdnGwd9ifTpyPasmv752343Qxa3lu/bLShSXQjzKTHciem /rQWbNzc2mCxxy96yy4FqbcNz99YkhICpG8Rzma7Spl5Sg06lzQqFBJmCOYoZ4hxlxc3SHry4Tds JWD4TrgSggnlHeD8an2+MYwl1kcmrwwhzzgjYgRJHxNBZ39tdXVt4NvceDqMLVG+kiDHY1aYLhN5 Zwrrt+443jNSnApGoubc+89KpeGswniKyNyhlbMLLZSrfcdQeoq8s7DMcJu3GbGW8WxVcJWq2eUP uEaSBI6EiI7UFjil4C9vmrnBsNXt248Xn3EpW2pJJMKRtE9SDsatczdpLaUBhVlpWStLpnedzM9f 609ibO2YcXlrTDOWVzc6itu3cSdaCNWpII0kk9NufWh3M8UWK8qxb3SnGn7hPkQ+3BPoY2B9KAL4 7weVyeZxzto0hy3QobDooGfN6VofCS8m04+jKLaWku/udCYhEcjQZlLjiBviazXYracxh8rzcCU9 zPP3RRQ1mLe0dQ068kPOAlDZUApcdgedBxxTgeF+Fr20vXHnGUOLJbYSgrAVMyCOQk8qCMhmX/8A Gr6PZX7jHvslpwBRA0wDq0+4GI71rKrjH5/CNpyDLYCwChNwgSlXTnyNZjxJxPZcPXSrMA3eRYGl RKIVB3EmAN6C74WyDtxZhRtls24EMlS9SiASDM+74zWkYR9LtsptaQpJ2IO81gfCHE+UusjcLvyh OLSjdSgBoUSIE+41qFvxZaYLIWtveNOptrhClKuQPIiO5+tBYcQYq1U6kP2rS20GW0qQCE7RtWdi 1cxL+XvMSwhxJEIaIKSFDmI7daP+IeI8VeuW4s8vZOtuoOltJlSlc9lTHXlzoEFk7i0Xt7bo8S5e VrLPikoJk/dnkSDQQuGFX2WvTmLlxxhYJbWwlR0LgDzQeX9q1bh4qW/3Eb0C2N0XGW1KaDTihKkT MHtU684mewWMXc27aLhKHUN3SQ5pU2hXUeu4+dA5n+E+D80q5SwtdneouVBbURqXO8A9CZNV7lkO HeH7hnHte0IQiQwofePU/wBqdwOUza8deOu2VlerbjwyFAOaCdusjY9eU15f3FleLVYPL/eqSHfC mCBPP50FXwnfou8QpIsDaJS4pJbJkHfmPnQZxXb/ALF4wtrpmyhlakqkDYmfxrRUuISqBFWClY5y 3R7f4Qb1CFOkQD0iaC3u2U3OEs7kI0hTYkGqhF02G1sSUqUmNjBFGWQaQ3wqXG21OhlGoJaElQA5 CsoyGGu77MWWUtbl5lKANbSgRKecEfHrQWXEeXxdraN2uXIU2+NIK0yPeal8A2FxY4JNu66062CV MuNk7oPLnTOc4XteI8e23cp0rQPKocxVfwblhb5S44bNu8hdpshxXJYG1BoBUEJkmDEdfXv769S6 klUpClDaAJ/pXsKO6QZnYe+m0pJV50jURvA2HL+9B6WkuLIKpT2IA5/mZ5966DCEpA0hXQah+fwp sFTakJCkq3BMEDSIHpTmuEq6yDGkn6Hf0+VB6pMIG47Aauc7/wBvjXuxQeZJ22k9j9d6ZW4Uq1HT E/eB3Hu+Ip5K0ttidRVy3J/Gg48Nf86P939qXhr/AJ0f7v7U54ppeKaD4ypUqVAqLvszfca48x6U OLQlwOpWAdlDw1GD3EgH3gHpQjVnw462zxNiXHVpQ2i8ZUpaiAEgLEkntQfT/jOoWz4TYWhSoWSq NIg7+u8VS5TH8GZbIfsdVy3aZMuh2WUkeeIAVGx2PKhg8dX7bebtUW2q8slKLJUmElAVG+/MDf1r jhfAniq4/b9kptGU8UKuWFGUHuR2JjkfWg0rGcCZexQ1bf4mugyFkhllUI085IJ/oaEOMm37DjZt l1y2dhoHxCyEOHY9v0a1W+tn0M6rO3fTfOpARcpSlYaVAHJR2BmD7qyP7QMXxPZ563cdyrFyHEhS knmmTz0nl15dqCDfWlxd3tpctXGlLSgVIO4ImpmSftvY3EXUFtaCCnqRG8fCq68ZuGsW8mxWUvkF SCpUwecb1U8LZLIX6rlrKsBSWVDw1qQBvuCKC34FXjUvXVvi3nVpK0uaFpMJkRt8qMcqbPivKMcI vi6tnmNNw3cAfu1q0nb5HnVLiV2FrcMNMJbQp4lDekfeiTG3xq7u/tBwuK4htLZxuVMpLdw8phQK Ar+VY3kQenxoK17M3uKy18zfLtkfsootmlJYVAQBKfMPNyV12kmKtFu2mUKbseE+J1IcEKj3Gr3H t8PXeOvLl7NW+XavSAk3QR4gImAdgZiOg5Cqp23YtkKSyhCUA7BIgUEFRQhZgAb1S3LmGyPEFva3 ACr+3/fN8wQPf191DvFXEuUw2cYS3aa7JexVElR6j0oltG7W5eZvywPG0bLUnzAdpoCK7xFtnLVu 2uVOBKHA4koWU7j9GoXGuCQMWu7tbFq5uUNaPPzI67+6ptteJSpO/KiJsG9sXEoQHFFJhM8zQYNw bmrJt93DXDPs631bOObpdV1TuNttvWtqwtrZ5D/0F2006hxtUNLAOpIEHY++PjWC8UW2Rb4kfcvb D2S6aWFBplU78wqevQ1pfBt/xK2kKugy7dW92nWlSQCGiACBHXeQesUFfm+F87wkwm7sLe2vrH2o rt0IClBppW6Rv6HmJ5VLXeKXbIU63ocUkFSQZg0TZFGZx7TzeRvGb5oglp5IKVkEyQocuZoMceLz +mIE0E6zDrigWgkq1CQrbad/pNPWFxwnxLxDd425WW32my27qXoQ6kQST0Okp5/0qqezFjgF2r+U W80p0raQlslQIkeY/T5mhjJcHrxbqr1u7S61eOeGy6XCFJCgTqMbx+dBreHwlvjce+hFw+l9leiF wtCkCY0K7QRVLeKT4pXA1DrG9e4LH3WHtPZlqPhNo0oKVSlYO8jv0ri4QXFx3NAzbIU84N6HeLfb LjB5Cyv3LVtVs8Li00rhS0DnI9xq24jt8i3gXGsew448+oNy2qFIB/i/pQnxBwZlcXhrPP3zrl0W 0JQ+mdWjoJ7jpQXuH+0DP2HDr1lYLtLm1aShKCQVKSSJO8779KI8HkclfWAfyNqm3eJ2SmYI7weV DfD+GwuYxjQslu2F0HE3DtushUj/AEnYgfPmKNXAUJ0z0oKrijN32MwpuLJouOpWBETA70/wNfKz VsjIXjATcyoCE6dp694q1sWg7KHEAoOxB5VHNve4viS3No3b/s9aSlcfeSrr15bCgLvEQhMzECSe wrnxELRq07xvI+MVwkEpAPfkTXca1BXQUDRt0GVSobzt+v1NJbY6qMcucelOlskARCTz7n9TXAdk R95IjkJn9TQNqQgeVA8g5QOXb8PxrmJiVp3TsOg6d+0/OulICdkpPxMfoV2liIWRpJmJEneghTcf 5qvkqlNx/mq+SqsvAa/zP/NVLwGv8z/zVQfF1KlSoFSpUqD6DuThMlas4xx8l3K2wcaeCNKnEgag ZjnvyNV32UYzIl7LJxd00zJ8JL7iSVI7Eo5GYj0q04IbayuDwt4phChb2yGmlLT50qSNC+vIlO1a NZqxmFSgrVb2puFwJhOtR/E0A5w9xw4rIXONvsockmVMl1CPCSFAc0rTvHSflQt9plplMflbFdhd eNabBTHtKlFsTIB1fHcVomG4dsLG9eaXjG03riVONrQgpYPok7xG07R6Vl/2hYrM/t60eeytsp4o AWjWhS4nnCUj0oODcQgknpvNN2rqLlUsqSoTuQa4Kk6ksKaUQtJlQGwiNj86pcdw5+z728U1dOBm 4aLYSkxpnrPcdPjQWdnmHWeLsficawkBpwruQtPJJ6j/AHTVxnr3FcI8d+M6wb25vUC4CXVwlnbS JMGQYO3pTnDeAaTlG7pCS5deElpTquagOp9dquvtD4awmSwlllMld+z5Bk+zocYQVhUyQlQ+B3n8 qC8XwtiuIeEkXdza2bL61+Lrx6tKFT8aq3kotGAypRgCBqMn50NWeGytpa41y1fcZbbGt3QqJBnt KVDarbLoZvUsrfTqUyrWhXIg8unvoI90hDqhqQlaRvuJio6b5lNx4CXE+IkAlM7j4VHdvkB3w9Y1 did6r1Y22byv7VS2TdFBTAO6wByA77fSgucDxJY5DOXOKSF+0Mj+JMBXQxT+Mv8AJ47LXOJt+JLY XLlzMPNFRbCtwAeUgEbERsKZ4Lcssih/OP2PsLyZS6txMGE9Z7flVJxJxTa5rP2zWAc8VrSkuuFg JV4gJAKVRqOx67cqDnijI3ljxEprKXVwp1aoYfeaQIUkxMdjse1FvDmVfU2XLy3DT0ga+rgjme3u qn4zcvrLCYhOUw714txSlIeOlSm+QiecH1qFfourvGlq1uVW7uxSsHrzigOc3f8AtFsADO1DeLs/ ab2Y6wdqatXLlNk0m6dC1pSAtfIE1cDKWPDdm1fXxOh1wNpSgAkk/o0Adx9b457L25VlNYtYQ5Zo GpQM7kdOX4CtFxeHsMi9ZXFxZJVbItgWHSrSSDEpUnp3quy/BuDuMs3xAlwNoXDi5ICFE7zJ5c6s chZoubmyvEOOtrtZ8PwlQFJPMEciNhQTLu3t7VkMMI0oQISntQ1au3VwhXjW/s7qVkAagoEA8/jV u9eqdGqZHcVV27jza1+OsKBUSmExAnYUFwyhK0hLm07Vxmcpa8IcHss3Fs5k2bh0Wyg8uYSoKMk9 YA/Coth7SVO+MtCxrlvSIhPY+vOi22xlpmseqzv2EPsLiULHIggg+/agzHE2/D1zm1XWPuH2rmNI afUO3SOdEjrD4OxBoS474CVw9cKv2sgwbXTAC1aFg9IHX+1Q8dmstc4li7xt2h9xmWn7UiTIJ33O rkR1oDC4cv2LZSrVtK3hGlKjAO+/0moT/ETR4qssdeWDgWgBxt6fuqIM1NS/ev2DLqEIauDpK217 gdxVlc29su09qdQ34zI161D7unfn8KAkBQpEp3BE11OgSI9Jpmzdbft0ONKStChIUgyCPQ0+oxAI j+lB5qKtjsIHSvNbZ0wB6qHu9a8DZIITseoG1eSW0xpMADf9c6ByYGsApPPlTBcWSCQTvsIkQOte 7avISkkTqG1PJTpQBv0mgblv+X/wTSlv+X/wTXcL/kX8/wC9KF/yL+f96D4tpUqVAqVKlQb99kV8 3c8Is26AoLtnFtr1AQSVa9vSFjn1mrP7TMymzbxVq3bW77xWpw691tgAAQAZgmflQv8AYbdeLYZS yDXmYeS8FavvaxER0jw+fWfmT8cYLBHiKyvr3Jrt7x5vSlmCoKCTzB6feoLDAXQzzSbh/K39rdRp 0KSSy2DtsNoHT61R/aS1Z47MYu1RjFeIlkH2oISQon1G9aRiuHcW/aIddBuEBlKgjTqKTG5ChuT6 Vj/FeRsHOO3bW2Xk20twgMXKSUjbmJ3AoGFPlphTrhCG0CSo9BVZk+JbfDvI1tOPFbQcQpEQZ5b1 bnwXiUlQUAkpUjpv3Fdqt7e5UEONNrCRHmA2FA/wtkuIb63uL2zZYQH2EqtWnB91cmZPURuPhXuK TxJwnxC5aX7Flf2mTcNwLe5eSElXNUFZ5gn8O9RMlf5zBuIcZYQ1j23WT7QlW8HmCK05+74O4jsL LIPtftEtnQh23aW4psfxA6Pu/GgVzcF1jwF4kY4NJEBCgpKxEyFDnQ3evNO2pXbrSsEeVUbcqu79 mztFKbxxcFutWoJcUTG0Rvy5cqG8gFNkkiBEyKDGV43PPcSlxxt72gPSXYOkCeYPaOla/ZL2QFAE jntQpjuJbLKXLzFulzx2wVJQoQVx2q9WzcXTD9rbP+z3C2paXHI+u0UFirJZu2zBsmccTj3mCRco QVlKoO8fDl1qm4Vwthn+I1P2bam2VNhYRbM6FagmTKT5QSZ5GKIM7f2eD4HZx+ZyD6L26bDSHLUf vFERqPoDyPvr37PbC2UBfYtgurtm1qdNyqDMbEQrr+udBDzzz93kXNV3cOW7YSyht5MEFPM8zO5P Lao7KYEk1WXthkbcvm3uP/UEyQ64paEkmSBJkfOubNeQVYJTdaBdRuUcpoJGZxas/jPY0vKYWohQ 9I7xzqbxXgHWfs7YXPtC7ApWoqVBIGxNVC764xfsF/eOQkLDL6AoJRvHn35xGw7Gpp40dvnr6wGN XleHnR4a3EEgifUDYAmB8KAv4ZylvmsA1auoYIDKf3RWF60kbyk05fZB22u0Y9myd8NTUtuhP7tJ G2kxy6dKiYbAY23v28pZ+1NfuwgMvfwyB1605xBlV465tUexvvIeUUqWyJCD6jtQVaGjhlBnGNoc Dr+t9pTv/SSeZSPf0qo42y+Rxdmw/YNgy4A4SJgdB8asMljcejJozLzpYdb2KtekH314/nMSvH+1 u3DS7YqCdcagCe9BO4Uyq8riWbp1HhrUPMn19KPcYXXLFxDD/gukQlyJ0nvHWsseXlmc1YKxqG14 xxMOBIED1n3Uf2eVx+NLNrkLpDS7nZCVKjVQDv2k8G2b+LfzD2Tu3LhcLLaElxJUAJKUj7o2nnG5 oR4FbZi6uWWVtOlGhDjo2UDvyHqK0PiKwRgvZvYcnj7ZnwVhli5BUuZlRSd9txtyrK+Gctl7nMO2 790w8y0Va9AEnfY7etAY3WVu2sla2qS0lY8zoKTpWjqQehG+1FWPW1eNKbOlxtxMGTIIoHsck9ks jdWF5ji2hCSA4eRB2j4g/jRBgrFnDsC3t1KDYUVDUZ50BDgmXbJk2K0oSGj5QgGAkkxV+2iYO3xr NOFM849xdkra/upuUK0hvkggcikHrBg1pgWfDBSdKZ26++g8UgJJ3AA51HdCipI20kxBNdmAZknf c/OugdZ2G3Umg5AShIEbxGw/rScQEgq0+/YTzrpIJXAVsDsOf63rhTGtUpJ94k/j76DzxvX6f3pe N6/T+9deEr+RPzV+dLwlfyJ+avzoPiulSpUCpUqVBp32L3dz+1M1jWFoaFzYF0PEboWhQSkjeI/e KJ9wrSuE8XhuKm02+ayLWUu7ZRCFyRG+5CtiRPwrJfsbuXmvtIsLZswi7Q6y6IHmSEKXG/LdKTt2 +FbUMBbcEZ5WWTbMN4lZCQ20la1hRHbkOvpFAW8OYawx99cP4i/bXZkaVsI82lQ9ZrJOJlW9zxVf XFs4XG1uEglRP4n0rVGc3w+cY4nGPs49bidTgDEaR12gg7dOtYLZvtO5i/Wxfoumy6SCGfDO5O5F BNctWse3dXrLAW8sa1AKjVAqqyGJHEFk5kcVdOB15CQE6ylJg7j9dqtLe8edcfbeZCEpVCDM6h39 KeTlcZg2Uh91tlIBKUDmfcKAkaucSxw7a4XiG6Gq+b8Lzc1FIEqnpv1NUdxwRjrO8s8jw9mmTbNl ZW2tzw1QkAyDyPP38ue9EL2Kb4w4dxt3YNW7jaXA4VvCFJbPOD03jn2q4teB7a5xmXfvrZ62Ssht hKVJgN8/KR09/uNAK4dvIIt3W8sSpCXQthPiatMciD2rq9vytSkBJ271bvtJYUzahtZbSiAvaBEQ D1/4NVF6EKQ60y4lL+k6Sd4MbSKAdXa2mPXcZBFslCgCpxaU7kczXvDHElxnmrlFihtq+aA8NLpJ SZ5Eke6rlhKxaJbuClatMLIEAnrS4W4dscXklO2rZBdUJ3n4CgvON3cWOFMfeustXWRYeLLDMnRr Ma9UbwmCem9XFq7lLfha1yKcVjLdVxpQpxhBSoNxJJ357RPrQfxRarwmatLW2s3msfcO+0rfUorQ pw8wAeoAHzojzLmTOMxpYzDd1jvCMoW0ELmYGw5RFANZNsXSHUBxxGszqQYPOqi/yrGItS/cTpTt sJJParm9dt7S3U88tKG0iVKUYAqBdWlll7FbCwlxp0cx9CKBxnHYrjbGtMLfhMh1JQoBQ+HzqLl+ Gzw8LdeIdTdYkOgXbCXJUlyYBVHTePfVvw3w/YY68buWEFLiGQypU7FI6n1qPf8ABzvD6n+JMTl1 hp51Kg0kyTqUBsZ3G879BQG9nmm8pbgJaCCyEoMEmfKDO9U/FWdbwWP9qcZcdTrCSEbxPWpeOv7i 78QXCRKCEpVoCdQgdude37aH0qQ6hKkHodwfeKADu7t/NuW2Rt7pv9kaSm5YeTGw5k7c/wAqcsML g1Pk2rqFsvoOtkO6kqEyDHcVc3mNtHbU2Jb0MqEFKPKCO1BKuDDYZu0ex954cK1EFXmgHfbrz+tB qFkw2yw202AEIACQOgFP5PhCx4oVaqulOIcYJ0LaVBAPMfQVX27jgSAnflULK8c3XC/FNpaKtguy WgFa+p9QfSgJn/s+w7DaSvLX3tqGp8xLylonlpgnvy+NZfw9gv2dnbt5N24sFSklCmijeeZB6/nW 03nH3D9ha2l2tTj/ALQNLSmGws6uqZkQesE79JrJb3i5FxxLcMOuLVcOrHhFbQHMAwSPUmgKEFI7 TVTk3ss3k7JyxUn2cLAeSRzTI/pNOP3zdrbquLgaEIiVc9jUyzdbuktutrC0KGpJB5ig6zzGMx9s niJxhftLJSdTWxPTfvRhgcvb5qyaurZzU2sSKhIsWb/FO2zyUraUggpNDvAGTQh64xDluq3uLdRB kaQtMwDFBpBHlJ5noZrptAQAOp5R3rpvdsSNppwABJSN1GZJoPNIjT0AHP8AW1ehW/flEGI/W9dq RLXlPu9/eudAgSfWP176DnxF/wAq/lS8Rf8AKv5U7t/Kj/caW38qP9xoPhylSpUCpUqVBa8NX7+L 4kxt7bLcQ81cIILZhREgEe4gkEdQTX0pdOOXdvZZ3I392xbobQ0lpEytRmdSeW++9fK1b1wxbXnE d9+181brcx7joLjirnS02OQ0gmAN/r60GvXbGLf4V8RnGl21KCdKAELSN5PTeelfO9njWbB+4Fv4 uhayYcMkV9B8R4/Gr4HuAzfLYtGLdRbeafhO467wd+9YDbNP23hpQ97UkrOtxatwO4jnQSHg4zZX FwmFLbbUsJnmQOVB2Mw9zxa8q+uHwkpWEKCRzAjl86PW7hlSvD1JJUOXcVZYbGs2xShlpKEFWogC BQW3CN3is1hb7hhGpjw0KtiD5TPKR7jRDi+GXuH7NzxsheXCm4QpS1y2saeQEmCJoW4m4AucytjJ 4F8WuQalfl2Dh25x12qAx9pHEtljDa5u1Doac8J1JaIcBBI/pQEt/eMMAFa4ClBI2nc8qyDi29Ri +JF39o8746VBLrSpCSCOh61orirm+fReMXCTZraH7hSIUFd5qhz2Nt8kwq1ukjzbpIMEEdRQQG82 zncaq3tLkNXbrUhM+ZJj+npRDwoi9tbBoXii9cNDUSnmojcUO4zhzH4+4aeabPitiAsqk7/8mjDH uNNSp2PD/i1cooIP2gcSWmVyFliLa5WoNuD2kIJAaUmRERzOoz/21KuxkGNNrcXKHrdDbYaIMnlJ B2B5muuJf2Nw7kra7t8Mi6uciVKWok6AQUkn3mfxp3O5jH5BwuWTfhgHSUHmCNqAdzCF3YQ0pSPZ zIdaUidY6b9K7xtvoCW2kaUJEBI5AUktm7dCUmrTH267O4SpbqDLYCmwP4upntQN8OcTY/KZW8wg QoOJBRKhsscjFUuP04PLPYFfEdygpV4b6EN62gmQRzOx7wD1FEbWKwuDvLjia4AZCQC4odyQNh3J iubTBKc4tYzousde2t28gpShuXIP3QpAEkwmPhQF9zbotkIQ1eIu0JHlWlIBjsY60Bv8VXaOJ3sX c451DQP7t8AkKHc7Vo+aVbqvCu3SEtncAJ0/TpQrfpRqKuZoBfiDiBzEqS6u2W7bEQVtmSlU9R2p +3yNvcsMXSlJCVxoK9jv0pvJ3FnY2qnLnSlkq82oSJJ/OoV61bXGNUpxkvNtw4lCBuSOUUBtjmZO tSh6V3xNdt2XDltknsS3cPl9LKGnRqiZkyPdQfk3sy/hcffYUOJHifvGlCFEAxuO21aHh8lkL6xu cbe41u2aU2lLNy4SsKWpJ3CQCdlRt23oKvE49m+vWbxDGOGOupX7K8wUhhaQJ3APfmI59KEc/wAI 22Q4pXkm2EMJDsp9ne1ocA2CgekxWxcKYD/CeOubV/Lm7c0iUOLPlURJ2J3nv2odes0h5xaUIbbB JAAgCgFnrF1dqvWnWnSfKd59KrsPlfGsUrtbFwKbcS240fLpT1I7xRVd3NpbLQ068lJWCU6tgY9e VDiMoVJu1G1VZNt6tTyo2IIgx1mgKOFbnJNvXLN+EKSFyy4naUnferiyxLf7SdvV73ExITBCTuBy oJF47mcfYtrunMc486FtLbURrgcjHTatDxVwpYS1daU3KQShIMlaZjV+HxoLVKjERuKkoInYAxsT FR0skGOc9Zmnk6kKKQkJSAD6k/qKBxZOgmJETEelR0K1EKUNu469TTqmy5KIkEz7648CTuRHWBy+ FB57Qr+f8fzpe0K/n/H8669nT/Kml7On+VNB8QUqVKgVKlSoFX0Z9kz2GucDaWl7lNaXG9CrMkhC 9gNxHQgV85jnX0J9jWHs89wo0u3tHbe6s3HG13xhSFL1awNJ5wlaRQaDxtZ4/HcJXTAfbt7dTelF qsSlSp59+3yrCW7tNveotoZS2pHkhUEmd9q0/wC0TF3o4cdfvi0+/cPJbUl9oAkJ5EQYHIVlbmKt 3lsuFvzs/cg8vSglIxzCswzkEkpW2kpCQdiD+jRdZvkRpoQwgvHGicggJc1kDTy09J39/wAqm5rN vYlh1uytFuvBguh0iUJggb/U0B+ftFwXDjZtr24Wq8QkKLLbZJ35b8uXrXeT464bzdkyk2TyH7jZ p1xrZQA6way3hHDo40uH8hdteJkApIU2IAWNgDB7D8K1mxw6bHhUWz9iu3W06dPioAkdCNzQURdS wzCYjpQdxDbt5Zbel4tXTB1NrQd0zHT4Vb8UWSck41bW2Sds7i3KXDoBhSVHTE8juKz/ADWGzttn DcW7q3SuIcQYG3cUBOwlxhbj710dOgJOswkEdfSaJ8baov8AEqtrtLbi3mwl4JUY3HShGwx/hrul Xbqnk3QBcZWZSk9Y+NEnDRxxylwm1WgXOlKHUpVyAEJ2921BoPCiW12Hsd8w2Q2ooSlZCwUg+U/K KF+M7BlvJrTbspSkq/hTFRcNisxieKLu9cyPi2TyioNHpMdOkcquM3ch95K4knn6UFNjrFNswq4d IQlIlRV0FZfnc/7dxKzfYzJqZRsgBZICYPUcoNa60RdB21ukAWjqPDUqeZVtH1rMeLPs8tOHmHbr 9ppSif3ba0+ZXoO/yoNBsVOcQcJX1pmsWvWnUWksrVDxSkqG45D37VJ+zVvHIuWnG76/VbBIKLa7 aBCV6TslQPSTvA6V19jjdycMVvXoubZX/SSPMpqAQU7fQVd4zhS/4VdLLl82/ZJR+78kLnmSe3Xa gl5p4OPrXuf60GXF/wCKFEoUggkQrnsaIcrcgBW9BuRdWtK/DAUuPKCY3oK68X7WH2rhtvwgfLO4 Ijr23p/BXHtN5asMMC4t3NQcebMpQRXONw7i21MuuqcSsmStW8HpUzEcPXnDWQT+ylMuY90hdx46 yC3HMg+6fkKApbxS8XhXWMSwguIBU02tR0kkzE0OZ3MZbD8T27795dWtullD6QljW20sApIBkT/e oPFP2g3Krpljht0kMLIec0SFHpE9K0XhNuz454dP7ctSkvI8NTYcOlQ56gOhnrzoPMLxUjiCySvI 5C2deWoqQ14aQkQNtMgKB686k3iUKtHAsJUlSSCkjYimMx9nWHxjttc2qntLR8jaiCE/GJpi4eXo 8Mco70AHZ8UOe23ljf4osWtshWkpQVAJHSI5R2qxcv7S3sn8q++pzHvISQ0W50zA5ev51YtKS848 lxOkoJChIO1VnE67drh29QtJKfDIiPl9aC1s3sVxLh0hopctyRpjYpUPwNFdhfqOTatnLdXs/hT7 QDuFAjy9+VYx9n14xjwpL6n2kXLgS1qEoKt5HpWp4nJ22bxd2cZeo8ZvUgKAkpX7qA8bJKFKHp/z SlSSdR3k70PcIX15c4ZHtrodeTIU6OSoMSBRBJ1nnAO523oPQSEwn7xkb9q9A3O8n0rxJAPPpttH 65V0DAUZ5Cg4hPc/P+1KE9z8/wC1dSj+X6j86Uo/l+o/Og+G6VKlQKlSpUCFfRf/AOG7KrcwubxZ QhLVvct3AXO6lOJKYj08L6186Vr32C8QnD5bN2xtA8y5aounFT5khpWkBI6kl34RQE/2s8R5NXFd viH8cRaNJ1tup/1ROogx0oSS6E1YcT5hWXzT92Sr94okJXzSOg+FVrSkBQ1CSaBxd4hhAccWG20n cqIA+tXlow/fPWarfwHLN0kXGvfUgjaPjQ7mcb+18YLRpQQtSwQY7H/mi/FW6uH+F7lTSPEet7cl pJ31KSnYUFY1wbxJw7kr7McOOsqSSClkNyvRqBISI5gfSipHFOYyaW7HK2L7TgaCioo0omY5RP1N DnAH2oPNKQ1xE09oWvSi4Qz5Bz2NaLn89i8ylv2G7bW4EAlvktIPKRQCGQQG0JEnUvYQmfXc9KBW 883eXrtsLe58Rt4NEBv1I1c+Qj6ir97ii1ayLuLug81cMpkqeAhQjnI2qNcLtHVpctyybtTalMqO +2305UAhm8jmMXmlrZtyqzaAMqRKVDqZ6byPhS4Yx+QRxda5GyWVWzitRcmZB5pPxossXEZmwIub RbYWClbbqYNT+H0Y20/9LYLbKGFFKkpXqKT1BoC27WrwtcxtQInjfD3ToZN0Qsu+GJQdt4me1HD6 HH0hKDzob/w/gMW89duNWiVsKLzhgSg85oGbri7H4HMJsMgHNGwU5olAkTHrselWub4c4b4xuGco cgp1XheGltt0AAc5j41w5jMR9peEDFtdpR4SwpLmndJHQjsRUW74AueHcrauKvQpDSRoS2YHqaC/ 4F4aY4TcdNvcrcS4oGDsBV/xdcN39k4y84tKHEwShZSfgRuKh2CgGwpS5gVU8QX6Ayta1hLSQSon kKCoubvyBAUVACASZPzqmyLibGydvnyrw2xJCRJ7UF5bjtxbxTjm9KAr77g+8PdRpgLpviDApXdN wpUpWhQkGgFbi8zucs1XOJcU3ahYCUJOlfITPx7UbIy1zguELZWXsnL03J8B4NnfSQfr0qVisQmy QWW0thsKJSEJiB2NTeNcIi84FVdatDlk626kgnvpI29FH40FXwRhrRp1fjW+4ZC5UmOZ6jvFaHi7 hi2S05aaPBO40bCKB8RmOILjIWqXXQvHhhOrxGwFbSBBAk1YXmbF8zrw2Rt/Et3kpfQU6xuYgxuP f6UB7kbwXjAQfgazniLOKxF9bW6rS4dQ+opLjaJCPfRZw81lHWFoyfgFwLOlbUwU9JB601nceWn9 0bcwTQZobPM2WTT4Tzd3YPf9UvgBcdieuxq0u7cOtOq8Nbv7oo8BSvIvry6H1qfkWLdbaUXJSBqC khSo8w3FDfFmXusZboatWFlLyD/6hO+g0BDjLVn2RlsWiWkpAUGyAdBq24OxGGs03WVsn0ot1kqc IPlSRz26daHuDrm6exDCrx1LjitwvqR0n1ozt7SytMVdrW0E2ykqW6htP3tt9qBrh+/unc8s4+7a yOHuVKUHgfMyvnp/7aOgJESAmQY/rFAP2cZPh26aeTiEqYIX52XBEHf8a0Bx8pcaUEkpUCZAO239 6D3SSnkY33Nc8vhTCMgq4unEIt3WgkAkrSOU7ctuh27V2HFlHnG56HYgUDmlHY/OlpR2PzprxFen zpeIr0+dB8QUqVKgVKlSoFRDwZkrjHZwhhZSm4ZW056pjUB/uQmh6puIUpOXtNBhSnko+BMH6Gg0 O2tHrh0qUoSTJNTbvGKbs3Rbvf8AqShWgnkFRt9a6YsrhTiVJWpIAI0zsasmrJRKStY39aARxGAy 95mGjk7lamLdaHUBKhCljfl0jevONbTiLEZZV2bi49iWsKbLajpTsNiKKLd7Ia7p4JGPtrC4ClXD idQebAMgAjnyq3uOJH139nfltt7BXbYS0C2C4V9fKSKC64D4n4WyGDaTlrdDb8fvWXbYrRqSB5tk keu+/PtXORs8V+0ncjjGWwi58wW2dlD0qI5wPxPeLvc8LlFktKCiwaW2kFLOqQlXMyB3nn61FyGP u8nbWq8q74d5bq1pXaqKBqjeR1HpQM31qm4KgtpK9Q0mQDI7VWKZtcYwlJS2y2gQOQArjDtZey8Z ORv03SCr92qNwKo+I3mc9fqwqvGZdbIdS5EpVt/egIG3VhZ06SyUjTHP9cqrMdbMYbKXt0pbaBdL CkgmIgSfqSasMXZm0smrcr8TQnTqPWKquKuGns0hhdu4EuNyNJOxBoNFsrou2qHByI2PehrI8A2+ Vur68C3kvXQgmdgdt4+FTOB7G7x2GYs713xFN/GBPKp32h5O9xPBxXYI0ruHgxrQYKAQSSPlHxoB rhvhC/wtupv2EZJLriQtsOadKR/F6n86PM7Y3bLTCnn1qbKE6EKAHhiB5ZHOKCfso4j8J9eOv7qX CR4SXFTt2FaL9oNld5DhdxNi6GnyNKVnpQUts6oJgLkVGyNjb37IYvGUPNzqhQkTWfYHMZbBvrs8 65DQEtPLVOr0Heijh3iy04jDqGiUutmChXOO9BRO8CYly8LraVtpCj+7nY1e29sxi7NKPKywiBKj AFM8SZwYK5tEKtHHkvrKSpP8PL8658C7yYv7TKtMmwWQWSgwY57+tAUY5pDrYWl5KgeRSZqTwtb5 XIu5XFZ5tC7J0lLS2zplB2jblt9aGeC7C2xQuWbe9Fw0XJACp0elElxxrjOG8vbWl2tXiPxyH3QT zNBf5The3xFk2LZx5adOnzqmKFmOH8XaJuxbpLDlyiHC0qFAHqO1aG9f2uUsHGml6lJQHE7GIPrW JXaszacfpedsC+yr92l5AIBQTyPSRMUDp+1J3Bs2lvb2rlwpleh5b6pJSORBHUjvWqKyVpxHiLbI WypbdQFDbce+so4tw+FxV9j793UyhbkraSjUFAETt8a0jDqsU4doWPhi3UmUaORBoMy+0vAXN85a O274SUqKA0penUSJ29dq54fYyVvjBbZMBRTsiTq8vY1oOSYQ8khcLhUiRMGhtbWl4qSsltRkhXQ7 Dbt/eggBpywuXMmX1Js2GTrYSO28j1q6xPFdpleG7m7tloK0NlPhPq0jWdgkn1MCoTdi2u7fWVLU h9AQtBMpIHp8TXWH4ZsMP7QotpNq7u4lzcQN95oLnhGzs8Q/arXaossjdIJNsd5giY+laKlbhT+8 UEITzCYKT6H8qypbLN3xvb5C1ypU8GUrTbkkp8OIkdK0+0s1LtEyNSt9oMcvrQSkELIIKdKIk9pj +3zqO4UFSYUkzsIPT3Uz+znAFAqKSQByjlXbFkGkDbTH50C8Qd1fKl4g7q+VP+zf6lfP+9L2b/Ur 5/3oPh6lSpUCpUqVAq9QtTa0rQopUkyFAwQe4rylQbla2rhGsrAT09KtrawCyCp2T2FV/C1mm54d xrjboUk2zYBBkSEgEfAgiqLO4jjK1ceuLS7PhF0FDTR80Eb9NwDQU+dz2RvLjK4Bx+2ctELWQoJI UNKpSJ78hRHwDw9d3hsv2iHl2wSSySJQIMwJ2Ik/WoOXxjPDSsflXLZasu+tHjJI/dK1AzzSQZ0k R61p3CQZyHDN422E2V460ghbJ+6SkiQCIEETzPOgOX3S7i/CGyUJgAdulAOUSEhZVsBO9XeCyly5 jza36HU3Vv5HFuN6Q5/qEbEH86pMypDrgWl0FtSSCnYhU9f13oBC5vGWrRVy8dDYXEp8wiYB2+Bp lds0pfiJUnVE+sU5f2TLePVa2zSA0di3uAEnnEcutV1kq4QypN2ESlSg2UE/dnaZ60DePzlvc379 k25++ZUUlKtpjqKsblm8uH7ZbDxbDbgUsRIWntVK3jrVvKLvm0aXl8yKev8Aim2wjjbb4WpxQKgl I6UGgY5emArY96LrC1t8haLt7tlt5lY8yFpkGsw4a4nts3beKydK0bONnmmjfhTiKzyReatblt1b SilaUncEUA5xH9nOItcyzf25dtVIWCA2dj2owui/kuG1WzFz4T8CHFJ1RHpUfj3BniLh8sofcZcS oLSpBjcd/Sgvg45/DldrlrhD1uf+kVLlfz60Axx/ww7exdNvJSplJBQvYEc5mnvs+wTWNQLpZSt1 4bqSZAHaaJ+MMUMxj3rfxC2l0feHTef6VXcMYr/D2NTbl8vQSok8h7vSgKL9hpLJcUmYE0C2XE1l nbG5aOq2PmbIcMHfYQe/pRcjKMZBhSW3EL0EpUEmYNZz9ozIZx9spq3QEF4lagIMx/X+lA7wrw7l sHmV3Tj0WgBnSqQ52Ed6Kcjwqzxctu+d8S0eaUWwVcnEg7EdqZ4Zets5w3bsuAra0BKgoyZT/wAV ZccYzM3WIx4xDa1Bt7W4W1EEEDy7dRzoL9PFLHCF7YYFdsp5v2UOOuSJgkiBP/bPxqS7a43iSxDr LilW7pC0lKtKkkHbccjUfht/h/Mx+2kLRnbds2riHphRG/8A29T2NWVpjrTF6mrRoNNSTpQIFBnn 2g2WXF0y6hpNzjG0edCkglHffnECffT7l80xjMVe4/Ii3tWSEqa+8hwKjYxyjfeifO5fH2LZF84E IUdMrSSDtPb0qgxN9w9ftLTjxbuNpJCkBERPoaC0un3i14gEpImRyqnau2rlZ84UB2NdcT8RsYq0 aYWhzQ/LYU2PuCOf1oR4cwuRw+ZR4zq3bW5BKSlJUD1BPag0K1LCAIAJirK4xzeYxj9ko6EvIKSR zFZbg87lbjie7tXGCpsKUEp5aCOQmiLhXL8UO8W+x5KzKbVUghKPKgxzB6/3oCXh7D/4fv2MY424 94bepq6WAUzP3O9aKywoWyRrWhOgJCUmIEdBVVYtNXHhLU4y8Q6W1hJkah+UGr5sgJMfdA6k/Kgi soLRDLaV+GiEiT+R3qWEyZI3Ipam0lKY1FR3225UnA4BCYO+8mNvQ0DOsfoUtY/QpzWn/NH+00ta f80f7TQfC9KlSoFSpUqBUqVKg3T7Kb1Nzwk0xoUn2V1bermFEq17f7hV5lMOeNGEu4i+Wxd4y4Wl SVApGsbFJ+m9DH2JC3v8Xf2BZUt5u5DhJRKYUnyz7i2rmOo91e8UZRVlxJkEY5abZl9J9obQJC42 JWZInymIHbuaB28XkOMOIWsXcoXb2lo5sFgg6pGpQWoeWY2TyHxo/s8E1w5evezXlw8hxKQoOBIE jrtVL9mF9e5jM3t1fW7l42GvDbfXsEpgbQTCgJjvB36VecTcS2GBytna3qNKLsKh3o2RGxoJD95A Mp51nXHONucpZMpx9wbZxhetISSAdojapGQ4jv7rip3Cv2LrDGortbtknlGxPQjc0L5LinJ4jMM4 m/ZaulLI/etgpKgdgY77Ggi4p3NizftcmogwUod1DUKk2/tCWEtOu+KsbFcc6sL5xKPBUELUHFQS kfd2mTXTDbYIM79qCjymWOGsba8S14wdc0iTAgTND2YtMnxAtrKtsJWh0aUoaH3Eg7TWj3mNs8nZ ez3DYWgK1AdjVfm308M4NNwzbak6w2lPID3/ACoIHBPDFzYLW/cKKFup0lI6CrDhzCXHAWWu8zfX WnHN+UkSS4FEAbD1P0qpa4jyuaZbewqfAdYSfFZUArVPIgnnWkYNpfEPDgtszbpK3kaHm+h9fTvQ GGE4hxHErDjdjetuqSkEpmDv76zLjrhrJ5HL29zj7wsm3kBIUUwZ5gj9bVYD7L7rGLdusLklMjT5 EKBlO38wO9dWbGVtmE298+q6dTspxQ3NBJtnHl49DN2pLjoSApQ2BPeq7IoUqzcbbUUqKSAodD3q LxNmVcN4z2ssl1xTgQlEwJO+5+FNYbLs8S432i3SptwGFoV0NAK8JYTK4rOLW4+BbqkKAVOv1rQb 3HMZGzWw+2lbaxCgarLxtOHsH8jdhXhtCdKeZPQfOnsHxJY3/Dy8q+VWrbXlWF77+kc6CjueDr/H 4F22wDz2tbupyVwdMHYR+jV8nix+x+zqycSt96+WvwC4AQttWkyojrt+INSrPjrh1t1TRyKAswAd CoJPrFCd/wAP53GZTGlGcXcW9+4sIcauFBI3Ek9N9VAWcP2+Xu7ezyKlLUFLKlXLydesABIBPPl6 +u9G3igtCSAoc6ocs3m8Tw87bPvreSlnS0ylULmN4Vz57bioOKyz9zYNKeZdadKYUhzcg0DucyjD uS/ZT2Odct32iVP6ZQD/ACmhFjhK0tHrhzHLdadcQUoOr7k9aN7dVrkWXXEPoc8MwdCgYPwoBt2u J7biV4uqS7ZrWSBI0hPSOxoLbF468bxwtsupN2oHZahO3rNXDbyUpCUjbkBFV17nrKwfTb3l2hp1 UGFT15UzkeIbLEXSmXbd55SWg6Sj7qk77A9Ty+dBdoQhoOv21uz7SUyCU/ePqRVri03CrpVysL8V aR+5SdhG208udR8Ui2zuCFzj3fAW+jyKUJKD6g1bYW7umbi2t7i1KXFJ0Pr1iG3AJAA6yI3G1AT2 LLiWUq0eGtW6wlXI7xPKaf8AFhpZf0oUk7g77Tz+VOB2JTKp2Pbr/aotzatuOayhSlBMbk8v0edB KbfCzM+UbzEA06XZmNRHdOxP6iq+3tnNMuwFAmAJ2E7D8KauGRClK8R0qIENLCeXfcUFj4rHcfKl 4rHcfKq+T/mj5ilJ/wA0fMUHxRSpUqBUqVKgVKlSoD77Mr7iJh3L23DNuh29Uwm5cndXhNmClIjc kuJ29KkpNxnLtTVw3b49evzBTYbQDzIV237039i+U/Zv2hMtFvUm9YctioqjTtrn1nw46c/gd8zX AFnncm/kUvoZW+x4byPDHnInzT33HyFBR4pq14P4btyxdLty8vxFodUklQ0hISCNueogczPQiArq 7tM6w07e2QLrK5CHUDU2r8uvqKzTjTF5TDJRjMawt+ySBCiSpQVO8b+WfSrCwuMg3dY8NMPm2Fr4 bilu76xI8/MmNt/0QI8qLW8X4uhTb4QWw6k6VJSe1DT1q0m+culqU8tQEBZkJIESO1e2tle4rxbi 8yr100hBJbUmdtzzO5NVi+KG7+0ffsLUulKJQORkcwf6UE1zxnfuoMUO3edTZZpmyUlS1FQS4U/w zEe/nVtbP32Ss7W4GqyWlUuNETqHaprjNu4+la221ODedO9BYhl4OWfsykKSV/vdXPTB5esxUjiL JYS3tmsblbhmHiAWzvHqY5VGbyFtj0Nv3TqWmysIC1cgTy91CGS4EyOXyj95a31vdtOuqUXkuTAJ 7UBpZ22FxSrdFuWk+1qhvw99XWfd+dF+PIZWkJO01nKW2uGrewsrizev3WvMHG29XhSY2NFDF9eH MNNtJT7KluXNQIUCeUHketBptslTiBPI1nf2hZq64fuGjj7FV0VOBK0jonvR3jrwCzSpxQB5SdhJ 5UH8e4m7yLShbPG2Kx/9QBOjcbR6id6ASy9/a5DHj29pCELTJQ7G201WcOZnBgt2lpctM6lHSg7S a6zvDCOIBaOIyOzKNCiBIUepEHnVG1wC1bPh127JbbOo7RsKA0by9rf5a5wrolxoAlKwIWmOY70S WWEsHbAWCrZo2x28PT5flQlg2sVlcicjZlDt02PDLgO4A9Kn8QcTXfDuQxrVsyHEOkqcKgYgECKC TkPsaZWpV1iX20tndxl3fSZ/hPuPKjzgPCWeMwibO7bZuFMLK0qcQFQruJ5GrXhu0tEYp66t2lIc vkl10LUSdRHY1krPEGf4W4wfZyrqFY66eUGyogR2j4RsaAm4lvC9kVTshOyU9AO1VTaC+hxtKlIK klIUk7ietLLPF+51pkpVuDQ/xRk77DY5hVgUi5ec0p2BMRvA69KC64L4EuMI5eXLt/rYVyTyB/7q sMrd2mOsb9/w3FqtkkqSEkE+41ccEZK6yHDqjkmEM3QAC2p3joSOk1U5XIobzScY5ZurZfQSHdAL e3MGgAsM7huJ9K3ba4TcMgBXikrJ/wDu6/Gi9g2d5ZN/udaD+7hbe4PKCD7q7tsbYY1TnsrKWgsy QO9MZLOWeGYS/ckpbUrT5Uzv8KCRw+y9j7C5YyNtqZbuNTQth5inUCkxPQ7/AANaTaW7IAe8Mdwe s/o1mmMyl9+0VZBiLrFrtfEaQ398rG+09xRJw1k3Mqm8LzVwhKLghCbhPmA57dxyigNS4whpK3Hm 0JJEalRNcl61WDouWlaTpAC4O9VTqEgFTgSo6hpGnYD+lQHsY2JDa1JOoKWoJkq33BMcuf0oCZWk JIUrYgjYxVLfoU2PCZUsa1AbJ2Snr757+tSrYrkBxxJAB3mP6U6GmlLCg7KirT979RQVX7Dx3+U/ /u/tS/YeO/yn/wDd/arfxLL/ANyj/cKXiWX/ALlH+4UHxFSpUqBUqVKgVKlSoLPh689g4hx114pa S3cIKnEzKUzBO3pNfXFhmEXmPaubdaXEqQClSTsRFfGzbi2nUONqKVoUFJUOhHI19R8N3DbdolpG kIKQQE8vhQC32hXi7cryNota12ypUy2ryqnor3c6zu048yTmWbN0WmbRewQpGw9Z51subxdv7Kty 3aSlSjKiOp7msU4ssMqMslxtlT9shA0AIChsBMiOpoDa5zNsp1lvStTL6ZS8gakH0phhi1KPEtlJ CV+bYR9Krri8sbHF2vt6UtIBBQkJOyo6RVVcX+JRl7fJJduXHVteUNJlJG4gz8qAocbLaZ1E7xAF V+bDtliX8hbAKuEJATI5CYO31qnb4jyiMolbuLULZyB4YHn9+rYGrjFryz2Qet8iw2bU/cUNj6D1 EUHeIbueL8Ra2VzYyl1KlqdCo0uJkI27GivhPhK64fxhXdoLVyUadGqR+uVScbhrxdopnEvJtn5S UKKZiCCR8RNGOWW+2y23clKnktpStSRAJjeBQYxbZLiW24rct7xPiWqnDPl8oHSDR5bOBSgajXug uEkbzzry3dS0hTjiglKBJJOwFAbYp1txsIXEbHeoHH9g/f8AC77VteeyKT5lO/6eoqvZy9naha1X LY8JOp0avujnJq8TcWucxakIdS9bvoIlJkEEUGH8J5fEsuqsbVxbZUT/ANX/APUPcdBRzdYxGRxN zbFWkuoICuxofe4CxmJzfjNeJCFShJVsKcRxnaW3ECsU6laQCEpdI2Ku34UETgzhW/wecdedWAgp 0+U7KFam3b2r3hpuGELR1KhMVVWyFOQrTXPEFtf3XDt2xj1lNwtshBHM9wO0iRQaRZrQGU+ERoja O1ZV9teFbOPtb1aoSHICQmSSe3yqT9mTvENg0q0yqXPAbACA6ZKT6HtRrxRjbbibBPY59ZRrA0rH NJBmgysZB1XB1ivAWftS4S14jytOlQ2ggnczt8aKsdhmMqxZ3GSsGva2gFAfe0K6waBXnb3hLIWn D6bVDyV3Clg6yCsGYI5CY6bj4059nvEuVx2d/Y+Qt3VW5XCSuSWvn0oLvMcM8QI4nuLmxcLVvcFJ S60qCiAB5vlV5d2aVpt3LpKHLlgeVwjcEiDHvqdkOMsO3njiPaki6TzBECe08pqPkUouWtCyoAKB lJImDPSgzzjxOWU3b3NhcKaaYJW7Co5cie/WuH31Z3A2im7dF2HFp8UJVGnuRRDmrY3GLumEwpS2 lJAV1JEUOcFWybPElMaXC4dY1SAQY/pQXTmWVwwnGsM2pctVuBpZH8A6UWIVkrbiW2uWnkHFutAO NEAEL6EH6VTsrbcWltxGodJG1NcZ3d0xw427a24d8J9CyOwB50GkvvoFv5nEJSPvgnpvsKhJu3Lh htzStK1J2A2J7GqbhjiW04ixbL7ZkoGlaSOSv+aIEJgTO52nl+ulB4FqS2S8sFQ6Rtv1/CubZLbD q1SQn+JaiIG52Bp1tvQiEk7/AD9+/wAKjXjKFokqKA0QqdUCf0aCD+12/wDJt/8A+Fyl+12/8m3/ AP4XK5i67N/7k0ouuzf+5NB8m0qVKgVKlSoFSpUqBVsfA2YvTi2nbi4bVasthAEeYQB94/rnWODn WpcI3lnYcKW7q3m0FalhcqH3tRgH1iKDWVOofs1RuCms8ytwtl5DXszqw65oUW9igb71dYPOtZG0 JZUdKVFO/cVX8UY+4yOKdRbPll8xpWgkbgz070A7c2FlxhiG3mVOtFtSgkqTBB6g1xgsOMZZqRfM tFTLiihwGfL3qbiLpVtg2HsisMrSNCytYgkEiSe5qJe5a3av2cJ4K3GbprT4qV6inVIFB3ccU4lh xCEueOozAZAURFWVhm7C8SytpRHighJchMLH8B9dxyqlwHCP7Mv3XXy28kiEGJjeZ9KtsnhbNrGr U3b+I4hRdQgDbVFAbcA5G8unG03rCWH0uFKkpVIPY0VcTqAuFHuKzThbiV5yx9sctIuGXAktNrkk SN949THpWiZ11NylLqTIWkEfKgBb1etZ07welMuZG1xVuh2/WG2XFhsFQnzGpL5bZcWQIJM/GoWS Yx+Vtk218lJQVhSQTG4oKXGLs+JOILzH5GyXb3CklKXmlGFoEwD05RUXA5t7g/i5dnb3Bu8XrACU nUI6+4zWkYrGsXGPftrVSEOuMqaQ4kbp2jn6VlTXDGe4R4kSXrVTjOvdRGpKhNAZ8S8T483Vk6UP pRdqIBLZ8pHenG+F8TcZBvJuM6rhJCgSTBPqKIboMXts24tpAUACBp5H0qOwkrWEp5T0oOrjLW2N SgvuoaQpQSkqMCTVozdSEubFB3kGgPjThDI5ZharW81kKStNuoAAbQYP1pOM5yz4I9jYVOQS3pSU q3A9D3ig11p5h61C0Aao3iq9y9HmTO4oK+zfKZe5xS7bLtuJeaVpStwQVD19as+Kc1b8O45V6+ha zqCEIRzUT/waCRmMDY59TLlwFofZVLbrZ0q901S5lVxeNi1xtxb2mbaWFllSwVKSOnx2NTeGeMMT xC6GmHFIeABLbgg/3q9ynDuOevbfMLZBumoAXPbl+NBXK4QxmSbt8veWiE5HZT2gkAr9R1qJmWn3 rfwbO48EpUApWmSAOcete4Xj3H5jL3eKQhxtxpRCFKGzgHUV7nS6Ld0MmFlJ0n1igE7/ADdxb59q w9kcWw4gK8Ycknfnt6V7ZHQX4tUsAuKI0kQv/Vt3ofwLfEDankZIlSFTClq1EH09Kt8Ja3rDBRfX AeVOyvSgaPEN3js/a2b7IW1cKOlxPMAnYfCrbi2+yNnwsssvajqOpWn+Enl8BUpq2YU4lS9JI5SK vFWdpeWJZdAUg/eSRMiOXpQBv2W5MqadYLAQoH76R96tia8yNgYMGgXg1m3cu79pmzLCGHghB07K EDcGj5lIHJI+FB021AGoQTvsZj9RTb1t4zZToSpII2Vty3H1H091SEphIkkADf504kSlIMchJJoK v2S5/lb+QpeyXP8AK38hVtq9P/Glq9P/ABoPiWlSpUCpUqVAqVKlQKirB2zOV4cdxw1+MLkuAgbJ 8giT66VD4UK1ecOZ1WGNwEsB4O6SRMEAT+dBo3DNo5jceyw6vU4mZM/T4Ci5ptNw1Ct5oXtrpC3k jWgSmQg/en1okxDhU94atweVAL8QcOXl1jr23dcS5rVrY8sBHYev96puHuGDjnW725cUbkI0lIVK R0HTsBWp8RWIdxyUlolLkoWUq0kAg9ayLjXMXWMdtrO0Wts/9QrB5gbR60Fpb8TqVxE5i3bRSAkk JcmZEdRTGfyuasc1am1QV2bgAUgIBBM779DHKouKzSMleWalrS28pCtafCnV7ldOX1ooXeMIfZt3 J1uzp2MbRO9AB8LkP8SXVmtpZtblCkuBRjkZST6/nW1WlxOKaYBWQ0gIGoyYHehNvHWjV0q6bZQl 5Q8y0jc1cWz5SIn30DF4ypbk71nnH1rfIdsn0Ffs4BA0k+Vc/lWluOgHzCuvBZu0hLrSVpBmFCaA A4fxfEODw3+I7W8Wkt+ZTK9xpJ3JBPxo9Gev+IlpU/cWiUKYSpPg/fQTtJB6c6kcQ2Ns/wAHvMOK fQ1qQoi3b8QiFA7pkbbb9qj2nD7TOCtnlOuLaebQUoW14akxvuQe9BKauGl2YbRcJfLXkWpMfeHO QORp7HrAcKiKzm/xfE+Jy91c4p1BZuHNXhhII+INaHgfEdYb9rKUvKSCoJ5BUbgfGaCRf5FllMuK Sgd1ECqF7P2Kb5q0Vcth50ShM86qPtD4Wy2XydquyIVbIbKSkrjSZ3Mev9KGW/s/vUvMl25SFp5w ZgelBq9g+WXgoiB1qwvrO3yjKm320PNq5pUJFDCmrlWLVat3CkOlsoS9ElJiJq/wPiNWDTNw/wCM 8hISpwiNR7xQZJxDgrvA8WL/AGU1cNW8JUhaQYkjfeKPsdn+JAzbt5S1Qq0UNPizpWPeOv8Aej9i zZeguISrruJqu4z4Vtc3hBoXpftwS2mYSSRvMUAVxBdNcO464yNlj2VXX8KgjueZjpUDhziO74hx i13jIbfQYJAISoek11i8s2tpvCKUu4u2EHWsIJTsYiTT5uPBJTo0+kUHjyghZkCo7VypSU606VTu JmnH7+2SEF8xqUEj1JrtTNt4RWkqJiYoAfiniu9tr42FlLRbIKljmrbkKP8AgrMXGTsIv7ZbSwBp Uox4gjmBQnhDZ5wPZDJWaGk2qyrWZjSO/eKIMnmMRYWFhmm2zcAEpZLZjSDzJHwoLLghTzfEV+1Y IQrEpOgEOqJSsHfYnbcn5CtRbQCN4E9KFeD2rG4x4v7JgtC5UVqSQQffRamUokHeOdB796EE7xG/ avVExAA2HavQAoCZkn5U6kJRG426EUEbVcdx8jS1XHcfI07/APaPkfypf/aPkfyoPialSpUCpUqV AqVKlQKrnhdLbmcaZcb1hxJA3jSR5p9fu/WqarPh64NrnrJwJCiXNEHb73l/rQWrqFu8csoZelYe TMnkBuR8prXMbraW2o9DQnY4+wN87lWoChKVEiIIO/4UV49TTobIcGhcBKp5zQFr+q8xim3CIiRH bpWV8aqx1hZJfurdu6WVaWUkTJ58+gitCyPEFhgWrVNwhx0vEhOnlAiZPuNCtw/ieIbION2qCxqO ltaQdJB7culAP4a/sb3Ge2BlNuhsHVMAJjnv2qXe5extcZ7cVhxoRpUgTM8uVQ8q5c2TlvbWWPQ9 aKlLiRtA/KJp9q3sHbZyx0NhuIU0Onw6UEnB5Bd/jmX3NJKhuU8j86tH8gxY2rlw8vQ22JUrtVMW WrG0SzaJ0+GJbQDAJ7H0plhDubwimMi0GXXQUrSnkDOxFAR2GTYy9sh22UlbauRqGxxS23xQ/hFW q0FKQEu9zEn4VG4Vw68JaOsoUFlSioEmrY4ZOZtVuXTabW8cbKFONc0+40HPD/2Zv3l8Hcllrh5C 1alJCjChzij7ithFnbW1pb6i2y2Epnc0NXYyPDmFs8lYLur64tm0sKb1Skp6rUOp5V0jP32dtG1Z CxU0pKQfEHJRoINxbXarRamdBejyBwwJ9aouJhngiwXh1+G62sF1KFbE7d+Y50UvOLUjy9qzVv7Q HrPPuM5C1i1DmnUJ1IHf1oNgKlrxjDj6Ql1bYK09jG9A+dsba3vk524cuEC2TpIbkggnt8aOLR5v I2DTjCtaI5jt0oHyPEdk9lbvA5G3WxJ0ILmyXgR9KDzD8R2eXsbh63S4XmZ/dqG57fOoXB3GN1ks q7Y3dsppwAqBExz5GetWlnibbF2i0WTCU7SATzPqagO53DWBuHy+z4rI86UEFU9vWg1e0e/cABXm jaqxGVvhlDYrti42WyVvgQnUenyqrwWbGcwqbnGrClbwF9FdjRFYIuLezSq+U2t8DzqQmAT6CgwJ +64g4c4nukeyrh18qW3p1a0kmIV8aJsTjsnbrulXdyp9p1GpvxPMEqP127cqK+MrX9oqtbuzvFNp bWFqLcQsD+E+lUOTzdtjMcq6cV4oSoIKUEEz2oBi2zzd5xBcWDjPgoaWoIWTIJSY+FFtrZvKaGrc Efejas+vconii59isEuIU8QvSpKUgADcSNzvvWg8K2l3j8UzaXNwpwoTACjOncnn8QPhQC3EWXus HnGbNptCrVTYLjZRsuedQWMirIZf2NQNghxGhpkJ1Ngk7GD1+FaJxVY2TGIXlXrNu5dt0+QHpJFR OGcZjeJbVvKvMIauUjcg7JgmOfoKA/4aYVZ4q3ZXpK0IAUoJgH1ir0K0kAhRJ5bbVBsEeCwkFOyY iP6VMSlS1JVyEGQCfhMUEhCU6QozEcopw8wDsD9abmZ2lW8dDXYAVG+8yZoOdI7D/bS0jsP9tP8A gDun5H86XgDun5H86D4dpUqVAqVKlQKlSpUCpy3eXbXLT7ca21haZE7gyKbpUG3IbaCFNqSNKp1C OdWOOQy002yhACEQEjtFCmKyDtxird+6OlXhpUtRPPb7x9/Ool3xwjHZBpq2ZTcM6d16oGo8o79P nQH1hw8q+4kfu7x3x7NxrSllfJtUAEj5H50+9iMdifFbRpabbGpSQOQ33+hqDZ8S5ZrA4rK2+JJD ilC7agkpAmCPTara4yacnbouktKaLqZ0rG6aALzFje/ttm6tLoJtUJ0rZI5+tUzuJaZy68i24sOr +8Araan5XJOYYqXkHitt16GylEaQd4PuHWvLu3auGG303amTB0FJ2USIE0EK9y9tZPMounCkuTBi QB61X3mduDe3uJSgN+KnSxcJVB5TPx35VW2HDl9kwfaXpQ2ohK9eqe8Giu54Vtby0t2yS04xGlSe 3b3UE/hy5yZs7Vu5CVqAKXVEmYHI/LnRZcquGsVeO2qNVwhhZaTEyvSYHzqrxo8BsJUN07A85FXr HtLkezpDigQSkmJEifpNBS/Zzx/4jzeHzzZbcACUXCv4j/q7Vp2ZxjTlklbWkpjaKzy0yfDnF9xc WycJcakKhF0kCe0mNwOXeji0uS1i028yEDSJ7UAy/ptkkOEAcpNZXxqhDfENtpsA407BcWkbq33j 1rQeL8arMY96zDymtRBCh0IM/wBKrrDGqas2GLpYuFNCA4sb0BLwrot2kMpPkKYE1X8W8H43LZFu 8uG1eK1sClUSOxqZZAMlJBiKt7lxNxa6zEjnQCzoTbsFKiQhKYknkKAX+BLbIMu3GNuwrxfM2CZE dpo+yymUWVwq5SPZwg65EgpjehjgzN4VRcsbILZIUVJQ4ec9qC2+yzh/IYR28VeeRK1BKUTMkdfr RdxDlmHcSFNPDWl7Q60mXFKQDBEInYxHT1iq1vPWNrlGrFy5Qm4cEpQTzqRmcC5+zlXfD9s21k9Q VrAABBPmmdp3NAK5TJWi3GzZKu7ezbVCGwz5YPfc7zUJjhPHXuEc8BxzVcK8TWvmD7qNsRw5nLux uHs0tXiiFJmDMe6mWrdTKVIUJKT2oMtasLThPJFd8+klST4aUpJJHuq6tePbQrhvHXjqU7qUAkQP nXmW9gzfFRsLy1dacYGlt1J2WOe4ojxWDtMewplpAKFmTImaC2ulHJ4Fl+xWlTbikKWHU82ydxHe KI8Xj2bNpLVu2hpMSUpHImg++zFpiDaWFxbqVbXa/CVH3U++jGxyjKMg3i0Mul0sB9CynyETB37j b4UF3bJS02nxCVQBMiSa6Ly4hEBRnUQP6fOuFajpPUjfpSQtAUQUkRG4G1A62SBJUe41Gn2iCVco PMHnTPiAxGxO+5in0DlCRymg9hz9f8Uoc/X/ABXuhz+Y/Kloc/mPyoPiGlSpUCpUqVAqVKlQKlSp UF/ZZ66VijiC0FNupLaXACVCeXpHT3UTcO8G62NN4QolQUE9EkdqreD0Wy7FxTiUF1Lx58wIEf1o 6tMnaWjzbT7zbS1/dCiBI5daAgd4swvD6bbFOXA8RwlKgncIMDZXbnUh5bTqdSCIO4r3IcLYbIWt tkXbJpT6hKnANyRtv3oSXxRbMcQO4hdu4zogIXHlVtQT8tjLa/b0XDSHEAzChO9DXE2MN3hlW9u2 FONlKm0hUbjb8JosU4Fo0zO1C92nJt8QILZSqxKIUDzBk0FVweq+bQ9Z3FstsNqkKIjftRNfXYx1 qH3gvQFBJ0iYnrU5gBKNWmO5qDfZFtONurhTKnWW0yNMHxBHSgj2vFmOeQwoKc0uuqaCtPJQE7+h 2iiXgHia0zmTeZCFIWyYKFiCQeRoP4VxtgtC7hlepi4V4iWXBCmj1FFTT2M4ZeTkiyG/EcSlxxI7 mJPpQGuO4CYxOWuclZltFq4gqLYBkH57j5QKo15K+tc+7bPNNixKf3buvzFW20H40QXqs3f5zF+w eOnGhBU660sRJ7jnt8t/Ss54uyeLvuIzgrxx9u4acSoOJGkFfSCPfQFV8gLGsQR0oZz91dWuHuV2 CQq4QnyiJ+nuryw4nY/a6cSrW40UgN3AOoKPWau760Ab1NjVO9AMcK5+8yOMDl62UOpVpJiNXrRZ a3ojRI0noaB81xFYYJ9Vu4lSrhKQoNoT39aFb/7Qsg49Fi2lloGQSJUffQa7ncYnI4a4tknT4qNM jpWMO4K54cyzVzdFSWUOCHE/xVsPBuZ/xFhm3ltltZ8qknuKsc9wpY5XHFi6b8v3kKHNJoMze4ZR xJmPbsflGnSoJUUTCkcq23AMuN49DLjmp5KANZ67c6z3AcAs4nJIv27lR8NP3eU1CtPtPurTih21 uLUCz1lsFAOoQefrQbW/k7S1DdpcrQHX/Kgdz7qz7OXTFipxbrgbBWEp3iTOw+NMPI4nveKRkEFL tiFA25REaCJ3HOec1MzDKy/FyykqkGCJE0A1YZFvKWQv1WS2XRI0LQAox61IxeRN9ZodWw4ws7Ft YgpNMZe7uMc3c3JZSq3bbCkpTOsq6j8KFGeMWC8yiytHFPPOAuoAg78z6mg0ZFnbXike0ISsJOoS ORqxyfE9ngHLEPtLUp5fhoKU7J9TVbaXDegoCtLoSFSRsAf+KvLRiyzFoh5XhOIA1IXEgeooLz2h x1tosNghW6lk8h0gd/ypzwgtUwJ7dYqrweXsckX2bG8Rclg+Gsp5THSr4Apjvyjse369aDhpJgTG 55etSEKlaQSdt/8Aim0plQB2AO+9OBG/SOtA7rPb8KWs9vwpfvOx+f8Ael+87H5/3oPh2lSpUCpU qVAqVKlQKlSpUEywVdIUpVmtQcSUq0pEz6+4T9a0ZvDtcU2Nq7ftFu6SjTqQYoO4MW2M94S06vGa UhIjrsr8EmtWsUBoiI2PKgM7ZAt+GrWzKipTSI1nmaE7+yYduEuraQXUnyqI3HxokS/4lkncdjVB fvhomTPvoGQxtsqKhqBU7BAjoec1HfyiGEqW4sIQOaiYFQrnijH2ePN14rboIltCFCVGgt724TYY 9+5UhSg0gqKR1qp4XzNrmrJ0C3DIbMKR0g/CrjhjJ2nFGPUpKU6wCl1lW5H5ipLnD2Pt7R22RbJb ZWPMlsaZ+NAB2jF8rihV9ZocZY16HGlp6D9TR9Z4tVytCrp1brZ5trGx3MbfH6CqZnKWV+69jLK6 8K5aOnURuCD686I7S+aTkWrNU+KUEqUBtIjafjQaZhFIasG0I2AEUD8b4VhNy/fW9syq+Ug+G4tI JBjbeiLD3gS2pJVATvJ6Co3FqH7vDqdsfDW6UktlROkmNpjpQZvi7h5jGIeylqww+idSkAAR3Pai TDZK2yKYadQ6kcikyKC+Mr5y04YWhaApx2G1aeXr+FUX2V+MjLuuJdKWdkqR3350BjxFwjY5PLG9 eRC4ghO2r30OX1twzibtFtettpcKZ0lM7Vqd0ylSidorM+MOB7rKZgX1osHxIC0kxpjaR8qAx4Hu 8bd27SsYAGEL0lMRB9RWj5C0C8apYTukTWc8KYpGCt0Mt8yQpR7mtTCi5i3UNwVLbOme9BmeA4nb yl5c2bjDtu6ysp0OiCR3qPd8De1cUDLF1r2YwSz4fWKDbTE5nEceLU7fNuOuSpwFclaZ7Hetat7v xLXc7gUE7Fvs24FtKRp+6n0qLxCtJWlyOe1Y3c3mXb+01dy046FJd0gGdJRHL3VrT923c2YLn3o+ VAP36m1NnURHLehy1xWNtsi7cMtITcKJKiP1tVncZCxuLty0ZfSp5uSpA/h5c/mKF7HCXFtxJc5F 24lDk6USevegNrJ1p6QiFQdJirm3aKbFy1ZRpStJEDYUIYXHNY5bngrWQ6srVqM7mjiwWlpouOk6 Ugk7T9KCk4PwTPDOcFqgPqefaU4pX8AHKCe+5itIEFKYEwQT2FZL9pOWuMTfYnK44hLySpOqTuNt iPX+laLwtllZjC2164lTbriBqTEwYg0F203Md+9O6QCAqB8KYW/4aRqMSdp5A96QeKE+IoyJJgCK CTP/AG/L+9Kf+35f3pj2hXdHzNL2hXdHzNB8RUqVKgVKlSoFSpUqBUqVKgteGrn2XiKxc0apd8OJ j7w0z9aMc9lcn4jRxSXU+C4Uup0/e/tQBZXJs7+3ugnUWXUuaZiYMx9K2xpDSlHSAZ5nbnQQcNnr wX/s1+ptKX2wthAmQQBqBPI70zxPcvtFsJZefbedAX4SoLY7g++rhxpswE6UupBIVG6dqq0ZdtvJ /s68UkuqUQ0tI8pgbg9jQVvEXDistbh+1ecbWGgnwifKred/WhjG8FX1xcFu7llCeUGZrTr5Fwmw d9lCfG0HRq5TG1QuGr169tFJvQ2LtpRQ6ltQMH17UEzgThNjC3bi23FrW4mDqooyTQ3EVHxt00xd IhQmdx6VPyp3JSAqdxQZy3wXbtZpeQQ8tKlOFekdJosQ6wwptLy0JWvyp1EAn3V4++3btqddUEJT zJNVnEWGRmsWUpOl9HmZWCfKqgLcbeBh9I2KeU0Q3ZNxZqQgiCnl61iHDPGD1pkW8HlArxUHw0PH +JQ5A/nWvWl2HbUFJBPI0AHmU2HjGxv3Gv3nJC1AFXuFUGat14nBqcwbfhuJIOpsbxVtx7wWnNZB N+h9TboRERIPX4b1T8KWeTxNq5a5FClt6zo82rSOvwoDXhzIP5LA2tzdIUl9SIXIiSOvx51OdgJJ qs4ezbGaxfjMtLbShZRCxB261OeV5COUjagrbDKXDmQuWX7bwm21gNLCp8Qd/StAxmTSu1QCdxtz rHrBg23EWTdTlA+QmVW6p/d9R+hVRg/tDyCM+lu8UkWy1aYAjTvtQHPGOHYazSM0xbeLdBQklzQA OUk+lSMNe3S7dJu20tumZCVSOe30qfk1i6x4cO4iRQ6xcqKtI2igu79c27irZLXtEeQrG0+sbxUN N8PADbikB0p3CTsSOcele+EtxHIlUUP5gu2CHLpLBW8lJCBG59PwoHFFu2uVlLYSVqlRjmakFlq7 agmBzJFeWyVKwntuQbCChvW4E7xtJqFichZ5Rl1y2WEpbBKwvbSB1NBNyj37Hwj9+jz+EkFKRtJJ j+tVuJ+0hkYtb17brS6kwEtiQqrDPv2Vvw8XLpfiWlwNAU35gqexFU68DY5vBNN4hKQEEElAkjbr QGvDeQxXG1j/AOqtkrAUAWljcH9GtAt7ZthrQylKUdhtWf8AAnC7nDzSior1Onedp/X9a0VuEJgi VR1Pp76DpbZXqUSD2EeorgtFSkuOEKKT5Z6TT8EzJjcHYetMrZUVIWVqECI9Ofw6/Sg8j/t+QpR/ 2/IV14Z7IpeGeyKD4ppUqVAqVKlQKlSpUCpUqVAhWkcHDKJt9V0tSmFISWdRnY7/ANazcVr3CRW/ wrYuOGVBKkg+iVED5ACg4yfEllisi0xcoXrcH3wNgPWrK5t7O9tU3PhIdcR+9aHdUbb0P3+Faucw TkbpCm3FfuG1GCO4FEbNsbdLCWEJLafKqTuE+n0oJGJyLGQbS0pSEXMbtk77bGAeYmmb3BqtWLpz F6Le7fUFFwiQSDO/1+dUvEYWVIv7Jsi5tlBDZSkhQM7gjqD39aNcW8vIYhl19vw3ika0nvQA9q6L LKC4Xfuru7VoNvMCVlQJ7dYmtFYuxeWqZIKk7bUF53hhu4fdvbRxTF+R5XAYqw4bWtizHiLbcWpR K1tmQpXU/SgtrxOlhZ0a4H3Y51A4fyoyuOS8thTC5hTahyNWLjqVnSrrXCGw390CPSgrbrh6xuMo L9TQ8YAbjuOvvojx7pZ2JMVCkfKnEKgDegsr1SX2tJg1QKbAUUnpVqEqcQYO9U94tbSzIINA8xpZ +7A7gU47K1tqKyEpMkd6qC66vSWjB1AkntO/0qwYv7V5z2Mvt+0Dm3qGr5UDf7Ms03jt02wgPuiF rA3UPWqZ/gjGm9OQWC02mVLT/CIHOiYWjiFbT7jTni6UFt1IKVCCCOdBKtUW1zimU27oWypAKFA8 xUT9k29mlb7i4SkSTPKhXMM5u2zlm7iSU2LaQCykwgfCrW8v3Mlg3gpp1lakFK21iFDagrXPtGxb N6GG0OKbmC5GwostDb5a3U66hCmTBbUkzqEc/Tevnu5tnm3vO2pO8biK0fhy6v8AFcMXDitaVpZU toHeNpG1BoL+IZucY7boSdDiCCk+oqswPDlnYvP45uzWWnWZW9zSqdime9D/AAVxJm889cMvQtrQ EhYEaVRz+NEHC3D2Uwq3UXV6stPOBbaQuJIM7fLf0oJPEHBrF3iGLC2cW1atEJLEgAyobzBMjf50 QcPcL2GDs0s2zSUgjc8yT61aJbccbZAab1awskgzBmfjv61PQgpAAG56RtFB421AI0yqPd36/L51 IgBJPKRPmrxO6ClRICexpN/vCDr1g8o/XpQdBvZJVAnpXi1EaCCUwByp7TAG4J6wOfvplUkKBO3Y H0oPNR/mHzNLUf5h8zTnif6v/EflS8T/AFf+I/Kg+IaVKlQKlSpUCpUqVAqVKlQKtR+zx5S+HHEr USEXKkpBMwNKTA7bkn41l1XfDuYew7jryEhbKikOoH3jzgj3b/Og0jN4FjLqaU6pSFtK1JUg1xjr 3IM5V6zuWJt0gFp4dR2PrVnbXKX7ZDqTqQtIINdrQk8ooKNHEaFcSOYu5tylJ8qFESFbTNF9mstJ 8h8vIpodyFvFs7cNNIXctoJbkbzG1VHD/wBoXhPW9tkbbwnFSC6oEpB6HTzoDq6HiJUOtVFhjmsb rDKdKFrKymdpPOlb3K1qW+pxxZeIUdQ2BiNq4yBdubF5th0tPFJCVfynvQTnULcIjYelPNOqQIc+ dAuau8kxh7a3cvvDv/FT4akK06/1NFbV2tvDNu5NTaHEoHiKmADQWZcESCK9bfk96p23w82HGF60 ESFAzVlaMOKRrP1NBb2jms7jSOhqE6xdP5Z5pxDZsigFtc+bV1EVXWvEdteC7tbJxK7lmUlJEbjr 670G2WZ4sUzcJIcUtCwA4pIEGYj1nlQaOjDIb1KKwEgTvWcXWGfveJP2pibvxGi5Klp5oKeYj4Ud 4a/vuIOH3ptlMXiQpB8UEJ1Db5HemeH+DF4e4ccbfcIWudM7D9cqC/tLpacehy4QFqKJkDnWX3nF NzxJnGrLw1WKUPSlbRM848w5GtgVjg+02l3ZSFagRMyQR39T86rU8I2LWUXept0pcUBKin60A6MZ xB47KGb5tbPglCnFI31dFRRJaYJkNeLdNNKunAgOOBMalAQD8pq8t7XR9xCRJ5qT07VJSzrSlRg9 RFAHX/BVhetrS60pSdQIk+7t8as2eH7QWgtvZkFASQBHrvz9/wBffRAtOonygAGBPakEQNUGJ2FB W4nBWGJTotbZtlsmTpTzq1ahySlKpmAoiNO1JSSYH8PbvXSW5KVlREHVIMb/AKNBKU94DiAYE8oM 7RXjDqlnX4RSSBsRPPpUUtpCytKylShpB/rBqTBS0VqXBHLkD+t6B5AVqOtME7867OolJgiIAHKN 6btgoeZ10rK4jyxz5Db3U6FgpWFKUpIMbkUHQT5pAAAg7e6mzA5bbiPTauy6mDvpHqdppnUYJKiS fxoO/DP8v1P50vDP8v1P51zqT/l0tSf8ug+J6VKlQKlSpUCpUqVAqVKlQKifgQW688tm4CT4rCko SoTqUClX4An4UMVc8J3CLXiexcXqIKyjyiTKklI+pFBpObu/2XiXltApITpSUJmCdgY7b01ir+5c smzdgeLG6gefrU67KCghwCD3ofzd27Z4l121H7xI2PYd6AkbuEr2iai3eIt75aXHWAAlUhQT7utB nC/Edyu+Ld4svAiU7AGaOrjIKfbZQDpbEK0p91A7d2RucYq2Q6plRiFp5iCD/SuE+2Kv27P2RSmf D/8AqAr+IdCKft7kmNp99WzFylIHhiHDyNAPZXBtXDzbd4gKLZChB3SY609fY5OUxTtiT5Vp06o5 etWd9jXbl5rwHlhwKlw7EK6xv+NScVav2pWi+LLoWs+CoJhRHrQReGeH2cVYotypTgBnzGpuevWc Www00plD77iUNh0kBW4kT3iauGV2rrDgYW2AnUkq1clDp79jQzZYFzJNH9pOJvmS8XGXCIKUnlHp BoGMTg7RvL5G6tbRbd4kmNchKyRO3pNEmMxXtVuhd4whL6gFLA5A+lWdvj2G1oIQJQjSk9htt9B8 qnpSQOW9A23aobSpKRuSZJ708Wyncdo9a6BVp5wZ2iuFkx6cz60HoRqUPz2rvwQqIAnvziuG1HXq Ajonf9e+n0LkAzIFA4hpKB1IHOkrdMCRHSkXCYHWvDyMz7xQIpUFlU9dgegpGAnmZMbAU24kqJ+9 616lzTso86D0p3HlJ2+FdJURMT7+9cap3BJ+FelQMDn6UDoBJBJ5V4dK1oCgFKmQOcVwtzSmJPOA E9T3r0uq2AEepoJH3gCSZ5Ad/h8BTSypPibSBtB7zXBuDrQmCEDcrnf9RTDDgKErcCxyBSVajQTQ NSTsSIA589or0JCCBuCBz6014q9ENJSF7wViYr1B0kqcBjoBv2oH5R+opSj9RXHjI9f9p/Kl4yPX /afyoPiylSpUCpUqVAqVKlQKlSpUCqRYXXsWQtrrTq8F1LmmYmCDE/Co9KgP+KrbJ3uWaTjnlOaU +Zlte6Tzkiru04Yv3rEJvVtpUoQpMzXGKtbVy7Rm20qbfum0uKSDIBKQfjRS1eeVSwkrUBIB60AY 3wxaYzKtWinG2rhxJWiQdx76I38b7Dibi80+O6yD+63BkbfKprNt+23WLp9lbdy35U7R9dqJmsM4 SEutgtuTrVEwqeUdQZoM94byjnEdne2i7cWboT5X0AmP7iiHHcOXiby1t37x5SrRAV4oQAl2SZB7 7d+80UWHD9njVFbLLaCo76Bz3q3SkCDEdBFAL5Hh69f1m2vFMJU3o0gAjVP3vl0q6s8cPZ2g+lK3 EQdUdQI/Xvq0CUzJgz0r0CEiNu/pQVP7FtlKlTSQQ54g369/fU1NsECEgiPSpUCZpQokjfSTQMpa g9K7iJI6U5plQG9dBO/v7CgYUFQYrkJ33AgenSpAQfxrzRBEc6DhLcpkjae3pTkbGPdXoSfWByr0 cqDkAxB3npE0266pKVeU7cppwhOw3moroJgJI0yJMdP1+FB40teoqWo7nYREVy6EubKUQgDeNyem wr1QhfPboPlSAUrVEieZoPHng0hDbQ0wJJmvW1yACrUoJkztTbraUKGlCZiCSIPOuA2QoiSQdzPU 8+dBK1KKSARvzBpNpU2CSoEnmfj/AMVykAJ5x0rpSfLBntzoPC7qUmVCVfdA7CumxpWISAVbqM9e 9MoSQCpSgVHYDsKeYtg3MajPOTNBIbSYSVE7medPIToEhWw2k9KZS15wsjzbQT6f812fEUoISAEj ckGKByP/AJT+vhSj/wCU/r4V7K/5vrSlf831oPiylSpUCpUqVAqVKlQKlSpUCpUqVBtf2fYh2+wW Pv7tetBSpttKVQAlJ07jv5frRfYYXRkva0lbYICltq8yUqAggbct/nVL9lX/AOR7P/ue/wD7mtAR /wDTr93/AP0KDhrH6UIStyYOrz7nv+MfKpCRoIMgnTpPkAkAn49TXaeQ/XauV80e80DZGt0qlXIA +70ruAnkd/QbCvTyb/XWkr/pn3D8aDttKgRq9efOuktGTvtXqfuD3GnW+avcKBoIAkwT6k11A+vO l/D8a9T90e5P9KDxIJIInbtXsEdPdFdo/wCmn30kf1FByEbE/wBaUEnsDFdK/wCkP+3+lJXI0HKk yK52PLkacV+vpXCeY/XagbUYTMjY9NqjlADk6RuNzUhf/RP/AHCm181/H8aCM40kuaoGrcT+vdXc dQZ3+dcp5q9x/E10Puf7vxFByWhMxvHfnXgQoqJ6QI6U6vkPjXp+4v8AXega0qjoQD2rtLalLMnY CAZ2Fd//AKNdp/6Z94/E0HqGExEbcgKfDcIgVynl8TTyOfxoPQkBUk7U4EAAGdyPrXKfvr93517/ AJf670DelPYfOlpT2HzrqlQf/9k= --1915785203-1128044582-961713521=:20274-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 16:08:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA02583; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:06:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:06:13 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:06:04 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mars photo attached In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"i7Hf62.0.Ae.ZlfKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35757 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: Did that come through? Or was it still too big for vortex-L? ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 16:22:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA08922; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:21:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:21:06 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:20:56 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: VORTEX cc: sciclub-list eskimo.com Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"wQfaS.0.DB2.XzfKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35758 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > > > > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg > > > (Mars water image) Hey, also note that there's a wide zone of dark color ABOVE the "dalmation dunes" zone in the original photo. And between the dark color and the dunes is a region of light color with fine parallel lines. If we could see the entire region around the dunes, perhaps we would see that the dunes are surrounded by a light halo with a dark outer edge. If there was once a pool of water in the dunes region, apparently it soaked into surrounding dry regions. Did you ever see the pattern that results when you spill a droplet of water onto colored paper? As it soaks into the paper, the advancing water drives the dye ahead of it, and leaves a lighter color behind, sometimes with radial striations in the light zone. That Mars photo is looking more and more like a simple classroom chromatography experiment! ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 17:39:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05409; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:28:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:28:06 -0700 Message-ID: <001b01bfdcaa$8b703180$e0637dc7 com.mv.com> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: Subject: Re: Mars photo attached Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:32:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Resent-Message-ID: <"_bNS6.0.RK1.MygKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35759 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Came through fine, Bill. Ed Wall ----- Original Message ----- From: William Beaty To: Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 7:06 PM Subject: Re: Mars photo attached > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: > > > Did that come through? Or was it still too big for vortex-L? > > > ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) > William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website > billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com > EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science > Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 18:05:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA21934; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:00:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:00:36 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39529A24.C3B6C55F ix.netcom.com> References: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:59:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"wOSv7.0.eM5.qQhKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35760 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> >Mitchell Jones wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Implied but not explained unless the theory contains the necessary >> >>mechanism. >> >> >Overcoming the Coulomb barrier and getting rid of the energy are two >> >>separate >> >> >processes. The more successful explanations have these two processes as >> >> >natural >> >> >parts of the basic process. >> >> >> >> ***{It pretty much follows from the equation, does it not? After all, >>given >> >> the validity of 1H1 + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV, it seems >>clear >> >> that if we can shrink the 1H1 down into a neutral protoneutron (pn), then >> >> the equation becomes pn + 5B11 --> 6C12* --> 3(2He4) + 8.7 MeV. >>Since, in >> >> the latter case, there is no Coulomb barrier to be overcome, it seems >>clear >> >> that the reaction ought to go. Thus the only remaining issue would >>seem to >> >> be experimental rather than theoretical. Someone simply needs to play >> >> around with 5B11, to see if its presence inside an active lattice or as a >> >> surface contaminant is capable of enhancing the yield of the CF reaction. >> >> And the person who does that needs, obviously, to be someone who already >> >> has the capability to produce CF on demand, or at least with good >> >> reliability. Do you know anyone like that? :-) --MJ}*** >> > >> >We do not seem to be communicating here. The problem I'm discussing >>involves >> >coupling the nuclear energy to the lattice. When a "normal" nuclear >> >reaction of >> >the type you propose occurs, the energy is proportioned between the >>three He >> >atoms. As a result, 2.9 MeV alpha particles would be produced. As these >> >particles are slowed down by the surrounding atoms, many electrons would >> >be raised >> >to a higher energy state and these would give off X-rays as they returned >> >to their >> >normal energy states. Such X-rays are not normally detected. Therefore, >> >one has >> >to assume that the energy goes into many atoms rather than just a few, >>thereby >> >preventing the expected X-rays. How does this process work in your model? >> >> ***{As I explained to you earlier, protoneutrons can form and exist only at >> the nodes of the lattice wave, which, clearly, *cannot* be at the surface >> of the metal. Thus the alphas are emitted internally, and any x-rays they >> produce are contained within the lattice. (X-rays do not penetrate metals >> very well, as you can observe by looking at a few medical x-rays, where any >> metallic objects show up as completely black on the film.) --MJ}*** > >Granted, most of the X-rays would be absorbed. However, when watts of EP are >being produced, we would have one Hell of an X-ray source. Some of this >radiation, especially that which was formed near the surface should be >detectable. On the other hand, people have occasionally detected X-rays >when film >was placed within the cell. This would be consistent with your explanation. > >> > >> >> > >> >> >I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part >>of "cold >> >> >fusion". >> >> >> >> ***{No one? I do. Am I not a person? :-) Seriously, I am very aware that >> >> Mills has taken steps to distance himself from "cold fusion," for rather >> >> obvious reasons. However, if you look closely at his theory, the >>connection >> >> is rather obvious: the maximally shrunken hydrinos would be virtually >> >> electrically neutral, due to the close proximity between their >>positive and >> >> negative charges, and, as a result, would behave very much like >> >> protoneutrons--which means: if "hydrinos" exist, then they are capable of >> >> inducing "cold fusion." --MJ}*** >> > >> >That is an assumption not consistent with experimental observation. >> >> ***{It is if you believe, as I do, that hydrinos do not exist. --MJ}*** > >I suggest that hydrinos may exist, but they do not necessarily have to cause >nuclear reactions. That is the assumption I was referring to. ***{Is that an assumption? In the sense that its probability of being true is less than 1.0, I guess it is. However, the logic supporting such a presumption is so potent that, for practical purposes, I am willing to treat it as a sure thing. What logic? Simple: with the electron orbiting just above the nucleus, the particle is going to be electrically neutral. Result: there is no Coulomb barrier for it to overcome. That means it should be able to drift into many other nuclei, and, once there, it is unarguably going to throw a large monkey wrench into the works, resulting in a quick disintegration of the nucleus into something else. --MJ}*** >> If hydrinos >> >were being made, some of the measured energy would result from their >> >formation. >> >> ***{True. As the electron dropped to a fractional orbit, it would emit >> energy in some form--as phonons, according to Mills. --MJ}*** >> >> >Only a small fraction of these hydrinos would produce a nuclear reaction. >> >> ***{Maximally shrunken hydrinos, if they were possible, would be neutral >> particles and would behave like neutrons: they would slip through the >> Coulomb barrier and into a nucleus with ease, inducing myriad nuclear >> reactions. Since the universe is mostly hydrogen, it follows that we ought >> to be up to our armpits in maximally shrunken hydrinos, if they existed, >> and so we ought to be bathed in the lethal radiation which they would >> produce. Since we aren't, I conclude that they do not exist. --MJ}*** > >I suppose you realize that this logic is not correct and I assume you are >throwing >this out for the sake of discussion. First of all, you assume hydrinos would >behave like neutrons. Then you assume their entry into a nuclear reaction can >occur under any common condition. Even neutrons do not interact with >every atom >they might encounter. A cross-section for such reactions exists as well as a >probability function. Consequently, you could just as well conclude that >hydrinos >exist, but the cross-section for a nuclear reaction under common >conditions is too >small to measure. ***{For a stable, neutral particle? Don't you think this argument is a bit of a stretch? Granted, the probability that such a particle would pass easily into other nuclei and trigger disruptions is not 1.0, as I acknowledged above, but as a practical matter it might as well be. --MJ}*** > >> >> >According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not >> >react with >> >oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino concentrations >> >in the >> >gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. >> >> ***{This doesn't follow: even normal hydrogen is small enough to diffuse >> through the walls of any container, however constructed, and maximally >> shrunken hydrinos, like neutrons, would pass through the walls of a >> container as if it literally did not exist. --MJ}*** > >Hydrogen can be well contained in many materials, otherwise my tank of >hydrogen >would be gone by now. On the other hand, Mills, you, and I agree that the >hydrino >should pass easily through matter. If this occurred, it would leave behind the >orphaned oxygen and this would cause the pressure within the cell to increase. ***{Relative to what? If you mean relative to what it would be if the hydrino were *not* created, that is wrong. For if the hydrino were not created, then you would have both hydrogen and oxygen trapped in the cell, and the pressure would be much higher than if only the oxygen were trapped there. Thus hydrino formation would lower the pressure, not raise it. --MJ}*** > >> >> Such a >> >pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. >> >> ***{It wouldn't be expected even if hydrinos existed, and is doubly not to >> be expected, since they don't exist. :-) --MJ}*** > >See the comment above. > >> >> > >> >> >Mills no longer believes his form of shrunken hydrogen can interact >> >>with the >> >> >nucleus, at least under "normal" conditions. >> >> >> >> ***{If he said otherwise, then he would be tarred with the "cold fusion" >> >> brush, now wouldn't he? :-) --MJ}*** >> > >> >Good point. In addition, he would have to explain the experimental facts >> >as noted >> >above. >> > >> >> >> >> ***{I went into vast detail about such things literally *years* ago. The >> >> basic idea is that proton meets electron *inside* the lattice, at a >> >> location that is too cramped to permit the electron to orbit at the >> >> innermost Bohr radius. >> >> >> >> In the case of unloaded palladium, those conditions are never met, >>because >> >> there is enough space in the octagonal unit cells for the electron to >>orbit >> >> at the n = 1 radius. Once a neutral H or D forms there, the fit is snug, >> >> but possible. All that would happen would be that the lattice would >>expand >> >> slightly at that location, due to the repulsion between the electron >>shell >> >> of the H or D and that of the six Pd outer shells that are virtually >> >> touching it. Thus as palladium is loaded, the lattice should expand a >>bit, >> >> but until high loading is achieved, the probability would be high that >> >> protons would meet electrons in unloaded cells, and, thus few >>protoneutrons >> >> would be formed. However, at high levels of loading, the likelihood is >> >> great that protons entering the lattice will meet electrons within cells >> >> that have already been loaded. In that case, there will be insufficient >> >> room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius, and it will >> >> spiral down to grazing level above the nucleus, forming a wildly unstable >> >> protoneutron. Bottom line: at high levels of loading, lots of >>protoneutrons >> >> should be created in the lattice. >> > >> >But why would a hydrogen atom even enter the lattice in the first place if >> >there >> >were insufficient room? To do so would require extra energy. Where >>does this >> >energy come from in an electrolytic cell? After all, it is hard enough to >> >get a >> >normal hydrogen to enter the lattice at high loading. >> >> ***{Not a hydrogen atom: a proton--that is, a hydrogen atom that has lost >> its outer electron. Protons are small enough to easily pass into the >> lattice, even though neutral hydrogen atoms are not. --MJ}*** > >OK, to be totally exact, I will use the term proton. I say again, it is hard >enough to get a normal proton to enter the lattice at high loading. This >is an >experimental fact. ***{Agreed. If the proton is handed an electron at or just above the surface of the cell, it becomes a neutral hydrogen and is too large to enter the cell. Since this is normally what happens, one of the main design goals of a CF cell must be to arrange the cathode geometry in a way that maximizes the proton's chance of getting inside the lattice before it meets an electron. --MJ}*** In an electrolytic cell, the proton that is presented to the >surface by electrolytic action has two choices. It can enter the PdH >lattice or >it can combine with other proton to form H2. ***{Which only happens if it is handed an electron before it enters the lattice. Hence the goal, as noted above, is to arrange the situation so that is unlikely to happen. --MJ}*** As the hydrogen concentration >increase, the proton finds that formation of H2 results in a lower energy >compared >to entering the lattice. That is why achieving a high concentration is so >difficult. ***{Absolutely correct. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, the only way protoneutrons can accumulate in the >>lattice is >> >> if there are cold spots--locations where thermal activity is essentially >> >> zero. (If the protoneutrons are moving at velocities typical of thermal >> >> neutrons, they will quickly exit the lattice. Once outside, they will >> >> acquire enough energy for the electrons to boost up to the ground state >> >> radius, and the protoneutrons will cease to exist.) The question, >> >> therefore, is whether there are cold spots in the lattice. To get at the >> >> answer, recall the old experiment from high school physics, where the >> >> instructor spread black grains of sand evenly on the white surface of a >> >> horizontal drumhead, and gave it a thump. What happened was that the >> >> particles settled into the nodes of the wave pattern on the drumhead, >>where >> >> they thereafter remained essentially undisturbed, as the instructor >> >> continued to give the drum additional whacks. Now, since thermal >>motion in >> >> a crystal lattice is not random, but instead takes the form of >>synchronized >> >> dancing known as "the lattice wave," and since the lattice wave, like >>waves >> >> on the surface of a drumhead, is going to have nodes, it follows that it >> >> should be possible for protoneutrons to accumulate in the nodes of the >> >> lattice wave, just as the grains of sand accumulate in nodes on the >> >> drumhead. Under those conditions, they would *not* be thermalized, and, >> >> hence, would remain in confined conditions long enough to have a >>chance to >> >> react with a nearby nucleus. >> > >> >An interesting idea. On the other hand, regions also exist on the >> >drumhead having >> >very high energy. Other people have been exploring just what this extra >> >energy >> >might do. >> >> ***{Such regions cannot be the site of the action, unless the protoneutron >> theory is wrong--which, of course, is yet to be determined. So far, it's >> just a hypothesis. --MJ}*** > >You assume the shrunken hydrogen results because of a temporary close >encounter >between the proton and an electron. ***{I don't word it that way, and the wording is important. A protoneutron is a very specific type of "shrunken hydrogen." It results when a proton meets and electron in a lattice location where there isn't enough space for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius. Whether the protoneutron endures on a temporary or on a longer term basis, however, depends on whether it forms in one of the nodes of the lattice wave. If it does, it may last a relatively long time; and, if it drifts into a neighboring nucleus without being disrupted--e.g., into a 5B11--the result is a nuclear reaction. --MJ}*** I think you will agree that as long as the >electron is near the nucleus, the combination is in a higher energy state >compared >to a "normal" hydrogen atom. ***{No. Granted, in order for the electron to *enter* the nucleus, .7875 MeV is needed, and the result would be the formation of a neutron. But that isn't what I mean. A protoneutron is *not* a neutron. It is a proton with an electron below the ground state radius, in an unstable orbit *outside* of the nucleus. --MJ}*** The other approach to this problem being used by >other scientists assumes that this close encounter can be encouraged by the >presence of a higher than normal energy. Once formed, the consequences are the >same as you outline. ***{Yes, but the constraints are too loose: if higher than normal, yet easily attainable, levels of energy were sufficient, then shrunken hydrogens would be rampant out in the real world, and the resulting bath of lethal radiation would have killed us all long ago. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> >> Result: the question becomes one of *what* nucleus. Reflecting on >>that, we >> >> quickly reach the conclusion that the fewer the number of electron >>shells, >> >> the better, since the chance of a protoneutron reaching a neighboring >> >> nucleus will increase as the number of shells through which it must pass >> >> decreases. On the other hand, its chance will increase as the size of the >> >> target nucleus increases. Thus, taking both of these considerations into >> >> account, it seems plausible to me that there may be an optimal, or >> >> preferred, target nucleus and that lattice impurities which are known to >> >> produce pure alpha or beta- decays upon neutron absorption--e.g., >> >> 5B11--ought to be systematically investigated. >> >> >> >> --Mitchell Jones}*** >> > >> >If this is the case, why choose boron over lithium? After all, d + Li6 = >> >2 He is >> >a known reaction with no harmful radiation and lithium is always present. >> >> ***{I have no particular preference for boron over lithium. The boron >> hypothesis is just one idea. Any reaction having the required properties >> needs to be carefully investigated. --MJ}*** > >Agreed. Once we find out how to make the nuclear-active-environment on >command, >such studies will be made. > >> >> >> >> Then J. Dufour in France started to see some strange phenomenon >> >> >in his gas discharge apparatus which gave the idea more substance. >>In his >> >> >papers, >> >> >he took to calling the shrunken hydrogen a hydrex. Now he believes the >> >>hydrex >> >> >does not cause fusion, but a process whereby many of these particles >>become >> >> >attached to a large nucleus, such as palladium, by dipole >>interaction and >> >> >cause >> >> >alpha particles to be emitted. >> >> >> >> ***{Thus it is a different theory than the protoneutron theory. --MJ}*** >> > >> >Yes, but both models use the same raw material, i.e. a shrunken hydrogen. >> >> ***{Agreed, but I think that we should try to concentrate on models that >> are without obviousl logical flaws. The hydrex just sounds to me like >> another stable agent, analogous to "light leptons" and "hydrinos," and >> invalid for the same basic reasons: if such an agent were real, we would >> all be dead. --MJ}*** > >Once again, you make one additional assumption in your logic which you do not >state. ***{I repeat: the "assumption" is close enough to certain for my purposes. --MJ}*** > >> >> >> > >> >> >Palladium has been made containing a wide range of boron content. This >> >> >study was >> >> >done not only to explore boron as being involved in the nuclear >>reaction, >> >> >but also >> >> >to change the properties of palladium. These studies show no clear >> >> >relationship >> >> >between the ability to produce the effect and the boron content, >>although >> >> >some of >> >> >the batches had a higher success rate than other ones. >> >> >> >> ***{Were these studies done by people who had a demonstrated ability to >> >> produce the CF effect, and who were highly motivated to investigate >>5B11 in >> >> a persistent, exhaustive way? Or were these studies conducted by >>people who >> >> were pretty much stabbing in the dark, and hence unlikely to persist? >> >> --MJ}*** >> > >> >They were done by people who have seen EP produced by various samples and >> >knew the >> >boron content of those samples. The amount of EP did not correlate to the >> >amount >> >of boron present. However, boron containing Pd showed a more frequent >> >production >> >of EP than did very pure samples. Because of the effect of impurities, >> >including >> >boron, on the ability of Pd to retain D, it is very difficult to >>separate the >> >variables no matter how well done the work may be. >> > >> >> >> >> ***{The results you are describing do not suggest to me that the >> >> researchers were motivated to persistently check out the boron >>hypothesis, >> >> and, thus, their negative results do not carry much weight with me. I >>would >> >> repeat my earlier suggestion: various fusion reactions that produce >>nothing >> >> but alphas or beta- particles need to be deliberately, >>systematically, and >> >> persistently investigated. In other words, use the known fact that these >> >> excess heat reactions do not produce large gamma or neutron fluxes, to >> >> narrow the focus of the investigation. What we need to do is look at >> >> possible contaminants that have a hydrogen fusion reaction that does not >> >> emit dangerous radiation. To that end, the 5B11 reaction is only one >> >> example, albeit a particularly intriguing one. --MJ}*** >> > >> >This is certainly one possible way to examine the problem. However, >> >another way >> >also exists. The gamma that results from "hot" fusion, i.e. d + d = He >> >results >> >because another particle is required to carry away the momentum. Such >> >particles >> >are not present in a low density plasma. Suppose, however, the >>reaction could >> >involve more than one d in a high density lattice, i.e. d+d+d = 3Li6*= He >> >+ d so >> >that the momentum could be shared between the He and another d. No gamma >> >would be >> >necessary and the energy would result only in X-rays. Some experimental >> >evidence >> >does seem to support this idea. >> >> ***{That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the vanishingly low cross >> section of a 3-body reaction. Such a hypothesis needs a mechanism to get >> around that difficulty. Here is my suggestion: >> >> dn + dn + dn --> 3Li6* --> 2He4 + 1H2. >> >> Note: the "dn" symbolizes the type of protoneutron that forms when a bare >> deuterium nucleus meets an electron in a lattice location where there isn't >> enough room for the electron to orbit at the ground state radius. Like the >> more ordinary type of protoneutron, the dn is a wildly unstable, neutral >> particle. Hence, it would have a high enough cross section to get past the >> low probability which a 3 body reaction entails. > >Granted, the cross-section is low for a three body reaction. However, the >cross-section would be very sensitive to the concentration of deuterium, thus >consistent with the observed fact that very high concentrations must be >achieved >for the effect to work. ***{The only place where high concentrations of deuterium are required is when using palladium, or a similar metal, which has to be loaded before protoneutrons can start to form. Other metals, where the lattice is tighter, do not have to be loaded first. If a proton meets an electron within such a lattice, there will be insufficient room for it to orbit at the ground state radius, and a protoneutron will form despite the fact that the lattice has not been loaded. --MJ}*** In addition, the idea does not require formation of dn, >hence is relieved of one major assumption. ***{High loading, in palladium and similar metals, is a necessary precondition to protoneutron formation. Without it, there is too much space in the lattice for protoneutrons to form. The ideal lattice, therefore, is one that, even when unloaded, is too tight to accomodate a full-sized H or D. With such a cathode, you wouldn't have to wait forty days and forty nights while the damn thing loads. :-) --MJ}*** > >Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 18:19:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA30759; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:18:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:18:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:17:05 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? Resent-Message-ID: <"jeo1w1.0.XW7.WhhKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35761 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >> > >> > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg >> > >> (Mars water image) > > >Hey, also note that there's a wide zone of dark color ABOVE the >"dalmation dunes" zone in the original photo. And between the dark color >and the dunes is a region of light color with fine parallel lines. If we >could see the entire region around the dunes, perhaps we would see that >the dunes are surrounded by a light halo with a dark outer edge. ***{Bill, they cannot be "dunes." To see why, look at the bottom portion of the photo at http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg , which shows the hole from which the three tubes originate. (It is way down at the bottom of the tall, narrow jpg file.) If you will look at that part of the picture, you will see the following: (1) The "sand dunes" that are right next to one another, but part of different "tubes," are perpendicular to one another. That is clearly impossible if they are, in fact, windblown sand dunes, because the wind can only blow in one direction at a time. (2) The "dunes" turn, and go down into the hole, which, clearly real dunes cannot do. (3) The area of the "dunes" has a sharply defined edge: there is a linear border separating the "sand" from the adjacent rock. But, if it were sand, you would see a sawtooth pattern at the edge, as salients of sand reached out, and salients of rock reached in between them. The absence of such salients is smoking gun proof that this is not sand. These patterns are not made up of independent particles, but comprise a coherent mass. What we have here, in my opinion, are gigantic living entities, analogous to cacti, that evolved over billions of years, to survive in the increasingly arid desert conditions of Mars. Such a hypothesis explains both the images, and the long established Martian geological conundrum--to wit: where did all the planet's water go, as the atmosphere became thinner and thinner? The answer: much of it was hoarded inside enormous plants that live on and under the surface of the planet. That, at any rate, is the way it looks to me. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >If there was once a pool of water in the dunes region, apparently it >soaked into surrounding dry regions. Did you ever see the pattern that >results when you spill a droplet of water onto colored paper? As it soaks >into the paper, the advancing water drives the dye ahead of it, and leaves >a lighter color behind, sometimes with radial striations in the light >zone. That Mars photo is looking more and more like a simple classroom >chromatography experiment! > > > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) >William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website >billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com >EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science >Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 19:52:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24499; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:49:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:49:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3952D01D.BC338606 home.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:49:01 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: Mars anomalies Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------1A111685416FD67023E5933C" Resent-Message-ID: <"0pxc51.0.i-5.h0jKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35763 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1A111685416FD67023E5933C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here are some sites showing many of the thousands of Martian anomalies, including lots of pyramids etc.: http://www.dreamwater.com/apolloni/moc_index2.html Look at the "Frank Lloyd Wright" building in this one: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=8728&article=26592&date_query=961506054 http://nav.webring.org/cgi-bin/navcgi?ring=anom;list http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/zelazny/212/image_list.html http://www.netside.net/~tbeech -- Hoyt Stearns Phoenix http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------1A111685416FD67023E5933C Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------1A111685416FD67023E5933C-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 19:58:05 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11965; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:47:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:38:04 EDT Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"Xo6Jf2.0.ow2.L_iKv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35762 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: About those PDF files: they downloaded under the name Threepdf.zip After downloading, and presumably unzipping, there was a Folder named Threepdf.zip, with three SimpleText documents in it labelled Asti.pdf, Battaglia.pdf, and focardi.pdf. All three were too large to be opened with SimpleText There was also a larger 516K document outside the Folder. The large document was also called Threepdf.zip When I tried to open the large document, a message appeared saying that it could be expanded if I had DropStuff with Expander Enhancer, available for a mere $30 Has anyone else had a problem like this? Maybe it's just an example of how AOL doesn't always interact optimally with the rest of the universe. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 20:29:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA03359; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:27:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:27:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3952DA2F.FB3B3341 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:32:07 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"c3eGe.0.Lq.MajKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35764 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > >> >Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> > > >I suggest that hydrinos may exist, but they do not necessarily have to cause > >nuclear reactions. That is the assumption I was referring to. > > ***{Is that an assumption? In the sense that its probability of being true > is less than 1.0, I guess it is. However, the logic supporting such a > presumption is so potent that, for practical purposes, I am willing to > treat it as a sure thing. What logic? Simple: with the electron orbiting > just above the nucleus, the particle is going to be electrically neutral. > Result: there is no Coulomb barrier for it to overcome. That means it > should be able to drift into many other nuclei, and, once there, it is > unarguably going to throw a large monkey wrench into the works, resulting > in a quick disintegration of the nucleus into something else. --MJ}*** First of all, if you assume the electron is in an orbit, as you say, rather than forced to be in the vicinity by too small a size, then the assembly must have some sort of stability. This being the case, some kind of quantized orbital dynamics must be operating. How do you explain this? Second, even when the electron is near the nucleus, the assembly is still not a neutron because the orbit of the electron can be perturbed by the approach of a positive nucleus. You have not demonstrated that such an orbit would be so stable as to prevent this effect, hence would totally shield the proton from the Coulomb barrier.. > >> > >I suppose you realize that this logic is not correct and I assume you are > >throwing > >this out for the sake of discussion. First of all, you assume hydrinos would > >behave like neutrons. Then you assume their entry into a nuclear reaction can > >occur under any common condition. Even neutrons do not interact with > >every atom > >they might encounter. A cross-section for such reactions exists as well as a > >probability function. Consequently, you could just as well conclude that > >hydrinos > >exist, but the cross-section for a nuclear reaction under common > >conditions is too > >small to measure. > > ***{For a stable, neutral particle? Don't you think this argument is a bit > of a stretch? Granted, the probability that such a particle would pass > easily into other nuclei and trigger disruptions is not 1.0, as I > acknowledged above, but as a practical matter it might as well be. --MJ}*** Your argument rests on what you assume will happen. You assume that the hydrino is impossible, but if it exists, it would interact with everything in sight. With these assumptions, your conclusion naturally follows. Of course, you are free to assume anything you like, but this does not mean the conclusion is acceptable to people who make different assumptions. Either the assumptions need to be supported by suitable calculations or, better yet, experimental fact needs to resolve this conflict. > > > >Hydrogen can be well contained in many materials, otherwise my tank of > >hydrogen > >would be gone by now. On the other hand, Mills, you, and I agree that the > >hydrino > >should pass easily through matter. If this occurred, it would leave behind the > >orphaned oxygen and this would cause the pressure within the cell to increase. > > ***{Relative to what? If you mean relative to what it would be if the > hydrino were *not* created, that is wrong. For if the hydrino were not > created, then you would have both hydrogen and oxygen trapped in the cell, > and the pressure would be much higher than if only the oxygen were trapped > there. Thus hydrino formation would lower the pressure, not raise it. > --MJ}*** All sealed cells contain a catalyst which prevents any change in pressure because the H2 and O2 are converted to H2O. However, if the H left the cell as a hydrino, the oxygen would have nothing to combine with and would increase in pressure. > > > >> ***{Not a hydrogen atom: a proton--that is, a hydrogen atom that has lost > >> its outer electron. Protons are small enough to easily pass into the > >> lattice, even though neutral hydrogen atoms are not. --MJ}*** > > > >OK, to be totally exact, I will use the term proton. I say again, it is hard > >enough to get a normal proton to enter the lattice at high loading. This > >is an > >experimental fact. > > ***{Agreed. If the proton is handed an electron at or just above the > surface of the cell, it becomes a neutral hydrogen and is too large to > enter the cell. Since this is normally what happens, one of the main design > goals of a CF cell must be to arrange the cathode geometry in a way that > maximizes the proton's chance of getting inside the lattice before it meets > an electron. --MJ}*** No, the event is meeting another proton. Electrons are everywhere. The H2 forms on the surface where two protons have been absorbed a distance apart required to form a H-H bond. When the concentration is high, the probability of two protons having the correct distance is high and the rate of diffusion away from the surface to the interior is low. Hence H2 formation is favored. Very little can be done to prevent this effect. > > >> > >> ***{Such regions cannot be the site of the action, unless the protoneutron > >> theory is wrong--which, of course, is yet to be determined. So far, it's > >> just a hypothesis. --MJ}*** > > > >You assume the shrunken hydrogen results because of a temporary close > >encounter > >between the proton and an electron. > > ***{I don't word it that way, and the wording is important. A protoneutron > is a very specific type of "shrunken hydrogen." It results when a proton > meets and electron in a lattice location where there isn't enough space for > the electron to orbit at the ground state radius. Whether the protoneutron > endures on a temporary or on a longer term basis, however, depends on > whether it forms in one of the nodes of the lattice wave. If it does, it > may last a relatively long time; and, if it drifts into a neighboring > nucleus without being disrupted--e.g., into a 5B11--the result is a nuclear > reaction. --MJ}*** This implies that the target nucleus must also be in the same node of the lattice wave. Would not these waves be disturbed by the presence of an impurity atom? > > > I think you will agree that as long as the > >electron is near the nucleus, the combination is in a higher energy state > >compared > >to a "normal" hydrogen atom. > > ***{No. Granted, in order for the electron to *enter* the nucleus, .7875 > MeV is needed, and the result would be the formation of a neutron. But that > isn't what I mean. A protoneutron is *not* a neutron. It is a proton with > an electron below the ground state radius, in an unstable orbit *outside* > of the nucleus. --MJ}*** I never said that the assembly was a neutron. I'm asking, do you mean to say that no energy is required to force the electron into the near-nucleus position? Do you mean that the pressure of the surrounding "space", which you require to produce the assembly, does not have any effect on the energy of the electron being forced into the novel position? > > > The other approach to this problem being used by > >other scientists assumes that this close encounter can be encouraged by the > >presence of a higher than normal energy. Once formed, the consequences are the > >same as you outline. > > ***{Yes, but the constraints are too loose: if higher than normal, yet > easily attainable, levels of energy were sufficient, then shrunken > hydrogens would be rampant out in the real world, and the resulting bath of > lethal radiation would have killed us all long ago. --MJ}*** Once again, you make an unstated assumption in this argument, i.e. that the assembly can interact with another nucleus under all conditions. The experimental experience would suggest that the interaction can only take place in a special environment. On the other hand, you assumed previously that the assembly can only form in a special environment, hence is not available otherwise. My point is that either assumption is equally valid at this point. > > >Granted, the cross-section is low for a three body reaction. However, the > >cross-section would be very sensitive to the concentration of deuterium, thus > >consistent with the observed fact that very high concentrations must be > >achieved > >for the effect to work. > > ***{The only place where high concentrations of deuterium are required is > when using palladium, or a similar metal, which has to be loaded before > protoneutrons can start to form. Other metals, where the lattice is > tighter, do not have to be loaded first. If a proton meets an electron > within such a lattice, there will be insufficient room for it to orbit at > the ground state radius, and a protoneutron will form despite the fact that > the lattice has not been loaded. --MJ}*** What materials do you have in mind? Pt does not dissolve hydrogen even though the space is of similar size to Pd, yet it makes EP. Ti apparently forms a barrier to hydride formation so that very little hydrogen can get in, yet it makes EP. I suggest the action is not even within the metal lattice but within a layer of material that is deposited on the surface. It is his layer which must contain the high concentration of hydrogen. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 20:34:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05892; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:33:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:33:03 -0700 Message-ID: <3952DA61.7B475DA0 home.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:32:49 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: Mars, another interesting post Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------26971D027CAFBD56EC5ABC2D" Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7l8H.0.-R1.kfjKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35765 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------26971D027CAFBD56EC5ABC2D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=8728&article=26690 -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------26971D027CAFBD56EC5ABC2D Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------26971D027CAFBD56EC5ABC2D-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 22:03:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA00783; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:01:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:01:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200006230501.BAA14854 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:56:20 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0VJUO3.0.9C.nykKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35766 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > x'=gamma*(x-v*t) and t'=gamma*(t-v*x/c^2) > Where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) > > first note the disaster when v = c, you get > > gamma -> infinity (undefined) > > and your x' -> infinity, and t' -> infinity. Its not us experimenter's fault that the math is not good enough to work for things that go faster than light. It is just incomplete. If the above is supposed to prove to me that FTL cannot be done...well, it doesn't do anything for me. --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 22:10:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA03052; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:08:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:08:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200006230508.BAA16311 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:03:39 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-eAC8.0.bl.e3lKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35767 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > You have no theory that predicts this, except one that was > proven to not predict experimental results. Whether they convey a signal or not, EPR and quantum tunneling effects are still forbidden by relativity...but they still happen. Stop trying to make Mother Nature wear something she might not want to. > You have no experiment to point to that even hints at this. See above... > Releativity explains all the things that could not be explained > with Newtonian mechanics like Maxwell's equations, which > do not follow the Galilean transformation; and the consistancy of > the speed of light.. We don't know that light speed is constant in every direction. If Lorentz was correct in his reasoning, then it only appears so. In that case, causality is preserved. Before I devote any more time to this, allow me to ask: are you one of those types who will stick by mathematical equations even if they don't agree with an experiment I or someone does, that you can see with your own eyes? If so, there is no reason to further waste my time on a lost cause. It seems to me you have made some assumptions yourself. --Kyle R. Mcallister From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 22:10:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA03160; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:09:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:09:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:09:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical In-Reply-To: <200006230501.BAA14854 fh105.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"J7rJy3.0.En.74lKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35768 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: [snip] > Its not us experimenter's fault that the math is not good enough to work > for things that go faster than light. It is just incomplete. If the above > is supposed to prove to me that FTL cannot be done...well, it doesn't do > anything for me. > > --Kyle R. Mcallister Math is a special branch of logic that is used to model the real world. The reasoning for relativity is complete. It explains all the known facts and has been a very successful predictor of experimental results. With out an experimental result or competeting theory, how can you say relativity is wrong? What logical basis have you to say that something can go faster than light? Oh well... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 22:20:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA06569; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:16:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:16:54 -0700 Message-Id: <200006230516.BAA25678 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:11:33 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oA0ZQ3.0.Zc1.6BlKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35769 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Math is a special branch of logic that is used to model the real world. Note: model. > The reasoning for relativity is complete. It explains all the known facts > and has been a very successful predictor of experimental results. Not really...QM is also needed. > With out an experimental result or competeting theory, how can you say > relativity is wrong? What logical basis have you to say that something can > go faster than light? What basis do you have to say it *can't*? You do not have one, basing it on a purely theoretical mathematical conception. At some point, somebody somewhere has said something is impossible because of some theory, or preconcieved notion. Then it turned out it was possible. Assuming for a moment that FTL signaling is doable, what will you stand by? --K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 22:27:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA08096; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:22:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:22:17 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:22:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics In-Reply-To: <200006230508.BAA16311 fh105.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"1iZV8.0.Q-1.9GlKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35770 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > You have no theory that predicts this, except one that was > > proven to not predict experimental results. > > Whether they convey a signal or not, EPR No. EPR is not in conflict with relativty. Again, there is no signal sent faster than light. > and quantum tunneling effects No, to be specific, relativity doesn not predict quantum effects. However, now we use the "standard theory", where quantum mechanics and relativity are made to be consistant. > are > still forbidden by relativity...but they still happen. Stop trying to make > Mother Nature wear something she might not want to. I'm not the one saying that a signal can move faster than light on a macroscopic scale. I'm not trying to make "Mother Nature" wear anything. Science only asks what mother nature is wearing, and does so by deductive and mathematical logic. Now, where you get this faster than light bizz, I don't know. No theory I know of predicts it and I no of no evidence that has ever been found by repeatable experiment or observation that it can be done. So, if anyone is trying to describe mother nature as wearing something she isn't.... > > You have no experiment to point to that even hints at this. > > See above... See what? > > Releativity explains all the things that could not be explained > > with Newtonian mechanics like Maxwell's equations, which > > do not follow the Galilean transformation; and the consistancy of > > the speed of light.. > > We don't know that light speed is constant in every direction. Yes, we do. And for all observers, too. > If Lorentz > was correct in his reasoning, He wasn't. He failed to describe time dialation in his model. > then it only appears so. In that case, > causality is preserved. > > Before I devote any more time to this, allow me to ask: are you one of > those types who will stick by mathematical equations even if they don't > agree with an experiment I or someone does, that you can see with your own > eyes? If so, there is no reason to further waste my time on a lost cause. You haven't mentioned any experimental results. You haven't even mentioned a theory. You've mentioned nothing, and don't appear to even be well aquainted with the theories and experiments you attack. > It seems to me you have made some assumptions yourself. Let me check.... Nope. > --Kyle R. Mcallister > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 22 23:42:09 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA24314; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:38:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:38:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:24 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical In-Reply-To: <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Fcpwi2.0.qx5.zNmKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35771 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Adam Cox wrote: >FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser >delay in the result, but still effect happens after cause. If special relativity is correct then this statement is incorrect. If an effect is propagated FTL in one frame, then there will be other frames (ie as measured from a spacecraft wizzing by at high speed) where the effect occurs before the cause. So if you want to violate causality in your own frame, simply make the FTL effect occur in a passing spaceship (ie use their FTL intercom to pass a message from one end of the spaceship to the other) and in your own frame the message will arrive before it was sent. If you want to throw out relativity and embrace a preferred reference frame with earth entrained aether or whatever, then this effect will not occur and your above statement would be correct. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 00:44:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA06086; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:43:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:43:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3953159B.AB56AFE3 earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:45:31 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, ars@dircon.co.uk, tjs11@centurytel.net Subject: Murray: Smith: Sheldrake: ESP research on dogs and owners 6.22.00 References: <3951A591.20342B73 earthlink.net> <39520E8A.4AFC1133@centurytel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pC9FP2.0.wU1.8KnKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35772 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 22 2000 Hello Taylor J. Smith, Yes, that's just the sort of obvious evidence that we're conditioned to overlook in our current world culture. You could set up a video camera and a clock to record your dog's behavior, kept in the front room, while you are both gone for a few hours, to see if he reacts either to your starting to return, or at the same time that your wife feels the connection. If a pattern is found, then someone may want to do a precision study with a dog: train the dog and the owner to focus on the connection, and do simultaneous brain wave and subtle body reactions. Probably, we can prove that the dog's reactions to his owner are distinctive from his reactions to things in his immediate environment, but closely related to his reactions to his owner's physical presence. Rich Murray rmforall earthlink.net ********************************************************* Subject: your message Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:37:18 +0100 From: "Rupert Sheldrake" To: rmforall earthlink.net Thanks for sending me this. Please keep me informed of the feedback you get. There's one small error, which is that Jaytee and Pam live near Manchester, not in London -- Rupert Sheldrake 20 Willow Road, London NW3 1TJ, UK ars dircon.co.uk ******************************************************** "Taylor J. Smith" wrote: tjs11 centurytel.net Vortex-L@eskimo.com > Rich Murray wrote: > > Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 > > June 21 2000 ... > For this loving, terrier mutt on a hundred > videotaped sessions shows a robust, obvious effect, going from > 4 % time at the window for the empty hours of his beloved's > absence to 55 % time as soon as she randomly starts, > miles away across scores of London streets, driving home. ... > > Hi Rich, > > My wife claims that, when approaching home, she shares > thoughts with our beagle, Nuby, that he is expecting us. > I generally laugh at her remarks -- I don't get any vibes -- > but who knows. > > Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 05:01:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA11344; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:59:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:59:54 -0700 Message-ID: <006c01bfdd12$a6f9c5c0$33451d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:57:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"VJGbK.0.An2.w4rKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35773 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: I worked with UV Photolysis of aqueous chemical compounds about 30 years ago, but, never thought to see if one could effect nuclear remediation. IF the 185 to 300 nanometer(~ 6.7 ev to ~ 4.0 ev) UV from a Mercury Discharge in a Quartz Tube is creating Light Lepton Pairs in the H2O or D2O and the LL- is taken up by a Proton or Deuteron to form a neutral entity P* or D*, then these can react with the radioisotope: D* or P* + radioisotope ---> Stable Isotopes + LL- + Energy The Cerenkov UV in a "Swimming Pool" Reactor should do this also, but the highly efficient Mercury Discharge Tube should be a more efficient approach. The Hg/UV Discharge Tubes are available "off the shelf" along with electronic ballasts in a wide range of power ratings. I'm sure there are water soluble radioisotope "salts" such as Cs137 Chloride around that could be put in water that is circulated over the Hg/UV Tube to see if remediation can be effected. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 06:58:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA10260; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:57:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:57:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3953159B.AB56AFE3 earthlink.net> References: <3951A591.20342B73 earthlink.net> <39520E8A.4AFC1133 centurytel.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:55:41 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Murray: Smith: Sheldrake: ESP research on dogs and owners 6.22.00 Resent-Message-ID: <"PtgEQ2.0.CW2.nosKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35774 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Rich Murray wrote: > > Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 > > June 21 2000 ... > For this loving, terrier mutt on a hundred > videotaped sessions shows a robust, obvious effect, going from > 4 % time at the window for the empty hours of his beloved's > absence to 55 % time as soon as she randomly starts, > miles away across scores of London streets, driving home. ***{The claim that the woman starts driving home at random is ridiculous. If she is coming home from work, the times will *not* be random; and if she is returning home from a shopping expedition, the dog knows when she left, and has a generalized idea of the length of her typical shopping trip. Thus, in either case, he has information that he can use to anticipate the time of her return. Result: the implication that the dog is somehow mind-linked to his owner via telepathy is baseless. All this supposed "experiment" indicates is that "parapsychology" is a pseudo-science based on wishful thinking, because this sort of uncontrolled, sloppy junk science is typical of what they do. (Of course, what choice do they have? When they introduce careful controls into their experiments, their "amazing" results go away!) Anyway, I don't have time to discuss this sort of silliness, and so I will leave the last word to those who, like "Son of Sam," believe that dogs read their minds via telepathy. --MJ}*** [snip] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 07:43:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26767; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:39:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:39:53 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:36:08 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Bill Beaty's Mars Photo Resent-Message-ID: <"3bhn6.0.9Y6.uQtKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35775 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It occurs to me that lack of a background in the biological sciences may be why some of you have difficulty conceiving of the "dunes" as a gigantic plant. After all, most people are unaware that plants which are enormously larger than the largest redwood or sequoia are common. Whole forests, in fact, frequently are dominated by trees that propagate from their roots via shoots, and it is not uncommon for thousands, or even tens of thousands, of apparently independent trees to all be connected together, underground, via a shared root system. And fungi get even larger: there are fungal rhizomes that form gigantic organisms weighing millions of tons, that are interconnected beneath thousands of acres of forest. Of course, on Earth, there is plenty of water, and an abundant atmosphere, and so there is no reason for such structures to form closed canopies at the top to hold in air and moisture. But on Mars, there is reason to do it, and if the desertification of the Martian ecosystem was gradual enough to permit the indigenous plants to adapt, it could have happened. Frankly, I see no other reasonable explanation for the images on these photographs. --MJ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 07:51:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31789; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:50:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:50:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20000623144945.60422.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:49:45 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"a2UeC1.0.cm7.fatKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35776 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From: John Winterflood >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Subject: Re:FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical >Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:24 +0800 > >Adam Cox wrote: > >FTL does not mean time travel or destroying causality, just a lesser > >delay in the result, but still effect happens after cause. > >If special relativity is correct then this statement is incorrect. > >If an effect is propagated FTL in one frame, then there will be >other frames (ie as measured from a spacecraft wizzing by at high >speed) where the effect occurs before the cause. > >So if you want to violate causality in your own frame, simply make >the FTL effect occur in a passing spaceship (ie use their FTL >intercom to pass a message from one end of the spaceship to the >other) and in your own frame the message will arrive before it >was sent. > >If you want to throw out relativity and embrace a preferred >reference frame with earth entrained aether or whatever, then >this effect will not occur and your above statement would be >correct. > In a spaceship traveling at that high a speed, by the time a message was composed to be sent, the craft would be to far away for a stationary observer to distinguish between the the sending and receiving of the message. Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 07:54:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02217; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:53:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:53:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20000623145249.77651.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:52:49 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"xGMfS1.0.ZY.XdtKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35777 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: OK, what exactly is referred to by EPR?? Also, has anyone ever been able to conduct an experiment at a sufficient fraction of c to prove that the relativity equations are accurate, and not just approximations?? Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 07:56:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02787; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:54:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:54:46 -0700 Message-ID: <39537C16.63AA5757 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:02:46 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-L eskimo.com" Subject: Kozima's ICCF-8 report Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Pfniv2.0.Ph.setKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35778 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: June 23, 2000 Vortex, Hideo Kojima was a contributor of many articles to the 'Cold Fusion' magazine started by Wayne Green. Eugene Mallove was it's Editor and Jed Rothwell a contributing editor for the first three issues (back in 1994) until it took a major re-organization. Recently, the shrunken publication disappeared from sight. Wayne Green is noted for starting the Byte Magazine, the ham radio '73, among other wide activities. -AK- -------- Original Message -------- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:08:20 +0900 From: "Hideo Kozima" Organization: Cold Fusion Research Kabiratiry(Labratory?) To: (addressed to various individual cold fusion researchers, advocates and critics) CFRL English News No.13 (June 10, 2000) Cold Fusion Research Laboratory Prof. Hideo Kozima. This is CFRL News (in English) No.13 translated from Japanese version published for friend researchers of Cold Fusion Research Laboratory directed by Dr. H. Kozima.. In this issue, there is following items. 1). Report of ICCF8 (1) (Outline) and 2) Three Abstracts of our papers presented at ICCF8 (for readers not attended it). In the original Japanese version, there is a 3-pages long essay, "A message on the Cold Fusion" (2) by Dr. T. Sawada which is to be translated by the author in near future and published in this news. 1) Report of ICCF8 (1) (Outline). The 8th International Conference on the Cold Fusion (ICCF8) (Lerici, Italy May 21 - 26, 2000) has been held successfully. In the Conference, it was confirmed that the experimental data obtained hitherto are reproduced with high qualitative reproducibility researchers who have been working in this field for several years. Theoretically, several models including the TNCF model have been presented and explained in detail and become common property of the research community. In this issue, it is explained only abstract of the Conference and details will be reported in the following issues published next and following months. There have been presented 26 oral presentations (35 minutes presentations- 20, 20 minutes- 6) and 50 poster presentations. Many experimental works have shown confirmation of their former results with higher credibility and qualitative reproducibility. In the theoretical part, the oral presentation of the TNCF model contributed most to make clear realization of the present status of CF research, from my point of view. Miley et al. obtained a similar result in planar multi-layer films to PPC widely investigated several years ago. McKubre et al obtained He-4 in proportion with heat in the Case cell and also in the Arata cell. Miles and Fleischmann explained details of calorimetric techniques and Miles demanded recognition of his positive result obtained in NHE lab in Sapporo in 1998(?).. Hagelstein, P. declared his success to obtain the probability of d-d fusion reaction in solids assisted by phonons using second order perturbation calculation in accordance with the experimental result obtained by McKubre et al. In my opinion, however, his calculation has shown only existence of a channel of d-d fusion reactions and not its reality in solids at room temperature. It is necessary to show relative probability to other channels and also the effects of higher order terms. If his result is correct, this is a very important work in physics showing an inverse-dissipation process in solids with high-density deuterons. Details of this problem will be discussed in forthcoming issues. On the last day of the Conference, Concluding remarks have been presented by several people selected regionally. Next Conference, ICCF9, will be held in Beijing two years later in May of 2002. 2) Abstract of our Three papers presented at ICCF8. (For readers not attended to ICCF8) (1) NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION IN SOLIDS EXPLAINED BY TNCF MODEL Hideo Kozima, Masayuki Ohta, Kunihito Arai, Mitsutaka Fujii, Hitoshi Kudoh and Koki Yoshimoto The TNCF (Trapped Neutron Catalyzed Fusion) model for the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) has been recognized very useful as a model with a single adjustable parameter nn and with several premises common for different materials to explain various events in the CFP. In this paper, we will give a self-consistent explanation of the nuclear transmutation (NT) observed in thin films and surface layers by the TNCF model. Phenomenological investigation of the real meaning of the parameter n_n of the model is given. With the TNCF model, we can explain such phases of the NT as its localization and its species explained by decays (NT_D ) and fissions (NT_F ) of new isotopes of elements formed from elements in the original system by absorption of a neutron(s). The nuclear transmutation in solids has been observed in CF experiments from around 1994 by R.T. Bush et al., I. Savvatimova et al., M. Okamoto et al. and others in its NT_D form and from 1995 by J.O'M. Bockris et al., T. Mizuno et al., T. Ohmori et al., R. Notoya et al., G. Miley et al. and others in its NT_D form. The former (NT_D ) had been explained by such reactions as (nu for Greek nu) n + ^23Na = ^24Na = ^24Mg + e + nu_e, n + ^27Al = ^28Al = ^28 Si + e + nu_e, n + ^39K = ^40K = ^40 Ca + e +nu_e, n + ^85Rb = ^86Rb = ^86 Sr + e +nu_e, n + ^106Pd = ^107Pd = ^107Ag + e +nu_e, n + ^196Pt = ^197Pt = ^197Au + e + nu_e, n + ^16O = ^17O = ^13C + 4He. In these cases, the experimental data suggest drastic shortening of decay times of the compound nuclei formed by absorption of a neutron. The latter (NT_F ), on the other hand, has been explained by such reactions as (A** = A - A* + 1): n + ^(A) Pd = ^(A+1)Pd* , = ^(A*)Al + ^(A") As, = ^(A*)Cu + ^(A") Cl, = ^(A*)Ni + ^(A") Ar, = ^(A*)Fe + ^(A") Ca, = ^(A*)Cr + ^(A") Ti, = ^(A*)Zn + ^(A") S, = ^(A*)Ru + ^(A") He, n + ^(A)Cr = ^(A+1)Cr* , = ^(A-3)Ti + ^(4)He, In theses cases, the experimental data suggest drastic lowering of the threshold energy of the fission reactions of nuclei formed by absorption of a neutron. It was also necessary to consider simultaneous absorption of several neutrons by a nucleus to explain the mass spectrum of the NT_F products as a whole. The real meaning of the trapped neutron and its density n_n should be elucidated from the first principles of physics and a trial toward this goal is given in another paper presented at this Conference. (2) THE COLD FUSION PHENOMENON AND PHYSICS OF NEUTRONS IN SOLIDS Hideo. Kozima The cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) recognized clearly in 1989 has evolved into a big science including several principal events from the excess heat production and tritium, helium-4, gamma ray and neutron generations sought initially in this field to nuclear transmutation confirmed in these several years. Assuming a common cause for these events with wide variety, we proposed a model (the TNCF model) with an adjustable parameter n_n based on an assumption of existence of thermal neutrons in appropriate solids and gave a systematic and consistent semi-quantitative explanation of the whole events in the CFP. In this paper, we investigate physics of neutrons in solids using quantum mechanics on one hand and experimental facts revealed in the CFP on the other. Such concepts as the trapped neutron, the energy band of a neutron in solids, neutron affinity of elements in solids, local coherence of neutron Bloch waves at crystal boundary and the neutron drop n(N) p(Z) composed of N neutrons and Z protons with N very large compared with Z are proposed as useful concepts to support the model and they are treated quantum mechanically to realize in solids with appropriate characteristics suggested by experiments where observed positive results of the CFP. The real meaning of nn is investigated. The energy band of a neutron in solids is a corresponding concept to that of an electron well known in solid state physics. The neutron band, however, is an important concept to treat neutrons in solids even if this conventional concept has not been noticed hitherto in neutron physics due to the short life of neutrons in free space of about 887 s. The neutron in an energy band interact with lattice nuclei coherently through the nuclear force and the energy becomes lower and stable than that of a state after the decay of the neutron into proton emitting an electron and a neutrino. A measure of this stability will be described by the neutron affinity of lattice nuclei proposed by us. The neutron affinity of an element is defined as an energy difference of two states, one with a neutron in the band and another with a neutron absorbed by a lattice nucleus of the element. It is interesting to notice that materials giving positive results for CF phenomenon usually have positive values of the neutron affinity, i.e. the trapped neutron is stable in the material against decay into proton, electron and anti-neutrino. Neutrons in an energy band with the minimum at Brillouin zone boundary and expressed by Bloch waves show the local coherence due to the energy coincidence in the band at a region where neutrons are reflected by a potential wall too thick to penetrate through it . Density of trapped neutrons at the boundary region becomes as huge as 10^12 times that of a single neutron when there are as many neutrons as 10^6 cm^-3 with wave vectors near the Brillouin zone boundary. These conclusions on the single-particle picture have to be supplemented by many-body picture forced to take into consideration when density of neutrons becomes high in a region where the local coherence realized and the nuclear reaction between neutrons becomes important. In this situation, the neutron drop nNpZ will be formed by condensation of neutrons at a seed made of neutrons and protons (and lattice nuclei) in the region of condensation. (3) TNCF MODEL - A PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH Hideo Kozima There has been an abyss between researchers of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP), more precisely "nuclear reactions and accompanied events in solids including high density hydrogen isotopes", and critics against it since its discovery in 1989. To construct a bridge between banks of opposing two communities separated by the abyss, it is necessary to have a common language, the scientific logic achieved in these four centuries of modern science; positivism based on the facts. In the case in front of us, the most controversial points are the reproducibility of the events in the phenomenon and the applicability of modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, to CFP. In terms of the former point, any theoretical work should explain the poor reproducibility of CFP, and of the latter, it should recognize own relationship with physical principles including quantum mechanics which are common properties of modern science. We have endeavored to explain various events in CFP as a whole characterized by the poor reproducibility in the framework of modern physics using a model - the TNCF model. A model is, in general, a system of working hypotheses (or premises) not explained for a while by the existing principles and is distinguished from a theory which is a system constructed by logical deduction from the principles even if a model and a theory belongs to theoretical means. Usefulness, or reason for being, of a model is estimated by its ability to explain facts obtained by experiments or observation. The premises assumed in the model should be verified logically from general principles. There are special cases in history of science where a premise opened the door to a new principle as illustrated by Planck*s assumption of the quantum of action. In this paper, we will give the logical structure of the TNCF model and typical examples of its successful explanation of various events in CFP. The TNCF model is a system of Premises with a single adjustable parameter nn. The Premises are based on facts obtained in experiments of CFP and therefore the TNCF model is a phenomenological one. Fundamental Premises are 1) existence of quasi-stable thermal neutrons (trapped neutrons) with a density n_n in solids, 2) effective reaction of the trapped neutron and a nucleus on the lattice (a lattice nucleus) in the boundary region of the solids. About 60 data sets of various events in CFP from the excess heat to the transmuted nuclei through tritium, helium-4, neutron, and gamma and the poor reproducibility of CFP are successfully explained qualitatively and quantitatively in some cases using the parameter n_n of values from 10^6 to 10^12 cm_-3 . At last, physical basis of the Premises assumed in the model is discussed briefly. --------------------------------------- Professor of Emeritus at Shizuoka University Dr. Hideo Kozima Cold Fusion Research Laboratory 421-1202 Yatsu 597-16, Shizuoka, 421-1202 Tel/Fax +81-54-278-0327 e-mail cf-lab.kozima nifty.ne.jp CFRL-webpage: <> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 08:06:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08974; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:04:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:04:58 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000623110450.0079d810 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:04:50 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Murray: Smith: Sheldrake: ESP research on dogs and owners 6.22.00 In-Reply-To: References: <3953159B.AB56AFE3 earthlink.net> <3951A591.20342B73 earthlink.net> <39520E8A.4AFC1133 centurytel.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"X0Aj63.0.8C2.QotKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35779 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Mitchell Jones wrote: >***{The claim that the woman starts driving home at random is ridiculous. >If she is coming home from work, the times will *not* be random; and if she >is returning home from a shopping expedition, the dog knows when she left, >and has a generalized idea of the length of her typical shopping trip. Also, some dogs have a remarkably good sense of time, both time of day and duration. If you walk a dog at a certain time of day, she will come to get you if you are late by 5 or 10 minutes. Dogs do not know about daylight savings time, which is a problem in the fall. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 08:12:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA10610; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:08:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:08:50 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000623110841.007a0b80 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:08:41 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Evan Ragland (by way of Jed Rothwell ) Subject: National Energy Policy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wq7bf3.0.ib2.1stKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35780 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [As noted in the "From" section above, this was written by Evan Ragland. Miller's comments about the price of fuel oil are ironic, given the unprecidented cost of gasoline in the midwest and the disruption it may cause. - JR] Dear friend of cold fusion, In 1998 Dr. Martha Krebs, Director, Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy (DOE) commissioned a review of the 1989 Engineering Research Advisory Board (ERAB) policy. The review document known as the Miller Memorandum is available to other Administrative Departments to use as a supplemental energy policy statement. It is a 'politically correct' - work hard, play by the rules, abide by the system - type of document. Miller expands policy scope to include all "cold-fusion-like phenomena" which imputes to - all phenomena must be approved by the Office of Energy Research. Such exaltation of authority exceeds even DOE's customary cloak of omnipotence. The ERAB statement is wrong policy, the supplemental Miller review is worse policy. I have asked my Senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, to seek DOE disavowal of the of the Miller Memorandum as a de facto national energy policy. They need all the support they can get. The DOE is a powerful bureaucracy. Please write to your Senators and Congressman along the lines of the following suggestion. ************* Dear Senator or Congressman, I write to ask your support of Senator Trent Lott's request to the Department of Energy (DOE) to disavow the Miller Memorandum as national energy policy. This DOE Office of Energy Research document sets an extremely low national priority on energy research, asserts "energy and nuclear waste disposal are minor issues in the determinates of national well-being", and declares "threats to domestic tranquility are far more immediate than any imagined increase in the price of fuel oil." This policy is contrary to the national goals of energy independence, clean energy, and affordable energy for economic growth. It should be disavowed. ************* More scientists than I know are outraged by the proposition that research requires DOE approval of politically correct phenomena. If you know scientists of this disposition please forward my memoranda along to them for their consideration. We need all the help we can get to keep our government bureaucracy from dictating politically correct research for all of us. Evan Ragland From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 08:21:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA15046; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:19:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:19:42 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FBB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:14:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"HFhGs3.0.0h3.D0uKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35781 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Adam Cox[SMTP:merlyn_x hotmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 7:52 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics > > OK, what exactly is referred to by EPR?? > "EPR" Refers to "Einstein, Podolski and Rosen", who as part of the Einstein-Bohr debates proposed a thought experiment to test QM versus Relativity. The idea comes from the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, and reactions that produce two particles with identical or known properties. A reaction produces two equal and oppostly polarized photon in opposite directions, each one moving, of course, at the speed of light. The uncertainty principle says you can't know too much about a particle. You can know it's exact location, but not it's momentum, say. Well, just measure the x location of one, and the momentum of the other once they are far enough apart to eliminate the possibility of interactions, and you will know more about the particles than uncertainty allows, since knowing the x of one implies -x of the other, and -p of one implies p of the other. Turns out they were wrong. Experiment shows that both QM and Relativity to be correct. You CAN'T know too much about x and p (or any other pair of variables that you are not allowed to know too much about). Nor can you make a communications device out of it, thus relativity isn't violated. > Also, has anyone ever been able to conduct an experiment at a sufficient > fraction of c to prove that the relativity equations are accurate, and not > just approximations?? > Yes. They used a linear accelerator for one, and then there was that thing with cosmic rays and the life time of the particle. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 09:03:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA05913; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:01:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:01:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:02:10 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Cc: Resent-Message-ID: <"akD1b3.0.AS1.9duKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35782 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:57 AM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: >I'm sure there are water soluble radioisotope "salts" such as Cs137 >Chloride around >that could be put in water that is circulated over the Hg/UV Tube to see >if remediation can be >effected. > >Regards, Frederick You could just include the radioistope in the tube prior to evacuation. Mercury discharge tubes don't require much in the way of vacuum, so should be easy to recharge, and placing the radioisotope in the tube itself avoids a number of problems, like water solubility, need for use of quartz tubes, need to separate tube from water due to thermal stress on quartz, etc. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 09:50:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25798; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:47:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:47:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20000623164652.99437.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: relativity Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:46:52 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"tzJIf1.0.-I6.SIvKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35783 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: fine, but what fraction of c are we talking? ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 09:52:09 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA26527; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:48:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:48:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20000623164805.89728.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: relativity Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:48:05 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"U1w-H3.0.LU6.gJvKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35784 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: sorry, mouse error... Fine, but what fraction of c are we talking here? >From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" >Subject: RE: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics >Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:14:56 -0700 > > Also, has anyone ever been able to conduct an experiment at a sufficient > > fraction of c to prove that the relativity equations are accurate, and >not > > just approximations?? > > >Yes. They used a linear accelerator for one, and then there was that thing >with cosmic rays and the life time of the particle. > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 10:08:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02634; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:08:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:08:02 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FBD xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: relativity Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:03:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"UPjbW.0.4f.nbvKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35785 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Adam Cox[SMTP:merlyn_x hotmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 9:48 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: relativity > > sorry, mouse error... > > Fine, but what fraction of c are we talking here? > What difference could that possibly make? Newtonian mechanics did not hold, and relativistic mechanics did. We tend to go by theory to predict unless we have an experiment that says otherwise. Experiment trumps theory, theory trumps wishful thinking, speculation, and so on. In the case of cold fusion, the physics is very complex and the "theory" the "skeptics" say is violated doesn't exist. They cannot even explain the physical conditions inside the palladium, much less have a theory that shows it can't happen. CF experiment trumps their hot fusion experience. Now, with relativity, we don't have any experiment to trump theory, or a better theory (better means it explains everything relativity does AND some more that relativity doesn't...) and we don't have an experiment. So what logical basis can there be for this assult against this theory? Do you have a theory, complete with math (like everything else in physics...) and some experimental results to back it up? > >From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" > >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" > >Subject: RE: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics > >Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:14:56 -0700 > > > > Also, has anyone ever been able to conduct an experiment at a sufficient > > > fraction of c to prove that the relativity equations are accurate, and > >not > > > just approximations?? > > > > >Yes. They used a linear accelerator for one, and then there was that thing > >with cosmic rays and the life time of the particle. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 10:09:10 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA02666; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:08:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:08:04 -0700 Message-ID: <00aa01bfdd3d$b3412dc0$33451d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:05:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"JXRLG3.0.af.pbvKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35786 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Horace Heffner To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Horace wrote: > At 5:57 AM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: > > >I'm sure there are water soluble radioisotope "salts" such as Cs137 > >Chloride around > >that could be put in water that is circulated over the Hg/UV Tube to see > >if remediation can be > >effected. > > > >Regards, Frederick > > You could just include the radioistope in the tube prior to evacuation. > Mercury discharge tubes don't require much in the way of vacuum, so should > be easy to recharge, and placing the radioisotope in the tube itself avoids > a number of problems, like water solubility, need for use of quartz tubes, > need to separate tube from water due to thermal stress on quartz, etc. Nope. You want the versatility of using H2O and D2O-Isotope solutions external to the Hg Discharge Tube. Quartz can be heated to a white heat and dipped in ice water without breakage. Regards, Frederick > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 10:12:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04545; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:11:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:11:20 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FBE xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: relativity Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:06:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"WT9ZD3.0.w61.tevKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35787 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: IF relativity was false, then all those commercial airplanes flying around there with lasers to find their position would get lost. They don't. All those using GPS would get lost, too. But they don't either. > ---------- > From: Adam Cox[SMTP:merlyn_x hotmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 9:48 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: relativity > > sorry, mouse error... > > Fine, but what fraction of c are we talking here? > > >From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" > >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" > >Subject: RE: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics > >Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:14:56 -0700 > > > > Also, has anyone ever been able to conduct an experiment at a sufficient > > > fraction of c to prove that the relativity equations are accurate, and > >not > > > just approximations?? > > > > >Yes. They used a linear accelerator for one, and then there was that thing > >with cosmic rays and the life time of the particle. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 11:27:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA03744; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:26:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:26:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200006231825.OAA16655 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:19:52 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GGS9V3.0.Kw.QlwKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35788 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > No. EPR is not in conflict with relativty. Again, there is no signal sent > faster than light. Just because there is no signal does not change a thing. It is still not physical, within the realm of relativity. You are playing with words. > No, to be specific, relativity doesn not predict quantum effects. However, > now we use the "standard theory", where quantum mechanics and relativity > are made to be consistant. More wordplay. > I'm not the one saying that a signal can move faster than light on a > macroscopic scale. I'm not trying to make "Mother Nature" wear anything. > Science only asks what mother nature is wearing, and does so by deductive > and mathematical logic. I'm saying it *might* be possible. If someone says that it is impossible, and always will be, based only on what we know so far and some mathematical equations, that person is infinitely stupid. That is one infinity that is real. > > We don't know that light speed is constant in every direction. > > Yes, we do. And for all observers, too. No you don't. It appears so, but it may or may not be. > > If Lorentz > > was correct in his reasoning, > > He wasn't. He failed to describe time dialation in his model. Do I need to mention Larmor, and Fitzgerald as well? I thought you said you were familiar with this topic...? > You haven't mentioned any experimental results. You haven't even mentioned > a theory. You've mentioned nothing, and don't appear to even be well > aquainted with the theories and experiments you attack. I mention not letting _as-yet-unknown_ metaphysical assumptions from people who are arrogantly assured of their being "correct" get in the way of someone doing real science. Looking for FTL in an experiment is real science. Saying it is worthless to try is not science, but of the utmost ignorance and pigheadedness. It is the mark of a fool. I do not know if you go quite this far. I hope not. I am also pretty damned good at what I do, especially in trying to cover my bases in my research so someone won't come up with an immunization of relativity to try and sweep my (possible future)results under the rug. It is not easy, and it will not surprise me if someone were to state that Morse code is not a 'signal.' No, I am not a theoretician, as I think most of it is a waste of time. And by the way...this discussion list is supposed to be for the open minded discussion of so-called 'fringe' phenomena. And that's what I am asking for: open mindedness, from people here and from the scientific community. > Let me check.... > > Nope. I'm sure... Let me again repeat my as yet unanswered query to you sir: If I demonstrated FTL transfer of morse code, that you could see for yourself, with your own eyes on a measurement device's screen, what will you support? Metaphysical assumptions or the reality of the experiment? I would ask that you do not include ad hoc statements in your reply, such as "It won't ever happen, so I won't answer it." The reason? You don't know if that is true or not. --K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 11:51:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA12575; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:50:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:50:40 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:51:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? Cc: sciclub-list eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"oZ_tF2.0.M43._5xKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35789 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 4:20 PM 6/22/0, William Beaty wrote: >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >> > >> > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg >> > >> (Mars water image) > > >Hey, also note that there's a wide zone of dark color ABOVE the >"dalmation dunes" zone in the original photo. And between the dark color >and the dunes is a region of light color with fine parallel lines. If we >could see the entire region around the dunes, perhaps we would see that >the dunes are surrounded by a light halo with a dark outer edge. > [snip] Bill, Did you not see the wide angle picture of the overall area as pointed out by Scott Little? See: I think this image indicates the subject area is on the slope of a broad based peak in the center of a crater. If you have ever been on the base of a large volcano, or in a crater, you know the terrain can be fairly steep. Also, the overall blob seems (to me) have oozed down from the peak, to have its origins there. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 11:52:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA12677; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:51:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:51:00 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:50:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: no time travel ..FTL signals do not violate physics In-Reply-To: <200006231825.OAA16655 fh105.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"F7Z6u1.0._53.K6xKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35790 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > No. EPR is not in conflict with relativty. Again, there is no signal sent > > faster than light. > > Just because there is no signal does not change a thing. It is still not > physical, within the realm of relativity. You are playing with words. I'm not playing with words. Transform the frame to that of the particles. Is anything happening faster than light in THEIR frames? Nope. Now, transform back to the frames? No, there is no signal. So it's consistent with relativity. > > I'm not the one saying that a signal can move faster than light on a > > macroscopic scale. I'm not trying to make "Mother Nature" wear anything. > > Science only asks what mother nature is wearing, and does so by deductive > > and mathematical logic. > > I'm saying it *might* be possible. If someone says that it is impossible, Yes, I know what you're saying, and I'm asking you on what basis do you say it. You seem to have none. > and always will be, based only on what we know so far and some mathematical > equations, that person is infinitely stupid. That is one infinity that is > real. Actually that person is exactly right, given the qualifiers. I find your argument taking a rather negative turn. > > > We don't know that light speed is constant in every direction. > > > > Yes, we do. And for all observers, too. > > No you don't. It appears so, but it may or may not be. Cite? Experimental evidence? Do you have a theory? On what rational basis do you say this? What logic brings you to it? I've asked for this before. Please state your reasons. > > > If Lorentz > > > was correct in his reasoning, > > > > He wasn't. He failed to describe time dialation in his model. > > Do I need to mention Larmor, and Fitzgerald as well? I thought you said you > were familiar with this topic...? Tell us what you heard about Larmor and Fitzgerald, and perhaps we can thrash out any misconceptions. > > You haven't mentioned any experimental results. You haven't even > mentioned > > a theory. You've mentioned nothing, and don't appear to even be well > > aquainted with the theories and experiments you attack. > > I mention not letting _as-yet-unknown_ metaphysical assumptions from people > who are arrogantly assured of their being "correct" get in the way of > someone doing real science. Real science is a logical process, and math is a discipline of logic. We make models and find which ones explain the most. So far, relativity has done very, very well at explaining things. We look for experimental evidence that conflicts with the theory to improve the theory. Since QM and relativity explained different things, it was an opportunity to improve the theory. This was done and we have the Standard Theory today. That reduces to relativity on a macroscopic scale, and to QM in the area of lower energies and speeds. > Looking for FTL in an experiment is real > science. Saying it is worthless to try is not science, but of the utmost > ignorance and pigheadedness. It is the mark of a fool. I do not know if you > go quite this far. I hope not. What I said was that there is no experiment or observation that I know of that doesn't jive with Relativity on the macroscopic scale. I see no reason to speculate that there exist faster than light travel when theory says no and no known experiment even HINTS at it. It is perfectly okay with everyone if you want to spend your days looking for faster than light travel. But you error if you say it is possible because you have no scientific, logical reason to do so. > I am also pretty damned good at what I do, > especially in trying to cover my bases in my research so someone won't come > up with an immunization of relativity to try and sweep my (possible > future)results under the rug. It is not easy, and it will not surprise me > if someone were to state that Morse code is not a 'signal.' No, I am not a > theoretician, as I think most of it is a waste of time. And by the > way...this discussion list is supposed to be for the open minded discussion > of so-called 'fringe' phenomena. And that's what I am asking for: open > mindedness, from people here and from the scientific community. > > > Let me check.... > > > > Nope. > > I'm sure... > > Let me again repeat my as yet unanswered query to you sir: After that fit of name calling, this hardly seems sincere. > If I demonstrated FTL transfer of morse code, that you could see for > yourself, with your own eyes on a measurement device's screen, what will > you support? Metaphysical assumptions or the reality of the experiment? And as I said before, show it to me. Are you claiming to have such an experiment? Your argument is very bad. It seems to say that if you could prove relativity wrong, then would relativity be right? Of course not. To make any meaning out of it, you must show us the experimental results, and explain how to replicate it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 12:11:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21976; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:10:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:10:25 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman mail.earthlink.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:12:51 -0600 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (6/23/2000) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA21950 Resent-Message-ID: <"Drud4.0.FN5.XOxKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35791 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN 11445 East Via Linda, No. 416 Scottsdale, Arizona 85259 (480) 657-3722 josephnewman earthlink.net www.josephnewman.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (6/23/2000) Oil prices are criminally high at this time! The latest Newman Production Motor now demonstrates more than 260% efficiency by power out on the shaft of the Newman Motor/Generator. The following is a description of the use of a practical load that lay people, as well as technical people, can relate to: "AIR DYNAMOMETER" as sold in the form of a 5-foot diameter, 80-lb fan blade and as described in the Grainger Catalog, Part No. 3C200, and manufactured by Dayton ---- Dayton-tested data as to RPM and needed HP: RPM HP 300 1.5 330 2.0 Photo 1 Photo 2 380 3.0 450 5.0 The Newman Motor/Generator turned the 80-lb fan blade at 300 RPMs and drew only 300 watts. Those results ignore pulley belt losses and losses in the Motor/Generator. The results also ignore the back-EMF into the battery pack as verified by storage oscilloscope. Graph 1 Graph 1 The above graphs are based upon statistics provided by the Dayton, Corp. as published by the Grainger catalog. According to DAYTON's own statistics, it requires a 1,119 watt input to operate the DAYTON AIR DYNAMOMETER (60"Fan/80-lb Fan Blade, Part No. 3C200) at 300 RPMs, yet the Newman Motor spins the AIR DYNAMOMETER Fan Blades at 300 RPMs and draws only 300 watts!!! Representatives of a large manufacturing company requested seeing such a practical application of the technology for their own extensive requirements. Milton Everett (Mechanical Engineer, Ret.) and Dr. A. Swimmer, PhD (Professor of Mathematics) both gladly made a graph of the tested numbers above that were provided by Dayton with respect to the AIR DYNAMOMETER. Interestingly, the curve that was plotted made an even, steady curve and provided exacting RPM as to the needed Horsepower from 0 to 450 RPMs. The results obtained should stimulate other large companies to contact me to solve their requirements. The Newman Motor/Generator is totally "unbiased" with respect to the fact that it will run any load. To all honest individuals -- I have recently received documented information that Ingalls Shipyards is now contracting with several companies to build electric motors to power ships. See the MECHANICAL ENGINEERING magazine article (April 2000 issue) entitled, "NAVAL SUPERPOWER --- WILL BISMUTH RULE THE WAVES?" The article describes how a new generation of electric motors will be used to power military ships. Fact: Large electric motors have long been known to operate in the high 90% efficiency range. Question: How then does the U.S. Navy claim "SUPERPOWER"? Why did the U. S. Navy order numerous copies of my fundamental book over the years? Why did a top naval Admiral send police to my home that stated that the Admiral wanted to send a plane to my area to bring me to his office? I arranged for the Admiral to send a high-ranking scientist to my laboratory and Mechanical Engineer Milton Everett was a witness to the fact that the scientist specifically stated that he was very impressed with my energy machine technology. The five-page, April 2000 article in MECHANICAL ENGINEERING further proves that the energy machine of Joseph Newman works. Now the U. S. Government is spending millions of taxpayer's monies to build special electromagnetic motors that achieve astounding results. The same corrupt U.S. Government (that is effectively controlled by "old boy networks influenced by 'hell'") that told you for years that Joseph Newman's magnetic energy machine did not work is now using Joseph Newman's plundered technology to power naval vessels. People: when will you rise up and support my life's efforts for you? The conspiracy has been against ALL of you, more than just mere me. If you believe in God or Truth, join me. Remember the old saying: "For evil to exist, it only entails that good people do nothing." Copies of said graphs are available for companies interested in ordering Motor/Generators from me for their own energy saving needs and to save the energy dollars that they are presently paying to the Power Brokers. Note:Comments on page 5 of the MECHANICAL ENGINEERING article totally disprove comments made by then National Bureau of Standards (now-NIST) so-called expert Jacob Rabinow who explicitly stated in writing: "The Newman Machine would be highly inefficient WITHOUT IRON when used strictly as a Motor --- less than 10% (efficient)." Now read the following quotation from page 5 of the MECHANICAL ENGINEERING magazine article: "NO MORE WINDING SLOTS "REMOVING IRON teeth dispenses with the need for winding slots. That yields several advantages. It eliminates the 'cogging torque,' which Whitcomb called a significant source of radiated noise. LESS IRON equates to less synchronous and subtransient reactance as well, enhancing a machine's transient stability. Power density improves after the IRON COMES OUT since more space can be set aside for WINDINGS." (Emphasis added.) The above quotation matches statements from my fundamental book first published in 1984, from my original Patent Applications, and its application eliminates hysteresis losses associated with iron. For honest and sincere individuals wishing to help financially with production of the technology or for companies seeking to place orders for their own requirements who wish to have a personal demonstration of the technology, email your request to Evan Soulé at josephnewman earthlink.net or call my number at: (480) 657-3722 to schedule a demonstration --- by appointment only. Power to the people, [Signed] Joseph Westley Newman www.josephnewman.com _____________________________________________________ To view the Photographs and Graphs referenced above, please visit the specific webpage: http://www.josephnewman.com/test_results.html or via the general website introductory page: www.josephnewman.com Thank you! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 12:15:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25793; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:14:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:14:31 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:15:32 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Cc: Resent-Message-ID: <"WN5t21.0.rI6.MSxKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35792 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:57 AM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: >To Vortex: > >I worked with UV Photolysis of aqueous chemical compounds about 30 years ago, >but, never thought to see if one could effect nuclear remediation. > >IF the 185 to 300 nanometer(~ 6.7 ev to ~ 4.0 ev) UV from a Mercury Discharge >in a Quartz Tube is creating Light Lepton Pairs in the H2O or D2O and the >LL- is taken up >by a Proton or Deuteron to form a neutral entity P* or D*, then these can >react with the radioisotope: > >D* or P* + radioisotope ---> Stable Isotopes + LL- + Energy Say, if there is anything to this scheme then if you put a quartz UV tube into a sealed container full of normal pressure hydrogen, or water vapor, the hydrogen should disappear - turned into thermalized neutral P* or D* entities which are free to escape or react with the quartz or anything else placed in the tube with the hydrogen. Checking for the corresponding pressure change is a reasonable test for the existence of light leptons. If the tube contains only water and water vapor, then the pressure should increase due to the conversion of water to oxygen, and the liquid water should diminish in volume. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 12:28:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31802; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:26:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20000623192614.9958.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240] From: "Adam Cox" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: GPS Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:26:14 CDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"20lGP.0.qm7.tdxKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35793 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I thought the principle of GPS was based on triangulation and the Doppler effect, not relativity. Relativity does not effect the speed of light, in compares other velocities to that speed. Merlyn ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 12:50:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10942; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:46:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:46:59 -0700 Message-ID: <00ce01bfdd53$e5408c60$33451d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:44:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"KkNnJ1.0.qg2.pwxKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35794 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Horace Heffner To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Horace wrote: > At 5:57 AM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: > >To Vortex: > > > >I worked with UV Photolysis of aqueous chemical compounds about 30 years ago, > >but, never thought to see if one could effect nuclear remediation. > > > >IF the 185 to 300 nanometer(~ 6.7 ev to ~ 4.0 ev) UV from a Mercury Discharge > >in a Quartz Tube is creating Light Lepton Pairs in the H2O or D2O and the > >LL- is taken up > >by a Proton or Deuteron to form a neutral entity P* or D*, then these can > >react with the radioisotope: > > > >D* or P* + radioisotope ---> Stable Isotopes + LL- + Energy > > > Say, if there is anything to this scheme then if you put a quartz UV tube > into a sealed container full of normal pressure hydrogen, or water vapor, > the hydrogen should disappear - turned into thermalized neutral P* or D* > entities which are free to escape or react with the quartz or anything else > placed in the tube with the hydrogen. Checking for the corresponding > pressure change is a reasonable test for the existence of light leptons. > If the tube contains only water and water vapor, then the pressure should > increase due to the conversion of water to oxygen, and the liquid water > should diminish in volume. Lets see, 4.53 ev to 6.7 ev photons can dissociate the H2 or D2 molecules but, cannot muster the 13.6 ev necessary to ionize the atom or the ~15.0 ev required to ionize the molecules, even if you did create the LL (+/-) pairs. As Mills has shown with the Hydrino, you need a plasma condition, and adding Potassium Vapor to the gas so that you can get the K+ ions at around 4.34 ev with the UV photons, then H2 + K+ <---> KH + H+ can happen at cooler plasma temperatures, and then you might get the same results as Mills. Using an aqueous electrolyte with radioisotope cations and Protons/Deuterons effected by "autoionization" seems to be much simpler and makes it easier to work with the radioactive materials while keeping the Hg/UV discharge source simple. Anecdotally, I had a pair of 15 watt fluorescent lights in a utility bath for about 30 years, and there was always a lot of "static electricity" around until I changed the bulbs to a less "blue" type phosphor a few years ago, and the "static electricity" disappeared. Was there enough UV coming out of the bulbs to create the LL Pairs in the humid room air which then created the static electricity? :-) Regards, Frederick > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 13:21:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26785; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:17:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:17:59 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FC0 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: GPS Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:13:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"4MXt7.0.RY6.tNyKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35795 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If the speed of light was not constant in all directions, then the earth's rotation would cause the perceived speed of light to be different on the ground and the time signals would be hosed up. > ---------- > From: Adam Cox[SMTP:merlyn_x hotmail.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:26 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: GPS > > I thought the principle of GPS was based on triangulation and the Doppler > effect, not relativity. > > Relativity does not effect the speed of light, in compares other velocities > to that speed. > > Merlyn > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 13:42:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03508; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:40:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:40:55 -0700 From: VCockeram aol.com Message-ID: <29.6de7cc1.26852529 aol.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:40:09 EDT Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 114 Resent-Message-ID: <"QLeqO1.0.ks.NjyKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35796 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tom, You must download and install Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files. The download is free from www.adobe.com Regards, Vince Cockeram Las Vegas Nevada 702-254-2122 http://hometown.aol.com/vcockeram/myhomepage/index.html H2K Glow Discharge Experiment From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 13:50:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06287; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:48:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:48:00 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:47:54 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"SO9vF3.0.yX1._pyKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35797 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > >> > > >> > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg > > ***{Bill, they cannot be "dunes." To see why, look at the bottom portion of > the photo at > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg , which shows the > hole from which the three tubes originate. Huh? I'm confused. What does the M0400291 image have to do with Gene Mallove's "Dalmation" image? Are they from the same crater? I think there's good reason to suspect that they depict two entirely different phenomena. The "dalmation dunes" look like wind-blown sand dunes, while the periodic white lines on the "tubes" photo look like gravel deposits running crosswise across a streambed. Similar dune-like deposits appear in the water channels depicted in several of the new crop of "water" images at http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/index.html. For example, look at the gullies in Gorgunum crater at http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/gorgonum/index.html Same little rows of "dunes", and they appear right at the bottom of the gullies where the water must have flowed, at right angles to the water direction. More of them appear at the bottom of the big channel at Nigral Valis http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/nirgal/index.html. Also, I've seen exactly these kinds of deposits in miniature on Earth, when water runs along a street gutter in a sandy town. The flow rate probably has to be just right for such a pattern to form, since it doesn't always form. Have you ever seen such things in dry wash beds? If "dunes" in streambeds are caused by water flows, then they MUST appear on Earth as well (I mean the full-sized versions would exist, since little ones certainly DO appear in sandy street gutters.) To me the "tubes" look like dry washes, but with rows of gravel beds. The beds act like sand dunes in that they form ridges perpendicular to the water flow which deposited them. > (1) The "sand dunes" that are right next to one another, but part of > different "tubes," are perpendicular to one another. That is clearly > impossible if they are, in fact, windblown sand dunes, because the wind can > only blow in one direction at a time. Right, and if they are deposited by water, and if the "tubes" are like dry washes in a desert, then the gravel "dunes" are perpendicular to the water flow. > > (2) The "dunes" turn, and go down into the hole, which, clearly real dunes > cannot do. SUre they can, if they are deposited by the water. > (3) The area of the "dunes" has a sharply defined edge: there is a linear > border separating the "sand" from the adjacent rock. But, if it were sand, > you would see a sawtooth pattern at the edge, as salients of sand reached > out, and salients of rock reached in between them. Is it rock? I was imagining that the whole landscape was sand, but sand that is encrusted with soluble material (it would be like sandstone, but sandstone which falls apart when wet.) The sharp edge of the "dalmation dunes" region, and the lack of dunes which invade the land past the edge, both are explainable if a pool of water "unlocked" the sand temporarily so it could form dunes. The sand then dried out again, and was locked into solidified dune shapes. I'm saying that they are fossilized dunes, not active dunes. But why didn't these dunes encroach past the boundary? I'm assuming that they probably did! But the sand which blew past the boundary remained dry afterwards, since it was lying upon the dry landscape, and so those dunes slowly marched away across the landscape, while the "dunes" within the boundary were damp and were being fed water from below by all the water which had soaked into the land. dunes. The "dalmation" dunes would have remained damp while forming, but not so damp that a surface layer couldn't be blown around and sculpted by wind. The wind would keep drying an upper layer, which would then slowly change shape, while the main part of each "dune" remained heavy and wet. When the water dried up, the dissolved salts in the sand formed "sandstone" again. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 14:28:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22104; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:26:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:26:24 -0700 Message-ID: <3953D692.F9304FBA earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:28:50 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Signs that you had too much of the 90's 6.23.00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RGpFb1.0.AP5._NzKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35798 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: June 23 2000 Signs that you had too much of the 90's: 1) You just tried to enter your password on the microwave. 2) You now think of three espressos as "getting wasted." 3) You haven't played solitaire with a real deck of cards in years. 4) You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of three. 5) You call your son's beeper to let him know it's time to eat. He e-mails you back from his bedroom, "What's for dinner?" 6) Your daughter sells Girl Scout Cookies via her web site. 7) You chat several times a day with a stranger from South Africa, but you haven't spoken with your next door neighbor yet this year. 8) Your daughter just bought a CD of all the records your college roommate used to play. 9) You check the ingredients on a can of chicken noodle soup to see if it contains Echinacea. 10) You checked your blow-dryer to see if it was Y2K compliant. 11) Your grandmother clogs up your e-mail inbox asking you to send her a JPEG file of your newborn so she can create a screen saver. 12) You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone is home. 13) Every commercial on television has a web-site address at the bottom of the screen. 14) You buy a computer and a week later it is out of date and now sells for half the price you paid. 15) The concept of using real money, instead of credit or debit, to make a purchase is foreign to you. 16) Cleaning up the dining room means getting the fast food bags out of the back seat of your car. 17) Your reason for not staying in touch with family is that they do not have e-mail addresses. 8) You consider second-day air delivery painfully slow. 9) Your idea of being organized is multiple-colored Post-it notes. 20) You hear most of your jokes via e-mail instead of in person. 21) You're reading this. 22) Even worse; you're going to forward it to someone else. 23) (True) You are E-mailed it by the person in the library who is sitting next to you. 24) This is your first letter to family and friends in months. 25} You send the same personal news letter to fifty people. **************************************************** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 14:45:10 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29588; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:44:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:44:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:44:00 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: Horace Heffner cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, sciclub-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"AWqGt2.0.8E7.aezKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35799 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Horace Heffner wrote: > Did you not see the wide angle picture of the overall area as pointed out > by Scott Little? See: > > > > I think this image indicates the subject area is on the slope of a broad > based peak in the center of a crater. In the photo there are two craters, both of which appear to have these dune/blobs. But only one of them has a central peak, and the photoo of the dunes is the OTHER crater, with no central peak. It's hard to tell how sloped the crater floor is. If if is NOT sloped, then maybe the dunes/blobs are actually small, temporary lakes. If we had more hi-res photos of those craters, maybe we'd see more of those water channels found in other craters, where water has apparenly gushed from holes around the crater rim and pooled within the crater. Alternate interpretation of the dunes/blobs: they ARE lakes. They are pools of brine, and the dunes are underwater deposits of white sand. The lightning of the dunes suggests that there is dark-colored water between them, and the crests of each dune are closer to the surface, and therefor appear lighter. But what then are the polka-dots? Colonies of plants? Yet open water on Mars would freeze. Yet nobody talks about the salt concentration martian lakes might have. That liquid water exists is a mystery, since the temperatures are too low. Maybe all this Martian water is heavy brine, and remains liquid at very low temperatures. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 14:52:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA32598; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:49:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:49:56 -0700 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:49:39 -0400 Message-Id: <200006232149.RAA06141 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Resent-Message-ID: <"i8Z-Z3.0.Ez7.3kzKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35800 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred Sparber writes: To Vortex: > >I worked with UV Photolysis of aqueous chemical compounds about 30 years ago, >but, never thought to see if one could effect nuclear remediation. > >IF the 185 to 300 nanometer(~ 6.7 ev to ~ 4.0 ev) UV from a Mercury Discharge >in a Quartz Tube is creating Light Lepton Pairs in the H2O or D2O and the LL- is taken up >by a Proton or Deuteron to form a neutral entity P* or D*, then these can >react with the radioisotope: > >D* or P* + radioisotope ---> Stable Isotopes + LL- + Energy > >The Cerenkov UV in a "Swimming Pool" Reactor should do this also, but >the highly efficient Mercury Discharge Tube should be a more efficient >approach. > >The Hg/UV Discharge Tubes are available "off the shelf" along with electronic ballasts >in a wide range of power ratings. > >I'm sure there are water soluble radioisotope "salts" such as Cs137 Chloride around >that could be put in water that is circulated over the Hg/UV Tube to see if remediation can be >effected. > >Regards, Frederick Hi Fred, I'm still backlogged by about 300 messages due to a visit from some relatives, but this caught my eye of course, and I had to respond. Something similar to what you are proposing may be what is happening in Hanford. I had chance encounter with an older lady the other day who asked me where I was from. I told her that I had moved down here from Seattle, and she said that her son was working at Hanford as an engineer building tunnels around the storage tanks. She said that they were going to string up some kind of special lights in them. I asked her if it was an attempt to remediate the nuclear waste that was seeping into the ground there, and she said "No!". Then she got a funny look on her face and ran away. A friend who was visiting from Europe was with me and he just laughed, and said "Wow, look at her go!" The nuclear waste business ranks as one of the weirdest, I guess. Have you tried to fit your LL theory in with the Brown's Gas phenomena? Last note: If you have any Fiestaware or depleted Uranium around, you could use that as a test substance for your proposal in the same manner that I tested it with my cavitator. The entire experiment of course, should be shielded with lead, and any vapors escaping the liquid should be taken into consideration as well. Use all the detection equipment you can get your hands on, as well. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 15:04:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05100; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:02:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:02:06 -0700 Message-ID: <3953E03F.F3FD3759 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:10:07 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-L eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jun 23, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7Oyhg3.0.YF1.UvzKv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35801 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for Jun 23, 2000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:45:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 23 Jun 00 Washington, DC 1. MISSILE-GATE? 53 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR FBI PROBE. The members asked FBI Director Louis Freeh to investigate allegations by MIT physicist Ted Postol that missile tests have been rigged and failures have been covered up (WN 9 Jun 00). The Pentagon's shoot-now-ask-questions-later response to Postol's letter was to immediately classify both the letter and the previously unclassified documents on which it was based. The APS Council statement on NMD [www.aps.org/statements/.002.html] calls for realistic tests against plausible countermeasures. It was sent to members of Congress by APS President Jim Langer, and highlighted yesterday at a Capitol Hill press conference called by the Congressional advocates of the FBI probe. On the Hill, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa) took advantage of yesterday's hearing on NMD countermeasures to brand some NMD opponents as "un-American". 2. NMD TEST: EVERYBODY IS NOW PLAYING THE EXPECTATIONS GAME. Previously portrayed as make-or-break, a Pentagon official now says claims of feasibility could survive failure of the July 7 test. Larry Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations described the system as a "shield of dreams", whose proponents believe that "if you build it, it will work." Meanwhile, North Korea, whose own test of a rickety missile started all this (WN 11 Sep 98), is now promising a moratorium on further missile tests. In fact, Madeleine Albright has downgraded North Korea, the world's newest Coke importer, from "rogue state" to "state of concern", leaving NMD proponents scrambling to support the 'need for speed' argument for rapid deployment that has characterized this debate. 3. MIR: IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ROOM SERVICE: In fact, it doesn't even have rooms. That detail isn't a concern for an intrepid plutocrat in search of a unique experience. For an estimated $20 million, American businessman Dennis Tito hopes to become the first paying guest on the Mir, thus transforming the cramped, clunky, problem-plagued Russian space station into the most exclusive and expensive tourist destination in the solar system. 4. ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: HERB-CANCER CONNECTION. Recent evidence that use of Chinese herb Aristolochia fangchi led to kidney failure and cancer among dozens of unwitting Belgian dieters is cause for alarm. The 1994 Dietary Supplement Act prohibits FDA from evaluating the efficacy of a "dietary supplement" before harm has been demonstrated- is a "shut the gate after the cows have escaped" strategy a viable approach to public health? Next week: Bob goes to Los Alamos. Gulp. (Maria Cranor contributed to this week's WN) THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 15:28:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15087; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:26:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:26:54 -0700 Message-ID: <3953E60D.45CE753A ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:34:53 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bill Beaty's Mars Photo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"muMF-3.0.bh3.jG-Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35802 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: June 23, 2000 Vortex, It may be considered that humanity is evolving into a 'gigantic organism', mentioned by MJ, via the internet 'root' system of communication although still splotchy and imperfect in great many areas. We are perhaps more prolific than fungi --- how may tons do all of us together weigh, I wonder. And look at the havoc we wreck on the enviroment turning 'moldy'. :) -ak- Mitchell Jones wrote: > > It occurs to me that lack of a background in the biological sciences may be > why some of you have difficulty conceiving of the "dunes" as a gigantic > plant. After all, most people are unaware that plants which are enormously > larger than the largest redwood or sequoia are common. Whole forests, in > fact, frequently are dominated by trees that propagate from their roots via > shoots, and it is not uncommon for thousands, or even tens of thousands, of > apparently independent trees to all be connected together, underground, via > a shared root system. And fungi get even larger: there are fungal rhizomes > that form gigantic organisms weighing millions of tons, that are > interconnected beneath thousands of acres of forest. Of course, on Earth, > there is plenty of water, and an abundant atmosphere, and so there is no > reason for such structures to form closed canopies at the top to hold in > air and moisture. But on Mars, there is reason to do it, and if the > desertification of the Martian ecosystem was gradual enough to permit the > indigenous plants to adapt, it could have happened. Frankly, I see no other > reasonable explanation for the images on these photographs. --MJ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 16:04:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27074; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:02:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:02:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200006232302.TAA29009 fh105.infi.net> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" To: Subject: TEST--ignore Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:57:17 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nCRvp.0.uc6.Oo-Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35803 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: TEST From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 16:14:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA31268; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:14:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:14:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:15:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Resent-Message-ID: <"PLYL63.0.Te7.Cz-Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35804 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:44 PM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Horace Heffner [snip] >> If the tube contains only water and water vapor, then the pressure should >> increase due to the conversion of water to oxygen, and the liquid water >> should diminish in volume. > >Lets see, 4.53 ev to 6.7 ev photons can dissociate the H2 or D2 molecules >but, cannot muster the 13.6 ev necessary to ionize the atom or the ~15.0 ev >required to ionize the molecules, even if you did create the LL (+/-) pairs. > >As Mills has shown with the Hydrino, you need a plasma condition, and >adding Potassium Vapor to the gas so that you can get the K+ ions at >around 4.34 ev with the UV photons, then H2 + K+ <---> KH + H+ >can happen at cooler plasma temperatures, and then you might get >the same results as Mills. > >Using an aqueous electrolyte with radioisotope cations and Protons/Deuterons >effected by "autoionization" seems to be much simpler and makes it easier to >work with the radioactive materials while keeping the Hg/UV discharge source >simple. Uhhh... using "only water and water vapor" should be a simple and direct test for the existence of light leptons. If that does not work then the rest of your suggested method of "Waste Remediation Using UV" is not going to work, or at least the basis for it is gone, true? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 16:26:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03946; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:25:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:25:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:25:47 -0800 To: Mark Kinsler , sciclub-list@eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"NWMkl2.0.Yz.K7_Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35805 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 6:22 PM 6/23/0, Mark Kinsler wrote: >> Yet open water on Mars would freeze. Yet nobody talks about the salt >> concentration martian lakes might have. That liquid water exists is a >> mystery, since the temperatures are too low. Maybe all this Martian water >> is heavy brine, and remains liquid at very low temperatures. > >It doesn't rain brine. How would the water gotten to the top of the hill? > >M Kinsler The same way artesian wells work and that magma reaches the top of mile high volcanos, by existing in a pressurized pool. The source of the pressure might be the extreme temperature variations on Mars. Water boils at much lower temperatures on Mars than on earth, so steam powered vulcanism can occur at low tempreatures. Similar kinds of low temperature vulcanism has been observed on moons of the major planets. The meteor merely poke a weak spot in the crust so as to make a place for periodic pressure release. I sometimes wonder if some of the earth's (magma) hot spots were created in a similar fashion. The Hawaiian islands would then merely be a delayed reaction from a big meteor hit. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 16:43:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA09103; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:41:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:41:52 -0700 Message-ID: <001901bfdd74$b54e0fc0$ec441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <200006232149.RAA06141 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:39:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"wfZI7.0.7E2.0N_Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35806 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael T Huffman To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 2:49 PM Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Knuke wrote: > > Something similar to what you are proposing may be what is happening in > Hanford. I had chance encounter with an older lady the other day who asked > me where I was from. I told her that I had moved down here from Seattle, > and she said that her son was working at Hanford as an engineer building > tunnels around the storage tanks. She said that they were going to string > up some kind of special lights in them. I asked her if it was an attempt to > remediate the nuclear waste that was seeping into the ground there, and she > said "No!". Then she got a funny look on her face and ran away. > Never know what them folks are up to. :-) > > Have you tried to fit your LL theory in with the Brown's Gas phenomena? > Yes indeed. The LL+ can attach to the oxygen end, and the LL- can attach to the hydrogen end of a water molecule and create a form of inert "gas" that can come out of condensed water during electrolysis. When the H2 and O2 of Browns gas is burned the LLs attached to the inert molecule can annihilate releasing two photons of about 2.5 ev each.Or the LLs can detach and effect the claimed Remediation by Brown's Gas. > > Last note: If you have any Fiestaware or depleted Uranium around, you could > use that as a test substance for your proposal in the same manner that I > tested it with my cavitator. > If I did it, and it worked, who would believe me? :-) > >The entire experiment of course, should be > shielded with lead, and any vapors escaping the liquid should be taken into > consideration as well. Use all the detection equipment you can get your > hands on, as well. > Sounds like a job for Hanford, doesn't it? :-) Regards, Frederick > > Knuke > > Michael T. Huffman > Huffman Technology Company > 1121 Dustin Drive > The Villages, Florida 32159 > (352)259-1276 > knuke LCIA.COM > http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 17:01:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14190; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:58:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:58:33 -0700 Message-ID: <002501bfdd77$0a4983e0$ec441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:56:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"tfKLc3.0.bT3.ec_Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35807 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Horace Heffner To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Horce wrote: > At 1:44 PM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Horace Heffner > [snip] > > >> If the tube contains only water and water vapor, then the pressure should > >> increase due to the conversion of water to oxygen, and the liquid water > >> should diminish in volume. > > > >Lets see, 4.53 ev to 6.7 ev photons can dissociate the H2 or D2 molecules > >but, cannot muster the 13.6 ev necessary to ionize the atom or the ~15.0 ev > >required to ionize the molecules, even if you did create the LL (+/-) pairs. > > > >As Mills has shown with the Hydrino, you need a plasma condition, and > >adding Potassium Vapor to the gas so that you can get the K+ ions at > >around 4.34 ev with the UV photons, then H2 + K+ <---> KH + H+ > >can happen at cooler plasma temperatures, and then you might get > >the same results as Mills. > > > >Using an aqueous electrolyte with radioisotope cations and Protons/Deuterons > >effected by "autoionization" seems to be much simpler and makes it easier to > >work with the radioactive materials while keeping the Hg/UV discharge source > >simple. > > > Uhhh... using "only water and water vapor" should be a simple and direct > test for the existence of light leptons. If that does not work then the > rest of your suggested method of "Waste Remediation Using UV" is not going > to work, or at least the basis for it is gone, true? Not true, Horace, water vapor can dissociate with UV photons of 4.53 ev or more, the 254 nanometer (4.88 ev) photons in the Hg discharge represents over 60% of the photon energy in the discharge: H2O + >4.53 ev photons <--> 2 H + O with NO IONIZATION. The LLs would merely attach to the ends of the highly polar water molecules and act like "static electricity". Hence the static cling in your clothes dryer from LLs in your water supply created in the upper atmosphere with Solar UV. As a matter of speculation I wouldn't be surprised if LLs are being formed at the surface of your PC monitor. :-) Regards, Frederick > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 17:02:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15293; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:01:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:01:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3953F9FD.81C66A7C earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:59:57 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptics,sci.physics.fusion To: ars dircon.co.uk, r.wiseman@herts.ac.uk, psyqrw@herts.ac.uk, j.maddox nature.com, E.K.Greening@herts.ac.uk, C.OKeeffe@herts.ac.uk, p.rogers herts.ac.uk, h.l.petrie@herts.ac.uk, J.V.Thomas@herts.ac.uk, jse allenpress.com, JamesRandi@compuserve.com, jref@randi.org, mjwade bio.indiana.edu, hkibbey@indiana.edu, paramod@clubinternet.fr, km math.uh.edu, jhuntres@tenagra.com, vstenger@hawaii.edu, jinsings aol.com, lasmanos@earthlink.net, formanfarm@aol.com, ggmurray uri.edu, dnovak@etal.uri.edu, zumm@flash.net, riley@ctel.net, raven roadrunner.com, johnp@arlingtoninstitute.org, galingale chariot.net.au, physics.guide@about.com, opa@aps.org, blue pilot.msu.edu, halfox@uswest.net, brian_martin@uow.edu.au, letters csicop.org, SkeptInq@aol.com, globalvisionary@cybernaute.com, mjones jump.net, Linda2.Holley@uwe.ac.uk, aj@hd.org, wendyg cix.compulink.co.uk, pub@skeptic.org.uk, letters@skeptic.org.uk, news skeptic.org.uk, edit@skeptic.org.uk, shermer@skeptic.com, siano skeptic.com, s.meric@skeptic.com, puthoff@earthtech.org, smolin phys.psu.edu Subject: Murray: Jones: Randi: Sheldrake: canine-human interaction anomaly 6.23.00 References: <3951A591.20342B73 earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TXQ-L.0.lk3.Bf_Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35808 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Murray: Jones: Randi: Sheldrake: canine-human interaction anomaly 6.23.00 June 23 2000 Hello, The ability of Vortexans, interested in research on cold fusion and new energy technologies, to be openminded, especially about cogent, carefully crafted, replicable, and remarkably robust evidence, that gives basic challenges about the nature of time, space, and casuality should hopefully be greater than that of some cold fusion skeptics... Of course, Rupert Sheldrake did 12 sessions in which the return time was randomly assigned, the signal to return being given by a telephone pager to Pamela Smart, who was doing her thing miles away from her flat in Manchester. These 12 sessions are graphed on pages 242-243 in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Summer 2000, Vol. 14 (2). Eleven of these show that Jaytee spent much more time at the window after Pam started driving home, the same pattern as the rest of the over 100 videotaped sessions. These results can be dismissed only by assuming that the researchers were engaged in deliberate deception. But exactly the same pattern of data was collected in four sessions by Wiseman, Smith, and Milton, three skeptics who in their fervency managed to disregard their own data. I hope James Randi will share with us his exchange of messages about testing Jaytee. There are plausible grounds for being careful about "experimenter effects", since dogs are notably emotionally sensitive to strange humans, especially powerful, charasmatic, energetic personalities who are comfortable with a high level of tension and forceful expression. In the last of the four sessions with Richard Wiseman and his assistant Matthew Smith, Sheldrake describes: "In addition to these [three] experiments at PS's parents flat, they carried out a test at the house of PS's sister, where Jaytee had to balance on the back of a sofa to look out of the window. In the Wiseman-Smith experiment in this house, the first time he visited the window for no apparent reason coincided exactly with PS setting off [no one in the house knew this at that time], and her sister remarked at the time, on camera, that this was how Jaytee behaved when PS was coming home. But Jaytee did not stay there for long because he was sick: he left the window and vomited. Because he did not meet the two-minute criterion, this experiment was also classified as a failure [by Wiseman]." [comments by Rich Murray] In all fairness, Sheldrake, Pam, and Jaytee deserve a crack at Randi's famous million dollar prize. Surely those involved are capable of negotiating an airtight protocol, and agreeing upon a trustworthy team to actually be in the house, with every person under constant videotape and even Internet camera surveillance. In fact, wouldn't this make a notable and hugely profitable commercial television program? Soon, since Sheldrake's published public surveys in the UK and in the USA have shown that over 50 % of dog owners believe their pets show the same behavior, we can expect a barrage of successful replications, even if it turns out that only one dog out of a thousand passes careful testing. I should think that this experiment would attract the attention of theoretical physicists like Lee Smolin, who has dedicated his life to developing a level of physics at the scale of the Planck length, 10E-32 cm, where the structure is one of myriad geometrical loops and knots, from which space and time are derived at a much grosser level of size. He and his fellows would be keen to have proof that "information flow" occurs between noncontiguous, separated, isolated locations, because then they can check to see if this in fact is a result that can or must be derived from their new theories. In an era when a single facility costs $ 10 billion and employs teams of thousands for years, perhaps a smidgeon could be spared to test the (so far) anomalous aspects of the canine-human interaction. I recommend that dedicated, adamant skeptics not be so quick to dip their faces in the egg plate. Sheldrake's work this time is impecable. In fact, consider, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. As the phenomena are replicated and confirmed, then someone may want to do a precision study with a dog: train the dog and the owner to focus on the connection, and do simultaneous brain wave and subtle body reactions. Probably, we can prove that the dog's reactions to his owner are distinctive from his reactions to things in his immediate environment, but closely related to his reactions to his owner's physical presence. How might this be set up as a precognition test? Rich Murray Room For All rmforall earthlink.net 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 98505 505-986-9103 505-920-6130 cell ***************************************************** Mitchell Jones wrote on 6.23.00 mjones jump.net {The claim that the woman starts driving home at random is ridiculous. If she is coming home from work, the times will *not* be random; and if she is returning home from a shopping expedition, the dog knows when she left, and has a generalized idea of the length of her typical shopping trip. Thus, in either case, he has information that he can use to anticipate the time of her return. Result: the implication that the dog is somehow mind-linked to his owner via telepathy is baseless. All this supposed "experiment" indicates is that "parapsychology" is a pseudo-science based on wishful thinking, because this sort of uncontrolled, sloppy junk science is typical of what they do. (Of course, what choice do they have? When they introduce careful controls into their experiments, their "amazing" results go away!) Anyway, I don't have time to discuss this sort of silliness, and so I will leave the last word to those who, like "Son of Sam," believe that dogs read their minds via telepathy. --MJ} ******************************************************* Re: Sheldrake: Wiseman: Randi: Maddox: Jaytee's ESP firmly proved 6.21.00 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:39:31 -0400 From: James To: Rich Murray , Rupert Sheldrake , John Maddox , Richard Wiseman Re message text written by Rich Murray: Bottom line: JT's owners have refused to allow us to test the dog. As a result, I have no further interest in this matter. I'm a pragmatic person. I've no time to cater to egos, human or canine. But I'm always willing to be shown. They won't show me. Case closed. Unless there is a change of JT's attitude -- and/or of his owners. James Randi ******************************************************* >From Jed Rothwell 6.23.00 JedRothwell infinite-energy.com Also, some dogs have a remarkably good sense of time, both time of day and duration. If you walk a dog at a certain time of day, she will come to get you if you are late by 5 or 10 minutes. Dogs do not know about daylight savings time, which is a problem in the fall. -- Jed ******************************************************* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 17:21:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA22069; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:20:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:20:41 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:20:36 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove's Mars Photo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"cqcQv3.0.fO5.Px_Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35809 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > It occurs to me that lack of a background in the biological sciences may be > why some of you have difficulty conceiving of the "dunes" as a gigantic > plant. Certainly it could be a giant plant! But if everyone is thinking along terms of biology, then I simply must do the opposite. :) > Frankly, I see no other reasonable explanation for the images on these > photographs. --MJ That's certainly accurate, because I didn't REASON my way to an explanation involving a dry salty environment and wet sand dunes and diffusion-limited crystal growth. I only asked myself how the "dalmation" photograph could arise by geochemical processes. Then in a few minutes, the entire explanation appeared in my head. Usually I have to be half-asleep for this to occur, but I suppose that being extremely bored at work in the afternoon qualifies as a similar "altered state." ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 17:27:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24280; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:25:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:25:28 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:24:52 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id RAA24258 Resent-Message-ID: <"2-vMq3.0.Ix5.t__Kv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35810 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In reply to Mitchell Jones's message of Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:04:32 -0500: [snip] >How, then, do the proponents of "entanglement" discount such an >interpretation? Simple: they point to other portions of the observed >distribution of data points which, at present, seem to clash with that >interpretation. If P is the probability that, if one photon is detected, >the other will also be detected, and A is the angle in degrees between the >transmission axes of the two polarizers, then the best fit of the observed >data is to the curve P = cos A. However, the most straightforward >calculation, assuming that the two photons have parallel angular momentum >vectors, would be that P = (90 - A)/90. If you compare these two functions, [snip] Hi Mitchell, Could you explain how you derived P = (90 -A) / 90? I ask because I would have expected P = cos(A), on the grounds of the following. Lets us assume a vertically polarised plain wave of amplitude A, passing through a polarising filter which is at an angle "a" to the vertical. Then the magnitude of the electrical field vector in the plain of the filter will be A cos(a), and thus the chance of a photon passing will be A cos(a)/A = cos(a). Consider now the situation where one photon (of an "entangled" pair - for want of a better handle) passes through a polarised filter. Let the second photon arrive at a filter which is at an angle "a" to the plain of the first filter. If we then assume that the polarisation of the first photon matches that of its filter, and that the second photon has the same polarisation plain as the first, then the second photon has a chance of cos(a) of passing it's filter, based upon the result of the simple case first stated above. In short, for two photons with the same plains of polarisation, one would expect a cos(a) probability. The fact that this is what actually results, is therefore proof of the fact that the two photons were identically polarised, and no magical "entanglement" is required. (I haven't yet worked out the case where the plain of polarisation of the first photon doesn't match that of its filter. Perhaps someone else would like to have a go?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 17:45:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31227; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:44:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:44:11 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:44:06 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray: Smith: Sheldrake: ESP research on dogs and owners 6.22.00 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000623110450.0079d810 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IVr_q2.0.rd7.RH0Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35811 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > >***{The claim that the woman starts driving home at random is ridiculous. I think this experiment was just published in the JSE. If the experimenters made such basic blunders, the paper will show this. If the experimenters were sensible (for example, by using double-blind protocol, and by contacting the owner at random times to start the return trip,) then the paper will show this too. Without reading their paper, any critique can instantly turn into straw-man arguments and ignorant badmouthing. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 17:49:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA32419; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:46:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:46:40 -0700 Message-ID: <004f01bfdd7d$bf4e6660$ec441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: EHD Water Drop Converter, Electrons or Light Leptons? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:43:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"1Ok5U2.0.Nw7.mJ0Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35812 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Try this on for size, Horace, "Two separate streams of water from the same reservoir in falling, are allowed to break up into droplets. At the breakup point,each stream is surrounded by a short metal cylinder. Each cylinder is connected to electrically to a screen at the bottom of the opposite stream. High potential differences are produced between the two metal cylinders." It takes at least 15 ev to ionize a water molecule. Are the charges electrons separated from a water molecule, or are they LLs that require less than an ev to separate from the water molecule? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 18:19:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA11517; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:18:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:18:51 -0700 Message-ID: <01BFDD3F.AC4A93B0 istf-1-64.ucdavis.edu> From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Mars: tubes vs. gulley-ripples Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:19:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA11449 Resent-Message-ID: <"P6ujB.0.rp2.wn0Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35813 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Okay, the recent focus on the evidence of water channels gives confirmation to a feeling I had earlier. It just struck me why I had problems visualizing the structure in M0400291.gif as gulleys rather than tubes, as suggested by Rick Monteverde. The ripples are going the wrong way. Looking at gorgonum2_c100.jpg, one sees the ripples in the gulleys clearly; the ends of the arcs are always uphill. Check it out on earthbound gulleys, it is the same way. But on the "tube" images, the ends of the arcs appear to be on the downhill side in many cases. If all three structures are heading down into that hole, then two of them are flowing the "wrong" way. However, it is difficult for me to be certain of relativ e altitude -- is there a context image that would show the surrounding contours better? I'm not ready to call them alive, but I think they are convex tubular structures. Dan Quickert The referenced images are at: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/gorgonum/gorgonum2_c100.jpg From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 18:45:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20633; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:44:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:44:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3954126C.519CD066 home.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:44:12 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: Three more interesting Mars images Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050E2B270DD0C6A8BF5EE3EB" Resent-Message-ID: <"2cegw.0.E25.o91Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35814 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050E2B270DD0C6A8BF5EE3EB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=8728&article=26708 -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------050E2B270DD0C6A8BF5EE3EB Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------050E2B270DD0C6A8BF5EE3EB-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 18:58:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24507; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:58:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:58:03 -0700 Message-ID: <395415A1.5BD2D872 home.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:57:53 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: Yet more Mars pics Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7162D6C92B68612C8A1EA12B" Resent-Message-ID: <"sQHmB.0.r-5.gM1Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35815 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7162D6C92B68612C8A1EA12B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.enterprisemission.com/plumbing.htm -- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 --------------7162D6C92B68612C8A1EA12B Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="hoyt-stearns.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hoyt-stearns.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stearns Jr.;Hoyt tel;fax:602 996 9088 tel;home:602 996 1717 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 adr:;;4131 E. Cannon Dr.;Phoenix;Arizona;85028-4122;US version:2.1 email;internet:hoyt-stearns home.com fn:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Atlantis/1263 end:vcard --------------7162D6C92B68612C8A1EA12B-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 19:07:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA28990; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:07:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:07:01 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:05:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Mallove's Mars Photo Resent-Message-ID: <"DX6My3.0.u47.5V1Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35816 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> It occurs to me that lack of a background in the biological sciences may be >> why some of you have difficulty conceiving of the "dunes" as a gigantic >> plant. > >Certainly it could be a giant plant! But if everyone is thinking along >terms of biology, then I simply must do the opposite. :) > >> Frankly, I see no other reasonable explanation for the images on these >> photographs. --MJ > >That's certainly accurate, because I didn't REASON my way to an >explanation involving a dry salty environment and wet sand dunes and >diffusion-limited crystal growth. I only asked myself how the "dalmation" >photograph could arise by geochemical processes. Then in a few minutes, >the entire explanation appeared in my head. Usually I have to be >half-asleep for this to occur, but I suppose that being extremely bored at >work in the afternoon qualifies as a similar "altered state." ***{An alternative evolutionary scenario has occurred to me since I wrote the above, as it happens. It may very well be that the structure in the photo that you posted started out as sand dunes. However, if water seepage occurred below the dunes, then a thriving community of microbes would be sure to spring up there, and, given the need to hoard water in the Martian environment, it seems plausible that evolution would produce microbes of a sort that, upon drying, secreted an adhesive material that bound sand grains to one another. In that case, the microbes near the surface would experience drying, and would respond by sealing the upper layers of the sand dunes together into a smooth and solid mass. The effect, over time, would be to create an airtight seal throughout the exposed part of the dune, with moisture and loose sand trapped below the upper layers. If such microbes did evolve, and it seems likely that they would if the desertification of Mars were gradual enough, then sand dunes--indeed, even ordinary soils or porous rocks such as sandstones--that were above water bearing strata would automatically develop airtight seals. Result: as the planet became progressively more arid, an airtight and watertight underground environment would develop, and the surviving plant and animal populations would move into it and adapt to those conditions. Under such a scenario, the dark spots on the wavy, dunelike structures would be plants that were putting up leaves to do photosynthesis. Their leaves, however, would not have the kinds of pores that are present in the leaves of plants on Earth, because in the Martian environment, such pores would permit the loss of gases and water. Instead, the leaves of Martian trees would be solar arrays only, and any water or gases--e.g., CO2--would be obtained by their roots, which would be driven deep into the water bearing sand. Also, needless to say, a tree that, in its growth, broke the airtight seal of the dune surface, would lose its source of water to evaporation, and would die. Hence natural selection would favor trees that maintained the seal as they grew, perhaps by exuding sealant from their trunks. Or, perhaps the small breaches which they triggered as they grew would just prompt microbes to exude more sealant, thereby staunching the leak. CO2, naturally, would come from the exhalations of animals. And the animals would be present in abundance inside the former sand dunes, which they would have largely hollowed out. Clearly, the same selective forces that prompted the microbes to seal the dunes would prompt other species of plants and animals to move into them. Survival of the fittest would, under such conditions, amount to survival of those species that moved into the dunes. Thus we have yet another way, analogous to the development of giant cacti, by which life might have adapted, over the eons, to the gradual desertification of Mars. Bottom line: I now see two biologically possible scenarios by which large plants and animals may have adapted to conditions on Mars, as it turned into a desert planet, and I consider it entirely possible that the first men to land on Mars will encounter some large and possibly very hungry surprises. Given the feasibility of such scenarios, I suggest that they come heavily armed, and that they should "lock and load" before they venture outside of their ships. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) >William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website >billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com >EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science >Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 19:39:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07629; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:39:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:39:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: sciclub-list eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove's Mars Photo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"wBR2O2.0.5t1.Az1Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35817 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > If such > microbes did evolve, and it seems likely that they would if the > desertification of Mars were gradual enough, then sand dunes--indeed, even > ordinary soils or porous rocks such as sandstones--that were above water > bearing strata would automatically develop airtight seals. Result: as the > planet became progressively more arid, an airtight and watertight > underground environment would develop, and the surviving plant and animal > populations would move into it and adapt to those conditions. If true, then the region of dunes is a zone where the bacteria were killed (maybe the water came from deep underground and carried toxins, or was extremely hot.) The wind could then sculpt the sterilized sand until the bacteria reinvaded the dead patch. > Or, perhaps the small breaches which they triggered as they grew > would just prompt microbes to exude more sealant, thereby staunching the > leak. If the circular blotches are plants, then that region resembles an Earth desert after a rainstorm: all kinds of organisms might take advantage of the extra water and go through an explosive growth/bloom stage. They grow big in the wet areas between the dunes, but stay smaller at the dune crests and at the edge of the wet zone where the sand is losing water to the adjacent land. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 22:54:54 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA20733; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:54:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:54:14 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=F6ssbauer_energy_limit?= Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:53:40 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <7vi8ls02naammqk0n280l816je4q3o6snl 4ax.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id WAA20690 Resent-Message-ID: <"v_OOS.0.p35.6q4Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35818 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Could someone explain for me, the method of calculating the upper energy limit on the Mössbauer effect (and the logic behind the calculation)? TIA, Robin van Spaandonk From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 23:33:57 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA28752; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:33:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:33:05 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:28:48 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? Resent-Message-ID: <"lnUUQ.0.A17.WO5Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35820 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, William Beaty wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >> >> > >> >> > http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg >> >> ***{Bill, they cannot be "dunes." To see why, look at the bottom portion of >> the photo at >> http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg , which shows the >> hole from which the three tubes originate. > >Huh? I'm confused. What does the M0400291 image have to do with Gene >Mallove's "Dalmation" image? Are they from the same crater? I think >there's good reason to suspect that they depict two entirely different >phenomena. The "dalmation dunes" look like wind-blown sand dunes ***{There is a resemblance, granted, but there are also significant differences. To understand those differences, it is best to compare the smoothly defined wavelike structure (the "Dalmatian image") to a photo of actual sand dunes on Mars, taken from the same altitude and at the same resolution. Therefore, please compare http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0306104.gif (which is the wavelike structure at high resolution) with http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0403432.jpg. Note the sawtooth interleave between the actual dunes and the underlying rock, which is exactly how dunes behave here on Earth, and is also how any windblown aggregate of independent particles *must* behave. Therefore, since the undulating structures with the spots on them have a very well defined, smooth, and virtually linear boundary, they *cannot* be simple sand dunes of the sort we are used to here on Earth. If these structures consist of sand, some adhesive is required to bond the sand grains together. The only possibility, other than the giant cactus theory, would seem to be a seep of underground water, coupled with microbial life forms that are capable of cementing the sand grains together. But why would microbial life forms be selected that bound sand grains together? The answer: to conserve scarce water, by preventing it from evaporating, as I explained in an earlier post. --MJ}*** and then compare to anwhile >the periodic white lines on the "tubes" photo look like gravel deposits >running crosswise across a streambed. ***{I have come to view the crosswise striations (the "tubes") as sand dunes caused by wind turbulence running along the bottoms of linear depressions. I rejected that notion at first, but my reasons for doing so ceased to apply as soon as I found the following image: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/mediummaps/M0400524.jpg. Note the seemingly tubular structures running down the valleys between several of the larger dunes. (For an expanded view, go to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400524.jpg.) However, in this case it is clear that these are, in fact, not tubular structures at all, but rather are merely lesser dunes, of a type that are apparently created in depressions, by winds that blow along the depressions. (They can't be due to running water in this case because, obviously, running water would have badly eroded the larger dunes standing on either side of them.) Thus the earlier pattern, showing three such "tubular" structures meeting at a common point was, apparently, merely dunes after all! (Was it Rick who took that position? Congrats, Rick! :-) --MJ}*** > >Similar dune-like deposits appear in the water channels depicted in >several of the new crop of "water" images at >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/index.html. For example, >look at the gullies in Gorgunum crater at >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/gorgonum/index.html Same >little rows of "dunes", and they appear right at the bottom of the gullies >where the water must have flowed, at right angles to the water direction. >More of them appear at the bottom of the big channel at Nigral Valis >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/nirgal/index.html. ***{I checked out all of the above images, but saw nothing that required water as an explanation. I am now convinced that the "tubes" are merely wind driven dunes that follow dry river beds, gullies, and other types of linear depressions. The reason is that Martian life is guaranteed to have adapted to the progressive desertification of the planet, by contriving to tie up virtually all the liquid water. Thus I simply do not believe there have been significant quantities of liquid water running down those channels for many millions of years. All I would expect would be an occasional, and very rare, case of seepage out of cliff faces here and there, due to hydrostatic pressure, as some of the rivulet channels down cliff faces in your photos seem to indicate. --MJ}*** > >Also, I've seen exactly these kinds of deposits in miniature on Earth, >when water runs along a street gutter in a sandy town. The flow rate >probably has to be just right for such a pattern to form, since it doesn't >always form. Have you ever seen such things in dry wash beds? If "dunes" >in streambeds are caused by water flows, then they MUST appear on Earth as >well (I mean the full-sized versions would exist, since little ones >certainly DO appear in sandy street gutters.) ***{Quite right: water is capable of producing such patterns. However, wind is also capable of producing them; and wind is the only fluid that has moved down Martian streambeds in large quantities for millions of years. Thus it is, by far, the most likely cause of what we see in these photos. --MJ}*** > >To me the "tubes" look like dry washes, but with rows of gravel beds. The >beds act like sand dunes in that they form ridges perpendicular to the >water flow which deposited them. > >> (1) The "sand dunes" that are right next to one another, but part of >> different "tubes," are perpendicular to one another. That is clearly >> impossible if they are, in fact, windblown sand dunes, because the wind can >> only blow in one direction at a time. > >Right, and if they are deposited by water, and if the "tubes" are like dry >washes in a desert, then the gravel "dunes" are perpendicular to the water >flow. ***{Once I saw the small dunes between and perpendicular to vastly larger dunes, my original argument collapsed. It is now apparent that windblown dunes are perpendicular to the sides of a dry wash because significant wind flow is possible in a dry wash only if it is parallel to the banks. That explains the pattern where the three channels intersect, and the pattern in the depressions between the huge dunes as well. Water could explain the former case, but not the latter one. --MJ}*** > >> >> (2) The "dunes" turn, and go down into the hole, which, clearly real dunes >> cannot do. > >Sure they can, if they are deposited by the water. ***{Or by the wind. My original reasoning was wrong on this point, and so I now disavow it. :-) --MJ}*** > > >> (3) The area of the "dunes" has a sharply defined edge: there is a linear >> border separating the "sand" from the adjacent rock. But, if it were sand, >> you would see a sawtooth pattern at the edge, as salients of sand reached >> out, and salients of rock reached in between them. > >Is it rock? I was imagining that the whole landscape was sand, but sand >that is encrusted with soluble material (it would be like sandstone, but >sandstone which falls apart when wet.) ***{It looks like rock to me, but, in any case, it is different material from that of the wavelike structure, as is evident from the distinct boundary of that structure, and the fact that the dark spots are very tightly confined to it. --MJ}*** > >The sharp edge of the "dalmation dunes" region, and the lack of dunes >which invade the land past the edge, both are explainable if a pool of >water "unlocked" the sand temporarily so it could form dunes. The sand >then dried out again, and was locked into solidified dune shapes. I'm >saying that they are fossilized dunes, not active dunes. ***{That is backwards. You can build castles with wet sand, but if the sand dries out, it ceases to hold its form, and the castles collapse. --MJ}*** But why didn't >these dunes encroach past the boundary? I'm assuming that they probably >did! But the sand which blew past the boundary remained dry afterwards, >since it was lying upon the dry landscape, and so those dunes slowly >marched away across the landscape, while the "dunes" within the boundary >were damp and were being fed water from below by all the water which had >soaked into the land. dunes. The "dalmation" dunes would have remained >damp while forming, but not so damp that a surface layer couldn't be blown >around and sculpted by wind. The wind would keep drying an upper layer, >which would then slowly change shape, while the main part of each "dune" >remained heavy and wet. When the water dried up, the dissolved salts >in the sand formed "sandstone" again. ***{Sand doesn't form sandstone merely by drying. Pressure exerted by overlying layers of other material is required, plus deposition of minerals by percolating water, and various very slow chemical reactions. On the surface in a dry region, sand simply remains sand. The only way I can see to get around such a difficulty would be to postulate the existence of microbes that secrete adhesive, thereby cementing the surface layers of the dunes together, if they start drying out. While that is a reasonable assumption on Mars, it bears no resemblance to the behavior of any sand that I have ever seen on earth. --MJ}*** > > >((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) >William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website >billb eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com >EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science >Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 23:39:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA25622; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:29:05 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Waste Remediation Using UV? Resent-Message-ID: <"S-4kg3.0.GG6.NK5Lv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35819 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:56 PM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Horace Heffner [snip] >> Uhhh... using "only water and water vapor" should be a simple and direct >> test for the existence of light leptons. If that does not work then the >> rest of your suggested method of "Waste Remediation Using UV" is not going >> to work, or at least the basis for it is gone, true? > >Not true, Horace, water vapor can dissociate with UV photons of 4.53 ev or >more, >the 254 nanometer (4.88 ev) photons in the Hg discharge represents over >60% of the >photon energy in the discharge: > >H2O + >4.53 ev photons <--> 2 H + O with NO IONIZATION. > It doesn't matter if there is ionization or not. My suggestion was that the gas pressure change would be the definitive test for the light leptons. Also, if the above is true, that the water will eat up the photons, then what difference does it make that the isotope is dissolved in the same water that eats up the photons to no avail? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 23 23:51:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA32713; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:50:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:50:32 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:47:37 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: More Odd Mars Images Resent-Message-ID: <"RJByS3.0.0_7.se5Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35821 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I found a website that indicated that the Dalmatian blob is at 60.7 deg. S, 5.1 deg. W, and that enabled me to find its actual location on the planet itself. If you will go to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/narrowangles.html, you will find a photomap of the entire planet, in equatorial projection. The single, wide angle photo at the top maps the north polar region, and the similar one at the bottom maps the south polar region. The horizontal midline is 0 deg. N latitude--i.e., the Martian equator. The vertical midline is 0 deg. E longitude--i.e., the Martian equivalent of the Greenwich meridian. The first row of photos aligned above the equator takes you to 30 deg. N latitude; the first row below the equator takes you to 30 deg. S latitude. The second row of pictures below the equator is the row we are interested in. It takes us from 30 deg. S to 65 deg. S. Since we are looking for 60.7 deg. S, 5.1 deg. W, that means we are looking for the photo just to the left of the vertical midline, in the second row south of the equator. If you click on that photo, it will take you to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/mc26.html, which is a photomap of the region known as Argyre. Looking at the lower right hand corner of that photo, about 3 cm up and 3 cm to the left (on my display), begin placing your mouse pointer on the blue regions (which tell you that photos are available for that location), until the address that comes back to you is http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0306104.html. That is the photo of the wavy structure. Now that we have located the souce of that photo, things get interesting, because we can now search about in the general vicinity, and see if other, similar structures exist. By accumulating a larger data base, we may even be able to settle the question of whether these anomalous images do or do not imply the existence of life on Mars. In pursuit of the additional info that we need, let's begin by turning to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0300094.html. When you click on the long narrow photo at the left, you will get http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/mediummaps/M0300094.jpg, which appears to be a third variant of the wavelike structure. Once again, the boundary of the structure is very well defined, and suggests *coherence* to the particles of which the structure is composed. Thus, in my view, it cannot be composed of grains of sand--at least not unless some process has bonded adjacent grains to one another. But what could do that? The action of bacteria or algae, perhaps? Clearly, to account for the well defined boundary, we need for the structure to have an adhesive quality, so that it captures wind-blown grains. There is a still higher res version available, at http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0300094.gif, but the portion that would show the edge of the structure is marred, and so all we have to go on is the lower res photo that shows the entire crater and its surroundings. Still, this is a useful addition to our data base. Here is a tie-in to yet another spectacular image: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0305495.html. Going to a higher resolution photo, we obtain http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0305495.jpg, which is another instance of the same sort of thing, showing a clearly defined edge to the structure, and no apparent wave pattern. Here it is clear, thanks to the shadows, that the dark spots have a conical shape, narrowing toward the top, and thus resemble trees. Thus this image takes us full circle back to the "forest" hypothesis, by which this entire lengthy discussion was launched, several weeks ago. Here is another spectacular, spotted, tightly defined structure: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400169.jpg. It looks like trees, brush, and shrubs to me. (Better resolution: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0400169.gif.) Another high res showing trees, this time with no sand: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0200369.gif. Here, at medium resolution, we have what appear to be clear-cut trees growing along a dry river bed, and in the vicinity. See http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0202512.jpg, or at high res, http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0202512.gif. Since the high res photo is so clear that you can actually make out the shapes of the trees, I consider this to be smoking gun proof of life on Mars. Anyway, there are thousands of photos yet to be looked at, and who knows what spectacular finds await? (NASA apparently lacks the personnel to carefully examine each of the tens of thousands of photos that are streaming back from Mars, and so they have simply dumped them onto the internet for examination by the general public. Result: if you muck about in this massive photographic data base, the possibility exists that you might find something spectacular that no one has ever seen before. So why not do it?) More later. --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 00:15:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04702; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:14:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:14:03 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:15:04 -0800 To: Mark Kinsler From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? Cc: sciclub-list eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"teDdq1.0.491.s-5Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35822 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 8:19 PM 6/23/0, Mark Kinsler wrote: >> >It doesn't rain brine. How would the water gotten to the top of the hill? > >Kinsler no use verbs good, apparently. > >> The same way artesian wells work and that magma reaches the top of mile >> high volcanos, by existing in a pressurized pool. The source of the >> pressure might be the extreme temperature variations on Mars. Water boils >> at much lower temperatures on Mars than on earth, so steam powered >> vulcanism can occur at low tempreatures. Similar kinds of low temperature >> vulcanism has been observed on moons of the major planets. > >Aha. Good point. It certainly doesn't rain the stuff in geysers. Still, >it doesn't argue too convincingly for life up there. I am only joining in the attempt to look for alternative explantions. I feel the need to wait for more results to form an actual position with regard to life there. However, there is a problem with my notion that steam pressure created the vulcanism. Large pressures like those that blew up Mt. St. Helens can not arise due to steam at less temperatures than they do right here on earth. It is just a matter of checking the steam table to see that. The liquid would have to be other than water to do that, maybe nitrogen or ammonia? Perhaps the pressure from ice freezing (during the freeze cycle) underground could pop the top like a pimple? Bad analogy? 8^) I do feel there is NO DOUBT that the mount in the center of the subject crater is very large, due to the deep dark and very NARROW shadows on the sun side of the crater. It is much larger and probably much taller that the mounts in the neighboring craters. However, it looks like some of the other nearby craters have similar stuff in them out near the rims only, which probably discounts my cold vulcanism hypothesis. I would sure like to see close-ups of the nearby craters. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 00:15:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04762; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:14:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:14:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:15:11 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Mars: tubes vs. gulley-ripples Resent-Message-ID: <"SkHxw.0.0A1.z-5Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35824 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 6:19 PM 6/23/0, Dan Quickert wrote: [snip] >But on the "tube" images, the ends of the arcs appear to be on the >downhill side in many cases. If all three structures are heading down into >that hole, then two of them are flowing the "wrong" way. However, it is >difficult for me to be certain of relative altitude -- is there a context >image that would show the surrounding contours better? [snip] >http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg [snip] If there is a context image for the above then it should be: Note that all you do is change "jpegmaps" to "images" and ".jpg" to ".html" to get to the context image. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 00:15:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04723; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:14:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:14:07 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:15:08 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EHD Water Drop Converter, Electrons or Light Leptons? Resent-Message-ID: <"UeyAb1.0.b91.u-5Lv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35823 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 6:43 PM 6/23/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: >Try this on for size, Horace, > >"Two separate streams of water from the same reservoir in falling, are >allowed to >break up into droplets. At the breakup point,each stream is surrounded by >a short metal >cylinder. >Each cylinder is connected to electrically to a screen at the bottom of the >opposite stream. High potential differences are produced between the two >metal cylinders." > >It takes at least 15 ev to ionize a water molecule. > >Are the charges electrons separated from a water molecule, or are they LLs >that require less than an ev to separate from the water molecule? > >Regards, Frederick The standard answer is that conduction in water occurs via H3O+ rotation and proton tunnelling, thus by ion motion, not by electron motion. Ionization is not required because plenty of H3O+ and OH- ions exist in ordinary water to carry the current it carries. My experiments indicate that this is not fully correct, and that there are light charge carriers present in water. I assumed that there is an electron conduction mechanism as well as ion conduction mechanism. Light leptons? Could be. However conduction in water is not a subject to which I can afford to return at the moment due to time constraints. I should also say that proton tunneling between water molecules occurs with miniscule potential differences, no ionization is required. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 10:51:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14802; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:50:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:50:14 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:46:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Martian diffusion-crystals? Resent-Message-ID: <"baq4I2.0.Cd3.LJFLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35825 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 8:19 PM 6/23/0, Mark Kinsler wrote: >>> >It doesn't rain brine. How would the water gotten to the top of the hill? >> >>Kinsler no use verbs good, apparently. >> >>> The same way artesian wells work and that magma reaches the top of mile >>> high volcanos, by existing in a pressurized pool. The source of the >>> pressure might be the extreme temperature variations on Mars. Water boils >>> at much lower temperatures on Mars than on earth, so steam powered >>> vulcanism can occur at low tempreatures. Similar kinds of low temperature >>> vulcanism has been observed on moons of the major planets. >> >>Aha. Good point. It certainly doesn't rain the stuff in geysers. Still, >>it doesn't argue too convincingly for life up there. > > >I am only joining in the attempt to look for alternative explantions. I >feel the need to wait for more results to form an actual position with >regard to life there. ***{I don't. Life on Mars is a fact, as is life on every large and chemically complex body where heat and pressure have been sufficient to permit liquid water to exist for eons. The reason: under such conditions, there will be a complex soup of chemical reactions taking place, and some of those reactions will be *autocatalytic*--which means: the chemical agents will be reproducing themselves, rather than being altered by the reactions. Under such circumstances, the participating autocatalysts will be subject to natural selection--Darwinian survival of the fittest--and, over the eons, will evolve first into single celled organisms, then into multi-celled organisms--i.e., plants and animals. Since we know for a fact that liquid water existed on Mars for billions of years--the dry river beds are proof of that--the presence of life there is a given, and our present task is to figure out, based on the incoming stream of photographic evidence, the form which that life has taken. By the way: even the doubts of reasonable skeptics should have vanished decades ago, when NASA's first robot probe pushed a scoop into the Martian soil, pulled back a sample, dumped it into a container, sealed the container, then injected sterile nutrients and water, and observed the generation of byproduct gases indicative of metabolic activity--i.e., life. When that happened, the criteria were met that had been agreed to by NASA's scientists before the mission left Earth, and they were at that point morally obligated to announce that the probe had found life on Mars. However, politics instead reared its ugly head: the suits at NASA began to fret (e.g., about the howl that religious nuts would raise in response to such an announcement), and so they prevailed upon the scientists to revise their criteria after the fact, raising the bar to a level that the results no longer met. Result: they announced to the world a bald-faced lie: that the results demonstrated that there was no life on Mars. However, those who read the actual results and thought for themselves, rather than merely reading the newspapers, knew better. --Mitchell Jones}*** However, there is a problem with my notion that >steam pressure created the vulcanism. Large pressures like those that blew >up Mt. St. Helens can not arise due to steam at less temperatures than they >do right here on earth. It is just a matter of checking the steam table to >see that. The liquid would have to be other than water to do that, maybe >nitrogen or ammonia? Perhaps the pressure from ice freezing (during the >freeze cycle) underground could pop the top like a pimple? Bad analogy? >8^) ***{I predict that, when all is said and done, it will be decided that there are no significant quantities of above-ground liquid water on Mars. The reason: the surviving life forms will be adapted to a mode of life that very effectively ties it up. We do not need to posit bizarre physics to explain something which is not there. --MJ}*** > >I do feel there is NO DOUBT that the mount in the center of the subject >crater is very large, due to the deep dark and very NARROW shadows on the >sun side of the crater. It is much larger and probably much taller that >the mounts in the neighboring craters. However, it looks like some of the >other nearby craters have similar stuff in them out near the rims only, >which probably discounts my cold vulcanism hypothesis. I would sure like >to see close-ups of the nearby craters. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 13:22:04 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18496; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:21:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:21:14 -0700 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:26:36 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Heisenberg In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FBB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MTLiF1.0.wW4.wWHLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35826 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: n Classically the Heisenberg principle is: It is statistically unlikely for an investigator to know the velocity and position of an electron in motion at a very high degree of accuracy. One may know the position or the velocity, but not both... and again, this is only STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY.... and .... only applies to measurement of very small increments.. AND it is a theory. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 13:38:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22455; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:37:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:37:56 -0700 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:43:18 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: To Evan ....Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (6/23/2000) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NCbE23.0.nU5.amHLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35827 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Evan, Please have Joe hook a standard electric motor to the dyno.... and let us know what the input power to the regular motor is to drive the Dyno with the same RPM... OK? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 16:00:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA22650; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:59:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:59:13 -0700 Message-ID: <000601bfde2f$bce95260$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: Subject: Re: Heisenberg Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:58:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"y-0502.0.mX5.1rJLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35828 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: John Schnurer To: Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 1:26 PM Subject: Heisenberg > n > > Classically the Heisenberg principle is: > > It is statistically unlikely for an investigator to know the > velocity and position of an electron in motion at a very high degree of > accuracy. One may know the position or the velocity, but not both... and > again, this is only STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY.... and .... only applies to > measurement of very small increments.. AND it is a theory. It is a physical property, as recent experiments have shown. Anything that is not a theory is just jibberish. Yes, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a theory; a well tested and proven theory with remarkable results. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 17:27:56 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA11154; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:23:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:23:09 -0700 Message-ID: <39556E6B.6ED bellsouth.net> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:28:59 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Ex-Saudi Oil Minister Yamani predicts oil crash Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PR4MW1.0.Ck2.j3LLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35829 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: And this is even without LENR and CANR technology! From: http://news.excite.com/news/r/000624/19/energy-britain-yamani Terry <><><><><><><><><><><><> Ex-Saudi Oil Minister Yamani predicts oil crash Updated 7:19 PM ET June 24, 2000 LONDON, June 24 (Reuters) - Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper quoted former Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani as saying oil prices are set to crash in the next five years and the "oil age" would end. "I can tell you with a degree of confidence that after five years there will be a sharp drop in the price of oil," was quoted as saying. "The price will stay high for the moment because of high demand." Yamani, who was oil minister from 1962 to 1986 and who guided Saudi oil policy during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, said prices would fall due to successful oil exploration efforts and the development of technologies that did not use oil. "It is coming because oil companies who generated a huge profit from this price of oil are spending so much on exploration and developments. The discoveries which took place in the last three months are significant," Yamani was quoted as saying. He was quoted as saying the discovery -- as yet unannounced -- of huge oil fields in Kazakhstan and in the northern Caspian Sea, coupled with finds in Egypt, Yemen, Angola and Nigeria would also contribute to increasing oil supplies. Iraqi oil, currently languishing under sanctions, would also make a return, he was quoted as saying. Under the sanctions, imposed on Iraq over its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Baghdad is allowed to sell oil only under close United Nations scrutiny to finance the purchase of food and medicine. "On the supply side it is easy to find oil and produce it. And on the demand side there are so many new technologies. The hybrid engines will cut gasoline consumption by something like 30 percent," was quoted as saying. Other technologies such as fuel cells, which use hydrogen as an energy source, would cut petrol consumption spectacularly by the end of the decade. The picture for oil would be even more dire in 30 years time, Yamani said. "Thirty years from now, there is no problem with oil. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil," Yamani was quoted as saying. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 21:42:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12005; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:40:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:40:20 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:39:53 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> In-Reply-To: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id VAA11974 Resent-Message-ID: <"na7f61.0.Vx2.pqOLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35830 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Kyle R. Mcallister's message of Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:02:18 -0500: [snip] >I am not anti-science. I just don't like the 'experts' running around >saying we shouldn't devote funding to superluminal effect research because >some theory says it can't happen. That is not science, it is stupidity. [snip] I would say there is even an argument to be made for only spending money on research into the "impossible", as these are precisely the areas most likely to yield new knowledge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 21:53:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA16467; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:52:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:52:25 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:52:00 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> <000601bfda49$e5bb7a40$0601a8c0@federation> In-Reply-To: <000601bfda49$e5bb7a40$0601a8c0 federation> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id VAA16446 Resent-Message-ID: <"XQa4O3.0.D14.80PLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35831 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:55:47 -0700: [snip] >The theory of relativity predicts that information carrying signals cannot >move >faster than light. Actually it doesn't. It first assumes the constancy of the speed of light, then shows that it would require infinite energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light. That doesn't however preclude the transfer of pure information at or beyond the speed of light. Any such restriction is purely an assumption. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 22:05:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA19722; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:02:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:02:16 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:01:51 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006200456.AAA17501 fh105.infi.net> <001e01bfda78$0cde7720$0601a8c0@federation> In-Reply-To: <001e01bfda78$0cde7720$0601a8c0 federation> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id WAA19694 Resent-Message-ID: <"RSu1S3.0.0q4.O9PLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35832 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:26:09 -0700: [snip] >Why, I can think of several applications for it myself. What with stuff >essentually going backwards in time, The ability to signal FTL does not imply time travel. The false notion that it does is based upon the fallacious notion that an event hasn't occurred until we know about it. (When you demonstrate clearly and logically to me that this statement is false, I will have learned a great lesson :). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 23:46:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA07339; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:45:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:45:59 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:45:32 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f 4ax.com> References: <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA07313 Resent-Message-ID: <"kG4y83.0.ao1.cgQLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35833 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to John Winterflood's message of Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:24 +0800: [snip] >So if you want to violate causality in your own frame, simply make >the FTL effect occur in a passing spaceship (ie use their FTL >intercom to pass a message from one end of the spaceship to the >other) and in your own frame the message will arrive before it >was sent. Would it not be more accurate to say that a light signal leaving the reception point of the FTL signal would arrive at the observer before a light signal from the transmission point of the FTL signal arrived at the observer? Note however that in such a case, cause and effect are not really exchanged, just our observation of them. So that all we can really say is that EM radiation would no longer be a reliable indicator of cause and effect if FTL signalling were possible - but so what? > >If you want to throw out relativity and embrace a preferred >reference frame with earth entrained aether or whatever, then >this effect will not occur and your above statement would be >correct. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 24 23:53:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA08714; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:52:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:52:58 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove's Mars Photo Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:52:30 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id XAA08692 Resent-Message-ID: <"y0cAU.0.382.9nQLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35834 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to William Beaty's message of Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:20:36 -0700 (PDT): [snip] >the entire explanation appeared in my head. Usually I have to be >half-asleep for this to occur, but I suppose that being extremely bored at >work in the afternoon qualifies as a similar "altered state." [snip] Heh, you've noticed that too! :) My theory is that as brain activity slows, De Broglie wave lengths increase, (or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is invoked if you will) which allows quantum communication with other far removed minds. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 03:05:32 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA30196; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:04:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:04:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000601bfde2f$bce95260$0601a8c0 federation> References: <000601bfde2f$bce95260$0601a8c0 federation> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:04:34 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"Xp9K61.0.kN7._aTLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35835 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:58 PM -0700 6/24/00, Steve Lajoie wrote: >Anything that is not a theory is just jibberish. This "theory" is itself actually the jibberish. It's a component of the larger whirl of nonsense in which math and yes - even theory, is thought capable of proving what is possible or not in the universe, therefore what we can or can't believe in. The new secular religion! And in the hands of it's more radical and vociferous promoters, it can be used to filter what is "sane" to believe in, meaning that those who dare oppose (insert favorite "Big Science" theory here) are simply lacking in sanity and logic, and whose ideas can therefore be safely and properly ignored and ridiculed by society, voters, politicians, etc. Very good for breaking down the opponents of "theories" and "programs" which provide the gravy trains for the faithful, costing all of us billions and more. Used with terrific effectiveness for several decades now to provide these enormous welfare programs for math and physics geeks at great taxpayer burden. Also used to keep a fog of confusion and secrecy around the subject of ufo's for decades as well. As useful theories go, this one's a keeper - for some whose judgement if not morality is highly suspect. Fortunately it's not too popular on a few places like Vortex. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 10:29:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA16241; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:28:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:28:44 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:28:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UN2VG1.0.hz3.B5aLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35836 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Rick Monteverde wrote: > At 3:58 PM -0700 6/24/00, Steve Lajoie wrote: > > >Anything that is not a theory is just jibberish. > > This "theory" is itself actually the jibberish. Well, that sounds like a whitty comeback. But it only sounds like it. A theory fits the known data in a logically consistant way. If it is not a theory, it either doesn't fit the known data, and is thus false, or it is not logically consistant, and thus doesn't preserve the truth. Either way, it's jibberish. > It's a component of the larger whirl of nonsense in which math and > yes - even theory, Math is simply a branch of logic. Theory is logic applied to understanding the world. If you regard that as nonsense, well... [snip] ... then there is no way to reason with you. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 10:59:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23159; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:52:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:52:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <000601bfde2f$bce95260$0601a8c0 federation> <000601bfde2f$bce95260$0601a8c0 federation> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:50:09 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. Resent-Message-ID: <"hVCWB1.0.nf5.dRaLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35837 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 3:58 PM -0700 6/24/00, Steve Lajoie wrote: > >>Anything that is not a theory is just jibberish. > >This "theory" is itself actually the jibberish. > >It's a component of the larger whirl of nonsense in which math and >yes - even theory, is thought capable of proving what is possible or >not in the universe, therefore what we can or can't believe in. The >new secular religion! And in the hands of it's more radical and >vociferous promoters, it can be used to filter what is "sane" to >believe in, meaning that those who dare oppose (insert favorite "Big >Science" theory here) are simply lacking in sanity and logic, and >whose ideas can therefore be safely and properly ignored and >ridiculed by society, voters, politicians, etc. Very good for >breaking down the opponents of "theories" and "programs" which >provide the gravy trains for the faithful, costing all of us billions >and more. Used with terrific effectiveness for several decades now to >provide these enormous welfare programs for math and physics geeks at >great taxpayer burden. Also used to keep a fog of confusion and >secrecy around the subject of ufo's for decades as well. > >As useful theories go, this one's a keeper - for some whose judgement >if not morality is highly suspect. Fortunately it's not too popular >on a few places like Vortex. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI ***{Well said, Rick. In general, it is useful to keep in mind where the actual, experimentally measured data points are, to which the mathematical constructs have been fitted. If we do that, it becomes a lot easier to recognize when claims are straying far from what is actually known, and to be properly skeptical when questionable claims are made. Also, when evaluating claims based on theory rather than math--i.e., when evaluating visualizible models of things that are unseen--logic is itself the principal instrument of self-defense. When, for example, bizarre "quantum mechanical" claims are made that uncertainty is objective rather than subjective--e.g., that difficulties in locating tiny, unseen particles are due to the particles not having a definite form or location, rather than to us not having information about their form or location--it is useful to simply focus on past cases where uncertainties were subsequently resolved, and ask ourselves whether there has ever been a single instance in the history of the world where resolution took the form of entities that lacked definite form or location. When, for example, we finally photographed the far side of the moon, did we discover entities that lacked definite form or location? When we explored the New World, subsequent to the voyage of Columbus, did we ever stumble onto entities that lacked definite form or location? When the planet Jupiter was examined through a telescope for the first time, by Galileo, did he observe entities lacking definite form or location? If not, and if no man in the history of the world has ever, upon resolving uncertainties, discovered the circumstances presently postulated by Heisenberg and the proponents of "quantum mechanics," why would anyone place any credence in their claims? Indeed, what reasoning person would entertain for even a moment the notion that uncertainty is in the world rather than in our minds? --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 11:24:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA31443; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:21:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:21:39 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:18:58 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. Resent-Message-ID: <"a3eFf2.0.9h7.psaLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35838 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Rick Monteverde wrote: > >> At 3:58 PM -0700 6/24/00, Steve Lajoie wrote: >> >> >Anything that is not a theory is just jibberish. >> >> This "theory" is itself actually the jibberish. > Steve Lajoie wrote: >Well, that sounds like a whitty comeback. But it only sounds like it. A >theory fits the known data in a logically consistant way. If it is not a >theory, it either doesn't fit the known data, and is thus false, or it is >not logically consistant, and thus doesn't preserve the truth. Either way, >it's jibberish. > >> It's a component of the larger whirl of nonsense in which math and >> yes - even theory, > >Math is simply a branch of logic. ***{Actually, mathematical statements are just an economical form of natural language, in which abbreviations have been substituted for more lengthy and cumbersome structures. Thus, rather than saying: "If some number plus two equals six, then the number is four," we instead say: "If x + 2 = 6, then x = 4." Any meaningful mathematical statement can be converted to an equivalent natural language form, and, in fact, the making of such conversions is the proper way for a beginner to develop an understanding of math. --MJ}*** Theory is logic applied to understanding >the world. If you regard that as nonsense, well... > >[snip] > >... then there is no way to reason with you. ***{Theory in general arises when mathematical statements have been deliberately fitted to data points that measure unseen things, and it is desired to make an educated guess about what the unseen things would look like, if they could be seen. Thus, for example, when Bohr developed his idea about "preferred" electron orbits, one picture--and the one which he apparently preferred--was that electrons literally did not exist between the preferred orbits. That meant when an electron "jumped" from one orbit to another, or from the K-shell to the nucleus, it did so by vanishing from its position in the former location and reappearing in the latter one. An alternative picture which applied to the same math was the classical one: that orbits the lengths of which were an integral multiple of the de Broglie wavelength were stable, and hence that electrons could stay within them long enough to be detected, while orbits that were *not* an integral multiple of the de Broglie wavelength were unstable, and, thus, electrons lingered in them so fleetingly that we couldn't detect them there. Either theory was sufficient to explain the fact that the measured data points tended to cluster in the "preferred" locations. One was a classical picture, and the other was QM gibberish; but both were guesses about what unseen things would look like, if we could see them. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 12:53:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23514; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:52:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:52:59 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <4a.73c52f0.2687bd0d aol.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:52:45 EDT Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"fVwU91.0.Kl5.RCcLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35840 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 06/21/2000 9:00:19 PM, Ed Storms wrote: << According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not react with oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino concentrations in the gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. Such a pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. >> In 1997, Mills found that the hydrinos were making chemicals in his cells rather than hydrino gas. Hydrino chemicals are now the number one or number two priority at BLP judging by the material on the BLP website. Hydrino chemicals have a very high binding energy, and many other unusual features that have been established by a variety of well-known analytical techniques. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 12:53:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23461; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:52:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:52:52 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <38.7b41f6e.2687bd0a aol.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:52:42 EDT Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"DpYcI1.0.Vk5.JCcLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35839 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 06/23/2000 1:42:35 PM, Vince Cockeram wrote: << You must download and install Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files. >> Vince, I have Adobe's Acrobat Reader, v3.0, which has been able to read every PDF document I've seen so far. The problem is that none of the downloaded stuff had the distinctive PDF icon. I ended up with three SimpleText documents in a Folder, and one large document that I haven't been able to read yet. When I tried to open the biggest document, a message appeared saying that it might open if only I had DropStuff with Expander Enhancer, available for $30, and I've ordered DropStuff with Expander Enhancer to see how it performs. AOL techsupport for the Mac said that email programs can only handle one file at a time for attachments, i.e., since any attachment is sent as a single file, email programs take multiple documents or files and turn them into one file, often compressed. The process of compressing them into one attachment file and then uncompressing the attachment into separate files can lose information, according to AOL techsupport. AOL techsupport suggested sending only one file at a time in any attachment. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 12:54:04 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23597; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:53:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:53:17 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:52:39 EDT Subject: Re: Ex-Saudi Oil Minister Yamani predicts oil crash To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"8JvV1.0.dm5.jCcLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35841 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Great article, Terry, thanks. Yamani knows the oil situation as well as anyone. It's good to know that someone of his standing in the oil world is warning oil producers of what is to come, and not that far away, either. Of course, that might mean that they'll want to make hay while the sun is still shining for them, so I'd guess that the price of oil will stay around $30 per barrel for a couple of years yet. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 13:16:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31178; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:15:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:15:47 -0700 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:20:34 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. In-reply-to: X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <200006252015.NAA29238 smtp.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: Resent-Message-ID: <"pLuuX2.0.tc7.jXcLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35842 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:18 PM 6/25/2000 -0500, you wrote: >One was a classical >picture, and the other was QM gibberish; but both were guesses about what >unseen things would look like, if we could see them. --MJ}*** > Mitchell, in one of your debates on this forum your antagonist proposed the following question to you, which, as best I can tell, you ignored. With your anti - QM - nothing can appear out of nowhere "Principle of continuity" (TM) stance, I would like to see your reply. The question was something like: Given a tungsten filament, does it come with a lifetime supply of photons waiting to be released when it is heated? And where do they go when the light is absorbed by something? --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 14:59:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28988; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:58:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:58:26 -0700 Message-ID: <39569E07.7D bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:04:23 -0700 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ex-Saudi Oil Minister Yamani predicts oil crash References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UYCsK2.0.s47.12eLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35843 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > Great article, Terry, thanks. > > Yamani knows the oil situation as well as anyone. It's good to know that > someone of his standing in the oil world is warning oil producers of what is > to come, and not that far away, either. > > Of course, that might mean that they'll want to make hay while the sun is > still shining for them, so I'd guess that the price of oil will stay around > $30 per barrel for a couple of years yet. That was my take on why gas prices are so high. We probably won't see much relief until affordable alternative fuel vehicles are in production. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 14:59:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29038; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:58:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:58:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:58:24 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"gnGY4.0.a57.82eLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35844 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:28 AM -0700 6/25/00, Stephen Lajoie wrote: >Math is simply a branch of logic. Theory is logic applied to understanding >the world. If you regard that as nonsense, well... > >[snip] > >... then there is no way to reason with you. Nice straw man. I particularly like they way you've painted his pointy little head with such broad yet tempered strokes. As Rosie O. would say: "you're crafty". (Hey, my girlfriend likes to watch, I and I like to be with her, so...) Cast the guy's complaint about the misappropriation of math and theory as that of simply not believing in any application of math or theory. Heretical belief! We may now ignore any claims from that person that science is misguided or that relativity may not be the last word on subjects like FTL, etc. etc. There's simply no way to reason with him. Well done. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 16:48:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27926; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:42:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:42:48 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.66] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:42:08 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2000 23:42:08.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9F42610:01BFDEFE] Resent-Message-ID: <"cXF5j2.0.Gq6.tZfLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35845 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell writes: Indeed, what reasoning person would entertain for even a moment the notion that uncertainty is in the world rather than in our minds? I say: It seems all those who do and have promoted Eintein's Relativity concepts believe that the mind and world, the observer and the observed have no common element. Each observation is based on the concept the mind has something to do with the world!! The old, if a tree fell in the forest would it make any sound if no one were there to hear it. As we see everything about Einstein science come crashing down it is plain to see where Einstein and all of science as we know it based on a void curved finite universe is just plain bunk. Of course a tree would make a sound if no one were there to hear it. What self centered ego maniac bunk it is to think the mind of man has anything to do with it at all!!! That's why it just can't cut the mustard where the rubber meets the road. Mainstream science is as much cult science as all those hypnotists gurus are cult religions. All the wisdom of man is not enough to cover the head of a pin. The thermodynamic paradigm is the sound of one hand clapping, that is, the sound of nothing at all. When Einstein dismissed the cosmological constant he also dismissed common sense, saying, "common sense is just the prejudices learned in our youth". It is obvious he did his most brilliant work as a poor nobody dropout, but as soon as he started movin' on up it is obvious he was hypnotized, hornswoggled, brainwashed of all common sense. And now we live on a backwards ignorant and polluted planet. David "in sackcloth and ashes" ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 17:10:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA04103; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:10:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:10:19 -0700 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:10:10 -0400 Message-Id: <200006260010.UAA28970 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files Resent-Message-ID: <"U2D4l3.0.z_.gzfLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35846 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tom writes: >AOL techsupport for the Mac said that email programs can only handle one file >at a time for attachments, i.e., since any attachment is sent as a single >file, email programs take multiple documents or files and turn them into one >file, often compressed. The process of compressing them into one attachment >file and then uncompressing the attachment into separate files can lose >information, according to AOL techsupport. > >AOL techsupport suggested sending only one file at a time in any attachment. > >Tom Stolper If you are living in the US, I would dump AOL immediately, and get a real internet service provider. That is a ridiculous way to handle attachments. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 17:22:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08754; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:20:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:20:49 -0700 Message-ID: <000601bfdf04$4e4262e0$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:20:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"bmvjU1.0.i82.X7gLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35847 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: David Dennard To: Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Scientific nonsense and welfare fraud. [post snipped] > As we see everything about Einstein science come crashing down What, exactly, do you see about "Einstein science" coming "crashing down"? And if this is some sort of anti-Semitic stuff, this discussion ends right here. > it is plain > to see where Einstein and all of science as we know it based on a void > curved finite universe is just plain bunk. Experimental evidence, please? Where are the inconsistancies? > Of course a tree would make a sound if no one were there to hear it. What > self centered ego maniac bunk it is to think the mind of man has anything to > do with it at all!!! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 17:28:15 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA11158; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:27:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:27:26 -0700 Message-ID: <001101bfdf05$399bb700$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> <000601bfda49$e5bb7a40$0601a8c0@federation> Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:26:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"fbbmR3.0.Ck2.iDgLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35848 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 9:52 PM Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:55:47 -0700: > [snip] > >The theory of relativity predicts that information carrying signals cannot > >move > >faster than light. > > Actually it doesn't. It first assumes the constancy of the speed of light, > then shows that it would require infinite energy to accelerate matter to the > speed of light. That doesn't however preclude the transfer of pure > information at or beyond the speed of light. > Any such restriction is purely an assumption. > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk All physical things either have mass or have no mass. IF they have mass, relativity predicts they move at below the speed of light. IF they do not have mass, relativity predicts they move at nothing but the speed of light. There is nothing left in the set of "things" that can move faster than the speed of light. Now, the standard theory implies tacheons, but they have never been observed to exist. Probably another one of those wonderful apparent contradictions between theories that nature has found a logical way out of. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 17:36:14 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15198; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:35:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:35:12 -0700 Message-ID: <001601bfdf06$50ffc340$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006200456.AAA17501 fh105.infi.net> <001e01bfda78$0cde7720$0601a8c0@federation> Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:34:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"KI56J2.0.Oj3.0LgLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35849 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 10:01 PM Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism > In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:26:09 -0700: > [snip] > >Why, I can think of several applications for it myself. What with stuff > >essentually going backwards in time, > The ability to signal FTL does not imply time travel. It implies something unphysical. If that were physical, if faster than light were to exist, it would require something moving backwards in time. > The false notion that > it does is based upon the fallacious notion that an event hasn't occurred > until we know about it. > (When you demonstrate clearly and logically to me that this statement is > false, I will have learned a great lesson :). ?!? There exist many good books on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been shown to be a good predictor. Pick one up and tell me where, exactly, their logic fails. Note in every case they have tested the logic against the physical world and the two agree. Not really all that amazing, considering that if it didn't agree with the physical world, they changed the theory. There was an interesting set of articles in Scientific American some time ago, just about the time they went "pop", on experiments related to bells inequality, that plainly show that as far as the real world is concerned, an un-observed event is an indeterminate event. Though the theory predicts this, note that experiment trumps theory; any theory, even a "common sense" one that is stated flatly with no logical or mathematical support. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 19:44:07 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA22308; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:42:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:42:46 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:42:10 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <59fdls4qedd3ar6uqs5923e4avje50uhhe 4ax.com> References: <200006200456.AAA17501 fh105.infi.net> <001e01bfda78$0cde7720$0601a8c0@federation> <001601bfdf06$50ffc340$0601a8c0@federation> In-Reply-To: <001601bfdf06$50ffc340$0601a8c0 federation> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id TAA22265 Resent-Message-ID: <"iDUyz2.0.US5.cCiLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35850 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:34:35 -0700: [snip] >> In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:26:09 -0700: >> [snip] >> >Why, I can think of several applications for it myself. What with stuff >> >essentually going backwards in time, >> The ability to signal FTL does not imply time travel. > >It implies something unphysical. If that were physical, if faster than >light were to exist, it would require something moving backwards >in time. Only if the equations remain valid at velocities greater than c. A regime in which it obviously hasn't been tested (and supposedly can't be). I would suggest as an alternative that at v > c, time simply stands still, as it does at c, and that c is simply the limit for this "property" of space time (based on my imagination). IOW the validity of SR is limited to velocities <= c. > >> The false notion that >> it does is based upon the fallacious notion that an event hasn't occurred >> until we know about it. >> (When you demonstrate clearly and logically to me that this statement is >> false, I will have learned a great lesson :). > >?!? There exist many good books on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics >has been shown to be a good predictor. Pick one up and tell me where, >exactly, >their logic fails. Note in every case they have tested the logic against the >physical >world and the two agree. I was actually talking about what I perceived as a false assumption in the derivation of certain SR arguments. Interesting that you perceived this as a statement pertaining to QM. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 25 19:54:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24700; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:49:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:49:43 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:49:08 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006192007.QAA15971 fh105.infi.net> <000601bfda49$e5bb7a40$0601a8c0@federation> <001101bfdf05$399bb700$0601a8c0@federation> In-Reply-To: <001101bfdf05$399bb700$0601a8c0 federation> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id TAA24681 Resent-Message-ID: <"Wep8r.0.s16.6JiLv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35851 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Steve Lajoie's message of Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:26:46 -0700: [snip] >All physical things either have mass or have no mass. > >IF they have mass, relativity predicts they move at below the speed >of light. > >IF they do not have mass, relativity predicts they move at nothing >but the speed of light. > >There is nothing left in the set of "things" that can move faster than the >speed of light. But perhaps information doesn't need to be transferred by a "thing". (I'm thinking in terms of possible changes in fields or potentials). > >Now, the standard theory implies tacheons, but they have never been >observed to exist. Probably another one of those wonderful apparent >contradictions between theories that nature has found a logical way >out of. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 18:46:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA30370; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:26 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:37:55 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical In-Reply-To: <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f 4ax.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"zw-9X2.0.MQ7.jF0Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35852 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin wrote: >In reply to John Winterflood's message of Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:24 +0800: >[snip] >>So if you want to violate causality in your own frame, simply make >>the FTL effect occur in a passing spaceship (ie use their FTL >>intercom to pass a message from one end of the spaceship to the >>other) and in your own frame the message will arrive before it >>was sent. > >Would it not be more accurate to say that a light signal leaving the >reception point of the FTL signal would arrive at the observer before >a light signal from the transmission point of the FTL signal arrived >at the observer? ... No it would not be more accurate, in fact it would be incorrect. By the best means it is possible to use for the observer on earth to determine which came first, (ie taking observational delays into account) the receipt of the message is measured to occur before the transmission of the message. For instance the observer could set up an array of clocks along the path that the spaceship will pass and synchronise them to each other by the best means he has at his disposal - sending light signals from one clock to the other (and back) and taking into account their distance apart and the delays each way and doing it all just right so that they tick synchronously in his frame. Then when the signal is transmitted, a clock which is right alongside the transmission point (ie no observational delay) can be stopped. Also when the signal is recieved at the other end of the spaceship, a clock located right at the point of reception (again no observational delay) can be stopped. The times on these two clocks (which were ticking synchronously) can then be compared and it will be seen (if relativity is correct) that the clock at the receiving point was stopped earlier than the clock at the transmitting point (all clocks being stationary in the observers frame but being passed at high speed by the spacecraft). This is the consequence of FTL signalling in special relativity - it violates causality in (some) frames which are moving at high speed with respect to it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 18:49:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31476; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:34:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:34:57 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626153755.0095a320 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:37:55 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical In-Reply-To: <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f 4ax.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MYl6C1.0.kh7.0J0Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35853 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin wrote: >In reply to John Winterflood's message of Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:33:24 +0800: >[snip] >>So if you want to violate causality in your own frame, simply make >>the FTL effect occur in a passing spaceship (ie use their FTL >>intercom to pass a message from one end of the spaceship to the >>other) and in your own frame the message will arrive before it >>was sent. > >Would it not be more accurate to say that a light signal leaving the >reception point of the FTL signal would arrive at the observer before >a light signal from the transmission point of the FTL signal arrived >at the observer? ... No it would not be more accurate, in fact it would be incorrect. By the best means it is possible to use for the observer on earth to determine which came first, (ie taking observational delays into account) the receipt of the message is measured to occur before the transmission of the message. For instance the observer could set up an array of clocks along the path that the spaceship will pass and synchronise them to each other by the best means he has at his disposal - sending light signals from one clock to the other (and back) and taking into account their distance apart and the delays each way and doing it all just right so that they tick synchronously in his frame. Then when the signal is transmitted, a clock which is right alongside the transmission point (ie no observational delay) can be stopped. Also when the signal is recieved at the other end of the spaceship, a clock located right at the point of reception (again no observational delay) can be stopped. The times on these two clocks (which were ticking synchronously) can then be compared and it will be seen (if relativity is correct) that the clock at the receiving point was stopped earlier than the clock at the transmitting point (all clocks being stationary in the observers frame but being passed at high speed by the spacecraft). This is the consequence of FTL signalling in special relativity - it violates causality in (some) frames which are moving at high speed with respect to it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 19:19:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA10525; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:15:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:15:46 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:12:12 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"YXyIW2.0.Ha2.Gv0Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35854 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 19:19:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA10547; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:15:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:15:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:13:57 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism Resent-Message-ID: <"w83sk2.0.ha2.Iv0Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35855 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve Lajoie wrote: There exist many good books on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics >has been shown to be a good predictor. Pick one up and tell me where, >exactly, their logic fails. Note in every case they have tested the logic >against the physical world and the two agree. > >Not really all that amazing, considering that if it didn't agree with the >physical world, they changed the theory. ***{If by "theory" you refer to the math, then you are right: whenever the equations failed to match reliably measured experimental data points, the equations were tweaked to bring them back into line with experiment. However, mathematical formulae that have been deliberately fitted to experimentally determined data points in this way are theory neutral: they cannot be claimed by the proponents of QM with any more legitimacy than they can be claimed by the proponents of CM. On the other hand, if by "theory" you refer to the visualizable mental models, described in natural language, by which the proponents of QM attempt to explain the math, then you are wrong: the modern variants of the "Copenhagen interpretation" are fully as out-of-touch with reality as was Bohr's original version, and are just as indefensible. (All versions postulate events that deny the principle of continuity, and, if true, would demolish the entire structure of human knowledge, including QM.) --Mitchell Jones}*** > >There was an interesting set of articles in Scientific American some time >ago, just about the time they went "pop", on experiments related to bells >inequality, that plainly show that as far as the real world is concerned, >an un-observed event is an indeterminate event. ***{How does it show that? Are you talking about experiments such as those done by Alain Aspect, which seemed to demonstrate that the choice of polarizer orientation on the side where the first photon was detected influenced the likelihood that the second photon would also be detected? If so, then I would reiterite what I said recently, which you either missed or ignored: those correlations can be explained if the first photon to hit a polarizer triggers a superluminal shock wave that propagates back down the path of the photon, through the source, and thence down the path to the other photon, striking it from behind as it enters its polarier, and giving it a push that increases its likelihood of going through. This is a fully deterministic explanation of the Aspect type results. If you are talking about some other type of experiment, please specify. --MJ}*** Though the theory predicts this, note that >experiment trumps theory; any theory, even a "common sense" one >that is stated flatly with no logical or mathematical support. ***{By the way, Steve: you need to renew your former practice of placing a signature at the bottom of your posts, or else put your initials in every annotation that you insert. It is becoming very difficult at times to separate your comments from those of the person to whom you are responding. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 19:34:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15841; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:33:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:33:31 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000626222159.00b33470 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:28:59 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <39529A24.C3B6C55F ix.netcom.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"f48rc3.0.Lt3.t91Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35856 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:58 PM 6/22/2000 -0700, Ed Storms wrote: > > >We do not seem to be communicating here. The problem I'm discussing > involves > > >coupling the nuclear energy to the lattice. When a "normal" nuclear > > >reaction of > > >the type you propose occurs, the energy is proportioned between the > three He > > >atoms. As a result, 2.9 MeV alpha particles would be produced. As these > > >particles are slowed down by the surrounding atoms, many electrons would > > >be raised > > >to a higher energy state and these would give off X-rays as they returned > > >to their > > >normal energy states. Such X-rays are not normally detected. Therefore, > > >one has > > >to assume that the energy goes into many atoms rather than just a few, > thereby > > >preventing the expected X-rays. How does this process work in your model? > > > > ***{As I explained to you earlier, protoneutrons can form and exist only at > > the nodes of the lattice wave, which, clearly, *cannot* be at the surface > > of the metal. Thus the alphas are emitted internally, and any x-rays they > > produce are contained within the lattice. (X-rays do not penetrate metals > > very well, as you can observe by looking at a few medical x-rays, where any > > metallic objects show up as completely black on the film.) --MJ}*** > >Granted, most of the X-rays would be absorbed. However, when watts of EP are >being produced, we would have one Hell of an X-ray source. Some of this >radiation, especially that which was formed near the surface should be >detectable. On the other hand, people have occasionally detected X-rays >when film >was placed within the cell. This would be consistent with your explanation. The statements are ionizing radiation are wrong here, including the definition of x-rays (vs. gammas). confer Swartz, M, G. Verner, "Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion", J New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)] ================================================== > > >But why would a hydrogen atom even enter the lattice in the first place if > > >there > > >were insufficient room? To do so would require extra energy. Where > does this > > >energy come from in an electrolytic cell? After all, it is hard enough to > > >get a > > >normal hydrogen to enter the lattice at high loading. > > > > ***{Not a hydrogen atom: a proton--that is, a hydrogen atom that has lost > > its outer electron. Protons are small enough to easily pass into the > > lattice, even though neutral hydrogen atoms are not. --MJ}*** > >OK, to be totally exact, I will use the term proton. I say again, it is hard >enough to get a normal proton to enter the lattice at high loading. This >is an >experimental fact. In an electrolytic cell, the proton that is presented >to the >surface by electrolytic action has two choices. It can enter the PdH >lattice or >it can combine with other proton to form H2. As the hydrogen concentration >increase, the proton finds that formation of H2 results in a lower energy >compared >to entering the lattice. That is why achieving a high concentration is so >difficult. It is more complicated, and the reasons are demonstrated in continuum electrodynamic equations. Swartz, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) [see also Swartz. M., "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium", Fusion Technology, 32, 126-130 (1997) ] I have prepared a pdf file on the Quasi-One-Dimensional paper, and the Bremss. paper, which are about 3/4 megabyte each. I will send copies of these papers to any vort who is seriously interested in this subject. The copyright will be maintained. These are for personal scholarly use so that there might be more appreciation of the mathematics which can be used to understand these systems. If anyone wants these papers, send me private email with the subject either, Q1D, Brem, or Brem-Q1D, and I will do my best to try to get them out later this week in response. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 20:06:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15632; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000620084444.00b1b218 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:08:40 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <394EC088.69F0F1A0 ix.netcom.com> References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"0ju0O2.0.Aq3.rD1Mv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35857 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:53 PM 6/19/2000 -0700, Edmund Storms wrote: >A shrunken hydrogen is not essential but it does explain a few observations. Could you state them, as you see it, thanks? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 20:07:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15665; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:14:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <394E438F.446CAF11 ix.netcom.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"YHGRO1.0.hq3.xD1Mv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35858 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:00 AM 6/19/2000 -0700, Ed wrote: >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous >nuclear activity. There is less evidence for the putative other reactions compared with the cold fusion reactions. And many appear to be the result of fusion. Therefore, not all investigators agree with LENR, and less agree with Ed's suggested CANR. Some researchers/theoreticians who briefly used LENR, are now moving back to CF. Cold fusion seems to be a reasonable descriptive term. ================================================ > > (2) The fusion must occur under what may be reasonably termed "cold" > > conditions--i.e., at temperatures easily attainable by a homebrew > > experimenter. > > > > (3) The theory must provide some mechanism that could enable nuclei to > > overcome the Coulomb repulsion that, under normal conditions, prevents > > fusion. > >And provide a mechanism for dumping the energy into the lattice rather than >into individual nuclear products. Ed is correct here, however, the surmounting of Coulomb barrier is less difficult to understand than the transfer of energy to the lattice, as discussed in my review of ICCF-7 (Fusion Tech. 1/2000) and Phuson paper (below). ==================================================== > > (4) The theory must provide a mechanism that explains why deadly neutron > > and gamma radiation does not kill the experimenters. > > It is clear why neutrons and high energy ionizing radiation do not occur with cold fusion systems. These were discussed separately in my papesr on Phusons and on Bremsstrahlung. ["Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997). Swartz, M, G. Verner, "Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion", J New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)] I will send copies of these papers to any vort who is seriously interested in this subject. The copyright will be maintained. These are for personal scholarly use so that future misstatements regarding the purported "graduate student problems" might be fewer. I have prepared a pdf file on each, which are about a megabyte each. If anyone wants these papers, send me private email with the subject either, Phuson, Brem, or Brem-Phuson, and I will do my best to try to get them out later this week in response. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 20:27:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA31545; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:23:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:23:42 -0700 Message-ID: <000801bfdfe7$04924f00$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:23:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"efmck3.0.pi7.-u1Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35859 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Mitchell Jones To: Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 7:12 PM Subject: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ A worthless article with no facts and data. You can advocate whatever design you want for whatever reason, but to call the aviation industry "fascist" is nothing less than slander. Every effort is made to keep commercial aviation safe. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 20:29:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA32730; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:28:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:28:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:27:54 -0400 Message-Id: <200006270327.XAA19668 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"gmvNR3.0.K_7.1z1Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35860 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitch writes: >Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ I agree with the author of the article Mitch, and think that it is way past time for some of that incessant political activism, even at the cost of Boeing's and the Gov's stability, don't you agree? Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 20:47:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05268; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:45:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:45:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:45:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200006270345.XAA25502 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"dd_K61.0.EI1.rD2Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35861 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve writes: >A worthless article with no facts and data. > >You can advocate whatever design you want for whatever reason, >but to call the aviation industry "fascist" is nothing less than slander. > >Every effort is made to keep commercial aviation safe. Hi Steve, You should read the entire website, and get the full picture. Every effort to make commercial aviation safe has not been made, as is evidenced by the facts presented on the website. The decision not to employ the Burnelli Company design 60 years ago was an off the cuff decision made by President Roosevelt, because Burnelli was a Republican Party contributor. It had nothing to do with the merits of the design which was determined back then to be far superior to the Boeing Corporation designs. This sort of thing happens every day in the world, and it takes decades for the cover-ups to be exposed, and the people to gather the political will to make the industry do the right thing. Quite often, the industry gets away with the corrupt behavior by eclipsing the better technology in a short enough timeframe that it can offer something better, but in this case, Boeing couldn't get around the fact that the Burnelli design was better, and we got stuck with inferior and unsafe aircraft. When aircraft safety or the safety of any other commercial product and political correctness clash, only an idiot would side with the politically correct. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 20:58:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07265; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:57:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:57:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000801bfdfe7$04924f00$0601a8c0 federation> References: <000801bfdfe7$04924f00$0601a8c0 federation> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:56:22 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"eXWZj.0.Nn1.EO2Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35862 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:23 PM -0700 6/26/00, Steve Lajoie wrote: >A worthless article with no facts and data. Worthless? No facts or data? Completely untrue Steve. I get it, you're just here to post contrary patter as bait, right? Bored Steve? Quite a strange reaction to yet another odd corner of aviation history (recounted on the site with facts and data, contrary to your claims). The pictures of the MD plane on the Popular Science cover and the old Burnelli design are striking. There's something to these stories. The big moves made in business, science, and government are indeed conspiracies. When people get together and plan to do something, that *is* a conspiracy. That's the definition of the word. Further, when they and plan to hinder and silence their competition, it's more they type of negative conspiracy people sometimes think of today when they hear or read the word. But is a lifting body or flying wing the answer to aviation safety? I don't think so, necessarily. I think they overstate the case for the advantages in comparison to existing plane designs. But they do have facts. It clearly does have some advantages though. >You can advocate whatever design you want for whatever reason, >but to call the aviation industry "fascist" is nothing less than slander. They (a few members of the aviation industry) stuck together to dictate design parameters for an entire industry. An exclusive dictatorship like that is one definition of fascism. Again, you may want to consult your dictionary before you consult a lawyer. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 21:45:19 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA16735; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:43:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:43:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:42:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"W8v9g1.0.H54.M33Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35864 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Rick Monteverde wrote: > At 8:23 PM -0700 6/26/00, Steve Lajoie wrote: > > >A worthless article with no facts and data. > > Worthless? No facts or data? Completely untrue Steve. > > I get it, you're just here to post contrary patter as bait, right? Bored Steve? If you think you have something there that damns airplanes, take it to the FAA. See what they say. > Quite a strange reaction to yet another odd corner of aviation > history (recounted on the site with facts and data, contrary to your > claims). The pictures of the MD plane on the Popular Science cover > and the old Burnelli design are striking. There's something to these > stories. The big moves made in business, science, and government are > indeed conspiracies. When people get together and plan to do > something, that *is* a conspiracy. That's the definition of the word. > Further, when they and plan to hinder and silence their competition, > it's more they type of negative conspiracy people sometimes think of > today when they hear or read the word. But is a lifting body or > flying wing the answer to aviation safety? I don't think so, > necessarily. I think they overstate the case for the advantages in > comparison to existing plane designs. But they do have facts. It > clearly does have some advantages though. > > >You can advocate whatever design you want for whatever reason, > >but to call the aviation industry "fascist" is nothing less than slander. > > They (a few members of the aviation industry) stuck together to > dictate design parameters for an entire industry. An exclusive > dictatorship like that is one definition of fascism. Again, you may > want to consult your dictionary before you consult a lawyer. It's clear you don't know anything about commercial aviation. Fascism. Yeah, what a laugh. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 21:46:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA16232; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:39:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:39:59 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:39:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed In-Reply-To: <200006270345.XAA25502 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"A00713.0.Yz3.V03Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35863 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote: > Steve writes: > >A worthless article with no facts and data. > > > >You can advocate whatever design you want for whatever reason, > >but to call the aviation industry "fascist" is nothing less than slander. > > > >Every effort is made to keep commercial aviation safe. > > Hi Steve, > > You should read the entire website, and get the full picture. This is an engineering thing, not a science thing, so I have no problem asking you HOW MANY AIRPLANES have YOU designed? Yes, that makes a difference. Only experienced, expert engineers who are of high ethical standards are allowed to become FAA recognized Designated Engineering Representatives or DERs. About half of the MD-80's and almost all of the 737's out there have my name somewhere in the engineering. I've been doing this for 15 years now. I have a pretty good picture, thanks anyway. (I don't speak here for Boeing, just me.) > Every effort > to make commercial aviation safe has not been made, as is evidenced by the > facts presented on the website. There was no facts presented on the website. They had a little bit of jibberish about landing speed and that was it. Everything on existing airplanes that is flight critical is certified to 10^-9. Basically, if we can think of a single failure that could cause an airframe loss we don't CERTIFY. I have never seen a greater, more dedicated, more anal retentive bunch of engineers than the Designated Engineering Representatives of The Boeing Company. And by golly, if one of them is wrong, I don't care if he's my friend or not, he has me to contend with. This has resulted in it being statistically proven that Boeing Airplanes are the safest flying machines in the whole damn world. And no crackpot ranting about landing speed incoherantly is going to change that. Did you even KNOW that if we find a safer way or design, we are obligated to incorporate it into our next revision? ALL the latest safty features had to be incorporated into the 737 Next Generation, for example. What was going to be a minor model change turned into a whole new airplane. Just about the only think that is the same is the glare shield and the general shape. From the wheels to the top of the rudder, from the weather radar radome to the APU exhaust, is all NEW. Even the hull is a new alloy, thinner and stronger. LOTS of oddball designs are ruled out because they may be great in one area, and terrible in another. Ever wonder why there are no forward canards on commercial airplanes? Ice damage! And so on. > The decision not to employ the Burnelli > Company design 60 years ago was an off the cuff decision made by President > Roosevelt, because Burnelli was a Republican Party contributor. President Roosevelt had very little say in military airplane design, and no say at all in the design of commercial airplanes today. > It had > nothing to do with the merits of the design which was determined back then > to be far superior to the Boeing Corporation designs. Define "superior". The designs we have are proven safe by years of flight experience. Let me tell you, you only have to listen to a voice recorder ONCE before you find the safty faith. Everyone takes saftey very seriously. And the design is in the hands of us engineers. If management or whatever devil says make it cheaper or less safe, we engineers have the power to STOP THE LINE and hold up production until we either get a safe design or are convinced a new design is SAFER. Now we get some crackpot with a website feeding on the public's fear of flying and spouting off stupidly because the wacko design of the day didn't get chosen. Just because he has a half baked story about landing speed. > This sort of thing > happens every day in the world, and it takes decades for the cover-ups to be > exposed, and the people to gather the political will to make the industry do > the right thing. > > Quite often, the industry gets away with the corrupt behavior by eclipsing > the better technology in a short enough timeframe that it can offer > something better, but in this case, Boeing couldn't get around the fact that > the Burnelli design was better, and we got stuck with inferior and unsafe > aircraft. When aircraft safety or the safety of any other commercial > product and political correctness clash, only an idiot would side with the > politically correct. Let me see... I'm an idiot because you read a website and I'm PC. Do you have any idea of how much facts and data have to be provided to the FAA to "prove" an airplane is safe to better than 10^-9? On the 777 program, the supporting proof weighted more than the airplane. That's a lot of paper. Everything that goes into the airplane gets tested. The aerodynamics gets tested a great deal. WE bake it, we freeze it, we fly it in bad weather, we test every failure we can think of. Every system had to be first qualified just to be considered for use on the airplane. Every system checked to ensure it plays with the other systems. We even build one and bust it up checking the stress at which it will fail. There are REASONS airplanes look like what they do. The general wing and tail that everyone thinks of when you say airplane is the overall safest and most economical design for the commercial airplane mission. (Economical as in the SST not being economical). Unusual designs have unusual problems, let me assure you. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 21:58:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20455; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:56:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:56:49 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:56:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed In-Reply-To: <200006270327.XAA19668 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"rYyTM3.0.X_4.HG3Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35865 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote: > Mitch writes: > > >Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ > > I agree with the author of the article Mitch, and think that it is way past > time for some of that incessant political activism, even at the cost of > Boeing's and the Gov's stability, don't you agree? There's not one damn bit of proof in all that crap. It's all suppose to be a conspiracy. Yeah, right. And us 15,000 Boeing engineers are in on it. But wait! We're the ones that tell MANAGEMENT what we are going to build! We must be the vile little nasties you guys are on about! Mind you, I've been privy to some interesting propriatary designs. Some which are much more "innovative" looking than a flying wing. Flying wings have problems, safety as well as practical. Belive me, if we could come up with something cheaper to build and that much safer than Airbus, WE'D BE BUILDING IT. The first rule is, today's airplane must be at least as safe as yesterday's airplane. No steps backward in safety are allowed. This is just a bunch of rubbish. Get real. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 22:12:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA23558; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:09:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:09:58 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006270327.XAA19668 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:56:39 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"sfkXx1.0.0m5.cS3Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35866 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitch writes: > >>Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ > >I agree with the author of the article Mitch, and think that it is way past >time for some of that incessant political activism, even at the cost of >Boeing's and the Gov's stability, don't you agree? ***{In this case, the activists have my blessing, even though their prospects for success are not good. (When the fix has been in for this long, it is almost impossible to undo.) --MJ}*** > >Knuke >Michael T. Huffman >Huffman Technology Company >1121 Dustin Drive >The Villages, Florida 32159 >(352)259-1276 >knuke LCIA.COM >http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 26 23:09:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA02477; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:06:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:06:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:06:22 -0400 Message-Id: <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"nZNH61.0.bc.eH4Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35867 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve writes: >There was no facts presented on the website. They had a little bit of >jibberish about landing speed and that was it. Hi Steve, The website starts at this URL: http://www.aircrash.org/ and there is much more presented than just the issue of landing speed, as you would know if you had read it. I'm a marine engineer BTW, but I know enough fluid dynamic and structural engineering principles to tell you that the Burnelli design was obviously better for numerous reasons, and that it still is. That is why all the major aircraft manufacturing companies are using it today in their most "advanced" aircraft. The fact that it wasn't used in all aircraft designs long ago is simply a crime. Read the entire website. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 00:13:24 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA12876; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:10:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:10:26 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:09:28 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20000622173805.97400.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f@4ax.com> <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0@cyllene.uwa.edu .au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id AAA12818 Resent-Message-ID: <"h8xLB3.0.s83.OD5Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35868 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to John Winterflood's message of Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:37:55 +0800: [snip] >For instance the observer could set up an array of clocks along >the path that the spaceship will pass and synchronise them to >each other by the best means he has at his disposal - sending >light signals from one clock to the other (and back) and taking >into account their distance apart and the delays each way and >doing it all just right so that they tick synchronously in >his frame. > >Then when the signal is transmitted, a clock which is right >alongside the transmission point (ie no observational delay) >can be stopped. Also when the signal is recieved at the other >end of the spaceship, a clock located right at the point of >reception (again no observational delay) can be stopped. The >times on these two clocks (which were ticking synchronously) >can then be compared and it will be seen (if relativity is >correct) that the clock at the receiving point was stopped >earlier than the clock at the transmitting point (all clocks >being stationary in the observers frame but being passed at >high speed by the spacecraft). > >This is the consequence of FTL signalling in special relativity >- it violates causality in (some) frames which are moving at >high speed with respect to it. Do you believe that SR is applicable in this case? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 02:52:22 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA32455; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:49:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:49:41 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627174404.00959180 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:44:04 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f 4ax.com> <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"EG4WR.0.0x7.qY7Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35869 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin wrote: >>This is the consequence of FTL signalling in special relativity >>- it violates causality in (some) frames which are moving at >>high speed with respect to it. > >Do you believe that SR is applicable in this case? Sorry, I don't know what "case" it is to which you refer. If FTL signalling can be shown to occur, then SR as physicists currently believe it, is proven wrong and must be discarded as a working theory. Time and space become absolute and simultanety is restored. A preferred (absolute) reference frame must exist and should be found and used in all future work. Time dilation and length contraction (Lorentz transformations) will remain but will have an alternative explanation. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 03:31:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA06472; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:30:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:30:30 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01bfe02a$d24eefa0$37441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Vince Cockeram's H2K Discharge vs Mizuno's Submerged Arc Discharge Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:27:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"qQfCm2.0.2b1.698Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35871 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: Both used a Tungsten cathode and Potassium Ions, but orders of magnitude differences in pressure and current and H2O as opposed to H2. When one looks at the UV spectra of the K+, H+, and W+, in both experiments there is an enormous flux of photons produced in the 4.5 to 7.8 ev range that Might produce Light Lepton Pairs that can allow the LL- to "couple" to the H+ to form the P* neutral entity. Then P* + W ---> Fission Fragments + LL- + Mev Energy IOW the LL- can participate in many reactions until it annihilates with an LL+. This would explain the "Heat After Death" effect noted in many CF experiments. Seems that the trick is to form the LL pair near the negative W cathode and yet get the LL- to couple to the H+ before it migrates toward the positive column of the discharge. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 03:31:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA06440; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:30:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:30:27 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627182453.0095a810 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:24:53 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"J9-M83.0.Xa1.298Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35870 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: >If by "theory" you refer to the math, then you are right: >whenever the equations failed to match reliably measured >experimental data points, the equations were tweaked to >bring them back into line with experiment. However, >mathematical formulae that have been deliberately fitted >to experimentally determined data points in this way are >theory neutral: they cannot be claimed by the proponents >of QM with any more legitimacy than they can be claimed >by the proponents of CM. Maybe you could enlarge on this "tweaking of fitted formulae" Mitch since it seems totally at odds with all I know about QM (which isn't very much). As I understand it, the heart of QM is the relationship that the "frequency of oscillation" of a particle is in direct proportion to its energy with Planks constant being the constant of proportionality (ie E=hv). Planks constant is known to many digits of precision and comes into many other relationships so I can't see any room for tweaking here. Normally an oscillator such as a mass on a spring will oscillate with constant frequency regardless of energy or amplitude of oscillation - that is if the spring obeys Hookes law. So we might ask what sort of non-linear force-displacement law would be required of the spring in order for the frequency to vary in proportion with amplitude for instance. Messing around with maths you can soon find that if the force varied as the extension cubed, then this required frequency relationship is obtained. Well it is very easy to arrange a spring with a cubic force relationship and so you could build such an oscillator physically and play with it - and be able to verify its performance and visualise exactly how it all works (keeping Mitch very happy). As I understand it, Shrodinger did something rather similar with the Plank relationship - he came up with a wave equation in which the frequency of oscillation varied in direct proportion to the stored energy. OK he couldn't see the little springs and how the energy surged backwards and forwards to provide a visualisable mental model, but what would be the point of that if he can never prove his model right or wrong and if his equation effectively "explains" it to those who work with it for a while. So now QM has a working description (in mathematical language) for the oscillation taking place - and once again I can see no room for "tweaking" of the "fitted" formula. All of the values used in it are fundamental physical constants which are known to high precision and cannot be tweaked at all. As I understand it, the rest of QM follows from this equation - including the electron shell structures in atoms (beautiful visualisable orbit patterns), and as an immediate consequence, pretty much all of the properties of all the elements in the periodical table and how they combine to form compounds, the angles on the edges of crystals, etc, etc, etc. A truly amazing wealth of information all suddenly finding explanation from a wave equation dreamt up to explain a simple energy-frequency relationship. I believe this wave equation then goes on to "explain" or predict all the strangeness of quantum interactions, although one wouldn't dream of solving a differential equation every time, when only the interaction of a couple of particles is required. There are much simpler ways of finding the answer using little more than matrix algebra and sines and cosines. However, there is absolutely no room for "tweaking" in linear algebra. So maybe you can explain where the "fitting" of curves to "data points" and "tweaking" takes place ? >On the other hand, if by "theory" you refer to the >visualizable mental models, described in natural >language, by which the proponents of QM attempt to >explain the math, ... Maths is a language. An extremely convenient and natural language for succinctly and completely describing the relationship between variable quantities which influence each other. > ...Are you talking about experiments such as those >done by Alain Aspect, which seemed to demonstrate that >the choice of polarizer orientation on the side where the >first photon was detected influenced the likelihood that >the second photon would also be detected? If so, then I >would reiterite what I said recently, which you either >missed or ignored: those correlations can be explained >if the first photon to hit a polarizer triggers a >superluminal shock wave that propagates back down the >path of the photon, through the source, and thence down >the path to the other photon, striking it from behind as >it enters its polarier, and giving it a push that increases >its likelihood of going through. This is a fully >deterministic explanation of the Aspect type results. This "explanation" raises many more questions than it even tries to answer and really deserves to be ignored. However since Mitch has re-iterated it, maybe I will ask some of those questions and then point out the main reason that it is a totally unacceptable "explanation". EM radiation (photon) is well known to be a transverse wave. If it is pictured as travelling in a medium then it looks like a shear wave in the medium because it consists entirely of circular and shearing motion of flow (vector potential). It produces no pressure variations (no electrostatic voltage variation), only divergence-less circular EMFs. Indeed one of Maxwells equations states that space is "incompressible" or rather unpolarizable electrically. This is why longitudinal electric waves cannot exist in a vacuum - because the vacuum is incompressible. A good illustration is jelly - shear waves can be observed to travel at very slow speed in it (maybe 1m/s) whereas compression waves (which I believe shock waves always are) travel very fast in it (maybe 1000m/s) because it is almost incompressible. With this picture of EM radiation and photons in mind one could ask the following questions : How come we haven't managed to generate or detect these high speed longitudinal waves if they exist? Where does the energy come from for the generated shock wave (polarizing a photon does not change its frequency so its energy is unchanged so it can't come from the photon)? How does the shock wave follow the path of the photon so accurately as to be able to hit such a small target from metres away? What is the nature of this "trail" left behind by the photon (does a photon leave "footprints" in the vacuum?) How long does the trail remain in place? How does the shock wave differentiate between the trail it is supposed to be following and the miriad of trails left behind by other photons of other frequencies and other trajectories. If there oscillations remaining behind after it has past then are their frequency the same as the photons? Could we fool the shock wave to follow a different photon by shining a powerful laser beam of the same frequency across its path? How about if we reflect the laser from the surface of the polarizer at the same spot as the photon hits? If we can fool it then apparently the superposition principle doesn't work - ie the vacuum is not linear? Where does the energy come from for these oscillations and how can they oscillate with the frequency of the photon without each having the energy of the photon? How far apart are they? How wide? How do they avoid spreading either at either the speed of the photon (ie c) if they are shear motion or at the speed of the shock wave if they are pressure variations? Is there a third type of energy storage in a medium? or a new type of particle that is unheard of yet which forms these tracks left behind by photons? How is a shock wave produced by merely affecting the oscillation direction of a shear wave? What is a "photon" that it can be "struck" and "pushed". And a million other questions if I could be bothered! But the main reason why this explanation is useless is that the splitting the photon into its two possible polarisations is not the action that sets its state as being of one polarisation (ie horizontal) or the other (vertical). Rather it is the detection of the split photon in one or other channel that determines its polarisation. If instead of detecting it, the two channels (containing some fraction of the photon probability each) are recombined by shining them into the "outputs" of another polarizing beam splitter in the reverse operation, then the original photon carries on with its original "undetermined" state. However if one of the split paths is blocked (ie with a detector) so that that part of the photons probability is removed, then even though the photon did not take that path and was not blocked or detected, and carries on to be detected maybe much later, it now has its polarization entirely determined (and its entangled partner likewise). So at this point we are forced to say that it must be the detection or the blocking of one polarization part of the photon that generates this "superluminal shock wave". However think again. Suppose we turn the power supply to the photo-detector OFF so that the electron that is knocked out by the photon resulting in its detection, is now allowed to drift back and be reabsorbed by the atom that it was knocked out of. Then this action can in principle re-emit a photon with identical characteristics to the one that was absorbed. And if we had gone to the trouble of trapping the empty wave from the other polarization probability of the photon by reflecting it back and forth in a mirror delay line. THEN... we could combine the re-emitted photon, with the empty wave and again we have our original "undetermined" photon. So it seems that Mitch's shock wave cannot be generated by the absorbtion or blocking of the photon either but must occur somewhere further up the detection chain. However each microscopic step that we analyse, proves to be perfectly reversible and so in principle at least can be undone such that we recover our original "undetermined" photon. But wait!!! What about once it has registered in the experimenters brain??? Then it cannot be reversed! So here we have it - Mitch's shock wave can only be generated once the result of the experiment actually registers in the experimenters brain - ie it is actually a "brain wave" in fact. So here we have the whole explanation to the problems of QM, Shrodingers cat, etc. It all happens by superluminal brain generated shock waves!!!! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 04:41:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA18329; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39588D6F.5B55DF35 powerup.com.au> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:18:07 +1000 From: David Hancock X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yCIXo1.0.EU4.Eo8Mv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35872 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen wrote: > Belive me, if we could come up with something cheaper to build > and that much safer than Airbus, WE'D BE BUILDING IT. And if Airbus, as a clean slate startup charged with a commercial target of winning global market share from Boeing, looked at all possible designs and did *not* choose a cheaper, safer design... it didn't exist. Michael wrote: > ...the Burnelli design was obviously better for numerous reasons, > and it still is. That is why all the major aircraft manufacturing > companies are using it today in their most "advanced" aircraft. Horses for courses. If you want to move 60 people in one road vehicle, you build something shaped like a bus, not a Ferrari on steroids. All buses tend to look alike. Conspiracy? If you want to move 4 people, you build something shaped like a sedan... still not a Ferrari. All sedans are tending to look alike. Conspiracy? Surely engineers faced with a common set of problems are finding common sets of answers, given the current technologies? If you want to move 1 or 2 people through the air very quickly, *one* solution is the familiar modern fighter shape based on a lifting body - inherently aerodynamically unstable so that it is very manoeuverable, and only controllable in flight because computers are running a much larger range of systems than on a commercial aircraft. Ah! Now *that* looks like an "advanced" Ferrari! David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 04:43:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA14874; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:41:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:41:05 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> References: <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:40:55 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"CYbTM.0.Ke3.GB9Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35873 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:06 AM -0400 6/27/00, Michael T Huffman wrote: >Read the entire >website. Oh sure he will, real soon now. Right after he looks up the word "conspiracies"! ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 05:57:38 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28907; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:54:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:54:54 -0700 Message-ID: <002001bfe036$cfaadb40$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:47:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"i0tWv3.0.X37.TGAMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35874 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael T Huffman To: Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 11:06 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > Steve writes: > > >There was no facts presented on the website. They had a little bit of > >jibberish about landing speed and that was it. > > Hi Steve, > > The website starts at this URL: > > http://www.aircrash.org/ > > and there is much more presented than just the issue of landing speed, as > you would know if you had read it. I'm a marine engineer BTW, but I know > enough fluid dynamic and structural engineering principles to tell you that > the Burnelli design was obviously better for numerous reasons, and that it > still is. That is why all the major aircraft manufacturing companies are > using it today in their most "advanced" aircraft. The fact that it wasn't > used in all aircraft designs long ago is simply a crime. Read the entire > website. All airplane must be checked experimentally and in flight test. If you think safety is a matter of "principles", you're wrong. It must have sound principles and have extensive testing. This airplane proposed has no testing, no flight history, nothing. "Advanced" or military airplanes must meet a different purpose. They have to meet military performance requirements, not the ridgid safety requirements for commercial airplanes. The military wants safe airplanes, but they want airplanes that MUST be able to perform their mission. Military airplanes are, generally, a lot less safe than commercial airplanes. Please note we put (ACES) ejection seats in military airplanes that are not found in commercial airplanes. It's a matter of mission and system requirements. No one cares if a commercial airplane can perform acrobatics (tho' Test Pilot Tex Johnson did a barrel roll in a 707 prototype at Seafair one year...). What's important is that it be safe. You have no reason to be saying these things about the engineers at Boeing. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 05:58:34 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28918; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:54:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:54:54 -0700 Message-ID: <002101bfe036$d17932a0$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:53:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"mAnMa3.0.m37.TGAMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35875 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: How long have you worked in commecial aviation, Rick? If there was a conspiracy, I'd probably have to know about it. I can't go into Boeing's propriatary work, but belive me, they have considered alternatives to the "standard" two or four engines on the wings and an a conventional configuration. Things more unusual than what is being discussed here. They're not as safe. We flat out are not allowed to make a new airplane design that is less safe that what we made yesterday. If we know how to make a plane safer, it MUST be included in the latest model release. Please note the 737 Next Generation. It sort of looks like the 737-300, -400, -500, but everything about it is different. Steve Lajoie I don't speak for the Boeing Company. I speak as an independent engineer with 15 years experience in commercial aviation. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Monteverde To: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 4:40 AM Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > At 2:06 AM -0400 6/27/00, Michael T Huffman wrote: > > >Read the entire > >website. > > Oh sure he will, real soon now. Right after he looks up the word > "conspiracies"! > > ;) > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 06:51:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA13198; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:47:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:47:47 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627094738.007a19e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:47:38 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Piantelli papers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"OljHb.0.8E3.32BMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35876 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I believe I sent out the Piantelli papers to everyone who asked. I sent one in a single file to Tom Stolper, which he says he can read. If anyone asked but did not get one, please ask again. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 06:52:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA13358; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:48:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:48:09 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627094756.007a4340 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:47:56 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Test of electric bicycle range Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"kPSuv.0.eG3.O2BMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35877 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I made two tests of the Lafree electric bicycle maximum range starting with a full battery. The first was on a level track moving about as rapidly as the motor allows. The second was in residential suburban roads with gentle hills and not many stop signs. In both cases, the range slightly exceeded the manufacturer's specification of 20 miles (32 km). The tests took about an hour and a half each. They did not take much effort. I felt about as tired as I would be from a 2 hour hike, and much less hot and out of breath than I am from jogging 2.5 miles. Battery power does seem to fall off with 20% charge remaining. Average speed on the track fell from 17.8 to 16.4 mph. I was growing fatigued, so it is hard to know whether the fall-off was caused by me or the battery power, or both. The bicycle is equipped with an array of 5 LEDs which indicate battery charge remaining. Each light indicates about 20% of charge, or enough energy to go 4 miles. The lights seem to be remarkably accurate, but I recommend the use of an electronic odometer as well, to avoid accidentally running out of power miles from home. The bicycle is rather heavy to pedal uphill without power. Attached is the spreadsheet data from the two runs. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bicycle test - test of range of Lafree electric bicycle with fully charged battery Data collected with Sigma Sport BC 600 speedometer/odometer, which has the following registers: MPH Speed in miles per hour TRP Trip odometer; elapsed distance in miles STP Stopwatch, elapsed time in motion; automatically actuated by wheel movement MAX Max speed in miles per hour DST Odometer, total miles since master reset CLK Clock, time of day Odometer was tested by making four laps on inside track of a quarter-mile track, and 2 laps on 2.5 mile course in neighborhood measured with automobile odometer. Other data recorded LED Array of 5 red LED array indicating remaining battery charge. When battery charge runs out, audible alarm is triggered and motor turns off. Each LED indicates about 20% capacity, or enough energy to go 4 miles TEST 1 Track at Marist high school 6/23/2000 STP TRP as CLK H M S TRP LED % total distance 06:35 AM 0 00 00 0.00 100% 0% 06:55 AM 0 15 41 4.45 80% 21% 07:11 AM 0 28 58 8.26 60% 39% 07:27 AM 0 43 19 12.59 40% 59% 07:44 AM 0 58 11 16.88 20% 79% 08:02 AM 1 14 28 21.42 0% 100% NOTES Battery fully charged 6/22/00. Motor not turned on until bicycle on track Start at 6:36 AM. Temperature 20 deg C End at 8:02 AM, 1 hour 24 minute later. Temperature 25 deg C Elapsed real time: 84 minutes Elapsed time in motion: 74 minutes 10 minutes taking data, resting MAX: 19.0 mph DST: 30 miles Average speed real time 15.30 mph Average speed in motion 17.37 mph TEST 2 Residential suburban roads, Sunday morning no traffic. Gentle hills, few stop signs 6/25/2000 STP TRP as CLK H M S TRP LED % total distance N/A 0 00 00 0.00 100% 0% - - - - 4.09 80% 20% 08:47 AM 0 36 38 7.77 60% 38% - - - - 12.64 40% 62% - 1 11 49 16.54 20% 81% 09:59 AM 1 37 00 20.39 0% 100% NOTES Battery fully charged on 6/24/00, and 2.74 miles run that day. 5 miles run on 6/25/00, 7:30 AM in two laps around neighborhood, followed by equipment check. Major nonstop test began 8:47 AM, with 60% battery charge remaining. Total distance: 12.62 miles. Nonstop test end at 9:59 AM, 1 hour 12 minutes later, when battery ran out about a half mile from home. Sigma Sport speedometer removed at 9:59, bicycle pedaled home without power. LED readings not exact; cannot check LED display frequently while riding on road. Not able to note all registers at each LED change. Elapsed real time nonstop test: 72 minutes Elapsed time in motion nonstop test: 60 minutes 12 minutes taking data, resting, getting lost MAX: 25.9 mph DST: 56 Average speed real time 10.52 mph, during non-stop test Average speed in motion 12.62 mph, during non-stop test From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 07:00:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA17309; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:54:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:54:45 -0700 Message-Id: <200006271407.JAA02412 cablecom.pearlriver.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:59:28 CST From: John N Reply-to: John N To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3) Subject: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"CSqU71.0.1E4.T8BMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35879 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 06/21/2000 9:00:19 PM, Ed Storms wrote: << According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not << react with oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino << concentrations in the gas would build up and cause the pressure in the <>energy is being produced. >> >In 1997, Mills found that the hydrinos were making chemicals in his cells >rather than hydrino gas. Hydrino chemicals are now the number one or number >two priority at BLP judging by the material on the BLP website. Hydrino >chemicals have a very high binding energy, and many other unusual features >that have been established by a variety of well-known analytical techniques. >Tom Stolper> That's the important one for CF. If you couple the spectacular results from Italy, Mills abnormal bond in e.g. K-H, and the Isobe abnormal energy release in the compound Pd-D, where the only potentially abnormal structure in it is a Pd-D site, then there is a purely experimentally based logic suggestion (mechanism) as to how to sequence the atoms within a Pd+D2 sample such that repeatability will occur. John N From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 07:00:56 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA17286; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:54:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:54:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200006271407.JAA02409 cablecom.pearlriver.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:59:24 CST From: John N Reply-to: John N To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3) Subject: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Resent-Message-ID: <"gDPVo1.0.uD4.T8BMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35878 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Excerpts from Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > >I see your point although no one considers the Mills theory a part of "cold > >fusion". ES >I suggest that hydrinos may exist, but they do not necessarily have to cause >nuclear reactions. That is the assumption I was referring to. ES They necessarily must cause an observable abnormal bond - which can be explained as 'two positive charges where one should be'. (1) Y. Isobe, (14) is doing a physics probe of a Mills abnormal bond regardless of how he describes it. He is also excited about his results and is about 10 years behind Mills. Because Italy was quite spectacular, the only important experiment left for CF is reliability and newcomers are on the case. insert from different thread >> Jed Rothwell wrote about ICCF-8 >> (snip) (1) Y. Isobe, (14) >> ... a 3 KeV electron beam struck palladium and titanium deuterides >> targets, and charged particles and x-rays were detected. (1) >I do not see how (snip) conclusion follows. ES (referring to linking to JN's link to CF) end of insert What is the source/cause of the Isobe x-rays? If the source/cause is unknown, then the source is the abnormal Pd-D bond. If the Pd-D bond in Pd-D is a source of abnormal energy release, then it is also the lead suspect in PdCF with Pd + D2. Using the Mills experiment with K-H(Active), when we add I to get K-H-I, then the H, while still active, has no space where it can be active with other atoms. The presence of K and I (almost) close the H to activity. It is certainly blocked from an approach as the K and I are not blocked. Thus, in Pd injected with D2, any site Pd-D (however formed), where there exists abnormal bond conditions, such that it is capable of attracting and bonding to another atom - when it should not be able to do that - that bond will be completed and the path to the active site blocked by the presence of another D (Pd-D*-D, analogous to K-H*-I), unless the CF triggers on that initial approach. Pd-D + D --> can trigger. Pd + D2 --> Pd-D-D will not trigger without assistance. If Pd-D + D does not trigger, then it is blocked (Pd-D-D) as K - H - I is blocked. What is the source/cause of the Isobe x-rays? >> >> ***{No one? I do. Am I not a person? :-) Seriously, I am very aware that >> Mills has taken steps to distance himself from "cold fusion," for rather >> obvious reasons. However, if you look closely at his theory, the connection >> is rather obvious: the maximally shrunken hydrinos would be virtually >> electrically neutral, due to the close proximity between their positive and >> negative charges, and, as a result, would behave very much like >> protoneutrons--which means: if "hydrinos" exist, then they are capable of >> inducing "cold fusion." --MJ}*** The Mills abnormal bond obviously is connected to CF. Notice how excited Isobe was. He has a scent. However, ... If the hydrino were electrically neutral it would be incapable of forming a strong chemical bond in the Mills compounds. The name hydrino refers to a combination of nucleus - electron which, per se, does not necessarily exist at a location where an abnormal bond strength condition does exist. The effects do exist. The system 'hydrino' is conjecture, but no more conjecture than the QM orbitals. But no less either. The site, described as hydrino, is charged and highly chemically reactive. (Obviously, one can infer it is abnormally positively charged since it would not be highly reactive if almost neutral or negative.) You might also recall the hydrogen atom, consisting of proton and electron, particles which obey the rules 'likes repel and unlikes attract', is not nearly neutral but is a) highly reactive, i.e., charged, and b) disobeys the attraction/repulsion rules. If the hydrogen atom were dominated by either charge, it should repel a like system. That is, according to charge rules, hydrogen, not being electrically neutral, should repel a 'like' hydrogen. A slightly charged hydrogen atom would not be highly reactive. It is this epistemology of charge which is failing in CF. >That is an assumption not consistent with experimental observation. If > hydrinos were being made, some of the measured energy would result >from their formation. Only a small fraction of these hydrinos would produce >a nuclear reaction. >According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not react >with oxygen to form water. ES .... once a hydrino is formed, it is stable .... The Mills abnormal bond only exists 'onsite'. If it is moved offsite, it will revert to original nature (abnormal bond --> hydrogen, deuterium). If you will provide a reference for the Mills 'stable' remark I will check it, but parsing may become necessary. K + H(normal) --> K-H(abnormal and active) K-H(abnormal) + Energy --> K + H(normal) A reaction in water is not important to PdCF. Also, mobility in water, detaching positive charges, would far more easily destroy Mills abnormal bonds there than elsewhere. The sample material is the catalyst for a Mills abnormal bond, i.e., Pd-D Pd-B(1S), Pd-Be(1S), Pd-Li(1S) If formed in a Pd sample, are all Mills abnormal bonds. If one can trigger CF, then all can trigger CF and the ions more strongly and quickly than D. Similarly for other elements. Mills displays work with lower z (compared to Pd) elements using hydrogen. Same thing works for higher z elements with deuterium. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 07:20:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA25492; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:18:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:18:53 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FC6 xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:13:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"MK2WM2.0.jD6.7VBMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35880 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: this has got to be a troll... Mitchell Jones must have seen the e-mail address on some of my posts, didn't like that I pointed out that he has some misconceptions about QM, and decided to try and get my goat. Very funny. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 09:50:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32145; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:47:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:47:02 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3958DAA1.3BF70B05 centurytel.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:47:29 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical References: <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20000622173805.97400.qmail hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f 4ax.com> <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000627174404.00959180@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" Resent-Message-ID: <"_xYEu2.0.9s7.5gDMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35882 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin wrote: Do you believe that SR is applicable in this case? John Winterflood wrote: Sorry, I don't know what "case" it is to which you refer. If FTL signalling can be shown to occur, then SR as physicists currently believe it, is proven wrong and must be discarded as a working theory ... Jack writes: If action at a distance is too hard to swallow, why not use gravitons for FTL signalling? With apologies to Scott -- (I always followed the party line on fields with my students, e.g. measuring the voltage at various places in an electric "field", but secretly I was a dissenter}, the Earth knows where the Sun is gravitationally about eight minutes before it can detect photons from the Sun. I don't think even gravitons are fast enough to explain how the executioner of Schroedinger's cat knows what to do at the instant an event occurs millions of light years away. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 09:50:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA31590; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:45:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:45:14 -0700 Message-ID: <3958D83C.A80ED06A ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:37:20 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ScLbZ3.0.Wj7.PeDMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35881 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 09:00 AM 6/19/2000 -0700, Ed wrote: > >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically > >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). > >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous > >nuclear activity. > > There is less evidence for the putative other reactions compared with > the cold fusion reactions. And many appear to be the result of fusion. > > Therefore, not all investigators agree with LENR, and less agree with > Ed's suggested CANR. > > Some researchers/theoreticians who briefly used LENR, are now > moving back to CF. Cold fusion seems to be a reasonable descriptive term. The term "cold fusion" is used only because it is simple, generally understood, and generic. However, those of us who want to make a more exact point use the other terms. People who wish to emphasize the nuclear process, generally physicists, use LENR while the very few people who are focusing on the unique chemical environment are better served by using CANR. I suggest that the failure to truly understand the chemical environment, or to even acknowledge the correct environment has set the field on the wrong tract for many years. Failure to use CANR, as Mitchell notes, shows this lack of concern for the environment required to make the nuclear reactions happen. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 11:15:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23915; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3958E7FD.EE721C2B ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:44:38 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <394E9E98.E31FCE54 ix.netcom.com> <001b01bfda4b$4bb94a60$0601a8c0 federation> <4.3.1.0.20000620084444.00b1b218@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"chTWu1.0.Zr5.8SEMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35883 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 05:53 PM 6/19/2000 -0700, Edmund Storms wrote: > >A shrunken hydrogen is not essential but it does explain a few observations. > > Could you state them, as you see it, thanks? > .1. A shrunken hydrogen is one of several plausible explanations for how the Coulomb barrier can be overcome. 2. A shrunken hydrogen is consistent with the reported results of Dufour. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 14:28:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA19293; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:13:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:13:54 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002101bfe036$d17932a0$0601a8c0 federation> References: <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> <002101bfe036$d17932a0$0601a8c0 federation> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:13:23 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"Uy_CF3.0.Ij4.GaHMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35884 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve - > If there was a conspiracy, I'd probably have to know about it. You do now! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 16:30:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23731; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:56:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"-J0mQ3.0.ho5.EKJMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35885 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is getting absurd. I am not part of some grand conspiracy involving FDR and Eisenhower or whomever else. If I don't think something is safe, I whine alot and try and stop it. Is there anyone here who DOESN'T believe everything they read at face value? Stop and think about it. How many people would have to be involved to pull this off? And you people think I'm one of them? A fascist! I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone out there with half a brain. Seems sci.physics.fusion is full of damaged self esteme people who get their jollies mindlessly reciting 10 year old party line. You get data saying otherwise and they dismiss it as "error" because it conflicts with party line. Now, Vortex-l, every odd thing is accepted without question. Evidence that things are exactly as predicted is not wanted. Logic and math are held in contempt. Science? Bah! You guys don't need science! It makes for far too boring a world! Please tell me, I'm morbidly curious. Why, exactly, do you think I am part of this conspiracy? What do I get out of it by having airplanes that are designed the way they are instead of this other guy's wing like design? How did they get 15,000 engineers to buy into it, too? > ---------- > From: Rick Monteverde[SMTP:rick highsurf.com] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:13 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > > Steve - > > > If there was a conspiracy, I'd probably have to know about it. > > You do now! > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 17:54:28 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17141; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:53:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:53:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:50:59 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed In-reply-to: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCB xch-evt-10.ca.boe ing.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <200006280045.RAA29550 smtp.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mIkfR.0.lB4.znKMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35886 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:56 PM 6/27/2000 -0700, Steve LaJoie wrote: >This is getting absurd. I am not part of some grand conspiracy..... I totally agree with you Steve. There is no grand conspiracy. > And you people think I'm one of them? A fascist! Haven't you figured out yet that Mitchell pretty much considers everyone in education or the government or any government funded program a fascist out to brainwash everyone and rob them of their freedoms etc. etc. ad nauseum? > >I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone out there with half a brain. Seems >sci.physics.fusion is full of damaged self esteme people who get their jollies >mindlessly reciting 10 year old party line. You get data saying otherwise and >they dismiss it as "error" because it conflicts with party line. That's "esteem", and why would you think there is any more "party line" type of conspiracy than there is the "airplane design" conspiracy. They are equally bogus. >Now, Vortex-l, every odd thing is accepted without question. Evidence that things >are exactly as predicted is not wanted. Logic and math are held in contempt. >Science? Bah! You guys don't need science! It makes for far too boring a world! Certainly true for some of the posters to this group, but I don't think for all of them. You may find it difficult to believe but I have actually enjoyed some of your posts on this group taking on that crowd. > >Please tell me, I'm morbidly curious. Why, exactly, do you think I am >part of this conspiracy? I don't. > What do I get out of it by having airplanes that >are designed the way they are instead of this other guy's wing like design? Nothing. >How did they get 15,000 engineers to buy into it, too? They didn't. Its bogus. It reminds me a bit of the OJ Simpson criminal trial. They managed to sell that jury just that kind of grand conspiracy to frame OJ. Its sad that so many people buy into that kind of reasoning. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 18:27:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31369; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:23:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:23:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:23:05 -0400 Message-Id: <200006280123.VAA15925 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"BZ6hl.0.wf7.1ELMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35887 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve writes: >Now, Vortex-l, every odd thing is accepted without question. Evidence that things >are exactly as predicted is not wanted. Logic and math are held in contempt. >Science? Bah! You guys don't need science! It makes for far too boring a world! Steve, if you had read the website you would know that the design was tested and proven to be safer. Prototypes were built, flown, and tested The test results were backed up by some of the top people in the aviation industry and the military. The fact that the military has used the design in numerous planes from fighters to bombers, is a pretty good indication of the design's merits. The fighter planes are built not only to fly under stress far exceeding the demands of a commercial plane, they are also designed to withstand and perform even after being hit with enemy fire (or friendly fire, whatever). Do they design commercial craft with that in mind? No, because they don't have to. Do you think that they load nuclear bombs into anything less than the safest planes? I certainly would hope not. Why don't they use that design for commercial craft? NASA chose the lifting body design for the most demanding application they encountered, the space shuttle. That design is capable of withstanding the wrenching that it gets upon re-entry to the earth's atmosphere. They chose this design as a result of their extensive testing of the design. As the website pointed out, NASA renamed the design, and gave credit for the idea to someone within NASA. The NASA test data, along with the the military craft test data are classified, as is pointed out on the website, but given the high profile and dangerous nature of the missions of these craft, I would say that they chose the lifting body design because it was considered to be the best by our top scientists and aviation experts. >Please tell me, I'm morbidly curious. Why, exactly, do you think I am >part of this conspiracy? What do I get out of it by having airplanes that >are designed the way they are instead of this other guy's wing like design? You benefit financially by repeating what the Boeing management has told you about the safety of their planes. You take home a very nice, regular paycheck, and you get company stock options. You know and have probably seen what happens to whistleblowers. I lived in Seattle for ten years Steve, and you would be quite surprised at who I know in Boeing and their "family" of preferred suppliers, financiers, law firms, major contractors and end customers. I won't name any names, but the circle that I ran around with included people that had day to day contact with Boeing's senior management, including the CEO's, and enjoyed close, personal relationships with heads of state, including our own. And of course, I knew a lot of their line workers, engineers like yourself, and temps, as well. I crewed a boat that tested one of their experimental radar systems at one point. Seattle is a corporate Democrat town, and before Microsoft became large, Boeing was THE corporation there. I watched their corporate propaganda on the local PBS station, and compared notes with people involved. I read the papers, and knew of the internal problems that Boeing has had and continues to have. I saw the preferencial tax breaks given to Boeing by the local politicians over the protests of the majority. I also have a brother that works for United, Boeing's largest commercial customer. >How did they get 15,000 engineers to buy into it, too? Like I said, they are paid well, given other financial incentives and management regularly boosts morale by telling them what a great job they are doing. It works quite well. The tests that are performed are sometimes rigged to produce a certain result, or the results are outright falsified to get contracts or for some other financial reason. The "smart" engineers do their jobs, keep their mouths shut and let the management take the heat for any mistakes. They have been caught doing this on a number of occasions. The mountain of paperwork that accompany each plane is a monument of legal certifications, and disclaimers that is crafted by an army of lawyers and regulators specifically to limit liability. A classic example of government working with industry for the benefit of both. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 20:35:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA09534; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:32:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:32:40 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:32:31 -0400 Message-Id: <200006280332.XAA01044 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Test of electric bicycle range Resent-Message-ID: <"Z_Yhf2.0.pK2.L7NMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35888 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nice report, Jed. Hope you are not wearing yourself out with all this. I ran across an article about Manhattan Scientific's "Hydrocyle", a fuel cell powered bike that I thought you would be interested in. It is about midway down this URL: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2000/2000L-06-23-09.html They estimate that there will be over a billion electric bikes in Asia by the year 2020. I wonder when Huffy will get into gear with this? Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 20:55:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA18383; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:53:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:53:46 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics "Quantum Mechanical Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:53:08 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20000622173805.97400.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623143324.00a6b950@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <20ablsom5tgjq7brc8sfbqm6gaf50kse2f@4ax. com> <3.0.6.32.20000626073755.00a82dc0 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000627174404.00959180@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000627174404.00959180 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id UAA18365 Resent-Message-ID: <"CCHaB1.0.9V4.9RNMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35890 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to John Winterflood's message of Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:44:04 +0800: >Robin wrote: >>>This is the consequence of FTL signalling in special relativity >>>- it violates causality in (some) frames which are moving at >>>high speed with respect to it. >> >>Do you believe that SR is applicable in this case? > >Sorry, I don't know what "case" it is to which you refer. >If FTL signalling can be shown to occur, then SR as >physicists currently believe it, is proven wrong and >must be discarded as a working theory. Time and space >become absolute and simultanety is restored. A preferred >(absolute) reference frame must exist and should be found >and used in all future work. Time dilation and length >contraction (Lorentz transformations) will remain but >will have an alternative explanation. I think that pretty much covers it. Thanks John. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 20:57:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA05273; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:43:50 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <200006271407.JAA02412 cablecom.pearlriver.net> In-Reply-To: <200006271407.JAA02412 cablecom.pearlriver.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id UAA05169 Resent-Message-ID: <"LGo1t1.0.DI1.sINMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35889 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to John N's message of Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:59:28 CST: [snip] > If you couple the spectacular results from Italy, Mills abnormal bond in >e.g. K-H, and the Isobe abnormal energy release in the compound Pd-D, >where the only potentially abnormal structure in it is a Pd-D site, then there >is a purely experimentally based logic suggestion (mechanism) as to how >to sequence the atoms within a Pd+D2 sample such that repeatability will >occur. Could you elaborate on this perhaps? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk It's no good telling people to stop doing whatever they do to earn a living...you have to show them a better way. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 27 23:07:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA22950; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:05:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:05:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006280123.VAA15925 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:04:03 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Resent-Message-ID: <"MCWMM1.0.Vc5.hMPMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35891 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Steve Lajoie: Rather than reply individually to your various messages on this topic, I am going to address the thrust of your comments, as follows: (1) Concerning your repeated suggestions that by using the word "fascist," I was calling each and every engineer employed in the aviation industry and, specifically, you, a fascist: that is obviously not the case. Fascism is an economic system characterized by a political impasse between the proponents and the opponents of private property. Such a system is a mixture of free markets and socialist controls, and provides businessmen who have political connections with opportunities to "work" the system in ways that squelch their competition. Result: under fascism, the upper reaches of the economy--i.e., very large companies in mature industries--become cartelized. A cartel is a group of businesses run by politically connected insiders, who use their political connections and knowledge of the nooks and crannies of the regulatory system to snuff out competitors whom they do not think they can defeat via merit alone. I consider the present aviation industry not merely in America, but worldwide, to be an instance of such a cartel, which is "fascist" in the sense described above. By use of that term, therefore, I was merely focusing on the economic preconditions that are necessary to the existence of such cartels, rather than attaching a "fascist" label to anyone in particular. I would add that, in general, it is a good idea to not go out of one's way to take offense, as you have done here. Nothing discourages substantive discussion more than the practice of resolving ambiguities by assuming the worst. The proper procedure is to cultivate a sense of humor, and, if there exists ambiguity in another person's remarks, to assume the best rather than the worst. And if it is a close call, then it is still better to ask than to assume. (2) In all of your deprecatory comments about the aircrash website, I did not find a single substantive criticism of their arguments. Here is a list of the things that you did not deny: (a) You did not deny that the Burnelli lifting body design has more lift than conventional aircraft with the same payload. (b) You did not deny that the Burnelli design has a lower stall speed, and, thus, a lower landing speed, than a conventional aircraft with the same payload. (c) You did not deny that the Burnelli design is structurally stronger than conventional aircraft with the same payload. (d) You did not deny that the placement of fuel tanks in the Burnelli design is safer than in conventional aircraft with the same payload. (e) You did not deny that the Burnelli design is currently in use in high performance military aircraft and by NASA, where manufacturers are protected from the need to pay royalties to Burnelli by the "save harmless" clause. And on, and on, and on. Bottom line: you did not deny a single substantive statement made on the aircrash website. All you did was rail on and on about global conspiracies that were never alleged, about insults that were never hurled, and about the supposed sucker's mentality on this group--which consists, apparently, of a willingness to consider theories that you do not agree with. --Mitchell Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 01:30:05 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA18302; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:26:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:26:23 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01bfe0e2$a4eeb000$4c441d26 fjsparber> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: "John N" Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:23:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"5OFOI3.0.qT4.jQRMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35892 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To Vortex: I think it was John N that mentioned that bombardment of Pd-D with 3 KeV electrons produced x-rays and He4? When a primary beam of electrons is stopped in a material, the QED pair production criteria that a photon or particle pair (LL +/-) production with energy dE = hbar/dt is met. Subsequently the negative particle (LL-)can "couple" to a Deuteron trapped in the material lattice to form a Neutral Entity D*, and thus effect QM Tunneling and a fusion reaction: D* + D ---> He4 + LL- + ~ 24 Mev energy The LL- can then go on to effect further reactions until it eventually annihilates with the LL+. This would explain the "Heat After Death" phenomenon seen in CF experiments. This scenario suggests that Pd treated by electron bombardment prior to Deuterium loading might give more consistent ou results. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 03:19:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA03563; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:18:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:18:38 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:17:58 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"FGaWu3.0.bt.-3TMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35893 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve - At 2:56 PM -0700 6/27/00, LaJoie, Stephen A wrote: >Why, exactly, do you think I am >part of this conspiracy? Well I for one don't know that you are. Anyway, "were" would be more correct. Were you there back then? Were you presented with this design back then and participate in shelving it without testing? No? Well then you aren't (or weren't) part of it. Who said you were? Why do you protest so much? Sheesh. And who here holds logic and math in contempt? (Ok, there is one, and I have him on filter, but otherwise?) I think you're getting some of this stuff wrong, pushing it a little farther than what people (like me) have actually written. When I or others have written something to you and you've duplicated it back more or less in a reply, it's been changed a bit in some fundamental way. That's bad communication, and it causes problems. The logic and math thing is a case in point. I sense that you can do better. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 04:45:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA24152; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:44:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:44:01 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Conversation <200006270606.CAA31012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> with last message Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Mike Connolly" Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: (No, or invalid, date.) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8z6xg2.0.Dv5.1KUMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35894 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nikola: Conspiracy? We don't need no stinking conspiracy! Trust me. I am only here to help. G. Westinghouse cc: T. A. Edison ---------- What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. > Steve - > > > If there was a conspiracy, I'd probably have to know about it. > > You do now! > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 05:08:49 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA28280; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:07:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:07:28 -0700 Message-ID: <058a01bfe0f8$97f21840$b18080d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCB xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:01:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"EWScB2.0.ov6.0gUMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35895 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" > Is there anyone here who DOESN'T believe everything they read at face value? Government Oversight Indeed! Could you comment on the following links please: >From what I recall as soon as this problem was indentified - most military aircraft were grounded until repaired and even Air Force One had this replaced - yet the sheep - oops I meant civilians were left out in the cold. It if is good enough for the president - it should be good enough for the taxpayers. When performed properly, oversight makes government operate within proper limits by recognizing that the federal government exists to serve the American people, not rule them. It ensures that government spends tax dollars prudently and protects the rights of citizens. http://www.pogo.org/mici/products/wiring_sum.html Faulty wiring is a prime suspect in the explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. That aircraft had a type of wire, Poly-X, that the military partially replaced on Navy F-14 aircraft due to cracking.The aircraft also had another type of wire, extruded Teflon, going into the fuel tanks. The manufacturer had discovered cracks in this type of wire over a twelve year period. http://www.pogo.org/mici/wiringblock.htm A former wiring expert for the Defense Department has been raising the issue of inadequate and dangerous aircraft wiring for two decades. If the government had listened to him years ago, it might not have had to play catch-up now with the emergency grounding of older Boeing 737s because of frayed wires. > Stop and think about it. How many people would have to be involved to pull this > off? "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -=[ the wise monkeys ]= .-"-. .-"-. .-"-. .-"-. _/_-.-_\_ /.-.-.\ _/.-.-.\_ _/.-.-.\_ / __} {__ \ /|( o o )|\ ( ( o o ) ) ( ( o o ) ) / / / " \ \ \ | / / " \ \ | | / " \ | |/ " \| / / \'---'/ \ \ / / \'---'/ \ \ \ '/^\'/ \ .-. / \ \_/`"""`\_/ / \ \_/`"""`\_/ / / `\ /` \ /`"""`\ \ / \ / / /|\ \ / \ see no evil-hear no evil-speak no evil-have no fun A link to what americans consider important to know: http://sun00781.dn.net/sgp/isoo/survres.html Yet here is the biggest wasters of your tax dollars: http://freedom.gov/wastewatch/wasteometer.asp Who watches the watchers? http://www.pogo.org/oil/harassment.htm How Martin Marietta is beating whistleblowers: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3486/wbg1.html Whistleblowers in the News http://www.whistleblower.org/www/wbnews.htm > I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone out there with half a brain. I question this too - stupidity and waste seems to abound! "A penny saved is a government oversight" :-) There are valid concerns out there however: Public Service - Personal Gain http://63.72.70.130/cpint/cgi-bin/50states/findings.asp > Science? Bah! You guys don't need science! It makes for far too boring a world! "When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge." - A. Einstein From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 07:05:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03063; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:03:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:03:27 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCC xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:58:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"dq_H-3.0.nl.lMWMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35896 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't speak for the Boeing Company. I speak for myself. Make that clear! Don't even THINK that the Boeing Company and I agree on anything. If we do, it's just a fantastic coincidence. If you want to know what Boeing thinks, ask Boeing. > ---------- > From: knuke LCIA.COM[SMTP:knuke@LCIA.COM] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 6:23 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > > Steve writes: > > >Now, Vortex-l, every odd thing is accepted without question. Evidence that > things > >are exactly as predicted is not wanted. Logic and math are held in contempt. > >Science? Bah! You guys don't need science! It makes for far too boring a world! > > Steve, if you had read the website you would know that the design was tested > and proven to be safer. Prototypes were built, flown, and tested The test > results were backed up by some of the top people in the aviation industry > and the military. > 1) There is a difference between a performance design and a commerical FAA approved design. A typical mil spec fighter couldn't be certified as an FAA civil transport aircraft. It is not SAFE enough. 2) Fighters and transport airplanes have 2 very different missions. Civil transports are not designed to survive battle damage, nor are they designed to take unusual stresses. Two different missions means the designs are VERY different. There is NOTHING sinister about that. 3) To certify a civil transport to FAA, CAA and JAA standards, you have to a great deal more than build, fly and test prototypes. > The fact that the military has used the design in > numerous planes from fighters to bombers, is a pretty good indication of the > design's merits. > Again, the military is interested in a completely different mission, and have maximized saftey to include acutal combat use. Do you see the difference? To be able to dodge SAM missiles is a different kind of safty than repeated commercial trips. > The fighter planes are built not only to fly under stress > far exceeding the demands of a commercial plane, they are also designed to > withstand and perform even after being hit with enemy fire (or friendly > fire, whatever). Do they design commercial craft with that in mind? No, > because they don't have to. > Not only do they not have to, it's an absurd requirement that would have a net result that the plane is LESS safe to fly for its intended civil mission. > Do you think that they load nuclear bombs into > anything less than the safest planes? I certainly would hope not. > :-) Well, there you are. You hope in vain. Boeing commercial airplanes are the safest thing out there, and as far as I know, they are not used to carry bombs or have been modified to be bombers. > Why don't they use that design for commercial craft? > Because for a commercial mission, it isn't as safe. > NASA chose the lifting body design for the most demanding application they > encountered, the space shuttle. That design is capable of withstanding the > wrenching that it gets upon re-entry to the earth's atmosphere. > I think this is well known that the proposed Oriental Express looks like your lifting body. Like I said, the design is optimised for the mission. This design you advocate is not a "one design fits all missions" sort of thing. > They chose > this design as a result of their extensive testing of the design. > So, you are wondering why a space shuttle doesn't look like a airplane? > As the > website pointed out, NASA renamed the design, and gave credit for the idea > to someone within NASA. The NASA test data, along with the the military > craft test data are classified, as is pointed out on the website, but given > the high profile and dangerous nature of the missions of these craft, I> > would say that they chose the lifting body design because it was considered > to be the best by our top scientists and aviation experts. > > >Please tell me, I'm morbidly curious. Why, exactly, do you think I am > >part of this conspiracy? What do I get out of it by having airplanes that > >are designed the way they are instead of this other guy's wing like design? > > You benefit financially by repeating what the Boeing management has told you > about the safety of their planes. You take home a very nice, regular > paycheck, and you get company stock options. You know and have probably > seen what happens to whistleblowers. > Actually, we recently went on strike because we are underpaid by 20%, and attrition post strike is running around 21%/year. If you want to work on airplanes, you end up paying for the privilage. And it's not "what Boeing Management" tells us. We tell THEM when the airplane is safe. There's a system here called the Designated Engineering Representative", or DER system, where experienced engineers deemed experts in their assigned systems represent the FAA. If they don't find something safe, the can put a "DER HOLD" on the airplanes in question and STOP certification and delivery. Every 8110 has to be signed off for every system by the DERs or the airplane DOESN'T go. And as the strike has shown, no DERs, no deliveries. WE engineers tell management when the airplane is safe, not the other way around. As for "whistleblowers", I've seen what happens when a DER puts a hold on the airplane. Lots of questions are asked, and sometimes heat is put on the DER, but the fact is, they NEVER do anything against them. The DERs and the FAA wouldn't permit it. So your whole theory is based on misconceptions. > I lived in Seattle for ten years Steve, and you would be quite surprised at > who I know in Boeing and their "family" of preferred suppliers, financiers, > law firms, major contractors and end customers. > HELLO! I am an ENGINEER at Boeing. You haven't even come close to describing the situation here. It is a FACT we build the safest airplanes out there. > I won't name any names, but > the circle that I ran around with included people that had day to day > contact with Boeing's senior management, including the CEO's, and enjoyed > close, personal relationships with heads of state, including our own. And > of course, I knew a lot of their line workers, engineers like yourself, and > temps, as well. I crewed a boat that tested one of their experimental radar > systems at one point. > I give up. We're talking lost cause here. You've got un-named experts in your pocket, including the CEO of Boeing, apparently, and Bill Clinton, that you say support you in your claim of a conspiracy. What did they do? Confess to you? I don't think so. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 07:32:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14895; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:31:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:31:03 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCD xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:24:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"5S_zp.0.fe3.dmWMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35897 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't speak for the Boeing Company. I speak for myself. Make that clear! Don't even THINK that the Boeing Company and I agree on anything. If we do, it's just a fantastic coincidence. If you want to know what Boeing thinks, ask Boeing > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:04 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > > To Steve Lajoie: > > Rather than reply individually to your various messages on this topic, I am > going to address the thrust of your comments, as follows: > [snip argument that the economic sense of fascist was meant, and the word not intended to imply the goose stepping evil of the 1930's and 40's} Yeah right. That was a silly argument. You knew what you meant and why you used that word. > I would add that, in general, it is a good idea to not go out of one's way > to take offense, as you have done here. Nothing discourages substantive > discussion more than the practice of resolving ambiguities by assuming the > worst. > It's a better practice NOT to call people or organizations "fascist" when you know very well they are not. > (2) In all of your deprecatory comments about the aircrash website, I did > not find a single substantive criticism of their arguments. Here is a list > of the things that you did not deny: > > (a) You did not deny that the Burnelli lifting body design has more lift > than conventional aircraft with the same payload. > So? Is it more stable? What are it's stall characteristics? Stall recovery? How does it do in icy conditions? Are the engines susecptable to FOD damage? Can it meet evacuation requirements? Windshear performance data? Do you have all this? I didn't think so. > (b) You did not deny that the Burnelli design has a lower stall speed, and, > thus, a lower landing speed, than a conventional aircraft with the same > payload. > So? Is that the ONLY thing that involves safety? No, not by a long shot. > (c) You did not deny that the Burnelli design is structurally stronger than > conventional aircraft with the same payload. > Yeh, right... > (d) You did not deny that the placement of fuel tanks in the Burnelli > design is safer than in conventional aircraft with the same payload. > So, you formed your opinion on data you don't have? > (e) You did not deny that the Burnelli design is currently in use in high > performance military aircraft and by NASA, where manufacturers are > protected from the need to pay royalties to Burnelli by the "save harmless" > clause. > Actually, I said the website was a crock. And I pointed out that different aircraft missions result in different aircraft designs, and that little fact seems to escape you entirely. > And on, and on, and on. > > Bottom line: you did not deny a single substantive statement made on the > aircrash website. All you did was rail on and on about global conspiracies > that were never alleged, > ?!? Read your website! It's a riot. We have all DoD/War Department chairmen since 121, the NTSB chairman since the department was created, NASA directors, the Flight Safety Foundation, the International Airline Passenger Association (criminy! Get a clue!), The Smithsonian, ICAO, all "willfully kills people every year by doing everything in its power to suppress a design now over 78 years old that could save people's lives," Get a clue! The website is totally non-believable. The reason given mentions banks, but not a word about how the banks benefit. In my opinion, this is all a bunch of wacko garbage. Just my opinion, but the guy comes off like one of those anti-semitic or Illuminadi conspiracy nuts. > about insults that were never hurled, and about> > the supposed sucker's mentality on this group--which consists, apparently,> > of a willingness to consider theories that you do not agree with. > If you had an FAA certified airplane, built to FAR 25 and intended to operate to FAR 121, you might have an argument. Commercial airplanes are REQUIRED to document the design and every single system inside that design with the FAA. Tons of paperwork are generated. Like I said, the paper for the 777 weighed more than the airplane itself! It's been shown these airplanes are safe. It has been submitted and reviewed by our DERs and the FAA. Every claim is documented, and test results presented. All you got is a website. Instead of ragging on me because I don't reproduce tons of documentation on Vortex, why don't you just go get copies of what we submitted under the freedom of information act and see for yourself? Nah. Too much like using data. Besides, it's MUCH MORE FUN! to think in terms of grand conspiracies. You do know that the flying wing was Northrup's idea, right? You don't have to believe me, watch the History Channel's little blurb on the flying wing to find out its problems. Your website forgot to mention those! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 07:47:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA22708; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:44:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:44:59 -0700 Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCE xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:35:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"THAAU.0.hY5.gzWMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35898 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > ---------- > From: Lynn Kurtz[SMTP:kurtz imap2.asu.edu] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 5:50 PM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > > At 02:56 PM 6/27/2000 -0700, Steve LaJoie wrote: > > [snip my rude remarks made unwisely...] > That's "esteem", and why would you think there is any more "party line" > type of conspiracy than there is the "airplane design" conspiracy. They are > equally bogus. > I don't think there is a sci.physics.fusion "conspiracy" at all. There wasn't a conspiracy in New York's central park last week either. Simple fact of human behavior; they see one guy's bad behavior and how the crowd finds it acceptable, and next thing you know, they are all doing it. It is what cause's riots, assults in certain taverns, and so on. Same in s.p.f. Gang behavior. Wilding. One guy starts calling names and next thing you know others join in. Same thing as those guys with the water bottles ripping women's bra's off in central park last week. So, that is not a conspiracy. But it would take a conspiracy to get all those people mentioned on that website to do what the website accuses them of doing. Active, cool minded coordination. > >Now, Vortex-l, every odd thing is accepted without question. Evidence that > things > >are exactly as predicted is not wanted. Logic and math are held in contempt. > >Science? Bah! You guys don't need science! It makes for far too boring a > world! > > Certainly true for some of the posters to this group, but I don't think for > all of them. You may find it difficult to believe but I have actually > enjoyed some of your posts on this group taking on that crowd. > I thought I was suppose to "cram it up my a$$"? :-) What's changed? Do I now have a better a$$? > >Please tell me, I'm morbidly curious. Why, exactly, do you think I am > >part of this conspiracy? > > I don't. > > > What do I get out of it by having airplanes that > >are designed the way they are instead of this other guy's wing like design? > > Nothing. > > >How did they get 15,000 engineers to buy into it, too? > > They didn't. Its bogus. It reminds me a bit of the OJ Simpson criminal > trial. They managed to sell that jury just that kind of grand conspiracy to > frame OJ. Its sad that so many people buy into that kind of reasoning. > Thanks. > --Lynn > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 08:50:37 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16262; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:48:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:48:06 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000628114714.0079bc80 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:47:14 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Lifting body airplanes: an "Innovator's Dilemma"? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_EZd22.0.0-3.suXMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35899 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I do not believe for one second that there is a conspiracy to prevent the development of large, lifting body airplanes. The designs are not secret. They have been featured on the cover of Popular Science, and military fighter planes incorporate lifting body features. I have the utmost respect for people like Stephen LaJoie. I am sure he is correct in his assessment of the aviation industry, but on the other hand, he may be overlooking a obscure problem. C. M. Christensen recently wrote a book titled "The Innovator's Dilemma" (Harvard Bus. School Press, 1997). I reviewed it in I.E. This dilemma may be affecting the aviation industry, because the industry has some extreme characteristics. Airplanes must meet the highest possible standards. As LaJoie points out, by law each generation of airplanes must be as safe as the previous generation. Even a tiny design error might cause a terrible accident and huge liability. The marketplace is fairly homogeneous; there are no significant unexplored, radically different niche markets (such as flying cars or 2000 passenger Zeppelins). This combination of characteristics will leave the industry susceptible to the problems Christensen describes. No one is to blame for this; it follows from the nature of the industry, laws and customs. I cannot judge whether the lifting body design really does have the advantages described in the web page, but for the sake of argument let us suppose it does. Surely, it also has the disadvantages described by LaJoie. That would make it what Christensen calls a "disruptive" innovation, that is, one which in the first implementation is suboptimal in many ways, yet which has more potential than the mature, conventional technology. The first generation lifting body airplane might be less safe, or less cost efficient, or harder to control. However, for some applications, some customers might find its advantages outweigh these problems. If a manufacturer can find a large enough niche market, such as military fighter planes, it might be able to iron out the problems and gradually develop the disruptive technology until it can compete with the mainstream, established designs. Then, after a while, the disruptive version may push the established design out of the market completely. Christensen gives many examples of this; I'll mention only one, which is probably familiar to most readers, copped from my review: In 1981, Seagate introduced the 5.25-inch Winchester hard disk drive. . . . [They were] less efficient, slower, and they cost more per megabyte. In 1981 the existing customers for hard disks were minicomputer manufacturers. They wanted more megabytes per dollar, more speed. . . . People in the emerging desktop computer market, on the other hand, wanted a low unit-cost, compact, lightweight drive. They were willing to sacrifice speed and cost per megabyte for these advantages. If Seagate had pursued customers in the minicomputer market, it would have swiftly gone out of business. The 5.25-inch drives improved more rapidly than the 8-inch drives, because they were based on simpler technology. By 1987 the capacity of the 5.25-inch drives met demand in the minicomputer market, although 8-inch drives were still faster and had higher capacity. Eight inch drives had gone beyond the needs of the market, and they had not improved or fallen in price as rapidly as the small drives, so they become obsolete. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 09:30:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA12916; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000628115539.0079c750 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:55:39 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Test of electric bicycle range In-Reply-To: <200006280332.XAA01044 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"0iT2V3.0.h93.jFYMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35900 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >Nice report, Jed. Hope you are not wearing yourself out with all this. Au contraire! Pedaling 20 miles on this bike is a piece of cake compared to my normal morning routine. I usually jog 2.5 miles, which can be pretty nasty in Atlanta, even early in the morning. >They estimate that there will be over a billion electric bikes in Asia by >the year 2020. I wonder when Huffy will get into gear with this? I heard that Huffy has an electric bicycle, but the person who saw it was no impressed by the quality. I have never been impressed by their stuff. By the way, I should have mentioned that Lafree is manufactured by Giant Bicycles of Taiwan. (http://www.giant-bicycles.com/aboutgiant/whatsnew.asp) They had $361 million in sales in 1999, and they claim they are one of the biggest bicycle makers in the world. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 09:49:16 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA05310; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:47:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:47:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:47:26 -0400 Message-Id: <200006281647.MAA00624 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Test of electric bicycle range Resent-Message-ID: <"C5tKE3.0.uI1.imYMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35901 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed writes: >Au contraire! Pedaling 20 miles on this bike is a piece of cake compared to >my normal morning routine. I usually jog 2.5 miles, which can be pretty >nasty in Atlanta, even early in the morning. Well, you are probably in better shape than I am at the moment. In Fort Wayne, I bicycled about 7 miles to work each day, and I did some 100 mile trips on weekends. It was relatively flat there. I bicycled about 1000 miles out of the Bavarian Alps in the direction of Amsterdam one summer, and had a great time. I must be slowing down because I pretty much just walk everywhere these days. >I heard that Huffy has an electric bicycle, but the person who saw it was >no impressed by the quality. I have never been impressed by their stuff. My Dad always bought us Huffy's when we were kids because Huffy was my Grandfather's nickname. I later learned that the company was started by a Huffman. They never built anything very innovative, sophisticated, or high performance, but they were always very heavy, strong, and reliable. The local hardware store here sells them, and they are evidently designed and built in China now. They still appear to be quite heavy and well built, but they have a very definite oriental style to them in the lines. The first time I got onto an expensive Fuji back in the mid 70's, I was hooked for years. I kept my car for almost a year before I realized that I never drove it anymore, and then sold it. I haven't owned one since. >By the way, I should have mentioned that Lafree is manufactured by Giant >Bicycles of Taiwan. (http://www.giant-bicycles.com/aboutgiant/whatsnew.asp) >They had $361 million in sales in 1999, and they claim they are one of the >biggest bicycle makers in the world. > >- Jed I never heard of them, but that is no surprise. I quit riding (and keeping up with the reading) when I left Europe and was given the choice of taking the bus or riding through the crazy traffic and up the steep hills of Seattle. I suppose that if I wanted to get a jump on the truly fringe and alternative transportation scene again, I should look into torsion powered pogosticks or something. Oingo Boingo! Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 10:50:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25808; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:46:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:46:38 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:47:39 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment Resent-Message-ID: <"1eg6c.0.6J6.wdZMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35902 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:23 AM 6/28/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: >To Vortex: > >I think it was John N that mentioned that bombardment of Pd-D with 3 KeV >electrons >produced x-rays and He4? > I think there is an alternative explanation for this effect showing up at 3 keV, an explanation which I posted some years ago. The reason is that, at a bit over 2 keV, the electron deBroglie wavelength begins to be smaller than the ground state electron's wavelength. This means the impinging electron gains momentum from the Coulomb well surrounding the D+ nucleus, regardless of the electron cloud about the D+ nucleus. It further means the D+ nucleus is momentarily bound and thus shielded by the impinging electron from the nucleus next in the line-of-flight of the electron-D+ pair. Therefore, the pair can be driven into the adjacent nucleus a sufficient distance to make tunneling feasible. Further, the electron cloud density between the two nuclei, late in the transaction, is increased to the point of more than just sheilding, but even accelerating the nuclei toward each other, especially the secondary nucleus toward the D+ nucleus. For the above reasons, secondary electrons from cosmic rays or impinging alphas, etc., can be expected to cause similar effects, which have also been observed. For similar reasons, a high current electron pulse device may be more efficient at generating inirtial confinement fusion than laser pulses. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 12:31:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21850; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <395A49B6.629A94B2 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:53:42 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4LfWY2.0.GL5.msaMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35903 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > > Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ Now you guys have gone and done it. You brought attention to this site and now it doesn't work. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 13:56:40 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31660; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:53:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:53:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:52:46 -0400 Message-Id: <200006282052.QAA04760 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Lifting body airplanes: an "Innovator's Dilemma"? Resent-Message-ID: <"aoBcg2.0.Xk7.lMcMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35904 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed, The website doesn't say that the design was kept secret or that there was a conspiracy to keep it from being used. What they are saying is that the government at that time took Burnelli's design, used it, and didn't pay him for it. They did this, according to the website, for political reasons. They also blocked his company's ability to go public when he applied, which denied him access to the open market for funding. What this implies is that Burnelli's competitors were able to manufacture his design for military and space use, and make a profit. They were not able to use or develop it for commercial purposes under the "save harmless" clause, and so they didn't. Aircraft development at that time for ALL designs were relatively primitive back then, as well as the regulatory process itself, but access to the market place, and public funds may well have given Burnelli the means to improve his design in the same manner that Boeing and others have improved theirs over the years. The end result, I believe, would have been a superior commercial aircraft. With all due respect to Steve LaJoie's position and dedication to safety, etc., I think that the issue is far too personal for him to argue in an objective fashion. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 14:41:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15781; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:36:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:36:56 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000628173644.007a8c60 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:36:44 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Lifting body airplanes: an "Innovator's Dilemma"? In-Reply-To: <200006282052.QAA04760 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"LOSc3.0.Ss3.t_cMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35905 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael T Huffman wrote: >The website doesn't say that the design was kept secret or that there was a >conspiracy to keep it from being used. What they are saying is that the >government at that time took Burnelli's design, used it, and didn't pay him >for it. They did this, according to the website, for political reasons. Yeah, I know that is what is says, but I do not buy it. I do not see why Boeing and the others would mind paying. Unless the inventor is crazy, patent royalties are usually a small percent of cost of production. If the design is significantly better, it would save huge amounts of money by preventing fatalities in crashes. The liability payments from one or two large crashes would probably exceed all the royalties they would ever pay. >They also blocked his company's ability to go public when he applied, which >denied him access to the open market for funding. Yeah, I saw that stuff. It isn't surprising. That's normal behavior in business, with any product. Corporations large and small play dirty tricks to screw up the competition or steal products instead of paying. A guy who invents a better airplane toilet will probably face the same dirty tricks. (I wish someone *would* invent a better toilet!) >What this implies is that Burnelli's competitors were able to manufacture >his design for military and space use, and make a profit. They were not >able to use or develop it for commercial purposes under the "save harmless" >clause, and so they didn't. That can't be the reason. For one thing, they would all have to pay royalties at the same rate, so it would affect the competition uniformly and everyone's base cost would go up. Why should they care? After screwing around and playing the usual dirty tricks to avoid coughing up the money, they would shrug their shoulders and pay. I expect the cost of developing this radically new design and the regulations would be a greater barrier than the royalties. >With all due respect to Steve LaJoie's position and dedication to safety, >etc., I think that the issue is far too personal for him to argue in an >objective fashion. Well . . . it usually takes an expert in the subject to make an in-depth judgment, and experts are always deeply involved and -- therefore -- biased to some degree. Same problem in CF. The only people you can really trust are the ones who have done electrochem for 30 years, and worked on this experiment for 5 years. Naturally, that means they have an emotional investment in the subject. Sometimes the experts are wrong, and an outsider can be more unbiased, but I doubt that is the case with these lifting body planes. But I do not know enough about it to judge. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 17:52:15 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA13863; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:51:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:51:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200006290050.UAA07080 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Voodoo Review in WP Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:52:02 -0400 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"UlAbB3.0.XO3.3sfMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35906 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Testing the Current By Charles Platt Washington post Book World Sunday, June 25, 2000; Page X05 VOODOO SCIENCE The Road From Foolishness to Fraud By Robert L. Park Oxford Univ. 230 pp. $25 For almost two decades, former physicist Robert Park has conducted a one-man search-and-destroy mission against inventors, scientists and pseudoscientists who make claims that he describes as "totally, indisputably, extravagantly wrong." As a Washington lobbyist and PR flack for the American Physical Society, Park is widely quoted whenever journalists need a rebuttal source who will scoff pithily at concepts such as magnetic healing or antigravity. He helped to establish a prestigious study panel that debunked Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative, and campaigned to discredit New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur, who warned of possible health hazards caused by electromagnetic radiation from power lines. These and other battles are retold in Park's new book, Voodoo Science, which denounces the culprits he has most loved to hate over the years. This book could have served a useful purpose. If public funds or private-investment capital really are being squandered by researchers who are self-deluded or even fraudulent, we need a thorough investigation. Alas, thoroughness is not Park's strong suit. His primary source of information, quoted repeatedly in many of his rants, is the nightly TV news. Nothing seems to enrage him more than the sight of some upstart inventor getting air time for results that don't make sense; and Park's anger permeates his rebuttals, which border on character assassination. He contemptuously dismisses scientist James Patterson, for example, as a "caricature of an inventor" purely because of his physical appearance. There's no mention of his claim to fame as codeveloper of the fundamental laboratory technique of gas chromatography or his past consultancy work for Dow Chemical, Fairchild Semiconductor, Lockheed and the Atomic Energy Commission. Nor does Park allow Patterson any chance to explain or defend his work. In fact, none of the targets in Voodoo Science is allowed to speak for himself, apparently because Park chose not to talk to any of them. This armchair journalism leads to some blunders. For instance, he mocks credentialed NASA scientists for investigating a gravity-shielding effect that he feels would violate a basic law of thermodynamics. If he had spoken to the researchers, they might have told him (as they told other journalists) why their theories entail no conflict with thermodynamics at all. Also, Park might have learned that the Russian emigre who prompted this work is not an obscure physicist (as he states) but a materials scientist claiming authorship of 30 papers and 10 patents. Park's failure to gather first-hand data is unfortunate, but his selective omissions are far more serious. In at least one case, he violates basic principles of journalism and science itself by apparently suppressing information that conflicts with his foregone conclusion. He dismisses the phenomenon of nuclear fusion at low temperatures as "no closer to being proven than it was the day it was announced," despite hundreds of papers, including many from scientists affiliated with respected universities, going far beyond the controversial claims that were made for "cold fusion" in 1989. Electrochemist Michael McKubre, at SRI International, confirms that he has submitted his papers to Park, who also attended a conference last year including presentations on this topic. Park chooses to mention none of this. Such tactics are reminiscent of the behavior of a zealous DA who is so convinced that a suspect is guilty that he feels entitled to withhold some information from the jury. Since Park also "convicts" his suspects almost entirely by paraphrasing them in his own words, Voodoo Science is not the fair trial we might have hoped for. This is unfortunate, because many of Park's targets have indeed made implausible claims, and may be guilty as charged. To be sure of this, however, we need a fairly argued refutation, not a perfunctory dismissal. The dividing line between valid data and artifacts is not always clear; the phenomenon of superconductivity, for instance, remained inexplicable for 42 years, as Park himself admits. Despite Park's absolute faith in his own judgment, any rush to judgment entails a risk of convicting innocent people, while search-and-destroy missions may tend to cause collateral damage. This is a serious matter, since even poorly documented vitriol can jeopardize a scientist's reputation and future funding if it is disseminated with the complicity of a respected organization such as the American Physical Society. Of course, so long as Park makes no mistakes, he may argue that his targets deserve their punishment. Still, his widely published attacks create a chilling effect that can discourage even legitimate scientists from discussing controversial work. This hardly seems consistent with the spirit of genuinely free inquiry that should energize science. Likewise, Park's reliance on second-hand data, his presentation of selective evidence and his refusal to quote his opponents are habits that seem unworthy of a scientist. ------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 18:28:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA24369; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:27:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:27:52 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <97.763ced7.268bfff3 aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:27:15 EDT Subject: Problem with pdf.zip files solved To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"O9Bk63.0.gy5.NOgMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35907 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: When Jed sent the three Piantelli papers as single files, one per attachment, they appeared after downloading with the PDF icon and opened in Acrobat Reader. Apparently the individual files were of manageable size and weren't compressed (zipped). Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 19:06:59 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06205; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:05:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:05:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:06:26 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files solved Resent-Message-ID: <"5XoOM2.0.pW1.JxgMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35908 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:27 PM 6/28/0, Tstolper aol.com wrote: >When Jed sent the three Piantelli papers as single files, one per attachment, >they appeared after downloading with the PDF icon and opened in Acrobat >Reader. Apparently the individual files were of manageable size and weren't >compressed (zipped). > >Tom Stolper The PDF format already includes it own compression, so there is no need to compress PDF files. They are already compressed. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 19:58:03 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA24218; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:56:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:56:58 -0700 Message-ID: <395ABC18.AC81571A ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:02:31 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: reviiew of Park's book Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Igx4q1.0.Kw5.whhMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35909 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is another opinion of Park's book and the approach such people take to science. Ed Storms Testing the Current By Charles Platt Washington post Book World Sunday, June 25, 2000; Page X05 VOODOO SCIENCE The Road From Foolishness to Fraud By Robert L. Park Oxford Univ. 230 pp. $25 For almost two decades, former physicist Robert Park has conducted a one-man search-and-destroy mission against inventors, scientists and pseudoscientists who make claims that he describes as "totally, indisputably, extravagantly wrong." As a Washington lobbyist and PR flack for the American Physical Society, Park is widely quoted whenever journalists need a rebuttal source who will scoff pithily at concepts such as magnetic healing or antigravity. He helped to establish a prestigious study panel that debunked Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative, and campaigned to discredit New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur, who warned of possible health hazards caused by electromagnetic radiation from power lines. These and other battles are retold in Park's new book, Voodoo Science, which denounces the culprits he has most loved to hate over the years. This book could have served a useful purpose. If public funds or private-investment capital really are being squandered by researchers who are self-deluded or even fraudulent, we need a thorough investigation. Alas, thoroughness is not Park's strong suit. His primary source of information, quoted repeatedly in many of his rants, is the nightly TV news. Nothing seems to enrage him more than the sight of some upstart inventor getting air time for results that don't make sense; and Park's anger permeates his rebuttals, which border on character assassination. He contemptuously dismisses scientist James Patterson, for example, as a "caricature of an inventor" purely because of his physical appearance. There's no mention of his claim to fame as codeveloper of the fundamental laboratory technique of gas chromatography or his past consultancy work for Dow Chemical, Fairchild Semiconductor, Lockheed and the Atomic Energy Commission. Nor does Park allow Patterson any chance to explain or defend his work. In fact, none of the targets in Voodoo Science is allowed to speak for himself, apparently because Park chose not to talk to any of them. This armchair journalism leads to some blunders. For instance, he mocks credentialed NASA scientists for investigating a gravity-shielding effect that he feels would violate a basic law of thermodynamics. If he had spoken to the researchers, they might have told him (as they told other journalists) why their theories entail no conflict with thermodynamics at all. Also, Park might have learned that the Russian emigre who prompted this work is not an obscure physicist (as he states) but a materials scientist claiming authorship of 30 papers and 10 patents. Park's failure to gather first-hand data is unfortunate, but his selective omissions are far more serious. In at least one case, he violates basic principles of journalism and science itself by apparently suppressing information that conflicts with his foregone conclusion. He dismisses the phenomenon of nuclear fusion at low temperatures as "no closer to being proven than it was the day it was announced," despite hundreds of papers, including many from scientists affiliated with respected universities, going far beyond the controversial claims that were made for "cold fusion" in 1989. Electrochemist Michael McKubre, at SRI International, confirms that he has submitted his papers to Park, who also attended a conference last year including presentations on this topic. Park chooses to mention none of this. Such tactics are reminiscent of the behavior of a zealous DA who is so convinced that a suspect is guilty that he feels entitled to withhold some information from the jury. Since Park also "convicts" his suspects almost entirely by paraphrasing them in his own words, Voodoo Science is not the fair trial we might have hoped for. This is unfortunate, because many of Park's targets have indeed made implausible claims, and may be guilty as charged. To be sure of this, however, we need a fairly argued refutation, not a perfunctory dismissal. The dividing line between valid data and artifacts is not always clear; the phenomenon of superconductivity, for instance, remained inexplicable for 42 years, as Park himself admits. Despite Park's absolute faith in his own judgment, any rush to judgment entails a risk of convicting innocent people, while search-and-destroy missions may tend to cause collateral damage. This is a serious matter, since even poorly documented vitriol can jeopardize a scientist's reputation and future funding if it is disseminated with the complicity of a respected organization such as the American Physical Society. Of course, so long as Park makes no mistakes, he may argue that his targets deserve their punishment. Still, his widely published attacks create a chilling effect that can discourage even legitimate scientists from discussing controversial work. This hardly seems consistent with the spirit of genuinely free inquiry that should energize science. Likewise, Park's reliance on second-hand data, his presentation of selective evidence and his refusal to quote his opponents are habits that seem unworthy of a scientist. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 21:23:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA21792; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:20:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:20:23 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01bfe181$43a0b6a0$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <200006282052.QAA04760 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> Subject: Re: Lifting body airplanes: an "Innovator's Dilemma"? Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:19:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"Hh0Yd2.0.LK5.5wiMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35910 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't speak for Boeing.... Just me. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael T Huffman To: Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Lifting body airplanes: an "Innovator's Dilemma"? > Hi Jed, > > The website doesn't say that the design was kept secret or that there was a > conspiracy to keep it from being used. Yes it does. On the home page it says "The Burnelli design has been deliberately suppressed! Who is responsible for this crime? ... And Why?" Then it list the conspirators on the index page, http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/index.htm == Begin quote== "We'll also provide you with all the evidence you need to conclusively prove that not only is aviation run as a monopoly but that this industry willfully kills people every year by doing everything in its power to suppress a design now over 78 years old that could save people's lives, among others, these are: Department of Defense, Secretary Cohen, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, James Hall, NASA Administrator, Daniel Goldin to name just three (there are more). In the private sector we have BOEING, now almost a monopoly by itself, having gobbled up McDonnell Douglas, engaging in joint ventures with Lockheed and Bell to mention just two. And in the so-called non-profit sector, the:Flight Safety Foundation International Airline Passenger Association Smithsonian Air & Space Museum And in the so-called Non-Governmental Organizations sector, the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) has honored Jerome Lederer who is directly responsible for perpetuating the conventional design at the expense of many innocent lives. Mr. Lederer was head of the so-called "Flight Safety Foundation" for more than a decade" ==End Quote== This is an incredible accusation of conspiracy. It's LAUGHABLE, if you know about some of these organizations. The IAPA is NO WAY going to advocate for a less safe airplane. That's is a unbelievable claim. Dito re ICAO. And the pilots I've met aren't chomping at the bit for something less safe. So, how can you say what you said? > What they are saying is that the > government at that time took Burnelli's design, used it, and didn't pay him > for it. Yes, they want money.Duh. Trouble is, they claim a patent back in 1921. Patents last 20 years. Some of his later designs look like he borrowed from Northrupt's Flying Wing to me. > They did this, according to the website, for political reasons. Everyone who loses a contract says that. > They also blocked his company's ability to go public when he applied, which > denied him access to the open market for funding. Not really. The banks wouldn't bankroll him because they thought his designs sucked. There is no right to the bank's money, and not getting it doesn't make them part of the conspiracy. The site say not getting money makes them part of the conspiracy! Now I ask, what the has been the reason for "suppressing" it since 1941?! > What this implies is that Burnelli's competitors were able to manufacture > his design for military and space use, and make a profit. How many lifting bodies do you see out there? Ever notice that wings are getting smaller, thiner, less drag and more efficent? > They were not > able to use or develop it for commercial purposes under the "save harmless" > clause, and so they didn't. Aircraft development at that time for ALL > designs were relatively primitive back then, as well as the regulatory > process itself, but access to the market place, and public funds may well > have given Burnelli the means to improve his design in the same manner that > Boeing and others have improved theirs over the years. The end result, I > believe, would have been a superior commercial aircraft. That moves slow as a turtle, and has poor characteristics in bad weather. Sure, we could still be building Biplanes. They have a lot of lift too! Their design makes them inheriantly slow. > With all due respect to Steve LaJoie's position and dedication to safety, > etc., I think that the issue is far too personal for him to argue in an > objective fashion. I see. We facist are too touchy about being called a fascist... What other way is there to dismiss the annoying facts Steve Lajoie brings? The one big problem I see with this design (as originally patented, not the Northrup flying wing rip off....) is that it provides too much lift and is restricted to slower speeds. One of the big driving forces behind the upgrade from 737 to 737NG was that the thing was too slow, and took up valuable airlane space. Two things that are very important in airplane safety is altitiude and speed. Looks to me like this design had neither. You might hit the ground less hard, but you'll hit the ground more often in it, imho. But we fascist do say things like that. This site says we are great at forming conspiracies. Look at all the people we've managed to involve. And the site also notes we don't mind killing people at all! Or maybe the reason why the DoD, the commercial airlines, the pilots, the passangers, the federal certification agencies, the international certification agencies, the bank, the NTSB, NASA, and the engineers don't like the design isn't because it's a conspiracy, but because the design SUCKS!!! Personally, I think you guys are confusing this original patent with Northrup's flying wing. This guy seems to have a patant on a fat airfoil out of the body with wings attached. Problem is, thin wings are better for the design. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 21:49:42 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA29572; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:47:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:47:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCD xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:44:44 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id VAA29540 Resent-Message-ID: <"OxDUP3.0.-D7.9JjMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35911 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I don't speak for the Boeing Company. I speak for myself. Make that clear! >Don't even THINK that the Boeing Company and I agree on anything. If >we do, it's just a fantastic coincidence. If you want to know what Boeing >thinks, ask Boeing > >> ---------- >> From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 11:04 PM >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed >> >> To Steve Lajoie: >> >> Rather than reply individually to your various messages on this topic, I am >> going to address the thrust of your comments, as follows: >> > [snip argument that the economic sense of fascist was meant, and > the word not intended to imply the goose stepping evil of the 1930's > and 40's} > > >Yeah right. That was a silly argument. You knew what you meant and >why you used that word. ***{It is useful, when disputing a point, to remember what the point was. To assist you in doing that, here is the argument that you snipped, above: > (1) Concerning your repeated suggestions that by using the word "fascist," > I was calling each and every engineer employed in the aviation industry > and, specifically, you, a fascist: that is obviously not the case. Fascism > is an economic system characterized by a political impasse between the > proponents and the opponents of private property. Such a system is a > mixture of free markets and socialist controls, and provides businessmen > who have political connections with opportunities to "work" the system in > ways that squelch their competition. Result: under fascism, the upper > reaches of the economy--i.e., very large companies in mature > industries--become cartelized. A cartel is a group of businesses run by > politically connected insiders, who use their political connections and > knowledge of the nooks and crannies of the regulatory system to snuff out > competitors whom they do not think they can defeat via merit alone. I > consider the present aviation industry not merely in America, but > worldwide, to be an instance of such a cartel, which is "fascist" in the > sense described above. By use of that term, therefore, I was merely > focusing on the economic preconditions that are necessary to the existence > of such cartels, rather than attaching a "fascist" label to anyone in > particular. > However much you may search the above, you will find no denial of a connection between my use of the term "fascist," and "the goose stepping evil of the 1930's and 40's." Why didn't I deny it? Because (a) modern-day fascism, in its manifold modern-day incarnations around the world, does, indeed, possess an indissoluble causal connection to "the goose stepping evil of the 1930's and 40's," as I have pointed out on multiple occasions in this group; and (b) that was not the charge you hurled and to which I was responding. You did not accuse me of making a connection between modern-day fascism and the fascism of the 30's and 40's. Instead, you accused me of charging thousands of Boeing engineers, and you, with being fascists. It is that charge--i.e., the charge you made--which I denied. Thus we would seem to have uncovered yet another suggestion for your self-improvement: try, in the future, to remember the accusations that you have made in the past, so that you will have a better understanding of what your opponent is responding to in the here and now. As to how a conspiracy of the sort alleged and documented on the aircrash website can occur without involving lower ranking personnel in the various organizations that are involved, that seems obvious: the politically connected insiders who engage in such activities do not tell anyone who does not have a "need to know"--which means: when actions are needed to further the conspiracy, preference is given to techniques that elicit those actions from ignorant individuals. For example, engineers at major aircraft manufacturers are prevented from building Burnelli airframes by simply blocking such plans from the top, without informing the requesting engineer as to the real reasons the request went nowhere. Engineers who persist find their careers going nowhere, or that they are dismissed on unrelated pretexts. In no case are they informed as to the true reasons for their problems. Bottom line: for persons of wealth and influence who inhabit the top reaches of a fascist economic system, virtually everything that needs to be done to further a conspiratorial aim can be accomplished *without* disclosure of motives, and as a result only a tiny elite is actually aware of the way such an economic system really works. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> I would add that, in general, it is a good idea to not go out of one's way >> to take offense, as you have done here. Nothing discourages substantive >> discussion more than the practice of resolving ambiguities by assuming the >> worst. >> >It's a better practice NOT to call people or organizations "fascist" when >you know very well they are not. ***{True enough, and I didn't do that. I called the modern aviation cartel a fascist organization, and they are: it is only within a fascist economic system that such a cartel can exist. (Under capitalism, they have no web of economic laws and regulations that politically connected insiders can use to strangle their competition; and under socialism, private property does not exist at all.) --MJ}*** > >> (2) In all of your deprecatory comments about the aircrash website, I did >> not find a single substantive criticism of their arguments. Here is a list >> of the things that you did not deny: >> >> (a) You did not deny that the Burnelli lifting body design has more lift >> than conventional aircraft with the same payload. >> >So? Is it more stable? What are it's stall characteristics? Stall recovery? >How does it do in icy conditions? Are the engines susecptable to FOD >damage? Can it meet evacuation requirements? Windshear performance >data? > >Do you have all this? I didn't think so. ***{This is a science discussion group, not a government review board. That means I don't need to submit bullshit paper work that outweighs a 747 in order to prevail in this discussion. The superior lift of the Burnelli design follows from a generalized comparison of the characteristics of the two airframes, and is obvious to most people in this group already, apparently including even you. (Why do I say that? Because I notice that you *still* did not deny that the Burnelli lifting body design has more lift than conventional aircraft with the same payload. :-) --MJ}*** > >> (b) You did not deny that the Burnelli design has a lower stall speed, and, >> thus, a lower landing speed, than a conventional aircraft with the same >> payload. >> >So? Is that the ONLY thing that involves safety? No, not by a long shot. ***{If there is something about the lifting-body design that results in a net reduction in safety, what is it? --MJ}*** > >> (c) You did not deny that the Burnelli design is structurally stronger than >> conventional aircraft with the same payload. >> >Yeh, right... ***{It is right. Moreover, you are continuing to avoid such denials in your present post. --MJ}*** > >> (d) You did not deny that the placement of fuel tanks in the Burnelli >> design is safer than in conventional aircraft with the same payload. >> >So, you formed your opinion on data you don't have? ***{No, Steve, I formed my opinion based on the obvious generalized differences between the two designs. It is clear that the cylindrical fuselage and engine housings of conventional airliners have no lift, and it is obvious that if they were re-contoured into the form of an airfoil, that state of affairs would change. It is also obvious that such a procedure would result in lower stalling speeds, a greater payload, lower fuel consumption, and greater structural stablilty during crashes. But let me be specific. The conventional fuselage, which has zero lift, is of a circular cross section. Suppose, therefore, that we take the fuselage of a typical jet airliner and divide it into two cylinders of the same size, but half as long as before. If we place those two shortened cylinders side-by-side and bolt them together, we will get the same seating and cargo capacity as before, but the fuselage will still not have much lift. Next, let's reform the cross section of the fuselage from that of two circles of radius r, to a rectangle with the same perimeter and the same height. The perimeter of the cross-section of the two cylinders is obviously 4¼r, and the height is 2r, so the width of the corresponding Burnelli airframe would be [4¼r - 2(2r)]/2 = 2¼r - 2r, and the cross sectional area would be (2¼r - 2r)(2r) = 4¼r^2 - 4r^2. The cross-sectional area of the doubled-up conventional airframe, on the other hand, is 2¼r^2. Thus the cross-sectional area of the Burnelli airframe exceeds that of the conventional airframe by 4¼r^2 - 4r^2 -2¼r^2 = 2¼r^2 - 4r^2 = (2¼ - 4)(r^2), which is an increase of (2¼ - 4)(r^2)/(2¼r^2)x100 = 36.33 %, using the same materials. Next, with a minor tweak, we can modify the lengthwise contour into the shape of an airfoil, and generate substantial lift from the fuselage itself. Result: we can make the wings much smaller, reduce the size of the fuel tanks, and use some of the material that we saved to strengthen and reinforce the body of the aircraft. Result: we obtain an aircraft that carries roughly 36% more passengers and cargo, has more lift hence lower landing speeds and fuel consumption, and is much safer for its occupants, exactly as alleged on the aircrash website. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> (e) You did not deny that the Burnelli design is currently in use in high >> performance military aircraft and by NASA, where manufacturers are >> protected from the need to pay royalties to Burnelli by the "save harmless" >> clause. >> >Actually, I said the website was a crock. And I pointed out that different >aircraft missions result in different aircraft designs, and that little >fact seems >to escape you entirely. ***{Why are you wasting our time with your unsupported assertions? Do you think anyone in this group is going to change his opinion about this issue merely because you alleged that the aircrash website is "a crock," or uttered platitudes to the effect that "different aircraft missions result in different aircraft designs?" The issue before you is simple: the engines and body of a conventional airliner have a circular contour that generates no lift, thereby requiring larger wings, greater weight per unit of payload, and higher stall speeds, landing speeds, and fuel consumption. Do you have anything to say about these points, or not? --MJ}*** > >> And on, and on, and on. >> >> Bottom line: you did not deny a single substantive statement made on the >> aircrash website. All you did was rail on and on about global conspiracies >> that were never alleged, >> >?!? Read your website! It's a riot. ***{Steve, your state of hilarity or lack thereof is of no relevance to the substantive issue before us. Nobody in this group is going to change his opinion merely because you find something amusing. Therefore, please stop wasting our time with this transparent emotional bullshit. --MJ}*** We have all DoD/War Department chairmen >since 121, the NTSB chairman since the department was created, NASA >directors, the Flight Safety Foundation, the International Airline Passenger >Association (criminy! Get a clue!), The Smithsonian, ICAO, all "willfully >kills >people every year by doing everything in its power to suppress a design >now over 78 years old that could save people's lives," > >Get a clue! The website is totally non-believable. The reason given mentions >banks, but not a word about how the banks benefit. ***{That is incorrect. The theory presented on the website was that banks benefit because the loans that are required, and hence the interest payments to the banks, are greater when the airliners in use are more costly and consume more fuel. Whether that is a correct or a complete description of the bankers' motivations is, in any case, a side issue. What you need to demonstrate, in order to destroy the need for a conspiracy theory here, is that the Burnelli airframe is *not* superior to the conventional airframe. Hooting and telling us to "get a clue" is bad manners, and manifestly irrelevant. --MJ}*** > >In my opinion, this is all a bunch of wacko garbage. Just my opinion, but >the guy comes off like one of those anti-semitic or Illuminadi conspiracy >nuts. ***{I repeat: describing your emotional reactions to the website is non-substantive, and will convince no one. Those who share your emotions already agree with you; and those who do not share them are merely shaking their heads in wonderment, at the utter lack of substance in your remarks. --MJ}*** > >> about insults that were never hurled, and about> >> the supposed sucker's mentality on this group--which consists, apparently,> >> of a willingness to consider theories that you do not agree with. >> >If you had an FAA certified airplane, built to FAR 25 and intended to operate >to FAR 121, you might have an argument. Commercial airplanes are REQUIRED >to document the design and every single system inside that design with the >FAA. Tons of paperwork are generated. Like I said, the paper for the 777 >weighed >more than the airplane itself! ***{Such comments are impressive only to those who believe in the fascist system, Steve. While that undoubtedly includes some readers of this group, it does *not* include those with whom you are arguing: if they believed in the system, they would have dismissed the aircrash website with a wave of the hand, like you. Therefore, when you cite such things, your comments are utterly pointless, and devoid of impact. You might as well cite the Bible when attempting to convince an atheist that God exists, as cite FAA certification requirements to people who think the FAA and all the other fascist regulatory horrors ought to be abolished. Bottom line: the person who needs to "get a clue" here, is you. --MJ}*** > >It's been shown these airplanes are safe. It has been submitted and reviewed >by our DERs and the FAA. Every claim is documented, and test results >presented. ***{I repeat: the people you are arguing with don't believe in the fascist system, Steve. To them, the labyrinth of regulations and requirements merely provide pretexts which officials can use to protect businessmen who are politically connected. Thus you can sing the praises of the system until you are hoarse, to no effect. To make progress here, you have one option, and one option only: you must demonstrate that the conventional airframe is superior to the Burnelli airframe, using substantive arguments based on engineering principles. Anything else is merely a waste of everybody's time. --MJ}*** > >All you got is a website. Instead of ragging on me because I don't reproduce >tons of documentation on Vortex ***{I didn't do that, and you know it. What you need to produce are substantive reasons demonstrating the superiority of the conventional airframe. The question is, can you do it? --MJ}*** , why don't you just go get copies of what >we submitted under the freedom of information act and see for yourself? > >Nah. Too much like using data. Besides, it's MUCH MORE FUN! to think >in terms of grand conspiracies. ***{Sarcasm is not a substitute for substance, Steve. --MJ}*** > >You do know that the flying wing was Northrup's idea, right? You don't have >to believe me, watch the History Channel's little blurb on the flying wing to >find out its problems. Your website forgot to mention those! ***{The lifting-body airframe is not a flying wing. The idea is to shorten and reconfigure the fuselage to give it lift, not to eliminate the fuselage altogether. Thus your comment, above, merely reveals that you haven't yet comprehended the nature of the idea that you are so abusively attacking. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 28 23:25:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA00445; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000628114714.0079bc80 pop.mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:18:33 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Lifting body airplanes: an "Innovator's Dilemma"? Resent-Message-ID: <"IYW4d1.0.r6.PgkMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35912 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I do not believe for one second that there is a conspiracy to prevent the >development of large, lifting body airplanes. The designs are not secret. >They have been featured on the cover of Popular Science, and military >fighter planes incorporate lifting body features. ***{We must distinguish between *is* and *was*. It is clear that the aviation cartel exists today, as it existed during the 1930's and perhaps even earlier. Under fascism, cartels are routine in all mature industries. Indeed, their emergence is the defining characteristic by which the end of the phase of "unbridled competition" and the onset of "maturity" are recognized. It is also clear, based on documentary evidence provided on the aircrash website, that the conspiracy to suppress the Burnelli design *was* real, and the reasons which motivated it at the time were routine and obvious: Burnelli was an upstart with a superior airframe, and he wouldn't join the club, by tossing his patents into the pool and cooperating with the objectives of the cartel. Instead, he made it clear that he intended to use his design to become the dominant company in the industry, and they reacted, as is typical of politically connected insiders, by persuading allies in the government to place obstacles in front of his company. However, the question of whether that conspiracy is still active is another matter, and, in my opinion, is not necessary to the position taken on the website. The reason: bureaucratic momentum is a species of psychological momentum, and is fully as real as physical momentum. Once an attitude is in place, and cemented by thousands of regulations and by the attitudes of regulators, it has a life of its own, and continues forward of its own accord, long after the original reasons, whether conspiratorial or otherwise, have ceased to motivate the players. --MJ}*** > >I have the utmost respect for people like Stephen LaJoie. I am sure he is >correct in his assessment of the aviation industry, but on the other hand, >he may be overlooking a obscure problem. C. M. Christensen recently wrote a >book titled "The Innovator's Dilemma" (Harvard Bus. School Press, 1997). I >reviewed it in I.E. This dilemma may be affecting the aviation industry, >because the industry has some extreme characteristics. Airplanes must meet >the highest possible standards. As LaJoie points out, by law each >generation of airplanes must be as safe as the previous generation. Even a >tiny design error might cause a terrible accident and huge liability. The >marketplace is fairly homogeneous; there are no significant unexplored, >radically different niche markets (such as flying cars or 2000 passenger >Zeppelins). This combination of characteristics will leave the industry >susceptible to the problems Christensen describes. No one is to blame for >this; it follows from the nature of the industry, laws and customs. ***{If you are referring to the momentum of a regulatory system, you are right: it exists--but only if a regulatory system exists. In other words, regulatory momentum only applies under fascism. --MJ}*** > >I cannot judge whether the lifting body design really does have the >advantages described in the web page, but for the sake of argument let us >suppose it does. Surely, it also has the disadvantages described by LaJoie. >That would make it what Christensen calls a "disruptive" innovation, that >is, one which in the first implementation is suboptimal in many ways, yet >which has more potential than the mature, conventional technology. The >first generation lifting body airplane might be less safe, or less cost >efficient, or harder to control. ***{That might be true today, since the design has been held back for the better part of a century, and the Burnelli company has been denied the opportunity to encounter, and solve, the various problems that would emerge during widespread use of their design. However, in a free market economy, there would be no regulators to satisfy, and courts would defend property rights. That means contractual limitations on liability would be upheld by the courts of a free nation, and Burnelli would be able to sell only to persons who agreed to accept all risks and liability associated with using the design. Result: in a capitalistic, free enterprise, private property system, the necessity to work the kinks out of a superior design would *not* prevent the implementation of that design. It is only within the coercive regulatory context of *fascism* that courts refuse to uphold the validity of contracts which limit the liability of sellers; and, thus, it is only under fascism that these sorts of obstacles can kill a superior design. --MJ}*** However, for some applications, some >customers might find its advantages outweigh these problems. If a >manufacturer can find a large enough niche market, such as military fighter >planes, it might be able to iron out the problems and gradually develop the >disruptive technology until it can compete with the mainstream, established >designs. ***{In the present case, that didn't work. Early on, a conspiracy by politically connected insiders created a regulatory framework hostile to the Burnelli design; and then, long after the conspirators were dead and their motivations forgotten, institutional momentum carried the oppression forward, as it does to this day. The way it works is simple: the regulations, and the regulators, are based on a certain vision of what a passenger aircraft ought to look like, and any design based on a different concept immediately gets the regulators' hackles up. Result: a protracted legal struggle between unequal opponents ensues. On one side, we have the regulatory bureaucracy of government, funded by billions looted without significant opposition from herds of mindless taxpayers; and on the other side, we have a tiny company, denied even access to the credit markets, fighting a hopeless battle against impossible odds. This is the way the system works, and is the only way it can work. That's why it needs to be abolished, root and branch. --MJ}*** Then, after a while, the disruptive version may push the >established design out of the market completely. ***{Under fascism, disruptive visions seldom prevail. The exceptions are in *new* industries, where "unbridled competition" still prevails, and the regulators haven't yet erected an obstacle course that can be used to cartelize the industry. --MJ}*** Christensen gives many >examples of this; I'll mention only one, which is probably familiar to most >readers, copped from my review: > >In 1981, Seagate introduced the 5.25-inch Winchester hard disk drive. . . . >[They were] less efficient, slower, and they cost more per megabyte. In >1981 the existing customers for hard disks were minicomputer manufacturers. >They wanted more megabytes per dollar, more speed. . . . People in the >emerging desktop computer market, on the other hand, wanted a low >unit-cost, compact, lightweight drive. They were willing to sacrifice speed >and cost per megabyte for these advantages. If Seagate had pursued >customers in the minicomputer market, it would have swiftly gone out of >business. The 5.25-inch drives improved more rapidly than the 8-inch >drives, because they were based on simpler technology. By 1987 the capacity >of the 5.25-inch drives met demand in the minicomputer market, although >8-inch drives were still faster and had higher capacity. Eight inch drives >had gone beyond the needs of the market, and they had not improved or >fallen in price as rapidly as the small drives, so they become obsolete. ***{This a perfect example to illustrate the point that I made above: this episode occurred in a new industry, during the "immature" phase before a massive regulatory structure was in place. --MJ}*** > >- Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 00:28:25 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA00581; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:23:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:23:10 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 03:17:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <3958D83C.A80ED06A ix.netcom.com> References: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"hhFV9.0.u8.TblMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35913 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:37 AM 6/27/2000 -0700, Ed Storms wrote: >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > At 09:00 AM 6/19/2000 -0700, Ed wrote: > > >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically > > >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). > > >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous > > >nuclear activity. > > > > There is less evidence for the putative other reactions compared with > > the cold fusion reactions. And many appear to be the result of fusion. > > > > Therefore, not all investigators agree with LENR, and less agree with > > Ed's suggested CANR. > > > > Some researchers/theoreticians who briefly used LENR, are now > > moving back to CF. Cold fusion seems to be a reasonable descriptive term. > >The term "cold fusion" is used only because it is simple, generally >understood, >and generic. However, those of us who want to make a more exact point use the >other terms. People who wish to emphasize the nuclear process, generally >physicists, use LENR while the very few people who are focusing on the unique >chemical environment are better served by using CANR. I suggest that the >failure to truly understand the chemical environment, or to even >acknowledge the >correct environment has set the field on the wrong tract for many years. >Failure to use CANR, as Mitchell notes, shows this lack of concern for the >environment required to make the nuclear reactions happen. First, people have examined the materials, alloys, additives, etc. for years -- and there has been a lot of progress. Second, with all due respect, it is the temperature that dominates the change from hot to cold fusion -- and that controls many of the cold fusion reactions as well. It is the temperature that makes CF NOT radiate with penetrating ionizing radiation. It is the temperature that locks out the branches leading to neutron emission from the He* excited state. It is also temperature that controls rates in loading, deloading, diffusion, etc. Furthermore, the correct environment is a misnomer since different reactions occur without, within, and deep within the materials that are active, or that have electrodeposited onto inactive materials like platinum. And it is clear that the input electrical power is a dominant control, after loading where the electric field intensity controls the reaction. Only by knowing you are driving the system at the center of the optimum operating point can you even compare different systems. What CF is called is less important, but cold optimal-operating-point-controlled fusion might be more descriptive. Finally, the lack of concern seems to be a disinterest in engineering including continuum electromechanics, impedance matching, input power levels, and other material, q/c and q/a issues. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 06:46:55 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA09010; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 06:42:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 06:42:53 -0700 Message-ID: <02e001bfe1cf$b6633ca0$1ea8f1c3 vannoorden> From: "Peter van Noorden" To: References: <39529A24.C3B6C55F@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:41:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"8ccRe3.0.eC2.S9rMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35914 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > > > > > >According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not > > >react with > > >oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino concentrations > > >in the > > >gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. > > > > ***{This doesn't follow: even normal hydrogen is small enough to diffuse > > through the walls of any container, however constructed, and maximally > > shrunken hydrinos, like neutrons, would pass through the walls of a > > container as if it literally did not exist. --MJ}*** > > Hydrogen can be well contained in many materials, otherwise my tank of hydrogen > would be gone by now. On the other hand, Mills, you, and I agree that the hydrino > should pass easily through matter. If this occurred, it would leave behind the > orphaned oxygen and this would cause the pressure within the cell to increase. > > > > > Such a > > >pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. > > > > ***{It wouldn't be expected even if hydrinos existed, and is doubly not to > > be expected, since they don't exist. :-) --MJ}*** > > See the comment above. > > > >> > > Ed Storms > 29 june 15:45 the Netherlands > Ed, You mentioned that it is unlikely that hydrinos are being formed during electrolysis but according to R.Mills the production of hydrinocompounds is in the order of nanograms per second for every watt of excess heat. So very little excess oxygen is expected. He mentioned that in a gascel where LiH [ H(1/16)] is formed from atomic hydrogen,16^2X13.6 ev ( 3481ev) is released nonradiative. Further you get a energy release of 72eV by the reaction of H(1/16)+ e to H-(1/16). Peter van Noorden pjvannrd knmg.nl From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 07:26:52 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA24172; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:24:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:24:22 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:24:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3SP5j2.0.av5.LmrMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35915 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: about wild conspiracies, and other such sillyness, or you can address the physics of the thing and consider, just for a moment, that there is a reason why so many people with NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER, say the design sucks. This isn't nuclear physics. There isn't any way to make undetectable nuclear weapons from this, as there is in cold fusion. All the involved parties would be DELIGHTED if there was a better design. There is no one who would be disappointed, like the hot fusionist who finds his funding pulled out from under him or the oil company who sees their source of income dry up. The motivation is to USE good designs, especially those that have an expired patent on them, not to supress them. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 07:49:09 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA02846; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:47:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:47:30 -0700 Message-ID: <395B629B.A8787572 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:52:16 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jGFAQ.0.Oi.16sMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35916 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 09:37 AM 6/27/2000 -0700, Ed Storms wrote: > >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > > At 09:00 AM 6/19/2000 -0700, Ed wrote: > > > >The field no longer is limited to fusion, hence is now called Chemically > > > >Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). > > > >The challenge at the present time is to explain a wide range of anomalous > > > >nuclear activity. > > > > > > There is less evidence for the putative other reactions compared with > > > the cold fusion reactions. And many appear to be the result of fusion. > > > > > > Therefore, not all investigators agree with LENR, and less agree with > > > Ed's suggested CANR. > > > > > > Some researchers/theoreticians who briefly used LENR, are now > > > moving back to CF. Cold fusion seems to be a reasonable descriptive term. > > > >The term "cold fusion" is used only because it is simple, generally > >understood, > >and generic. However, those of us who want to make a more exact point use the > >other terms. People who wish to emphasize the nuclear process, generally > >physicists, use LENR while the very few people who are focusing on the unique > >chemical environment are better served by using CANR. I suggest that the > >failure to truly understand the chemical environment, or to even > >acknowledge the > >correct environment has set the field on the wrong tract for many years. > >Failure to use CANR, as Mitchell notes, shows this lack of concern for the > >environment required to make the nuclear reactions happen. > > First, people have examined the materials, alloys, > additives, etc. for years -- and there has been a lot of progress. These studies have focused mainly on how to achieve high loading in palladium. They have not focused on trying to identify the characteristics of the nuclear-active-environment (NAE). Indeed, many people do not even agree as to where the nuclear-active material is located, either within the bulk or as a surface layer. Until the characteristics of the NAE are known, it is impossible to create it except by accident. > > > Second, with all due respect, it is the temperature that dominates the change > from hot to cold fusion -- and that controls many of the cold fusion > reactions as well. It is obvious that a change from hot to cold fusion involves a large effective temperature change, but that is not the issue. The issue is what allows the cold fusion reactions to occur in the first place. Higher temperatures, i.e. a few hundred degrees, seem to improve the effect, but why is this so? In addition, simply raising the temperature of an otherwise inert cell does not cause the effect to occur. The issue is, what are the conditions which must be present to produce the cold fusion effect? Temperature alone is not the critical variable. > > > It is the temperature that makes CF NOT radiate with penetrating ionizing > radiation. > It is the temperature that locks out the branches leading to > neutron emission from the He* excited state. > It is also temperature that controls rates in loading, deloading, > diffusion, etc. I see no evidence in any of the literature, either in theory or experiment, which supports this conclusion. > > > Furthermore, the correct environment is a misnomer since different > reactions occur without, within, and deep within the materials that are > active, or that have electrodeposited onto inactive materials like > platinum. Each of these regions has an environment which is different from normal material, otherwise cold fusion would be happening everywhere. The problem is to identify just where this environment is located so that its characteristics can be examined. This has not been done in most studies. > > > And it is clear that the input electrical power is a > dominant control, after loading where the electric field intensity > controls the reaction. > Only by knowing you are driving the system at the center > of the optimum operating point can you even compare different systems. The electric field intensity is only relevant when electrolysis is used. However, the effect has been seen using at least 7 other methods. A discussion of the effect must also consider these other conditions if it is to provide any understanding. > > > What CF is called is less important, but cold > optimal-operating-point-controlled > fusion might be more descriptive. Finally, the lack of concern seems to be a > disinterest in engineering including continuum electromechanics, > impedance matching, input power levels, and other material, > q/c and q/a issues. "cold optimal-operating-point-controlled" only applies to the electrolytic approach and only within the model Mitchell has proposed. No one is ignoring the engineering aspects of the problem, as a brief view of the literature would reveal. However, it is difficult to engineer a phenomenon that can not be easily reproduced and for which the major variables are unknown. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 09:09:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03193; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:07:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:07:08 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000629120659.0079e100 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:06:59 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <395B629B.A8787572 ix.netcom.com> References: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"cstO5.0.on.iGtMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35917 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms makes a very important point: >The electric field intensity is only relevant when electrolysis is used. However, >the effect has been seen using at least 7 other methods. A discussion of the >effect must also consider these other conditions if it is to provide any >understanding. And bear in mind, the Arata method is *not* electrolysis. Various tests have confirmed that the heat, helium and tritium are produced inside the chamber, in the Pd black. The electrolysis is a method of triggering gas loading with very pure deuterium gas. I do not the electric field from electrolysis plays a role inside the chamber (although I could be wrong about that). The Arata method has been replicated quite convincingly by SRI. It may not be the best way to do CF, but it almost always works, and it has the distinction of being replicated precisely, by experts, with similar results. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 09:29:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA10524; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:27:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:27:26 -0700 Message-ID: <395B7A10.AF44CB11 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:32:19 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed References: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCC xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bGcEs2.0.Da2.kZtMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35918 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I'm reluctant to get involved in this hornets nest because what seems so obvious to me has not been addressed by the experts - but here goes. Lift is a function of speed, among other things. Consequently, at landing speeds, the lift characteristics of the aircraft must be changed. If the body were a major source of lift, this would be difficult. For example, if the body were designed to have sufficient lift at low speeds, it would have too much drag at high speed. On the other hand, if it were designed for high speed, the wings would have to provide the major lift at low speed. This means that the lift characteristics of the wings would have to be adjustable over a very wide range, too wide for the wings to be efficient at the extremes. Consequently, the most efficient design is to allow the wings to provide the lift, an arrangement which obviously allows lift to be easily adjusted over the necessary range. I ask the expert, does this make sense? Ed Storms "LaJoie, Stephen A" wrote: > I don't speak for the Boeing Company. I speak for myself. Make that clear! > Don't even THINK that the Boeing Company and I agree on anything. If > we do, it's just a fantastic coincidence. If you want to know what Boeing > thinks, ask Boeing. > > > ---------- > > From: knuke LCIA.COM[SMTP:knuke@LCIA.COM] > > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 6:23 PM > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: RE: Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 09:46:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17415; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:44:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:44:25 -0700 Message-ID: <395B7E08.CE4366CD ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:49:16 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <39529A24.C3B6C55F@ix.netcom.com> <02e001bfe1cf$b6633ca0$1ea8f1c3@vannoorden> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Qs0d21.0.1G4.eptMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35919 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Peter van Noorden wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Edmund Storms > To: > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:58 AM > Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF > > > > > > > > > > > > >According to Mills, once a hydrino is formed, it is stable and does not > > > >react with > > > >oxygen to form water. Consequently, the oxygen and hydrino > concentrations > > > >in the > > > >gas would build up and cause the pressure in the cell to increase. > > > > > > ***{This doesn't follow: even normal hydrogen is small enough to diffuse > > > through the walls of any container, however constructed, and maximally > > > shrunken hydrinos, like neutrons, would pass through the walls of a > > > container as if it literally did not exist. --MJ}*** > > > > Hydrogen can be well contained in many materials, otherwise my tank of > hydrogen > > would be gone by now. On the other hand, Mills, you, and I agree that the > hydrino > > should pass easily through matter. If this occurred, it would leave behind > the > > orphaned oxygen and this would cause the pressure within the cell to > increase. > > > > > > > > Such a > > > >pressure increase is not seen when anomalous energy is being produced. > > > > > > ***{It wouldn't be expected even if hydrinos existed, and is doubly not > to > > > be expected, since they don't exist. :-) --MJ}*** > > > > See the comment above. > > > > > >> > > > Ed Storms > > > 29 june 15:45 the Netherlands > > > Ed, > You mentioned that it is unlikely that hydrinos are being formed during > electrolysis but according to R.Mills the production of hydrinocompounds is > in the order of nanograms per second for every watt of excess heat. So > very little excess oxygen is expected. > He mentioned that in a gascel where LiH [ H(1/16)] is formed from atomic > hydrogen,16^2X13.6 ev ( 3481ev) is released nonradiative. > Further you get a energy release of 72eV by the reaction of > H(1/16)+ e to H-(1/16). This is a good point. However, some CF experiments run for many days at or above 1 watt. During this time sufficient oxygen pressure would build up to allow the effect to be seen, if it exists. In my case, I can detect a change of 10^-5 moles of oxygen. Ed Storms > > > Peter van Noorden > pjvannrd knmg.nl From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 10:48:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18009; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:38:14 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. Resent-Message-ID: <"C0CDV3.0.JP4.WduMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35920 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >about wild >conspiracies, and other such sillyness, or you can address the >physics of the thing and consider, just for a moment, that there is >a reason why so many people with NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER, >say the design sucks. ***{This is a science discussion group, Steve. That means we don't give a hoot in hell about the results of public opinion polls, including the made-up variety that exists only in your mind. What we care about are substantive reasons demonstrating that the Burnelli design is inferior to the conventional design. The question, therefore, is simple: do you have a shred of a technical basis for your position, or not? If you do, let's hear it; if not, please stop wasting our time. --MJ}*** > >This isn't nuclear physics. ***{From your perspective, based on your comments thus far, it apparently isn't physics at all--since you have pointedly avoided any substantive arguments whatsoever. --MJ}*** > >There isn't any way to make undetectable nuclear weapons from this, >as there is in cold fusion. > >All the involved parties would be DELIGHTED if there was a better >design. ***{Rubbish. Bureaucratic regulators have no profit motive impelling them to take risks. As has been demonstrated conclusively in thousands of economic studies (see the massive body of work dealing with this topic collected by the "public choice" school of economics), they are *risk aversive*, and prone to resist anything that deviates from generally accepted norms. And, no, the referred-to risks are *not* safety risks: they are career risks--i.e., the regulators concerns are to not do anything that would disturb the tranquility of their personal situations and place them at the center of a controversy. As your emotional and abusive reaction to the aircrash website demonstrates, plodding, conventional engineers who have spent their careers fitting in by not thinking outside of the box, are not going to take kindly to the suggestion that the conventional airframes, which they studied in their aeronautical courses in college and mindlessly reproduced throughout their careers, are in fact a safety abomination that came into favor merely because of the machinations of a parasitic cabal. Instead, like you, they are going to take such accusations personally and react by closing ranks against the critics, in exactly the same way that physicians reacted when Semmelweis suggested that they were causing the carnage in maternity wards by refusing to wash their filthy hands. Result: the career of a controversy averse bureaucrat is enhanced by not touching off that particular powder keg--which means that so long as the complaints of the Burnelli company remain a tiny voice in the wilderness, ignored by the press and the public, bureaucratic conservatism will keep the system locked on high center, and impervious to change. That means the carnage in the skies, like the carnage in maternity wards during the time of Semmelweis, will go on until sufficient pressure is brought to bear by the public and the press to stop it. Bottom line: under fascism, innovations are subject to being suppressed permanently, if certain preconditions are satisfied. In the early stages, the regulatory framework is brought into conflict with the innovation by means of the manipulations of a parasitic cabal of politically connected insiders; and, when the cabal eventually turns its attention elsewhere, the self-serving motivations of the various players, in and out of government, continue to interact in ways that perpetuate the mistake. This is simply the way, in reality, "economic regulation" works, and is why it ought to be abolished. --Mitchell Jones}*** There is no one who would be disappointed, like the hot >fusionist who finds his funding pulled out from under him or the >oil company who sees their source of income dry up. > >The motivation is to USE good designs, especially those that >have an expired patent on them, not to supress them. ***{No. The dominant motivation is to fit in by avoiding controversy--to "go along in order to get along." To do that, the vast majority of engineers suck up whatever is poked at them by their professors in college, and, in their subsequent careers, continue to adhere to those unexamined precepts, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Because most members of every profession are guilty of unthinking acceptance of the conventional point of view, professional majorities are prone to massive errors in areas where that point of view turns out to be wrong, as is the case here. Unfortunately, plodding, conventional people do not want to think of themselves as such, and do not want others to see them in that light, either. Result: when the herd is caught in a mistake, its members close ranks, and go into abusive denial--shouting, hooting, and hurling expletives at those who have discovered a better way. Under capitalism, of course, such reactions are to no avail, because there is nobody in government who has the power to respond to the shouting and hooting by suppressing the new idea. Under fascism, however, things are different: a vast labyrinth of interlocking and often self-contradictory regulations are available, complete with regulators who devote their careers to keeping "the majority" happy, and gestapo thugs with guns who enforce their edicts by violating the property rights of the innovators. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 12:08:36 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06483; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCF xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> From: "LaJoie, Stephen A" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:54:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: <"nXQVa3.0.4b1.ypvMv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35921 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't speak for Boeing, Only for myself. > ---------- > From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:38 AM > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. > > >about wild > >conspiracies, and other such sillyness, or you can address the > >physics of the thing and consider, just for a moment, that there is > >a reason why so many people with NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER, > >say the design sucks. > > ***{This is a science discussion group, Steve. That means we don't give a > hoot in hell about the results of public opinion polls, including the > made-up variety that exists only in your mind. What we care about are > substantive reasons demonstrating that the Burnelli design is inferior to > the conventional design. The question, therefore, is simple: do you have a > shred of a technical basis for your position, or not? If you do, let's hear > it; if not, please stop wasting our time. --MJ}*** > Humm. Lets see. I said that slow speed and low altitude are bad, safety wise. This design is suppose to be safer because it fly slower due to its increased lift. You've ignored this. Now, Ed Storms pretty much hit the nail on the head with his analysis. You appear to ignore him too. Instead you believe in the grand conspiracy theory. I agree there are grand conspiracies out there, but they involve few people and not tens of thousands. The simple fact is, if you follow the original design to get an idea of what is being patented, that damn thing would have too much lift at high speeds. It's a turtle. And while it may be 'safe' in some sense in still air, it would be like a leaf in the wind in weather, which is definately NOT safe. If high lift and low speeds were the way to go, the industry could have gone with biplanes and not infringed on this fellows patent that way. > >This isn't nuclear physics. > > ***{From your perspective, based on your comments thus far, it apparently > isn't physics at all--since you have pointedly avoided any substantive > arguments whatsoever. --MJ}*** > Nope. It's aerodynamics. Now, you have this big lifting body that you can't control the lift on and produces a lot of drag at high speeds, and moves like a slug in low speeds, and god help you in a cross wind or weather because being a high lift body you are going so slow you pretty much move with the air. Or you can have a nice, safe, high speed airplane with thin wings, controlled lift and fly with enough momentum and speed that the weather just doesn't affect you much. That's the physics. Bottom line is, this thing has a lot of lift. The faster you go, the more lift. That limits speed, but the web page says slower is better, and says low speed is an advantage. It simply ISN'T the case. You may be less likely to die in a collision, but you'll have a lot more collisions with the ground. > >There isn't any way to make undetectable nuclear weapons from this, > >as there is in cold fusion. > > > >All the involved parties would be DELIGHTED if there was a better > >design. > > ***{Rubbish. Bureaucratic regulators have no profit motive impelling them > to take risks. > Pilots like safer, better. They think the design sucks. Passengers like safer, better. They think the design sucks too. Both the pilots association and passenger assocition are, then, fascist also because they don't want to be safe? Obviously false. They are looking out for their own best interest. > As has been demonstrated conclusively in thousands of > economic studies (see the massive body of work dealing with this topic > collected by the "public choice" school of economics), they are *risk > aversive*, and prone to resist anything that deviates from generally> > accepted norms. And, no, the referred-to risks are *not* safety risks: they> > are career risks--i.e., the regulators concerns are to not do anything that > would disturb the tranquility of their personal situations and place them > at the center of a controversy. > The NTSB is very hard nosed about airline safety. To them, the downside is an incident. When in doubt, they tend to go for the safety recommendation, even if they don't know the cause of the incident. The risk to them is that there is an incident. So much for your agument. > As your emotional and abusive reaction to > the aircrash website demonstrates, plodding, conventional engineers who > have spent their careers fitting in by not thinking outside of the box, are > not going to take kindly to the suggestion that the conventional airframes, > which they studied in their aeronautical courses in college and mindlessly > reproduced throughout their careers, are in fact a safety abomination that > came into favor merely because of the machinations of a parasitic cabal. > Cabals. Right. We abusive, plodding, mindless, conventional engineers, with careers of unthinking drudgery and fitting in are a lot more vocal than you think. You would be surprised what has been considered and then rejected on engineering grounds. Lots of designs far more fantastic than this surplus lift thing being advocated. Yet we tend to come back to the same basic design. > Instead, like you, they are going to take such accusations personally and > react by closing ranks against the critics, in exactly the same way that > physicians reacted when Semmelweis suggested that they were causing the > carnage in maternity wards by refusing to wash their filthy hands. Result: > the career of a controversy averse bureaucrat is enhanced by not touching > off that particular powder keg--which means that so long as the complaints > of the Burnelli company remain a tiny voice in the wilderness, ignored by > the press and the public, bureaucratic conservatism will keep the system > locked on high center, and impervious to change. That means the carnage in > the skies, like the carnage in maternity wards during the time of > Semmelweis, will go on until sufficient pressure is brought to bear by the > public and the press to stop it. > Umm, you ARE the same man who was talking that this was a science list, weren't you? Answer some questions, please. I'm being considered a mindless engineer who plods along unthinking and fascist, so my answers aren't going to mean much. Is it possible to have too much lift in an airplane? Is it safe to be in the air in an airplane moving at the same speed as the wind? Which would you rather be in a windshear? A high lift airplane with a slow rate of assecent, or a medium lift airplane with a high rate of asscent? Tell me about stall. Do you know the stall characteristics of a 737-X? It's the damnest thing, that puppy doesn't really stall in the usual sense. It just noses up and sort of stands on it's tail! Now, tell me what the stall characteristics of this thing is and how that makes it safer. (hint: it's gonna stall like hell and you're going to lose control because of that big lifting body is going to provide LOTS of area for air seperation and you are taking advantage of it's "energy efficency", i.e. it's engine isn't powerful. ) > Bottom line: under fascism, innovations are subject to being suppressed > permanently, > Some of us don't agree that the United States, or the EU, is fascist. > if certain preconditions are satisfied. In the early stages, > the regulatory framework is brought into conflict with the innovation by > means of the manipulations of a parasitic cabal of politically connected > insiders; and, when the cabal eventually turns its attention elsewhere, the> > self-serving motivations of the various players, in and out of government, > continue to interact in ways that perpetuate the mistake. This is simply > the way, in reality, "economic regulati> on" works, and is why it ought to be > abolished. > If there really was a fascist cabal, wouldn't we send people out to get you? You're not worried about that at all. I don't think even you belive what you're saying. > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > There is no one who would be disappointed, like the hot > >fusionist who finds his funding pulled out from under him or the > >oil company who sees their source of income dry up. > > > >The motivation is to USE good designs, especially those that > >have an expired patent on them, not to supress them. > > ***{No. The dominant motivation is to fit in by avoiding controversy--to > "go along in order to get along." > Actually, if there was an superior airframe design out there that was safer and more energy efficent both major commercial manufacturers would be rushing to build it. The financial incentive is there to do so. It would be worth billions. > To do that, the vast majority of > engineers suck up whatever is poked at them by their professors in college, > and, in their subsequent careers, continue to adhere to those unexamined > precepts, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. > If all engineers were suck ups, plodding along mindlessly, and all the other silly insults you like to heap on this group of people, how do you explain that in 1900 we were horse and buggy, "flight" was by balloon, indoor plumbing was new, and "fast" was 20 mph, and high tech computing was a mechanical adding machine and (I presume) slide rules, and today people have been on the moon, people jet around the world with hardly an incident, you drive 60 mph on the road, and you are insulting engineers on a computing machine that has grown in speed and power exponentially since it's conception? Humm. Seems you're wrong. The engineers are doing a pretty fair job of thinking different. I would have thought that was obvious even on a little reflection. I guess not! > Because most > MOST? > members of every profession are guilty of unthinking acceptance of the > conventional point of view, professional majorities are prone to massive > errors in areas where that point of view turns out to be wrong, as is the > case here. > Well, you've damned us. How about the physics to prove that now? > Unfortunately, plodding, conventional people do not want to > think of themselves as such, and do not want others to see them in that > light, either. Result: when the herd is caught in a mistake, its members > close ranks, and go into abusive denial--shouting, hooting, and hurling > expletives at those who have discovered a better way. > Speaking of the herd and abusove denail, say "MOO", Mr. Jones. > Under capitalism, of > course, such reactions are to no avail, because there is nobody in > government who has the power to respond to the shouting and hooting by > suppressing the new idea. Under fascism, however, things are different: a > vast labyrinth of interlocking and often self-contradictory regulations are > available, complete with regulators who devote their careers to keeping > "the majority" happy, and gestapo thugs with guns who enforce their edicts > by violating the property rights of the innovators. --MJ}*** > And you have no fear of the gestapo thugs! You are SO brave, or you know there are no such thugs. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 12:15:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07775; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:12:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:12:22 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> X-Sender: little earthtech.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:06:54 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, boblamb1234@hotmail.com, jharlan@activepower.com, dclifton activepower.com From: Scott Little Subject: MSSS comment on Mars image Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"uEbTd1.0.Cv1.L-vMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35922 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just dying of curiousity, I have repeatedly appealed to one of the principle investigators at MSSS, who run the camera on the Mars Orbiter, for interpretation of the polka-dotted sand dunes that Ed Wall found for us. (sorry...I forgot to ask about the sandworm skeleton!) He has just now graciously replied as follows: Mr. Little, Those are dunes with frost on them.. the spots are the begining of the defrosting process, though we don't understand much about it... are the spots composed of dark sand showing through the frost, or do they form by metamorphosis of the frost to a larger particle size? We don't know. There was a regular weekly web release done on these in August 1999, see: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/8_10_99_releases/ Also there is a rudimentary attempt to begin to understand what is going on, in an abstract for an upcoming meeting (PDF) file: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/abs/polar2000/ http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/abs/polar2000/edgett_etal_dunes.pdf Many questions that might arise as you look at the 27,500+ images in the MOC Gallery might be answered by examining the previous captioned releases... all of them are accessible via: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/MENUS/moc_by_date.html One of these days in my "spare" time I want to re-organize the latter by subject, so it is easier for folks to find things of interest. Sincerely, K. Edgett MSSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 12:30:30 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14940; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:28:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:28:16 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000629151734.007a75e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:17:34 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, "LaJoie, Stephen A" From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Okay, how about CF airplanes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"duq4r3.0.Mf3.FDwMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35923 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think the discussion about Fascist Lifting Body airplanes as gone about as far as it can go. I found Stephen LaJoie's comments educating. Putting aside the politics, let me ask Steve some related questions, which I have been wondering about for a long time. Broadly speaking, what airframe design would work best with a highly concentrated, aneutronic, lightweight, 100% safe nuclear power source, that produces intense heat? How about a similar source of intense electric power, instead of heat? Would you suggest a design similar to the "Orient Express" people have been talking about? Chris Tinsley used to say that an advanced CF-powered airplane would be 100% VTOL and it would have practically no wings at all, to reduce drag. I presume one set of jets would be directed straight down to maintain altitude. One more question, if you can handle it: Spacecraft are an entirely different matter, and beyond the scope of the discussion, but how about the vehicles that transition from the atmosphere to space? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 12:39:43 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18315; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:35:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:35:40 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000629152525.007a9800 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:25:25 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DJlL6.0.-T4.CKwMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35924 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >Those are dunes with frost on them.. Frost of what chemicals? Surely not water?!? Any idea what temperature? I looked at the web site. It says "ice" and "frost," but it doesn't seem to say what elements . . . If it *is* water, why would they be making such a big deal about the recent discovery of evidence of liquid water? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 13:07:23 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30651; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:04:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:04:19 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> References: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:03:58 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"rrdER2.0.lU7.2lwMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35925 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott - >Just dying of curiousity, I have repeatedly appealed to one of the >principle investigators at MSSS, who run the camera on the Mars Orbiter, >for interpretation of the polka-dotted sand dunes that Ed Wall found for >us. (sorry...I forgot to ask about the sandworm skeleton!) > >He has just now graciously replied as follows: > >Mr. Little, > >Those are dunes with frost on them.. the spots are the begining >of the defrosting process, [snip] WHAT??! NASA denies the existence of giant hard shelled possibly intelligent cactus? What's next? I suppose they'll say there aren't any giant sandworms either! Sheesh. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 13:17:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01102; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:13:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:13:39 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000629152525.007a9800 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000629152525.007a9800 pop.mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:12:53 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"dB3751.0.1H.otwMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35926 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed - >Frost of what chemicals? Surely not water?!? Any idea what temperature? > >I looked at the web site. It says "ice" and "frost," but it doesn't seem to >say what elements . . . If it *is* water, why would they be making such a >big deal about the recent discovery of evidence of liquid water? > >- Jed I was wondering that too. I think the difference is that a little ice from vapor over a dry subsurface soil doesn't give you much to pin hopes on for the existence of life, but potentially large subsurface quantities of water amplify the chances of microbial colonies living there. The idea of deep dwelling microbes is a relatively new discovery on this planet. I was also thinking about the alleged 'moving goalpost' incident related to the original lander's biological results on the soil. Does anyone have any site pointers on that subject? Was it really inappropriate goalpost moving, or was it new theories or discoveries after the fact that would have definitely changed the experiment design and/or expectations in the first place? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 13:58:00 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16655; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:53:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:53:55 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:53:41 -0400 Message-Id: <200006292053.QAA03017 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Resent-Message-ID: <"sIIwd3.0.-34.YTxMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35928 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Scott Little wrote: > >>Those are dunes with frost on them.. > >Frost of what chemicals? Surely not water?!? Any idea what temperature? > >I looked at the web site. It says "ice" and "frost," but it doesn't seem to >say what elements . . . If it *is* water, why would they be making such a >big deal about the recent discovery of evidence of liquid water? > >- Jed I wondered about that too, when I looked at it. Normally, we think of frost or snow as being white, but that doesn't have to be the case. The thing that popped into my mind was that if the camera was set for say a more IR bandwidth, then a colder area would be shown as being darker than a warmer area, hence the black spots. I haven't looked at the details of the actual photographic hardware, or the settings, but that could be a possible explanation. It beats freckles, anyway. Thanks for following up on it, Scott. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 13:59:45 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16630; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:53:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:53:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:53:40 -0400 Message-Id: <200006292053.QAA03012 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net> X-Sender: inet1547 pop3.atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Resent-Message-ID: <"wyBKN2.0.l34.XTxMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35927 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick writes: >WHAT??! NASA denies the existence of giant hard shelled possibly >intelligent cactus? What's next? I suppose they'll say there aren't >any giant sandworms either! Sheesh. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI I thought it was a fascist cactus. It looked pretty fascist to me. Knuke Michael T. Huffman Huffman Technology Company 1121 Dustin Drive The Villages, Florida 32159 (352)259-1276 knuke LCIA.COM http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 15:03:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA10599; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:02:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:02:27 -0700 Message-ID: <006a01bfe215$2508fd80$60637dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:58:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"j8ZZF1.0.Wb2.pTyMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35929 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Little To: ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:06 PM Subject: MSSS comment on Mars image > Just dying of curiousity, I have repeatedly appealed to one of the > principle investigators at MSSS, who run the camera on the Mars Orbiter, > for interpretation of the polka-dotted sand dunes that Ed Wall found for > us. (sorry...I forgot to ask about the sandworm skeleton!) Thanks for the effort, Scott. I've seen a lot of ice melt, but I've never seen it look anything like that. I think that NASA is compelled to offer a prosaic explanation. I don't see how they would know much more than is apparent from the photo. What I see is not apparent meling ice. Ed Wall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 15:42:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25033; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:41:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:41:22 -0700 Message-ID: <395BC9FD.8C8CA567 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:13:17 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Japan Research Society Website (in english too) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GZdni3.0.276.H2zMv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35930 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: June 29, 2000 Vortex, The Japan CF-Research Society was formed last year. It has a web site established in early 1999. It is open to membership, right now, to academically qualified individuals. Perhaps it will open up some more later on. It should. The web site is readable in either Japanese or English. The Japanese online coding can be easily converted to readable Japanese characters by utilizing, in one instance, a free online translator (decoder) from NJStar (much like Adobe's idea in offering the Acrobat free reader). There is listed some 27 listed as founders to the Society. Many names are familiar to those long active or interested and following the CF field. Of the 27, 25 have e-mail links for direct contacts. I would say that Prof. Akito Takahashi is likely one of the leaders in organizing the "unofficial" Society. But there has to people of like mind to have formed the Society. Takahashi has been noted in encouraging younger researchers in his laboratory in doing and reporting on CF experimental results. This has been seen at the ICCF-8 as well. What is to be noted is that after 11 years, people are aging and dropping off. Happily, this applies to unreasoning critics as well. Planck's observation at work.:) There has to be a younger group of researchers to take over and continue the CF task. Many Founders listed are in the emeritus category. The latest 'news and events' listed are the upcoming RCCNT-8 in October 4-11, the JCF-2 in October 21-22 (new schedule to avoid conflict with the ICCF-8). Earlier 'news and events' noted the October ACS meeting and the ICCF-8. The some parts of the web site is still under construction. I hope, of the reasons given for establishment of the Society and its web site, at least one one will be actively pursued to (quote): "Act as a clearing house for international cooperation and information exchange". -AK- <> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 17:34:08 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA26693; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:29:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:29:29 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:27:50 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Resent-Message-ID: <"fnbYe3.0.lW6.cd-Mv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35931 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Just dying of curiousity, I have repeatedly appealed to one of the >principle investigators at MSSS, who run the camera on the Mars Orbiter, >for interpretation of the polka-dotted sand dunes that Ed Wall found for >us. (sorry...I forgot to ask about the sandworm skeleton!) > >He has just now graciously replied as follows: > >Mr. Little, > >Those are dunes with frost on them.. the spots are the begining >of the defrosting process, though we don't understand much about >it... are the spots composed of dark sand showing through the >frost, or do they form by metamorphosis of the frost to a larger >particle size? We don't know. There was a regular weekly web >release done on these in August 1999, see: >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/8_10_99_releases/ > >Also there is a rudimentary attempt to begin to understand what >is going on, in an abstract for an upcoming meeting (PDF) file: >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/abs/polar2000/ >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/abs/polar2000/edgett_etal_dunes.pdf > >Many questions that might arise as you look at the 27,500+ images >in the MOC Gallery might be answered by examining the previous >captioned releases... all of them are accessible via: >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/MENUS/moc_by_date.html >One of these days in my "spare" time I want to re-organize >the latter by subject, so it is easier for folks to find >things of interest. > >Sincerely, > >K. Edgett >MSSS ***{Hi Scott. I, too, have been seeking more information on this subject, and, yesterday, I came upon the same theory, though in the form of a much more extensive presentation. I had meant to post the reference here, but, due to the Lajoie distraction, did not get around to it until now. (Persons who posted responses to me in other threads have also been on the back burner, for the same reason, and for that I apologize. I will try to do some catching up later today.) Anyway, concerning the spotted dunes on Mars, see the thread which I started several days ago on sci.bio.botany, sci.geo.geology, and sci.astro, entitled "Odd 'Dalmatian Dunes' on Mars." In particular, see the posts by Alex R. Blackwell, and check the associated links. I am preparing a detailed analysis of his theory, which I will post to that thread as soon as time permits. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 19:55:26 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA13449; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:53:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:53:19 -0700 Message-ID: <000e01bfe23e$44623600$0601a8c0 federation> From: "Steve Lajoie" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000629151734.007a75e0 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Okay, how about CF airplanes? Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:43:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"HriSv.0.yH3.Uk0Nv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35932 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: ; LaJoie, Stephen A Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 12:17 PM Subject: Okay, how about CF airplanes? > I think the discussion about Fascist Lifting Body airplanes as gone about > as far as it can go. I found Stephen LaJoie's comments educating. Putting > aside the politics, let me ask Steve some related questions, which I have > been wondering about for a long time. > > > Broadly speaking, what airframe design would work best with a highly > concentrated, aneutronic, lightweight, 100% safe nuclear power source, that > produces intense heat? I think that would depend on the design requirements, more than the fact that the airplane was nuclear powered, assuming that the power source was sufficently small. > How about a similar source of intense electric power, instead of heat? Same answer. > Would you suggest a design similar to the "Orient Express" people have been > talking about? Sure. A compact power source would be an ideal solution for this application. As long as you are going to skip along the surface and could scoop up some air to use as a propellent. You have to have something to throw back for momentum, or find some way akin to the Levitron to propel yourself. I would think that something akin to an electric "jet engine", which takes in air, superheats it either by radio frequency, addition of small amounts of super heated steam, or simple ohmic heating might work, if your reactor was small enough. The implications of cold fusion, if a reactor can be made small enough and light enough for the power output, are incredible. Look at the size of the Saturn V rocket. Most of the fuel is used to lift fuel. The actual payload is pretty small, compared in size. What did you say awhile back; rocket fuel peaks at about 30 eV per chemical reaction? While a D+D->He4 reaction would release something like 24 MeV per reaction, a million times more. So you'd need about 1 millionth the weight of fuel as used in the Saturn V to go to the moon, say. Never mind that you now have only a tiny fraction of the "fuel" to lift, thus your energy requirements are even smaller! They used 5.6 million pounds of propellent, and most of that is used to lift the 5.6 million pounds of propellent. I'll just spit it out at and sound like a real crank. I think we're talking about a space shuttel that runs on cold fusion that can lift off from your back yard. It sounds bold but if you could burn the deuterium fast enough and get enough usable power out, what's stopping you? Cold fusion could be to space flight what a lightweight gasoline engine was to heavier than air flight. But I'm dreaming. > Chris Tinsley used to say that an advanced CF-powered airplane would be > 100% VTOL and it would have practically no wings at all, to reduce drag. I > presume one set of jets would be directed straight down to maintain altitude. If you really have energy to burn, yeah, why not? > One more question, if you can handle it: > > Spacecraft are an entirely different matter, and beyond the scope of the > discussion, but how about the vehicles that transition from the atmosphere > to space? Unless some magnetic propulsion is used, what are you going to use for force? You'd have to drag something up there with you and throw it out the back of your ship REALLY fast. Getting up to thin air is no big deal, an electric motor and some helicopter like blades and you could just beat the air... That will only get you so far, huh? Then what do you do? You have to take some matter along to use to throw out the back for momentum, like a rocket engine only the energy comes from the nuclear and not chemical reaction, and the stuff being thrown out is expelled MUCH faster. That makes for challanges in building a rocket engine that can stand the heat; or some sort of ion drive much more powerful than what has been developed to date. Is that too wacky? Sounds wacky but I can't see what's wrong with the idea. > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 20:45:33 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA02322; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:42:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:42:15 -0700 Message-ID: <022b01bfe244$e1eaacd0$4406aec7 craig> From: "Craig Haynie" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> <006a01bfe215$2508fd80$60637dc7@computer> Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:39:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"6mFXC.0.Ca.MS1Nv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35933 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I've seen a lot of ice melt, but I've never seen it look anything like that. > I think that NASA is compelled to offer a prosaic explanation. I don't see > how they would know much more than is apparent from the photo. What I see > is not apparent meling ice. Well it can't be bushes. Look at the scale. Those black spots are huge. Craig Haynie (Houston) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 21:21:31 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14768; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:19:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:19:35 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000629105434.00b08b20 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:13:06 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <395B629B.A8787572 ix.netcom.com> References: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"xQ7kR1.0.bc3.N_1Nv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35934 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:52 AM 6/29/2000 -0700, Ed Storms wrote: > > First, people have examined the materials, alloys, > > additives, etc. for years -- and there has been a lot of progress. > >These studies have focused mainly on how to achieve high loading in palladium. >They have not focused on trying to identify the characteristics of the >nuclear-active-environment (NAE). Indeed, many people do not even agree as to >where the nuclear-active material is located, either within the bulk or as a >surface layer. Until the characteristics of the NAE are known, it is >impossible >to create it except by accident. Not entirely accurate with respect to the focus of the studies or with respect to the putative nuclear-active-environment (NAE). . First, most studies appear to have focused on obtaining the desired products (excess heat, and other particles some of which are not radiated -like neutrons). Second, there is no single nuclear active environment. IMO CF/LENR have several types of materials, alloys, composites, AND their products vary depending on location, drive, etc. I reviewed some of this in the Jan 2000 article in F. Tech. on ICCF-7, and in many past articles elsewhere. Furthermore, there are homogeneous and heterogeneous alloy systems of several configurations and effectiveness. All this leads away from a single purported NAE and toward a better understanding of cold fusion. Furthermore, depending upon how the material is loaded, and driven, there are time-variant material-specific activities. The peak activity is at the center of the optimum operating point manifold. Only by one precisely knowing that one is driving the system at the "center of the optimum operating point" can one even begin to compare different systems, or for two labs to compare one system/material. If one examines and uses the OOP-manifolds, and the other engineering (and material) factors involved in cold fusion, then the complexity begins to metamorphose from "accident" to engineering. ;-)X ============================================= > > Second, with all due respect, it is the temperature that dominates > the change > > from hot to cold fusion -- and that controls many of the cold fusion > > reactions as well. > >It is obvious that a change from hot to cold fusion involves a large effective >temperature change, but that is not the issue. The issue is what allows >the cold >fusion reactions to occur in the first place. Higher temperatures, i.e. a few >hundred degrees, seem to improve the effect, but why is this so? In addition, >simply raising the temperature of an otherwise inert cell does not cause the >effect to occur. The issue is, what are the conditions which must be >present to >produce the cold fusion effect? Temperature alone is not the critical >variable. The issues which I mentioned are the issues, and are the issues of the critics of the field. That includes the lack of neutron and penetrating ionizing radiation emission even as He* is formed. Temperature is also critical since it controls (doubling activity every 10C and diffusion every 30C if memory serves) reactions required. I could go on about the phonon coupling to the lattice, etc. {cf. Phuson article, if interested}. Temperature is a critical variable for other reasons, too, both in initiating and quenching the desired reactions. ============================================= > > It is the temperature that makes CF NOT radiate with penetrating > ionizing > > radiation. > > It is the temperature that locks out the branches leading to > > neutron emission from the He* excited state. > > It is also temperature that controls rates in loading, deloading, > > diffusion, etc. > >I see no evidence in any of the literature, either in theory or >experiment, which >supports this conclusion. You may elect not to see it, but evidence is in the literature and by experiment. It is the temperature that makes CF NOT radiate with penetrating ionizing radiation The reference was cited to you. Swartz, M, G. Verner, "Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion", J New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)] Similarly, it is the temperature that locks out the branches leading to neutron emission from the He* excited state. The reference was cited to you, and the evidence was shown ["Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997). It is also temperature that controls rates in loading, deloading, diffusion, etc. The references were cited to you, and you were encouraged to read some engineering and electrochemistry (Uhlig, Bockris, Melcher, von Hippel, and others including Swartz, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) [see also Swartz. M., "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium", Fusion Technology, 32, 126-130 (1997) ]. ============================================= > > And it is clear that the input electrical power is a > > dominant control, after loading where the electric field intensity > > controls the reaction. > > Only by knowing you are driving the system at the center > > of the optimum operating point can you even compare different systems. > >The electric field intensity is only relevant when electrolysis is used. >However, >the effect has been seen using at least 7 other methods. A discussion of the >effect must also consider these other conditions if it is to provide any >understanding. Electric fields play roles beyond electrolysis, consider just double layers, the ferroelectric hydrogen-binding of water, and even the impact of lattice fracture. Then there are the applied electric field intensities. ;-)X Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 29 21:21:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14828; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:19:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:19:55 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000629192932.00b29148 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:15:33 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000629120659.0079e100 pop.mindspring.com> References: <395B629B.A8787572 ix.netcom.com> <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"s6OQU1.0.bd3.e_1Nv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35935 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:06 PM 6/29/2000 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Edmund Storms makes a very important point: > > >The electric field intensity is only relevant when electrolysis is used. >However, > >the effect has been seen using at least 7 other methods. A discussion > of the > >effect must also consider these other conditions if it is to provide any > >understanding. > >And bear in mind, the Arata method is *not* electrolysis. Are you stating that there is no electrolysis? Their paper indicates that there was in a two-stage system. In one of my reviews and analysis of their paper, was the following: "The biphasic response and OOP behavior is also observed for palladium loaded with deuterium using an alternate two-stage driving system such as in the Arata system. The curve on the rightmost side of Figure 1 shows the excess output to power drive relationship for palladium black loaded with deuterium with a two-step system obtained by Arata and Zhang when they identified both helium4 and helium3 as de novo nuclear products in deuterium heavy water cold fusion. Arata et Zhang [32] used palladium black (a porous prepared material ~ 0.04 mM arranged as atomic clusters) in a palladium tube with the diatomic deuterium gas supplied by electrolysis with a quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS) capable of resolving 4He from D2. After careful calibration of control levels, including accounting for contamination from pollutant materials in lubricants, nonmetals, and the metal itself, the potential nuclear fusion products were examined following heating of the samples to 1300C to dislodge the "frozen products." .... The Arata system produced large reproducible amounts of anomalous excess energy (up to 500 MJ/cm3) for thousands of hours. The QMS spectra revealed a linkage of the observed excess energy to the production of "frozen state" nuclear ash products. These findings are important because the excess energy derived was qualitatively correlated with the observed numbers of incremental helium nuclei. ..... the partial differential equations of mass transfer are similar, and therefore the disparate systems can be compared. Because of the coupling through the gaseous deuteron flux, the Arata system can be regarded as two isotope loading systems in series. We suggest that this produces a functional "IR" drop, and that is why their data curve is "right-shifted" quite a bit in Figure 1. This optimal operating point (biphasic response) has a rather steep optimal operating point like the other single stage systems." Swartz, M., "Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems", Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999) If memory serves, some of the data can be seen, along with other nuclear reaction signatures of CF at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft53.gif (lower right). See also http://world.std.com/~mica/cft52.gif (lower right), http://world.std.com/~mica/cft61.gif (lower right), and http://world.std.com/~mica/cft43.gif (lower right). Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 04:48:29 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA31814; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:47:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:47:42 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <812075012089D01191AA00805FBE342107DB4FCF xch-evt-10.ca.boeing.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 06:45:04 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. Resent-Message-ID: <"dn1i02.0.0n7.SZ8Nv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35936 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I don't speak for Boeing, Only for myself. > >> ---------- >> From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:38 AM >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. >> >> >about wild >> >conspiracies, and other such sillyness, or you can address the >> >physics of the thing and consider, just for a moment, that there is >> >a reason why so many people with NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER, >> >say the design sucks. >> >> ***{This is a science discussion group, Steve. That means we don't give a >> hoot in hell about the results of public opinion polls, including the >> made-up variety that exists only in your mind. What we care about are >> substantive reasons demonstrating that the Burnelli design is inferior to >> the conventional design. The question, therefore, is simple: do you have a >> shred of a technical basis for your position, or not? If you do, let's hear >> it; if not, please stop wasting our time. --MJ}*** >> >Humm. Lets see. I said that slow speed and low altitude are bad, safety wise. >This design is suppose to be safer because it fly slower due to its increased >lift. You've ignored this. ***{I don't recall having seen this particular comment before in any of your posts. In any case, obviously, it is flatly wrong: slow speeds and low altitudes are not bad, if you are landing or taking off. And that is precisely the point made on the aircrash website: high lift and lower stall speeds translate into lower landing and take-off speeds. Since most accidents occur in association with landing or taking off, that means *much* lower kinetic energies in crashes--remember that kinetic energy varies as the *square* of the velocity--and translates into major reductions in the death rate. --MJ}*** > >Now, Ed Storms pretty much hit the nail on the head with his analysis. You >appear to ignore him too. ***{Ed Storms' post was re-sent by the vortex server at 29 Jun 2000 09:27:27, and the post in which you accused me of ignoring him was re-sent at 29 Jun 2000 12:01:24. That's a difference of only about 2 hours and 34 minutes, and leads me to think you are having a pretty tough time thinking of anything to say. (For the record: it is not unusual for me to take *days* preparing an answer, when dealing with difficult arguments or when I am pressed for time, as now.) --MJ}*** > >Instead you believe in the grand conspiracy theory. I agree there are grand >conspiracies out there, but they involve few people and not tens of thousands. ***{It's time to pull your fingers out of your ears, Steve. I have already explained that the kind of conspiracy I am talking about requires the conscious participation of only a few people at the top. --MJ}*** > >The simple fact is, if you follow the original design to get an idea of what >is being patented, that damn thing would have too much lift at high speeds. ***{Lift is equal to the product of the lift coefficient, the kinetic energy of the airflow per unit of volume, and the horizontal cross-sectional area of the wing. Result: as the velocity of the aircraft increases, other things equal, lift increases. Since the downward force on the plane--its weight--does not change, the increase in lift tends to cause altitude to increase. This applies to *all* aircraft, not merely to lifting body designs. Fortunately, there exist various control surfaces that pilots can use to reduce lift, so that they can increase their speed without also increasing their altitude--e.g., flaps and spoilers, trim tabs, etc. Thus, unless the pilot is unconscious, it is false to say that the "damn thing would have too much lift at high speeds." --MJ}*** >It's a turtle. And while it may be 'safe' in some sense in still air, it >would be >like a leaf in the wind in weather, which is definately NOT safe. >If high lift and low speeds were the way to go, the industry >could have gone with biplanes and not infringed on this fellows >patent that way. ***{Drag is equal to the product of the drag coefficient, the kinetic energy of the airflow per unit of volume, and the vertical cross-sectional area of the aircraft. Thus increasing the cross-sectional area of the fuselage is unarguably going to increase the drag *on the fuselage*. However, there are compensations: (1) The vertical cross-sectional area of the wings would be greatly reduced, because most of the lift would now be concentrated in the fuselage. (2) The greater lift of the airframe would allow it to cruise at higher altitudes, where drag is reduced. (3) The reduction in wing size, hence weight and costs, coupled with the greater profitability of the larger payloads, would provide a profit cushion that could be plowed back into the airframe in the form of larger engines, to counter the effects of increased drag. Bottom line: performance would come out about the same, and safety would be greatly enhanced, due to the lower landing and take-off speeds and the improved structural integrity of the airframe--precisely as stated on the aircrash website.. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> >This isn't nuclear physics. >> >> ***{From your perspective, based on your comments thus far, it apparently >> isn't physics at all--since you have pointedly avoided any substantive >> arguments whatsoever. --MJ}*** >> >Nope. It's aerodynamics. Now, you have this big lifting body that you >can't control the lift on ***{That's just silly. You would control the lift with the same techniques that are used to control lift on conventional aircraft. --MJ}*** and produces a lot of drag at high speeds ***{Drag increases as speed increases, other things equal. This applies to *all* aircraft, not merely to a lifting body design. Thus if there were no techniques available by which lift could be altered while an aircraft was in flight, the entire enterprise of flight would be called into question. --MJ}*** , and >moves like a slug in low speeds ***{Wrong. It would move like a butterfly at low speeds, because of the greater lift and lower stalling speeds. --MJ}*** , and god help you in a cross wind >or weather because being a high lift body you are going so slow you >pretty much move with the air. ***{Wrong again: shorter winged designs are more, not less, stable in cross winds, other things equal. And, as noted earlier, the greater earning power of the design coupled with the savings in materials--not to mention the eventuality of lower insurance fees--would provide the funds for larger engines. Thus it does not follow that the cruising speeds would be less than for conventional designs. --MJ}*** > >Or you can have a nice, safe, high speed airplane with thin wings, >controlled lift and fly with enough momentum and speed that the >weather just doesn't affect you much. > >That's the physics. ***{Nope. It's just another fantasy which exists only in your mind. --MJ}*** Bottom line is, this thing has a lot of lift. >The faster you go, the more lift. That limits speed ***{Nope. As noted above, pilots have to make adjustments in the settings of various control surfaces to compensate for speed increases on *all* aircraft, because lift increases as speed increases, other things equal. Since the same types of control surfaces are available to the engineer who designs lifting-body aircraft as are available to one who designs conventional aircraft, your argument is bogus. --MJ}*** , but the >web page says slower is better, and says low speed is an >advantage. ***{Nope. The website says that slow landing speeds are better, and they are better. The reason: KE = (1/2)mV^2--which means the energy of a crash increases as the SQUARE of the take-off or landing speed. Since the vast majority of crashes occur during take-offs and landings, this is a major factor contributing to fatalities. It's simple physics. --MJ}*** It simply ISN'T the case. You may be less likely >to die in a collision, but you'll have a lot more collisions with >the ground. ***{Nope: the higher stall speeds of conventional aircraft are the major contributing factor in most airport crashes. The beasties stall out, and slam into the ground, killing everybody aboard. A lifting body aircraft wouldn't come close to stalling out at the speeds that cause conventional jets to crash. --MJ}*** > >> >There isn't any way to make undetectable nuclear weapons from this, >> >as there is in cold fusion. >> > >> >All the involved parties would be DELIGHTED if there was a better >> >design. >> >> ***{Rubbish. Bureaucratic regulators have no profit motive impelling them >> to take risks. >> >Pilots like safer, better. They think the design sucks. ***{That's just another fantasy poll which exists only in your mind. I doubt that the average pilot has even heard of a lifting body aircraft. (I'm a pilot, and I sure as hell hadn't heard of the design, until I read the aircrash website.) And even if typical pilots did have a well-formed opinion about lifting-body aircraft, it wouldn't mean diddley squat in a world where no one has had the opportunity to actually fly them. --MJ}*** > >Passengers like safer, better. They think the design sucks too. ***{More made up, blatantly irrelevant silliness. If average passengers had heard of the lifting body concept--which they haven't--their opinions about it would have no substantive relevance to a scientific discussion. --MJ}*** > >Both the pilots association and passenger assocition are, then, >fascist also because they don't want to be safe? Obviously >false. They are looking out for their own best interest. ***{With the exception of a few people at the top of those organizations, who may have been buttonholed by advocates of the Burnelli design, and perhaps a sprinkling of others who have seen the aircrash website, I doubt that many of the members have an opinion about the issue one way or the other. --MJ}*** > >> As has been demonstrated conclusively in thousands of >> economic studies (see the massive body of work dealing with this topic >> collected by the "public choice" school of economics), they are *risk >> aversive*, and prone to resist anything that deviates from generally> >> accepted norms. And, no, the referred-to risks are *not* safety risks: >>they> >> are career risks--i.e., the regulators concerns are to not do anything that >> would disturb the tranquility of their personal situations and place them >> at the center of a controversy. >> >The NTSB is very hard nosed about airline safety. > >To them, the downside is an incident. When in doubt, they tend to >go for the safety recommendation, even if they don't know the cause >of the incident. The risk to them is that there is an incident. > >So much for your agument. ***{Yup. If assertion were proof, I would be down in flames. --MJ}*** > >> As your emotional and abusive reaction to >> the aircrash website demonstrates, plodding, conventional engineers who >> have spent their careers fitting in by not thinking outside of the box, are >> not going to take kindly to the suggestion that the conventional airframes, >> which they studied in their aeronautical courses in college and mindlessly >> reproduced throughout their careers, are in fact a safety abomination that >> came into favor merely because of the machinations of a parasitic cabal. >> >Cabals. Right. We abusive, plodding, mindless, conventional engineers, with >careers of unthinking drudgery and fitting in are a lot more vocal than >you think. > >You would be surprised what has been considered and then rejected on >engineering >grounds. Lots of designs far more fantastic than this surplus lift thing being >advocated. > >Yet we tend to come back to the same basic design. ***{Of course you do. Why make waves, after all. --MJ}*** > >> Instead, like you, they are going to take such accusations personally and >> react by closing ranks against the critics, in exactly the same way that >> physicians reacted when Semmelweis suggested that they were causing the >> carnage in maternity wards by refusing to wash their filthy hands. Result: >> the career of a controversy averse bureaucrat is enhanced by not touching >> off that particular powder keg--which means that so long as the complaints >> of the Burnelli company remain a tiny voice in the wilderness, ignored by >> the press and the public, bureaucratic conservatism will keep the system >> locked on high center, and impervious to change. That means the carnage in >> the skies, like the carnage in maternity wards during the time of >> Semmelweis, will go on until sufficient pressure is brought to bear by the >> public and the press to stop it. >> >Umm, you ARE the same man who was talking that this was a >science list, weren't you? ***{The psychological and institutional conditions that lead to the mistreatment of scientists are relevant fare in a science discussion group, particularly when the subject is *anomalous* science. --MJ}*** > >Answer some questions, please. I'm being considered a mindless >engineer who plods along unthinking and fascist, so my answers >aren't going to mean much. > >Is it possible to have too much lift in an airplane? ***{Of course. If you are already at the altitude you desire, and you increase your speed, then, other things equal, you will have "too much lift." That's why you should not leave the other things equal. But, hey, that's what pilots are for. --MJ}*** > >Is it safe to be in the air in an airplane moving at the same speed as >the wind? ***{A silly question, since you would have zero lift. --MJ}*** > >Which would you rather be in a windshear? A high lift airplane with >a slow rate of assecent, or a medium lift airplane with a high rate of >asscent? ***{Wind shear is a zone of rapid change in wind speed. It occurs in regions where airflows of different speeds and/or directions come together, and has been known to rip the wings off of aircraft. The proper way to deal with it is to allow an extra margin above your normal stall speed during take-offs and landings, while avoiding excessive speeds that might unduly stress your aircraft. The best type of aircraft to have is one that is compact in structure, with short wings, powerful engines, and a low stall speed--i.e., a lifting body aircraft. --MJ}*** > >Tell me about stall. Do you know the stall characteristics of a 737-X? >It's the damnest thing, that puppy doesn't really stall in the usual >sense. It just noses up and sort of stands on it's tail! Now, tell me >what the stall characteristics of this thing is and how that makes it >safer. (hint: it's gonna stall like hell and you're going to lose control >because of that big lifting body is going to provide LOTS of area for >air seperation and you are taking advantage of it's "energy efficency", >i.e. it's engine isn't powerful. ***{Totally wrong: the lifting body has lift, you see, as opposed to the conventional body which has *zero* lift. Result: it has a lower stall speed than the conventional aircraft, not a higher one. And, as noted repeatedly above, the savings on materials coupled with the enhanced payload provide an income stream that can be used to purchase larger and more powerful engines. Bottom line: it is clearly a far safer way to go. --MJ}*** ) > >> Bottom line: under fascism, innovations are subject to being suppressed >> permanently, >> >Some of us don't agree that the United States, or the EU, is fascist. ***{Well then I guess that settles it, right? --MJ}*** > >> if certain preconditions are satisfied. In the early stages, >> the regulatory framework is brought into conflict with the innovation by >> means of the manipulations of a parasitic cabal of politically connected >> insiders; and, when the cabal eventually turns its attention elsewhere, >>the> >> self-serving motivations of the various players, in and out of government, >> continue to interact in ways that perpetuate the mistake. This is simply >> the way, in reality, "economic regulation" works, and is why it ought to be >> abolished. >> >If there really was a fascist cabal, wouldn't we send people out to get you? ***{Why would they waste their time? I'm not a threat. I can talk myself hoarse in fringe discussion groups without affecting them at all. All they need to do to stay in the saddle is control the flow of information to the great mass of the people, which they do quite effectively. (That could change suddenly, of course, if the economic system falls apart. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.) --MJ}*** > >You're not worried about that at all. I don't think even you belive what >you're >saying. ***{The sad truth is that you really don't understand what I am saying, apparently because you don't want to understand. --MJ}*** > >> --Mitchell Jones}*** >> >> There is no one who would be disappointed, like the hot >> >fusionist who finds his funding pulled out from under him or the >> >oil company who sees their source of income dry up. >> > >> >The motivation is to USE good designs, especially those that >> >have an expired patent on them, not to supress them. >> >> ***{No. The dominant motivation is to fit in by avoiding controversy--to >> "go along in order to get along." >> >Actually, if there was an superior airframe design out there that was >safer and more energy efficent both major commercial manufacturers >would be rushing to build it. The financial incentive is there to do so. >It would be worth billions. ***{The problem is the presumption, both by most people in the industry and by regulators, that standard practice is best practice, and anything else is suspect. That is a massive obstacle which is very difficult to surmount. Without the regulators, however, those who believe in the Burnelli design would be able to simply build it and sell it, and competition in the marketplace, not the attitudes of conformists, would determine the outcome. --MJ}*** > >> To do that, the vast majority of >> engineers suck up whatever is poked at them by their professors in college, >> and, in their subsequent careers, continue to adhere to those unexamined >> precepts, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. >> >If all engineers were suck ups, plodding along mindlessly, and all the other >silly insults you like to heap on this group of people ***{You are the one who said "all," not me. I explicitly said (see above) "the vast majority," not "all." There is a difference, you know. --MJ}*** , how do you explain >that in 1900 we were horse and buggy, "flight" was by balloon, indoor plumbing >was new, and "fast" was 20 mph, and high tech computing was a mechanical >adding machine and (I presume) slide rules, and today people have been on >the moon, people jet around the world with hardly an incident, you drive >60 mph >on the road, and you are insulting engineers on a computing machine that has >grown in speed and power exponentially since it's conception? ***{Engineers are, by and large, a superior group of people. Nevertheless, they share the flaws common to the human species, at this stage in its history. One of those flaws, shared by most engineers but not all, is a tendency to assume that authority figures know what in hell they are talking about, and to assume that the best design automatically wins even in a system where the game is rigged. You may take that as an insult if you like, but I consider it to be merely a simple and obvious fact. --MJ}*** > >Humm. Seems you're wrong. The engineers are doing a pretty fair job >of thinking different. I would have thought that was obvious even on a >little reflection. I guess not! ***{The engineers who produced the core innovations on which much of the progress in the 20th century was based were a minority in the profession, and, as a group, were much more prone to question authority and think out of the box, than were their peers. --MJ}*** > >> Because most >> >MOST? > >> members of every profession are guilty of unthinking acceptance of the >> conventional point of view, professional majorities are prone to massive >> errors in areas where that point of view turns out to be wrong, as is the >> case here. >> >Well, you've damned us. ***{Not really. All I have done is recognize that engineers, like objectivists, are drawn from the ranks of mankind, and share the common faults of that species. It is you who are talking in terms of damnation, not I. --MJ}*** How about the physics to prove that now? ***{Physics has nothing to do with it. It is a psychological insight that is self-evident to anyone who is willing to see with his own eyes and think with his own brain. --MJ}*** > >> Unfortunately, plodding, conventional people do not want to >> think of themselves as such, and do not want others to see them in that >> light, either. Result: when the herd is caught in a mistake, its members >> close ranks, and go into abusive denial--shouting, hooting, and hurling >> expletives at those who have discovered a better way. >> >Speaking of the herd and abusove denail, say "MOO", Mr. Jones. ***{How witty. --MJ}*** > >> Under capitalism, of >> course, such reactions are to no avail, because there is nobody in >> government who has the power to respond to the shouting and hooting by >> suppressing the new idea. Under fascism, however, things are different: a >> vast labyrinth of interlocking and often self-contradictory regulations are >> available, complete with regulators who devote their careers to keeping >> "the majority" happy, and gestapo thugs with guns who enforce their edicts >> by violating the property rights of the innovators. --MJ}*** >> >And you have no fear of the gestapo thugs! You are SO brave, >or you know there are no such thugs. ***{As I pointed out to you before you fled the crossfire on sci.physics.fusion, the main reason you find yourself in flame wars is that you start them. Unless you get your house in order, the same thing that happened to you there is going to happen here. What you should have done, from the very beginning of this discussion, was to speak in measured tones. Instead, you started out howling like a scalded cat, and have been sliding downhill ever since. Think about it. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 05:41:44 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA16047; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:40:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:40:54 -0700 Message-ID: <395C967F.DC3DFA88 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:45:51 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Toyota Prius Purchase Request Web Site Launched!] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------19A1419AB76573958AD9EAE7" Resent-Message-ID: <"Yq7MH.0.fw3.ML9Nv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35937 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------19A1419AB76573958AD9EAE7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those interested in Hybrid Vehicle availability. The mileage is not as good as the Honda version; but, the Insight is only a two seater. BTW, I'm getting a combined city/highway mileage of 39 mpg in my Toyota Echo. It uses iridium-tipped spark plugs. Anyone know why? Terry <><><><><><><><><><> --------------19A1419AB76573958AD9EAE7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail13.bellsouth.net (mail13.bellsouth.net [205.152.0.11]) by mail5.atl.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id EAA17829 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mifenmta02.maritz.com (maritzmail02.maritz.com [207.239.112.22]) by mail13.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id EAA26128 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:44:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mifenmta02.maritz.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:05:58 -0400 Message-ID: <7FE3A6FBF237D411812D00805F9FE494B53286 mifenexch03.maritz.com> From: Toyota HQ To: Terry Blanton Subject: Toyota Prius Purchase Request Web Site Launched! Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:05:53 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Prius, the world's first mass-produced hybrid electric vehicle will begin arriving in July at selected Toyota dealerships across America. This exciting new vehicle has everyone talking. Its new hybrid engine technology and fuel economy is less harmful to the environment and your pocket book! With an MSRP of $20,450*, and EPA mileage estimates of 52 miles per gallon in the city and 45 on the highway**, you'll generate savings you can brag about. Because Prius is in high demand and only a limited number will be available in 2000, we've created an exclusive web site that is designed to give Prius enthusiasts like you the chance to be among the first to own a Prius in 2000. By visiting this exclusive Purchase Request Web site between June 30th and July 13th, you will be able to request your Prius before the general public. On July 14th, the Web site becomes accessible to everyone. Go to www.toyota.com/prius_sneakpreview to find out more about the Prius or to fill out our simple Purchase Request Form. You can choose both the color you prefer and the participating dealer of your choice. We've made the request process an easy and unique experience. If you want to check out all the latest news and reviews on Prius, but aren't quite ready to reserve your own, go to the Prius web site now by clicking on www.toyota.com/prius. Sincerely, Prius Marketing Team *2000 Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price as of 04/18/2000, including Delivery, Processing and Handling Fee. Excludes taxes, license, title and available or regionally required equipment. The Delivery, Processing and Handling Fee in AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, AR, LA, MS, OK and TX is $15 higher for Trucks, Sienna and SUVs; and $30 higher for all other Toyota vehicles. Actual dealer price may vary. Pricing, specifications, standard features and available equipment are based on information available when this page was produced and are subject to change without notice. **See your Toyota dealer for details. --------------19A1419AB76573958AD9EAE7-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 07:14:13 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA14896; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:12:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:12:29 -0700 Message-ID: <002f01bfe29c$a5976040$14627dc7 computer> From: "Ed Wall" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000629140654.0139c7a8 earthtech.org> <006a01bfe215$2508fd80$60637dc7@computer> <022b01bfe244$e1eaacd0$4406aec7@craig> Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:38:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"G1uD21.0.de3.DhANv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35938 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Haynie To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:39 PM Subject: Re: MSSS comment on Mars image > > I've seen a lot of ice melt, but I've never seen it look anything like > that. > > I think that NASA is compelled to offer a prosaic explanation. I don't > see > > how they would know much more than is apparent from the photo. What I see > > is not apparent meling ice. > > Well it can't be bushes. Look at the scale. Those black spots are huge. > > Craig Haynie (Houston) Well, I suppose they're not even that big in Texas, are they? http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/8_10_99_releases/moc2_166/index.html It is best to carefully consider the prosaic, but the statements found on the MSSS pages make such definitive statements. Life is well known to be incredibly adaptive. I don't know those spots to be living, and I have not observed those locations over time, as they claim to have done, but their writing proposes explanation in certainty without supporting data. They say that the spots are seen during the early stages of melting, the black spots being the black sand under the white ice, but I imagine other interpretations can be supported by the observations. Ed Wall (NH, formerly Ft. Worth, sometimes) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 07:40:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17641; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:19:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:19:43 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630101719.007cae30 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:17:19 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: [Fwd: Toyota Prius Purchase Request Web Site Launched!] In-Reply-To: <395C967F.DC3DFA88 bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"0onIC.0.YJ4._nANv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35939 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >With an MSRP of $20,450*, and EPA mileage estimates of 52 miles per gallon >in the city and 45 on the highway**, you'll generate savings you can brag >about. That can't be right. More in the city than the highway? It was advertised as 60 mpg city, 70 mpg highway. That must be a typo. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 08:32:35 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16406; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:29:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:29:29 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie Reply-To: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Vk9ho.0.C04.PpBNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35940 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >I don't speak for Boeing, Only for myself. > > > >> ---------- > >> From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] > >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:38 AM > >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com > >> Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. > >> > >> >about wild > >> >conspiracies, and other such sillyness, or you can address the > >> >physics of the thing and consider, just for a moment, that there is > >> >a reason why so many people with NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER, > >> >say the design sucks. > >> > >> ***{This is a science discussion group, Steve. That means we don't give a > >> hoot in hell about the results of public opinion polls, including the > >> made-up variety that exists only in your mind. What we care about are > >> substantive reasons demonstrating that the Burnelli design is inferior to > >> the conventional design. The question, therefore, is simple: do you have a > >> shred of a technical basis for your position, or not? If you do, let's hear > >> it; if not, please stop wasting our time. --MJ}*** > >> > >Humm. Lets see. I said that slow speed and low altitude are bad, safety wise. > >This design is suppose to be safer because it fly slower due to its increased > >lift. You've ignored this. > > ***{I don't recall having seen this particular comment before in any of > your posts. In any case, obviously, it is flatly wrong: slow speeds and low > altitudes are not bad, if you are landing or taking off. And that is If your landing airspeed is slow, you run the risk of being susceptible to wind gust. One gust of wind in the right way (either from behind you, or a gust from infront of you stops, or variations thereof) and you suddenly find yourself without lift. Being in an airplane that has lost it's life is flatly dangerous. Being in such a high lift, low speed airplane is also susceptible to the vortex wake of larger or faster airplanes, to windshear, and so on. Now, if you have STILL air, and can pick clear weather and low traffic days for your flying, you might have had a point. That is not possible for commercial air transport, however. > precisely the point made on the aircrash website: high lift and lower stall > speeds translate into lower landing and take-off speeds. Since most Yeah, but that's not safer. > accidents occur in association with landing or taking off, that means > *much* lower kinetic energies in crashes--remember that kinetic energy > varies as the *square* of the velocity--and translates into major > reductions in the death rate. --MJ}*** But you crash more often... > >Now, Ed Storms pretty much hit the nail on the head with his analysis. You > >appear to ignore him too. > > ***{Ed Storms' post was re-sent by the vortex server at 29 Jun 2000 > 09:27:27, and the post in which you accused me of ignoring him was re-sent > at 29 Jun 2000 12:01:24. That's a difference of only about 2 hours and 34 > minutes, LOL!!! > and leads me to think you are having a pretty tough time thinking > of anything to say. (For the record: it is not unusual for me to take > *days* preparing an answer, when dealing with difficult arguments or when I > am pressed for time, as now.) --MJ}*** > > > > >Instead you believe in the grand conspiracy theory. I agree there are grand > >conspiracies out there, but they involve few people and not tens of thousands. > > ***{It's time to pull your fingers out of your ears, Steve. I have already > explained that the kind of conspiracy I am talking about requires the > conscious participation of only a few people at the top. --MJ}*** Funny how none of us engineers know about it, but then we're fascist, slow witted, plodding along dunderheads or some such, aren't we. We just go along to get those big fat paychecks that are 20% smaller than anywhere else we might go. > >The simple fact is, if you follow the original design to get an idea of what > >is being patented, that damn thing would have too much lift at high speeds. > > ***{Lift is equal to the product of the lift coefficient, the kinetic > energy of the airflow per unit of volume, and the horizontal > cross-sectional area of the wing. Result: as the velocity of the aircraft > increases, other things equal, lift increases. Since the downward force on > the plane--its weight--does not change, the increase in lift tends to cause > altitude to increase. This applies to *all* aircraft, not merely to lifting > body designs. Fortunately, there exist various control surfaces that pilots > can use to reduce lift, so that they can increase their speed without also > increasing their altitude--e.g., flaps and spoilers, trim tabs, etc. Thus, > unless the pilot is unconscious, it is false to say that the "damn thing > would have too much lift at high speeds." --MJ}*** The simple fact is, if you want to go any speed at all, that big fat lifting body design of his provides too much lift with too little torque about the axis of the airplane. Airplanes do have to turn! And when they turn, they have to bank. L ^ ^ | _|__ ------| |------ _____ | Think about it, once the airplane is banked, that big lifting body in the center is going to MUCK THINGS UP, by continuing to have a component of force in the bank direction. Now, a long tube, like most commercial airplanes, is lift neutral and doesn't affect that. If your lift from the lifting body as your turning is too great, you lose control and just roll right over. With the evil, fascist, plod headed conventional design, this is not a problem. See Tex Johnson and his rolling the 707 prototype at Seafair way back when. Like most scientist, you look at a design from the point of view of some single situation; straight and level flight in still air. Engineers know working designs are not that simple. > >It's a turtle. And while it may be 'safe' in some sense in still air, it > >would be > >like a leaf in the wind in weather, which is definately NOT safe. > >If high lift and low speeds were the way to go, the industry > >could have gone with biplanes and not infringed on this fellows > >patent that way. > > ***{Drag is equal to the product of the drag coefficient, the kinetic > energy of the airflow per unit of volume, and the vertical cross-sectional > area of the aircraft. Thus increasing the cross-sectional area of the > fuselage is unarguably going to increase the drag *on the fuselage*. > However, there are compensations: Like instability, UNRECOVERABLE instability, in turn. Speeds so slow you may as well have taken the train, susceptibility to turbutent air. You'll have more survivable crashes (many WW I pilots survived biplane crashes by staying with their airplanes....) but you'll have so MANY crashes that your busted and broken body stands a far greater chance of dying anyway. > (1) The vertical cross-sectional area of the wings would be greatly > reduced, because most of the lift would now be concentrated in the > fuselage. Yeah. Too bad we need lift on the wings to control banks in turns. You don't WANT most of the lift concentrated in the fuselage. > (2) The greater lift of the airframe would allow it to cruise at higher > altitudes, where drag is reduced. You're not going to see biplanes at 30,000 feet or above. Air is too thin. You need speed to get laminar flow across the wings but your design can't go fast because it isn't streamlined. > (3) The reduction in wing size, hence weight and costs, coupled with the > greater profitability of the larger payloads, would provide a profit > cushion that could be plowed back into the airframe in the form of larger > engines, to counter the effects of increased drag. Reducing wing size is, well, suicide in that box. This puppy DOES have more lift, and flys longer on less fuel. Biplanes are also fuel efficient. But you have to understand, and I think you're missing the point, the problem IS NOT THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LIFT IN COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES. We know how to make lift. We know were to PUT the lift, and where we DON'T want to put it. And we put it where it is safest and your presumption that safest is in the center is dead wrong. > Bottom line: performance would come out about the same, and safety would be > greatly enhanced, due to the lower landing and take-off speeds and the > improved structural integrity of the airframe--precisely as stated on the > aircrash website.. Well, you're free to buy a biplane. If you think that's safer. No one is making you fly commercial airplanes. > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > >> >This isn't nuclear physics. > >> > >> ***{From your perspective, based on your comments thus far, it apparently > >> isn't physics at all--since you have pointedly avoided any substantive > >> arguments whatsoever. --MJ}*** > >> > >Nope. It's aerodynamics. Now, you have this big lifting body that you > >can't control the lift on > > ***{That's just silly. You would control the lift with the same techniques > that are used to control lift on conventional aircraft. --MJ}*** } (see this page) http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono1.htm We put the lift out on the wings and the tail for a reason. Look at some of those designs on the website. They put the aerodynamic surfaces WAY the hell out there and put big wings and tails on those puppies because the controllable lifting surfaces have to wrestle that lifting body cabin around. Hello! Can you say unnecessary STRESS in the airframe? If you design it correctly, you don't need to DO that. The more stress, the shorter the time to a major overhaul and inspection of the stress parts. There is certainly NO SHORTAGE of lift in these puppies. Do you know there is such a thing as too much lift? > and produces a lot of drag at high speeds > > ***{Drag increases as speed increases, other things equal. This applies to > *all* aircraft, not merely to a lifting body design. Thus if there were no > techniques available by which lift could be altered while an aircraft was > in flight, the entire enterprise of flight would be called into question. > --MJ}*** > > , and > >moves like a slug in low speeds > > ***{Wrong. It would move like a butterfly at low speeds, because of the > greater lift and lower stalling speeds. --MJ}*** I say it moves slow at low speeds, and YOU disagree! You're in contrary mode now, pal! Ever watch a butterfly in the wind? Ever watch a fast moving hawk in the wind? > , and god help you in a cross wind > >or weather because being a high lift body you are going so slow you > >pretty much move with the air. > > ***{Wrong again: shorter winged designs are more, not less, stable in cross > winds, other things equal. And, as noted earlier, the greater earning power Again, look at those airplanes and ask yourself why your God's gift to aerospace put big old long wings on it. You CAN'T put short wings on the things! What are you trying to do? KILL PEOPLE? :-) Oh! I forgot! I'm the fascist. > of the design coupled with the savings in materials--not to mention the > eventuality of lower insurance fees--would provide the funds for larger > engines. Thus it does not follow that the cruising speeds would be less > than for conventional designs. --MJ}*** I don't see your buddy putting shorter wings on his airplanes. He is putting BIGGER lifting surfaces OUT FARTHER because they are needed to wrestle that damn lifting body around. If he had made the fuselage round, like conventional airplanes, he wouldn't need to do that. He also needs these big control surfaces because of WEATHER. Lift and control is dependent upon having airflow over the surfaces. Weather makes that a lot more problematic in low speed airplanes rather than fast ones, because the % change in air over the wings is far greater in slow than fast planes. In the REAL WORLD, if you have to plan on gusty winds! > >Or you can have a nice, safe, high speed airplane with thin wings, > >controlled lift and fly with enough momentum and speed that the > >weather just doesn't affect you much. > > > >That's the physics. > > ***{Nope. It's just another fantasy which exists only in your mind. --MJ}*** Good comback. That's very convincing. The same people who think I'm a fascist are going to be convinced. One big safety thing is weather. It's why we put weather radar on airplanes. You don't get much weather at 30,000 feet or more. To get to 30,000 feet, you need good aerodynamics at that altitude. Thiner, faster wings. Now, your plodding body (odd that us plodding engineers build fast airplanes and your gods gift to aviation builds flying slugs...) can't get that high. > Bottom line is, this thing has a lot of lift. > >The faster you go, the more lift. That limits speed > > ***{Nope. As noted above, pilots have to make adjustments in the settings > of various control surfaces to compensate for speed increases on *all* > aircraft, because lift increases as speed increases, other things equal. > Since the same types of control surfaces are available to the engineer who > designs lifting-body aircraft as are available to one who designs > conventional aircraft, your argument is bogus. --MJ}*** How those lifting surfaces perform are important. You'll note that your buddy didn't put little stubbie wings on his airplane, but GREAT BIG ones so that the controls would work. Of course, if you're going to make wings that big, you don't need the lift from the fuselage! Make a round fuselage, and low and behold, your plane moves faster, performs better in weather because of that, and you need even smaller wings. It's one of those number things. You can't go with intuition all the time. These things are engineered, after all. Well, I don't see the point in going on. I see that most of the rest of your post is as bad or worse than what I've covered all ready. All us engineers are evil fascist, the FAA and NTSB are evil fascist, only you know how to design airplanes, the pilots and passengers are suicidal fascist... Get help, dude. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 09:08:58 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27345; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:06:38 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: New IBM supercomputer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"-sjwf3.0.3h6.RMCNv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35941 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/business_ 93a59d8ac00d220800d8.html Quotes: The new IBM computer, called ASCI White, weighs 106 tons and occupies an area the size of two NBA basketball courts. The new supercomputer can do 12.3 trillion calculations a second, making it about 30,000 times more powerful than today's desktop personal computers. . . Its 8,192 microprocessors contain some 2,000 miles of copper wiring. It holds more than 160 trillion bytes of disk storage capacity, enough to house twice the contents of the Library of Congress and 16,000 times more than high-end PCs equipped with 10 gigabytes of storage capacity. It has a memory bank of 6.2 trillion bytes, nearly 100,000 times more than today's average desktop PC, which comes with 64 megabytes of memory. It requires 1.2 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a small-sized city. Shipments of the machine . . . are requiring 28 tractor trailer trucks. How'd you like one of these babes on your desktop?! Just wait. If Moore's law holds up, personal computer power should increase 32,000 times in 22.5 years. (Speed doubles every 18 months.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 09:12:02 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA32662; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:08:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:08:58 -0700 Message-ID: <395CC732.2C91E350 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:43 -0700 From: Edmund Storms Organization: Energy K System X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF References: <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000629105434.00b08b20@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1i3pW1.0.5-7.POCNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35942 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 07:52 AM 6/29/2000 -0700, Ed Storms wrote: > > > First, people have examined the materials, alloys, > > > additives, etc. for years -- and there has been a lot of progress. > > > >These studies have focused mainly on how to achieve high loading in palladium. > >They have not focused on trying to identify the characteristics of the > >nuclear-active-environment (NAE). Indeed, many people do not even agree as to > >where the nuclear-active material is located, either within the bulk or as a > >surface layer. Until the characteristics of the NAE are known, it is > >impossible > >to create it except by accident. > > Not entirely accurate with respect to the focus of the studies > or with respect to the putative nuclear-active-environment (NAE). > > . First, most studies appear to have focused on obtaining the > desired products (excess heat, and other particles some > of which are not radiated -like neutrons). True, but not relevant to the point I was making. > > > Second, there is no single nuclear active environment. > IMO CF/LENR have several types of materials, > alloys, composites, AND their products vary depending on > location, drive, etc. I reviewed some of this in the Jan 2000 > article in F. Tech. on ICCF-7, and in many past articles elsewhere. > Furthermore, there are homogeneous and heterogeneous alloy > systems of several configurations and effectiveness. > All this leads away from a single purported NAE and toward > a better understanding of cold fusion. You and most people assume that the nuclear reactions occur within the alloy being used. This is not necessarily true. Not only is the surface of the cathode much different from the basic structure because of deposition of and alloy formation with the various components dissolved in the electrolyte, but also complex layers of undefined substances form on the surface of the cathode. At this time, we do not know how these environments affect the nuclear reactions. A variety of active environments may exist, but it is just as likely that only one basic kind of environment is necessary. We just do not know the answer to this problem. Unfortunately, the answer will not be found until people stop thinking as you described above. > > Only by one precisely knowing that one > is driving the system at the "center of the optimum operating point" > can one even begin to compare different systems, or for two > labs to compare one system/material. The optimum operating point ,as you define it, is the point of greatest efficiency, not the conditions of greatest output of cold fusion energy. This comparison is only useful after an application is eventually found. On the other hand, a basic understanding of the nuclear process must be based on what is happening in the isolated spots of unknown size and quantity where the action is known to occur. These regions are able to achieve an enormous energy density which, hopefully, can be duplicated on a larger scale. > > ============================================= > > > > Second, with all due respect, it is the temperature that dominates > > the change > > > from hot to cold fusion -- and that controls many of the cold fusion > > > reactions as well. > > > >It is obvious that a change from hot to cold fusion involves a large effective > >temperature change, but that is not the issue. The issue is what allows > >the cold > >fusion reactions to occur in the first place. Higher temperatures, i.e. a few > >hundred degrees, seem to improve the effect, but why is this so? In addition, > >simply raising the temperature of an otherwise inert cell does not cause the > >effect to occur. The issue is, what are the conditions which must be > >present to > >produce the cold fusion effect? Temperature alone is not the critical > >variable. > > The issues which I mentioned are the issues, and are the issues > of the critics of the field. That includes the lack of neutron and penetrating > ionizing radiation emission even as He* is formed. Temperature is also > critical since it controls (doubling activity every 10C and diffusion every > 30C if memory serves) reactions required. I could go on about the > phonon coupling to the lattice, etc. {cf. Phuson article, if interested}. > > Temperature is a critical variable for other reasons, too, both > in initiating and quenching the desired reactions. > > ============================================= > > > > It is the temperature that makes CF NOT radiate with penetrating > > ionizing > > > radiation. > > > It is the temperature that locks out the branches leading to > > > neutron emission from the He* excited state. > > > It is also temperature that controls rates in loading, deloading, > > > diffusion, etc. > > > >I see no evidence in any of the literature, either in theory or > >experiment, which > >supports this conclusion. > > You may elect not to see it, but evidence is in the literature > and by experiment. It is the temperature that makes CF NOT > radiate with penetrating ionizing radiation The reference was cited to you. > Swartz, M, G. Verner, "Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion", > J New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)] > > Similarly, it is the temperature that locks out the branches leading to > neutron emission from the He* excited state. > The reference was cited to you, and the evidence was shown > ["Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", > Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997). > > It is also temperature that controls rates in loading, deloading, > diffusion, etc. The references were cited to you, and you were > encouraged to read some engineering and electrochemistry > (Uhlig, Bockris, Melcher, von Hippel, and others including > Swartz, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of > Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) > [see also Swartz. M., "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium", > Fusion Technology, 32, 126-130 (1997) ]. Mitchell, you can quote your work all you want, but I do not see any reason to agree with your conclusions. Temperature clearly plays a role in determining the rate of the nuclear reactions, once they start. However, I do not understand why you say " It is the temperature that makes CF NOT radiate with penetrating ionizing radiation ", nor how this insight helps make the effect easier to produce. > > > ============================================= > > > > And it is clear that the input electrical power is a > > > dominant control, after loading where the electric field intensity > > > controls the reaction. > > > Only by knowing you are driving the system at the center > > > of the optimum operating point can you even compare different systems. > > > >The electric field intensity is only relevant when electrolysis is used. > >However, > >the effect has been seen using at least 7 other methods. A discussion of the > >effect must also consider these other conditions if it is to provide any > >understanding. > > Electric fields play roles beyond electrolysis, > consider just double layers, the ferroelectric hydrogen-binding > of water, and even the impact of lattice fracture. > Then there are the applied electric field intensities. ;-)X This is like saying that CF is influenced by electrons. Such a statement, while true, provides no unique insight. Ed Storms From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 09:15:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02104; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:14:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:14:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fascist airplanes and why they're better... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1915785203-1367894806-962381640=:7755" Resent-Message-ID: <"uTDmg1.0.oW.BTCNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35943 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1915785203-1367894806-962381640=:7755 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII We all know that the fascist had the best airplanes in WW II. :-) Please find attached a crude drawing showing why a big fat lifting body in the middle of the airplane makes the design unstable in banked turns. Now, if the center of the airplane was neutral wrt lift, all the forces would balance. --1915785203-1367894806-962381640=:7755 Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="ROLL.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: R0lGODdhAAKAAfcAAAAAAICAgIAAAICAAACAAACAgAAAgIAAgICAQABAQACA /wBAgEAA/4BAAP///8DAwP8AAP//AAD/AAD//wAA//8A////gAD/gID//4CA //8AgP+AQACB2VyB2CjEB5i/9wCBWH0AAAC/9wCB2HwAAPcAVj+ErgAAAAyB 1+yB2QC/9wCB2BAAALCB2fcAVj+ErhAAAHmB2ZC/94EAVgC/+WSB1wAAAHkA ANC/90wAAC4AVve/9wCErq4AAAwW39/drK8mXUwAMSeExAAAhP4ADDsAJn8B NwgBF4chNWQAAAwAAMdHD0wAMQLdrFAW3wwAABAAaBCFCGgEEGgAAgAAAqx7 6CIAAscDMTEAAAAATKwAhDYAAtOFUAAW/0wAMYQAABAMEAAAhDEAAAEATAIA AADDDeIABje/9/EAAGS/92QAAUQAARC/9xAAaJ0AaJQBAukAVgFfQBAAAAAA AIQAAAAAADEAABAATCwAaJ0AVoRfQAAAADEAAEwATKIAAK4BAjFfQAEAAIQA ABAAABAAaHwAaL1fTZi/9wCBXs0AAFBfQFhfTQEAVkAAAEAAaWAAaQEAUIAA AIAAaWAAaekAUAFfQIwAAAAAAJgAAAgBAAEBAMAAAHkAVv9fSUz//2MAVoRf QAAAAOgAAEgBAIQAVgEAAGwAAIkAVoRfQAAAADEAABAATIQAaGAAAMwAUOwA VoRfQAAAAAcAABwAAIwAVmgAAPAAVhEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAFf QBwAAIwAVmAAAIAAUAgAVvEAVgBfSegAAHQAVgBfQBAAAIQAAAAAAAEAABQA ADMAVhBfQIQAAAAAADEAAHgATGAAQABTyABTwFCHHABWeABTyFCHKJABFwAF FAIAAAAEkooAAAAAAABTyACHagCHUgAAAAAAAcgAAO4AADe/9wgAAMa/98YA APwAANQACDQAXMcAAwC/9wgAWPwAXwAACNQAAAAAXPgAWIgAXKIAABd/UIh/ UzZ5KYpniuQFjz8RrDYdOiwAAAAAAAKAAQAI/wABOBhIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHD hxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyAbChwIYGTIkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjylRokmDN mThz6tzJs6fPn0Bt3rQZtKjRo0iTKl0acqjBkkyjSp1KtarVlE4RZr3KtavX r2B7QoW4NazZs2jTqhVJcezat3DjyqValu3cu3jz6nXp1mLdvYADCx5MdGNf wogTK377d2LjxZAjSw56mOPjyZgza1Z5uWLlzaBDi9bY+WLp0ahTh/588rTq 17ATu87IOrbt24RnG8bNuzfg2i11+x5OXKlwj8CLK1+e9DhI58yjS0eZfCb0 6dizm0ZaXbv37xivc/8GT758ePEr0Ztfr1w9y+7s42t3z1e+ffPwj9K/zx/z fpcLLOBAgAQWRGCBAQ6U4IECEsSggQkqeKCEFBpUoIQXYohggwtOaGGEAwr4 YIgXgghhgyFSOKKGHHqIoYModkhihCO6WCGMM4q44okbqjghjSjmqKOPG5bo Iogx9gghZP8BqGNWSLaY4kFA+lihjFPiWGVCUVrJZZdVhhkkjEl6+aGXYt4o Y5o4Zulmiibe+GWbWF45ZpZs2vnmlEbWKedg+SElo1Ndwnknn0OiyaGCZ5pJ ZZmGzskmln4qOmSceuY5aaJ+YvpnpXs2iqibSi6ZaZB5LtljpZ7u1SRMHRL/ eFOUP9pYY5lb2oinjhm2KWSOZ246KqaUrmmrlJoiqyyRsd4ZZ7OQKkRrkbHu OS20wx474LbGiirYq7AmSpKp2SKU7Kh/7hqqmsuayymvQBr5aLbi8tiivKcq am2vz9abrqipVgtwuyz+uyC3l47Z6l2BLlWpSYWCWq6+6YJ5KLuOkllrpG/2 +2C1nvaL7sTFrmuiyMRe7GvAvM6br5ZSPtosx766mhaoUEXsr54cbxlqyXO+ PHDP/oqsb8gKx9ypxY763PHOhZLLcsWQLp3xygT/Oxe4M0nsAAA6A6sxqteS +2G0LtN7Mq7i6spg2++K/WnVHsPcZ7xJb5xyzRgb/6rk3qeW+nbSdMILrcpo NZx4f2YhzrhfsnH9eEqOT+4Yk5Zn/q3kU3Gu+ec8eU6X6KCX/hLpVaFu+upN qY7Trb2+WNOKGe7ooe20klk40Rqf/bfhMtuNd8xn777jjHOLfTyJxrt9LNo/ x9i73yV/zDa1lXflek6pFv/1SCgrLX70SZYPM8VO9+0180dnrbvQprIa98K1 t7v2y0Y3enfTWTO9u1rb4577zjeu+7UvbTxCHu/ElDCGhK1V1bMf1N7VQAQ+ bWLzihfvmkdAvtltgWSrIAENuDCuKC4ssAtfQcC2sQP6LoTwstT1aBa0Xx0v gi5U1b2oB0O+RTB2xaogCf/hdkF3cYuHwFvV7SgINLMEcCfd66CcLIYvs2kJ YTJc1u+cRTeTzW+JVRxhy+hXqhwGS1lxGxvG8hcsLE6tjBss2FmeCMUBCols EGPbyDzoNyQKMWFEHBoNx9at9HlMb+vLGA5lhsg0UmyQEKQWBvuoQlLtzIR0 rOPV1IWjPKIrV5cEGRHTBEqqcTBt3YIk4cx4SjFGz5VOK6UhVRY2GkaxfvHL 3lIyyZMUkq1mERoLLu00vPiZCYc+05X6gIc1mjmvhSAE4t2MNU2pfVGahSsf 9lb5ySSiMXcFi9pVeMkY1pkzJyd8DTnPabl1yiWd7IxnRNzJMHnaEzn0xEs+ 7+n/nX3mBZ78tKc/e/I2tXHxesUkX/P49bxT4u2F75Obuw76O+URz15f1JD3 2MdRBj4Uowa114l8qEsADvQnD6Sl/xa50SiObJipjCXhSvmli6X0kajU4kXr Zz6cpo+TEpPlRdf1TtTc1IjCClBJQBXEQfKsqTG16S9xqkMj4m+MKuVgJGcG wiki7qj6GyU3/5maazETlhLcF6IAuTZcapCrChTpSqX6yqsyj4yEpB4jFRhE bcbQqjbUljOLVtKwADQwYD0js+6lVLUysK5Jxdb0vCq8rCJtoY+tYbLuJyKS LXGvggzqZxVZ2K+c9CiJJWQDncbCF1ITsoZ7LVOnusZL/94xp1bKLGC7x1lq IlJrgJukK0mrz9iktrbCzR9Lc6muyFK2qntsZmgz6tSbyvSuYuWfKeH3vyZq LXGnFVQXcXe+abm2ud+EIfEW+VEPDlOt29Xorm45Xsbq75jXbK81F7vfjlpP mYbl52EDWp7wisbABEbMgBmH4AQHpsGoWbCD2zPhg0C4woy5sDoxHB8NJ0VY fKVd2Z7WK7fA9Kwsyi9FRxo47LGYqKNtKRiFGlAPfzitycxbK78LvqMG16Xd DPIyqbpj9FE3kaWTsGQeK1ro8hZxrX2rI6Xb5KEJrr5StKJyj7yobRE1ydFh 8l+BycShLs9SccRarRiK2yu30v9rR+Ime+375c/ZmCmkNC9laWzFR7WWkkMF aii5WN6o3SrLvisiD+XYN3MqOTN5lrNfl/vlwQE6vi79MSCbmeM6qzLLlxVo dpzLSfQSl8xoxbQdg0xTQROZu2muq6cZ7J3R6tfQzCyo9az5Z8lOV6LyfRHP Sq3BFCf6V8JWdH+TfOfeVK7ZHN4JtHmjy0dHu7jXbkq2DzztAm97M91ej7W/ HWByj8fckUN3etQNKHa/J9zuJku8gzPvd8K7nfUuZ775cu999xt0/3b3uPct b4Kb0OA4GTjCz71w6zR8lwGPZ8QxPHF5KvzhtMG4Typ+z4tr3DMf1wnHE+zx uUDg5Cj/P7ltRj5hlp8k5SmHTclDnnHYqBw3LufwzNVy85XTPCo550jP1Rn0 bBc9IzAfOmiOvu2dhyXpEBgN08k99YkofTVVp3porg7unxs26w7hugNgvhiw s9vsCxH7zcX+T7SfPTNqj/rY5f4tr2c4NWRvt93h4vaHrJ3uenH63kWemOz9 /TeDZxjYDS93tus78fUUzJ0AP5C867PvGs86iFCuGMyHXPBAMRHnFQz53Oil s5WP+eZKT/q50IgglrcZ69MNlwYpYFsKgDriZ1/2u9xeQLpvO+8jM/LbDwjq jl/c8CUDepkYfwHIp/zjl8/8txj/9lHnvPRNSn3NRNz4DjD+/+iL2n1wBxz8 qd9+WjxffpqkBf1zV78T2d9+958F/uMHYP1T0/yVoD//yrd//GcW/5d840R/ AugQ4VaA8ndwCRgb/RcSDBiADwiBXwF+AOgVCFiBEgFtGGiAQLeBHNiBd/aB DSgVIjiCbcEV4geCxqGCTxd8MGFjLXiCxpGCDYd81qFhNeiAMBiDP3FhPWgV OIhxLlgfU4F9RxiERWiENhgTEXgRSviEQNGEGieD0hYVU9g5P7gWWJiFS7GF TBGFXcgSSwiF4ZV7Z5hwZfgWawiFSqGGVEh4beiFc4hOSSGHzWGFHiEBBuGH /PSGMkGGD6GG3PEdEpCIiriIihiId/8IhkVhiEbBhxfBiJbIiHU4LpEoiJxB iRNxiaCIiZn4PUEhiUHIHKEYiqNofz8Bf6FTHKl4iav4EO7kiujkiQoRi5Y4 i45Bf7h4ELq4iLxYc70XG8GYiCFXQkUhOhTQjM74jNA4iLh4jIBod8pYhf8B jdq4jdxIAeuGGsG4fNd4ihzRjeZ4jtH4HKIRju0XO4eIEejojQ8Rj5aRguxY fme2hxVhjhrBj+GRGfeIjwlycqVFjhDBjSeBkCAHEsjoAA3pkA8pisi4iwPR iBUJiA+JEQHZfTYCAdDngwyxjS0hkvP0Hw15kn6IkhcJkX+IkSnpkitpERsp kAhBkI9IGWX/QZIvoZMM8SoqGZEvuZIZqZJCOZHVCBEz+YMemYF0gRDauBNP uRDgsotAyZIsWZUxeZVGiZSx2IW2uJRM2ZQFkY49QZZPwTU/WY1GaZFYaZVa CZFHuRCq2Ia354rQF3sH6ABR+RN7qYkrkZYEsZVEOZRqGZQW6RDCuIrXRxBy iJdcYZZBQZaeM5hBaZWCGZdvaZmYOYwMAX6eqYNeAZlFAY3NR5RwGZiFuZaH uZowyZkQYYtjF3+xGZrOSIgS8YyuGRmLeRBhSRW46ZdJ8Zu5mRi7aRC9KRXC CZzLKBDJOZyCUZwFcZxM0ZwksU81QZ3O+Zy8yYll6YxSSRkHgZ3Z/7kXriid wemdPblxWSGe44kX5cmdOiGaWkFHdcGe7TkX+AefOWGfFoaHDYGe9wkY+XmT 3dmMl4OG8wigHZGRARqJxqmfMiGfIiE6pcGfXJmYDXoUE+ibCnqg33ibBloR XZmhGhqdEAoTElpw1DEbFloQx0iieQh7J7qTHeoZ/3EcNdqSSQmjDpp+U+Gd 8kga6giPNfqiPJqEMkqg+5mj21GPG+Gd1HikLOijUQGkH7Fg4hGlUnqBVDqd BhqkyPGPGmmkWxoWQ+ilIaptbTEbWlqmaiGGS2GlK9qBnxiOLeqmVgGnSiGn WKGiDNGmA3GneEoVenqe3gim1DGhf7qjgf/KpIPqFXqIpoiKFVuRFYAakmn6 qARongWqlzOoFS5KpiCaqZp6gZzKE3yKhNUJl7qYEYJaqkxhiobqqWh4qa7q qLBaFbKKFKnKEqL6Ea+aqwcZj8RarM2IcsaarMq6rMxarNTYrNAardI6rdQK rSVxrdiardq6rdzard76reDardUZruRaruZ6ruVarcuKrOraru4aj8/6rvI6 r9SqAPTqjxh2r+cIAfrar9JKjYzorwI7sNAIAfZKsJMqrAl6qGMKsJupnAmJ q1KBcrCpsHz5pRThsID4FzMXrEdBsRY7qwmLEBrbn7SYEh5rFCAbskfRqzpq q6s6TyiRskXBeRX/y7JQibGoCbB20YsgQbM1q3I3i7NLeqgle7JN2hFAGxSj N7REKxNHW5JCqrQSO7E357RP66s8CzlO+qRVGxVNm7VQ67BTG6a3SqpdMX5Y K7YZUbIj67NqehFLy7RXu7ZsW6c867IrSKly+7VgW7d3uxFRO5Y6y7UfOqpv axVqa7eB+7KMShB6S4sUShFzS7d0pwCMe7eD6xCRm54IOqxo6xX5l7lES7YW kaKsOIigm7iKO3SY27ihurX9WLiKSoeYGrqiq3SkO6ibW453Sk7JUblBS3m7 K6WmqxKoC7GQGJ5+SxUZWLwB2rsr0bm2+Z3Mi7tf8bywerwzIaEndRjC/6uy V/e6eCq7qEqdBmYS4Su+2we9qwizPiGZDcaczdu67VsQ7suB8GsU0ahh6/ux YueZw7m/e/q/LmHA7JsQAjyLBPyjCIy83slxo0u+dTmKv2pYyRu/wlm9KcGU mFvBP9jAGtioD+wRohlxx0m+DyjCYNEXfQkU3stzjpe/H8fCTuSUL5yzEsvB HqF6I2jD67cQOYwTGay89qtyNliQBHfBgfcXPBmhRVwYuZt0C6HE8QbEcdEZ T8wSW6yA0/aFBkJzWBx5iFvC1zu30AbGjIJxY3x5fTvEXgvHHnoVjrnGBtfG sne2XTwR+GoYzYZ9XLLEj1t9VHuOq9uNrYFCYf98xUxsfhE7r4fLFdKDbnhc jNNLrTMIbV22bZVMfERMrK8oyV52bYPMf1Z4Z+N4T3NZHJ7IwxRhaRiGocvx i18Du8RHy0Zsy3l8G66syw43HE8Emr48p6ycE8I8zEM6y64zo8jsudKhOszc zPM5HzERzdK8QuDRfGp8zXtLHp6zzdxMFrhctiphzc08zl3bwUoazk/RH+Bi zrrcy5YcEvAMu+hMzCBRz4F7zwzHztLGz5Hsz6rLOvKMzAD9qQJ9OgcNhwn9 HjW20HYH0f7Z0MlMchSNTzon0Qun0QZ50QvZdB69puhW0IPK0c0R0gpYbybd dCsNcShtsgbX0i33cDL//dCZV9MW93M4fU47DZLcTNKZA9Sj2NPlds68R9Tu jNRzpNQd1n5MjR/799TfIdQdJ9XYYdVZTLRYTX4KS9UV5tWQt9WBB6tivctl CtYs7aZlbXpSutatR6JoLXBuTcj3OdfzXNcJSHZKh8Q9h3IAwNepl6RJqn0+ HH98zZTjd3h4ScWKXdiWl9iOPXp5V9iGDXiQXZN93Xh0p3p6bdmdHdh13Bp2 zRVDt9fZl9mnPXeB3aWrrdrbaaKtLdirDdiuDduzndqvDduH59qNbdulrdmy XdsmutnAzdu4Hdut3dsDXX6//aCG/dyHbdzCndmY7duUR9uELd3OfdvCLaO2 /63ayv3d3e3d0r3buq3ZqX11zb3d5b3O5Lx8n33eJ/fX2Z3d4O3Zg+3ZhJ2B 2A3Y5k3elX3a+Rff9w3a0tfZ6u3D/f3af5feBx5zCZ7fAq7PUjnaU7He3o3E senfAm7g3811623a7Y3bEc7dII7fBi7ZD76dIQ7c/+3h933cAD7e1F3gtst7 GG7g9O3gMR7gxD3jM/7fuhfdL17b4S3e1L3g7L3kjU3g6QfhHV7iaffjNn7j rJfjBV7fJH7cNT7e013cyb3l2v3hLr59Ir7baC7jQl7mGX7dP57mMI7cRs7m oWPhSoHghE3flefh4d3lsffbAJjkZY7YVH7YWC6bYf/+5E+O3m6u4m0O5W0e 5g1O22Se4hTupwJo572h6UTI6Zvu6UBny6D+gvG8fHFdgaf+OKP+zHuXcgIR 34Ye65W95DEe6zw+56Y94KgN58EN2YU+4Yz+oJBe6w/+5px97Jj967MuljSn cnre4gAO7UBO6dEu5mOu3Uqu5F3q65H+5XJe49Qu7N2+4Ceu7JfeiSHn7EhO 6V1+7We+4ile5bnN7tbeeMI+4TCu7V5e7XHu3MpN7ive4PI+Th833/ce5VQ+ 62vu7wpu7Lee7Oad7YG+33Te8BSfELsu6+ed72Ie4QKv8QTvhLkd74me37Qe 7nPe4wJP3vQ+5h6/4RWP7Pf/PvJHvvHEvujf3vEon5cbLeU9XvL93t0oL+iy 2e59bu00jvA+buNxR/N0fvAcfu1Cz9hKf8MxbeIo7udZj+LdXum8Lu0SD+Qq z+U6b91OH/SJDvAnb+xoP8L51hfHbt9ab9+4ruVnH/ETr+vErevzHucAr+In zvLA7vVkn+t0//fnzm/ztupBLXAvjbRUx/gAJ/nd/Pgye22UT9AZbfmmkfmp i/Exr+gB3usyb/LjXuwsLveDL/WIPuKGr9+CP9g4/+fgHuz73nUE1hj/jvS5 HvsizuBgHtzsvfusf9lMv/Wkz93yDufM//QDWNV+N+gDH9th//sML+PTn/LH X/Ru/27ctw72W/7wQf70ai/eppzTENHktc7k4f/itM/9DF/dWB/v7+6j+t78 9o/9Ck/+Ot/uG8bTAOFA4ECCBQVCgHAwIUIHCBMqZKiQIMOIFRc+HBixIMWL GCVqnIjRYkOHDzl6JJkypUOVIEeuNNmxJceQLFXClAjxokGePX3+BBpU6FCi RR0AMJpU6VKmTZ06BYDU6MiTG0VeLbkTZ0ieNG3q/Jrx6ketVcVmhVnWI9Ws O1lqpCl2ptyXcp/exZsXqlS9ff3+BdyT79SYc+vCHcvWale1XHM6Nly47s24 lddKTlw4smPFm7cGBh2a6WDRpU2fJkia8EuLLseStdmWZP9Yy5BBPp6tOTdu xJHD5tZdWydYyjEvI56MWrly1cudP18aFfp06tWtX8euVHp27tObdwcfXvx4 8kK/l0c/Ov169u3dM38fP+h2+fXt38dvkH7+9+f5/wcwwOz8E5A7AgtEMEEF ATtwQef2czBCCSccrUEKQbPwQg03nDBDDvHy8EMRR/wvRBKNgvBEFVcEMEUW 1XsxRhnxM3HGgWq0MUcdocMxRhd3BDLI634Uskchj0TyLyNHXDJJJ59sqkkN iYSySiv7ovJFKa/kskvBgNzSSzHHDLPALMdEM02gztywTDXftNJNGuGks07z VGTTTj3VzDNBOfcEtMgP/wy00B3lCSWvT0MX7VLR+xBlNNIZIR1QUkv3pLQ6 Ry/l9MlN08u0U1FPDBW+UU+Fs9TSPkW11SBZrdRVWfmsT9VZb6XQ1rxgxbXX SXWFyldhyQR1WGO9BBbFZI9lVkBeMWw2Wi6X/Ylaaa/lz9qCnsW2WxG5fUpb b8e1z1pxyUU3vmTBTbfdXG0911152ys13nnvLRZDe/HlN1FC9+034PHkBFhg g8ELk92DFzazyYIZhjjW6CKmWMYaFa4442w9fFhjj6mzsOOPR36OQIxJRrnW 70ROuWVTU3M5ZiZvZFlmm0U7+Wad3QMgIAA7 --1915785203-1367894806-962381640=:7755-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 09:18:01 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03825; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:16:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:16:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:16:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UUtT31.0.bx.vVCNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35944 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Applications include modeling nuclear bombs and cracking your PGP encripted e-mail by brute force, unfortunatly... On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/business_ > 93a59d8ac00d220800d8.html > > Quotes: > > The new IBM computer, called ASCI White, weighs 106 tons and occupies an > area the size of two NBA basketball courts. > > The new supercomputer can do 12.3 trillion calculations a second, making it > about 30,000 times more powerful than today's desktop personal computers. . . > > > Its 8,192 microprocessors contain some 2,000 miles of copper wiring. > > It holds more than 160 trillion bytes of disk storage capacity, enough to > house twice the contents of the Library of Congress and 16,000 times more > than high-end PCs equipped with 10 gigabytes of storage capacity. > > It has a memory bank of 6.2 trillion bytes, nearly 100,000 times more than > today's average desktop PC, which comes with 64 megabytes of memory. > > It requires 1.2 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a small-sized city. > > Shipments of the machine . . . are requiring 28 tractor trailer trucks. > > > > How'd you like one of these babes on your desktop?! Just wait. If Moore's > law holds up, personal computer power should increase 32,000 times in 22.5 > years. (Speed doubles every 18 months.) > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 10:15:46 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA27833; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:13:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:13:40 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630131336.007a7d40 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:13:36 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Zappy scooter for sale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"J9dL82.0.po6.3LDNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35945 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You are not supposed to advertise on Vortex, but I bought this scooter In the Interest of Science, and now maybe someone here would like it In the Interest of Fun. It isn't a practical means of transportation where there are hills. For specifications, see http://www.zapworld.com/ The list price is $600. I'd like $300. Please respond by private e-mail, unless you want to ignite a bidding war. I'd appreciate that! I was once at an auction of computers from a defunct corporation. People got so caught up bidding on used equipment they began paying more than the list price. I suppose I should go to one of these on-line auction sites but I'd rather avoid the hassle. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 10:29:50 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00888; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:26:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:26:54 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:26:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fascist airplanes. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MBJr13.0.oD.UXDNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35946 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We fascist would like you to know that: 1) We know how to make slow airplanes. You don't need to make the fusilage into a lifting body to make slow airplanes, however. Slow airplanes are a danger because of weather. An airplane dependent upon a 40 mph airplane that undergoes a 30 mph wind gust has a sudden 75% change in forces (or more!) on the lifting and control surfaces while an airplane at 530 mph experiences about an 8% change. (It's not that simple, but you get the idea). Thus, they are safer if faster in weather. Do you want to fly in real air? Or some hypthetical still air? 2) A huge lifting body in the center makes the airplane UNSTABLE in turns. It is a sad fact of life that airplanes that are unstable in turns are not safe. 3) Yes, in a slow airplane you hit the ground with less energy and speed. How much energy do you think it takes to kill a human being, anyway? And there reaches a limit where you might as well drive, and not fly at all! You're moving so slow! Besides, by (1) & (2) you're going to be hitting the ground so often you'll increase your odds of not surviving. 4) Us so called dullard, complacent, fascist, kill crazy engineers actually don't LIKE accidents! We have feelings and emotions, and we care about the people on the airplanes. We ride in them ourselves, before anyone else, and do somewhat dangerous test to ensure they are safe. Thinks like hard overs such. It is discouraging to put your butt in there first and get things like "fascist", insensitive to the lives of passengers and crew, and complacent about safety. 5) Airplanes have more than enough lift! You don't need to compromise control with this type of lifting body (note it is NOT Northrup's blended wing concept!) because of some deficency in lift! 6) Hit some windshear when you're landing or taking off and you'll be damn glad you have a high take off and landing speed. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 10:34:21 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA03803; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:32:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:32:44 -0700 Message-ID: <395CD7E3.C03D9B36 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:24:51 -0400 From: Terry Blanton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Toyota Prius Purchase Request Web Site Launched!] References: <3.0.6.32.20000630101719.007cae30 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ylRCP2.0.Lx.ucDNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35947 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >With an MSRP of $20,450*, and EPA mileage estimates of 52 miles per gallon > >in the city and 45 on the highway**, you'll generate savings you can brag > >about. > > That can't be right. More in the city than the highway? It was advertised > as 60 mpg city, 70 mpg highway. > > That must be a typo. I don't think so. If you go to the web site, you find that the gasoline engine only is used on the highway. The hybrid operation is for city and hills/high acceleration. The gain is through regenerative braking. The numbers are the same on the spec page as on the mailing. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 10:35:12 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA03908; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:33:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:33:03 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630133253.007a4790 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:32:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"75B1R1.0.wy.EdDNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35948 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lajoie wrote: >Applications include modeling nuclear bombs and cracking your PGP >encrypted e-mail by brute force, unfortunately... If the government wants to devote hours or days of realtime with $110 million computer to read my mail, I would consider it an honor. It would not be the first time Feds or Administration goons have devoted great efforts and risk to read our family mail, when they might have read it for the asking with no effort at all. No doubt you recall that on June 17, 1972, Washington, D.C. police officers arrested seven employees of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in the Watergate apartment complex. Here are some questions which have seldom or perhaps never been raised in the oh-so-serious histories of that affair: 1. Whose office were they trying to break into? Answer: My father's maybe, or more likely the one next to it. The cops left their footprints all over dad's desk, probably when they looking over the partition. 2. What were they after? God only knows, but whatever it was, they could have walked in anytime during business hours, opened any file cabinet, and walked out with it. There was no security and nothing worth stealing as far anyone there could figure out. 3. Why did they do it? Hold a seance and Richard Nixon. My father, who was no stranger to the intelligence biz during WWII and the early cold war, once said that if you are given the most secret clearance, and you go to most secret bureau of the government, in the most secret guarded room, with the vault, and the file cabinet inside the vault, and you open that file cabinet drawer . . . you will find an old newspaper and a dried-up rotten apple. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 10:38:39 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05776; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:36:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:36:34 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630133625.0079b760 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:36:25 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000630133253.007a4790 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"pj5R63.0.AQ1.YgDNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35949 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I spoiled a perfectly good joke: >3. Why did they do it? Hold a seance and Richard Nixon. I meant to say: Hold a seance and ASK Richard Nixon. Don't invite me. He was creepy enough alive, I'd hate to meet him in a dark room now. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 10:54:11 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA10373; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:51:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:51:38 -0700 Message-ID: <395CDDA9.5E3C1362 telus.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:49:29 -0700 From: AL & Jan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD TELUS.NET_x86_NCom (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: New IBM supercomputer References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"k3C1s3.0.rX2.fuDNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35950 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > How'd you like one of these babes on your desktop?! Just wait. If Moore's > law holds up, personal computer power should increase 32,000 times in 22.5 > years. (Speed doubles every 18 months.) Good I can't wait to get one. AL F From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 11:29:53 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA20730; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:27:38 -0700 (PDT) MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:26:36 -0400 (EDT) MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Alternate-recipient: prohibited Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:36:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. In-reply-to: To: vortex-l Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Posting-date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal UA-content-id: E2804ZYNMKMNVT X400-MTS-identifier: [;63624103600002/4854130 ODNVMS] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"bnrAE1.0.m35.KQENv" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35951 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve & Mitchell, About a year ago I looked at the Burnelli site for the first time because of a post by Mitchell. At the time it made a lot of sense. And for the first week of this debate Steve wasn't saying anything that had really changed my mind. Steve, on the technical side just kept saying not safe, not safe, not safe day after day. What he did talk about was issues of integrity, personal & industry wide. I think that was because he saw this entire topic as an affront to his own personal integrity and that of his peers. Which is Mitchell's fault and that of the author of the Burnelli site. When you start throwing around words like facist & conspiracy & cover-up you mentally short circuit a persons ability to keep the discussion on a purely technical path. Mitchell doesn't seem to grasp this, perhaps he read the book "How to lose friends and piss off influential enemies." And on my part I kept seeing Steve's e-mail address and thought he was worried about someone in management reading his company e-mail so he was towing the party line. That and I was thinking he could be suffering from an institutionalized blindness, all young engineers are told it's not safe and he just took it for granted as a given fact. Then Steve finally brought up the subject of control at low speed, and it finally sunk in. But he only mentioned it as a side point, and hasn't brought if up again. Control surfaces need a large volume of air moving past them to be effective. The faster the more control they have. Even at their normal landing speed they still wallow around like a pig if there is any turbulence. If you were able to slow it down even more by using a lifting body, that pig is going to be on ice with hobbles on. Granted if it does crash you are going to be safer in two ways, lower speed & more structural strength. But you are more LIKELY to crash! Also granted, you could come up with an active maneuvering control system like thrusters positioned all over the place. But this isn't something that lends itself to fallback manual control in the case of electrical failure. If you get hit by lightning on final and lose auxiliary control, at the same time you are fighting the turbulence of the weather that generated the lightning. Or worse yet, the damage causes them to fire at random. Another situation, wind shear. In a conventional plane you would cut through the cell faster because of the speed and be clear with time to recover. In a lifting body your going to be stuck in that cell all the way to the ground. Bill webriggs concentric.net Briggs XLNsystems.com Blah, blah, blah. (I'm paraphrasing here) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 11:50:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA02027; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:49:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:49:04 -0700 Message-ID: <395CEB24.5F44D3ED verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:47:00 +0300 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wY9xu3.0.XV.VkENv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35952 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > How'd you like one of these babes on your desktop?! Just wait. If Moore's > law holds up, personal computer power should increase 32,000 times in 22.5 > years. (Speed doubles every 18 months.) > > - Jed Sure. There would be an other unspoken Moore's law, which we can predict that programs running on PC or anywhere will become 32,000 times more buggy in 22.5 years than they currently are to compensate the hardware improvement. Even it is incredible the pr ograms are 100 to 1000 times inefficient than they should be due to bad bad programming, and of course to covered bugs. Recently i had to work on a cryptographic routine holding more than 200 lines of source C code and huge number of function calls. Actua lly the program does not contain bugs and run relatively efficiently. I rewrote the same routine with only 8 lines of C code simply which run 100 times faster. I know that every commercial program that we have show the same inefficiency, consuming huge resources. Why programmers write such a shitty codes? Company policies force programers act like this I think. This policy continuously reduce the quality of programmers. This is very unfortunate and will have even more serious consequence in future. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 12:22:10 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13217; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:20:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:20:13 -0700 MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:19:22 -0400 (EDT) MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Alternate-recipient: prohibited Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:31:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. In-reply-to: To: vortex-l Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Posting-date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal UA-content-id: E2814ZYNMLW4WH X400-MTS-identifier: [;22915103600002/4854415 ODNVMS] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"7nyrc2.0.QE3.jBFNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35953 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Steve, All-right, you seem to have recovered from a mental stall condition brought on by Mitchell's vitriolic style of writing. Your back on the key issue of what is wrong with a lifting body, low speed control. Bill webriggs concentric.net Briggs XLNsystems.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 12:51:06 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23613; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:49:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:49:28 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630154923.007a91c0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:49:23 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Zappy scooter for sale In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000630131336.007a7d40 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"8Xtxx2.0.om5.8dFNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35954 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In response to off-line questions: The Zappy is two weeks old. The $300 includes shipping. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 13:00:47 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27916; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59:11 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630155904.007aea50 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:59:04 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer In-Reply-To: <395CEB24.5F44D3ED verisoft.com.tr> References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"39W8R.0.6q6.EmFNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35955 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: hamdi ucar wrote: >Sure. There would be an other unspoken Moore's law, which we can predict that >programs running on PC or anywhere will become 32,000 times more buggy in >22.5 years than they currently are to compensate the hardware improvement. Plus there is Parkinson's law which states that data will expand to fit the space allotted to it. Actually, some experts say that Moore's law may not apply much longer, because they are reaching fundamental physical limits. They have been saying that for a long time, but CPU speed and miniaturization rates actually increased in the last five years. However, eventually they will bump into physical limits. After that, the only way to increase speed will be with massively parallel systems. Eventually there will be millions of processors. The ASCI White has only 8,192. >Recently i had to work on a cryptographic routine holding more than 200 >lines of source C code and huge number of function calls. Actually the >program does not contain bugs and run relatively efficiently. I rewrote >the same routine with only 8 lines of C code simply which run 100 times >faster. Hilarious! Not surprising though. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 13:18:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02358; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:17:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:17:21 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630161718.007aee40 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:17:18 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.0.20000629192932.00b29148 world.std.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000629120659.0079e100 pop.mindspring.com> <395B629B.A8787572 ix.netcom.com> <4.3.1.0.20000619153049.00b30d20 world.std.com> <4.3.1.0.20000627124658.00b36578 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"S8MSY1.0.ma.H1GNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35956 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: >>And bear in mind, the Arata method is *not* electrolysis. > > > Are you stating that there is no electrolysis? > >Their paper indicates that there was in a two-stage system. As far as I know, electrolysis only serves to fracture the water and deliver purified deuterons to the Pd black inside the chamber. From there, D ions move into the Pd black with the "spillover" process according to Arata. Others say it is ordinary D2 gas loading, the same as you see with the Case cell. With the Arata cell, electrolysis exerts no pressure on the critical part of the DS-cathode, inside, where the reaction occurs. Pressure from electrolysis is immensely powerful right at the surface of a cathode. The experts do not agree how powerful, but they say it is orders of magnitude greater than a mechanical or gas loading method can achieve. However, my understanding is that this pressure drops off immediately below the surface. At lower levels the only pressure comes from deuterons crowding in from above. In the DS-cathode, they crowd until they spring out into the chamber with a vacuum and Pd-black. Perhaps the electric field play a role which I am not aware of. I do not recall anything about it in Arata's lectures or papers. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 13:41:27 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA09818; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:39:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:39:22 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:37:52 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. Resent-Message-ID: <"QS1m62.0.KP2.vLGNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35957 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ***{Steve, in the post that I annotate below, you made massive deletions of pertinent material from my earlier comments, and did so without acknowledgment. I suggest that you be more open and above-board in the future--e.g., by inserting something such as [snip] when you delete material. Otherwise, you create false impressions. (And, of course, you wouldn't want to do that, now would you? :-) --MJ}*** >On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >> >I don't speak for Boeing, Only for myself. >> > >> >> ---------- >> >> From: Mitchell Jones[SMTP:mjones jump.net] >> >> Reply To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:38 AM >> >> To: vortex-l eskimo.com >> >> Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. >> >> >> >> >about wild >> >> >conspiracies, and other such sillyness, or you can address the >> >> >physics of the thing and consider, just for a moment, that there is >> >> >a reason why so many people with NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER, >> >> >say the design sucks. >> >> >> >> ***{This is a science discussion group, Steve. That means we don't give a >> >> hoot in hell about the results of public opinion polls, including the >> >> made-up variety that exists only in your mind. What we care about are >> >> substantive reasons demonstrating that the Burnelli design is inferior to >> >> the conventional design. The question, therefore, is simple: do you >>have a >> >> shred of a technical basis for your position, or not? If you do, >>let's hear >> >> it; if not, please stop wasting our time. --MJ}*** >> >> >> >Humm. Lets see. I said that slow speed and low altitude are bad, safety >>wise. >> >This design is suppose to be safer because it fly slower due to its >>increased >> >lift. You've ignored this. >> >> ***{I don't recall having seen this particular comment before in any of >> your posts. In any case, obviously, it is flatly wrong: slow speeds and low >> altitudes are not bad, if you are landing or taking off. And that is > >If your landing airspeed is slow, you run the risk of being susceptible to >wind gust. ***{What matters is how close you are to your stall speed, not your airspeed per se. If you are in an aircraft that stalls at 50 mph and are landing at 155, even a 100 mph gust will leave you above your stall speed, whereas if you are landing a big jet that stalls at 200 and your landing speed is 250, even a 50 mph gust can do you in. Since a pilot can land at any speed of which his aircraft is capable, provided the runway is long enough, the lower the stall speed, the better. --MJ}*** One gust of wind in the right way (either from behind you, or a >gust from infront of you stops, or variations thereof) and you suddenly >find yourself without lift. Being in an airplane that has lost it's life >is flatly dangerous. ***{Of course, but the danger of a crash increases as the square of the velocity of the aircraft. Kinetic energy of impact is the measure of the killing power of a crash. Hence the lower the landing speed the better, given that the pilot lands with a sufficient margin of safety above his stall speed. --MJ}*** > >Being in such a high lift, low speed airplane is also susceptible to the >vortex wake of larger or faster airplanes, to windshear, and so on. > >Now, if you have STILL air, and can pick clear weather and low traffic >days for your flying, you might have had a point. That is not possible for >commercial air transport, however. ***{You are just repeating the same false statements over and over. See above. --MJ}*** > >> precisely the point made on the aircrash website: high lift and lower stall >> speeds translate into lower landing and take-off speeds. Since most > >Yeah, but that's not safer. ***{Yes it is. See above. --MJ}*** > >> accidents occur in association with landing or taking off, that means >> *much* lower kinetic energies in crashes--remember that kinetic energy >> varies as the *square* of the velocity--and translates into major >> reductions in the death rate. --MJ}*** > >But you crash more often... ***{No you don't. See above. --MJ}*** > >> >Now, Ed Storms pretty much hit the nail on the head with his analysis. You >> >appear to ignore him too. >> >> ***{Ed Storms' post was re-sent by the vortex server at 29 Jun 2000 >> 09:27:27, and the post in which you accused me of ignoring him was re-sent >> at 29 Jun 2000 12:01:24. That's a difference of only about 2 hours and 34 >> minutes, > >LOL!!! ***{Laughing out loud? Why? Are you amused by the fact that you expect quicker responses from others than you yourself give? What is amusing about your blatant double standard? --MJ}*** > >> and leads me to think you are having a pretty tough time thinking >> of anything to say. (For the record: it is not unusual for me to take >> *days* preparing an answer, when dealing with difficult arguments or when I >> am pressed for time, as now.) --MJ}*** >> >> > >> >Instead you believe in the grand conspiracy theory. I agree there are grand >> >conspiracies out there, but they involve few people and not tens of >>thousands. >> >> ***{It's time to pull your fingers out of your ears, Steve. I have already >> explained that the kind of conspiracy I am talking about requires the >> conscious participation of only a few people at the top. --MJ}*** > >Funny how none of us engineers know about it ***{It's not "funny" at all, unless you think engineers have e.s.p.(There would be no need for top management to disclose their motives to low-ranking personnel within their companies--as I explicitly pointed out several posts ago.) --MJ}*** , but then we're fascist, slow >witted, plodding along dunderheads or some such, aren't we. ***{You are bound and determined to fight with me, aren't you? And why not? After all, you clearly haven't a leg to stand on, in terms of substance. --MJ}*** We just go >along to get those big fat paychecks that are 20% smaller than anywhere >else we might go. ***{Either that, or the politically connected insiders at the top of your organization neglect to send you bulletins announcing the details of their illicit schemes. --MJ}*** > >> >The simple fact is, if you follow the original design to get an idea of >>what >> >is being patented, that damn thing would have too much lift at high speeds. >> >> ***{Lift is equal to the product of the lift coefficient, the kinetic >> energy of the airflow per unit of volume, and the horizontal >> cross-sectional area of the wing. Result: as the velocity of the aircraft >> increases, other things equal, lift increases. Since the downward force on >> the plane--its weight--does not change, the increase in lift tends to cause >> altitude to increase. This applies to *all* aircraft, not merely to lifting >> body designs. Fortunately, there exist various control surfaces that pilots >> can use to reduce lift, so that they can increase their speed without also >> increasing their altitude--e.g., flaps and spoilers, trim tabs, etc. Thus, >> unless the pilot is unconscious, it is false to say that the "damn thing >> would have too much lift at high speeds." --MJ}*** > >The simple fact is, if you want to go any speed at all, that big fat >lifting body design of his provides too much lift with too little torque >about the axis of the airplane. > >Airplanes do have to turn! And when they turn, they have to bank. > > L > ^ ^ > | _|__ > ------| |------ > _____ | > > >Think about it, once the airplane is banked, that big lifting body in the >center is going to MUCK THINGS UP, by continuing to have a component of >force in the bank direction. ***{Any cambered airfoil has an upward component of force perpendicular to its surface, Steve, regardless of whether it is part of a wing or of a lifting body. That's why you need ailerons and other types of control surfaces! Thus this banking argument is just a new version of your earlier fallacy. The problem is that you keep assuming, incorrectly, that an engineer designing a Burnelli airframe would have a smaller toolbox of techniques available to him than an engineer designing a conventional aircraft. But that is simply absurd. --MJ}*** Now, a long tube, like most commercial >airplanes, is lift neutral and doesn't affect that. If your lift from the >lifting body as your turning is too great, you lose control and just roll >right over. ***{False. Having a component of force pointing toward the top of the fuselage does not mean there is a *torque* about the roll axis of the aircraft. No engineer in his right mind would design a fuselage that had an asymmetrical vertical cross section. Thus if you did a barrel roll in a lifting body aircraft, the only effect of the body centered lift--assuming you didn't cancel it with a spoiler or some other control surface--would be to decrease the diameter of the barrel. That means the lifting body design is not merely safer and better suited to the carrying of freight and passengers, but also more suited to aerobatics. (It's real sad! :-) --MJ}*** > >With the evil, fascist, plod headed conventional design, this is not a >problem. See Tex Johnson and his rolling the 707 prototype at Seafair way >back when. ***{Nor is it a problem for the Burnelli design. In fact, you could probably do a simultaneous roll of a Burnelli airframe just off the inside edge of Tex Johnson's wingtip without any danger of a collision, due to the fact that the diameter of the Burnelli barrel would be so much smaller. --MJ}*** > >Like most scientist, you look at a design from the point of view of some >single situation; straight and level flight in still air. Engineers know >working designs are not that simple. ***{Working designs can, indeed, be quite complex. However, none of the arguments you have made thus far against the safety of the Burnelli design hold any water. --MJ}*** > >> >It's a turtle. And while it may be 'safe' in some sense in still air, it >> >would be >> >like a leaf in the wind in weather, which is definately NOT safe. >> >If high lift and low speeds were the way to go, the industry >> >could have gone with biplanes and not infringed on this fellows >> >patent that way. >> >> ***{Drag is equal to the product of the drag coefficient, the kinetic >> energy of the airflow per unit of volume, and the vertical cross-sectional >> area of the aircraft. Thus increasing the cross-sectional area of the >> fuselage is unarguably going to increase the drag *on the fuselage*. >> However, there are compensations: > >Like instability, UNRECOVERABLE instability, in turn. ***{Your earlier attempt to show instability was bogus. As noted, the Burnelli lifting-body fuselage has a symmetrical vertical cross-section. Result: there is no torque about the roll axis, and, thus, no instability in a roll. The only difference is that the lifting body gives the Burnelli a tighter barrel and, hence, superior performance in a roll. --MJ}*** Speeds so slow you >may as well have taken the train ***{Again false. The capability to land at slow speeds without stalling is not the same as a requirement to do so. The pilot of a Burnelli airframe will be free to land at whatever speed above stall that he deems appropriate to the conditions. Thus the lower stall speeds merely give him an enhanced margin of safety and flexibility. --MJ}** , susceptibility to turbutent air. ***{You continue to repeat false statements which, in prior posts, I disputed in detail, while ignoring those comments as if they were never made. I repeat: given equal or superior lift, a compact aircraft with shorter wings is less, not more, susceptible to wind shear. --MJ}*** > >You'll have more survivable crashes (many WW I pilots survived biplane >crashes by staying with their airplanes....) but you'll have so MANY >crashes that your busted and broken body stands a far greater chance of >dying anyway. ***{Yet another reiteration of a previously refuted falsehood. --MJ}*** > >> (1) The vertical cross-sectional area of the wings would be greatly >> reduced, because most of the lift would now be concentrated in the >> fuselage. > >Yeah. Too bad we need lift on the wings to control banks in turns. ***{Get serious. The control surfaces that are used in banks are a small portion of the area of a wing; hence control of banks is not compromised when the size of the wing is reduced, provided that the sizes of the control surfaces are not reduced. Indeed, the ability to reduce wing size without compromising lift permits performance to be enhanced, by actually *increasing* the size of the control surfaces. That's a major reason why the Burnelli airframe is used in high performance military aircraft. --MJ}*** > >You don't WANT most of the lift concentrated in the fuselage. ***{You do if you care about safety or about performance. --MJ}*** > >> (2) The greater lift of the airframe would allow it to cruise at higher >> altitudes, where drag is reduced. > >You're not going to see biplanes at 30,000 feet or >above. Air is too thin. You need speed to get laminar flow across the >wings but your design can't go fast because it isn't streamlined. ***{Tell that to the engineers who designed the F-22. After they stop rolling on the floor laughing, they will explain to you that the lifting-body design has the same streamlines as any other cambered airfoil, and that the increased vertical cross-section does not merely increase the drag, but also allows them to use bigger pipes. Result: the increase in thrust is greater than the increase in drag, and, yes Virginia, the airframe goes like a bat out of hell. --MJ}*** > >> (3) The reduction in wing size, hence weight and costs, coupled with the >> greater profitability of the larger payloads, would provide a profit >> cushion that could be plowed back into the airframe in the form of larger >> engines, to counter the effects of increased drag. > >Reducing wing size is, well, suicide in that box. ***{Yup. No pilot ever survived a flight in the F-22. --MJ}*** >This puppy DOES have more lift, and flys longer on less fuel. ***{It can do that, if that's what the designer wants. Or it can go like a bat out of hell, if that's what the designer wants. --MJ}*** Biplanes are >also fuel efficient. ***{Utterly irrelevant. We are talking about the lifting body design, not a biplane. The savings which the lifting body design makes possible can be translated into high performance via the installation of large engines and control surfaces, or into fuel economy with massive lift and reduced perfromance, or into a broad continuum of compromises in between. What all incarnations of the design have in common, however, are higher lift, lower landing speeds, enhanced structural integrity of the passenger compartment, and greater safety. --MJ}*** > >But you have to understand, and I think you're missing the point, the >problem IS NOT THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LIFT IN COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES. > >We know how to make lift. We know were to PUT the lift, and >where we DON'T want to put it. And we put it where it is safest and your >presumption that safest is in the center is dead wrong. ***{No it isn't, and your continued chanting of these falsehoods, however long continued, will not obscure the fact that you have utterly ignored the technical arguments that I have made against them. --MJ}*** > >> Bottom line: performance would come out about the same, and safety would be >> greatly enhanced, due to the lower landing and take-off speeds and the >> improved structural integrity of the airframe--precisely as stated on the >> aircrash website.. > >Well, you're free to buy a biplane. If you think that's safer. No one is >making you fly commercial airplanes. ***{They aren't? Where are the FAA approved passenger airliners that employ Burnelli airframes? Tell me, so I can see to it that I can fly exclusively on them in the future. --MJ}*** > >> --Mitchell Jones}*** >> >> > >> >> >This isn't nuclear physics. >> >> >> >> ***{From your perspective, based on your comments thus far, it apparently >> >> isn't physics at all--since you have pointedly avoided any substantive >> >> arguments whatsoever. --MJ}*** >> >> >> >Nope. It's aerodynamics. Now, you have this big lifting body that you >> >can't control the lift on >> >> ***{That's just silly. You would control the lift with the same techniques >> that are used to control lift on conventional aircraft. --MJ}*** >} > >(see this page) >http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono1.htm > > >We put the lift out on the wings and the tail for a reason. ***{Of course. You do it because *everybody knows* that's what a passenger aircraft is supposed to look like! --MJ}*** Look at some >of those designs on the website. They put the aerodynamic surfaces WAY the >hell out there and put big wings and tails on those puppies because the >controllable lifting surfaces have to wrestle that lifting body cabin >around. > >Hello! Can you say unnecessary STRESS in the airframe? ***{I repeat: in a Burnelli airframe, the center of lift is in the center of the fuselage. Thus there is *zero* torque tending to destabilize a roll. The reason the photos cited by you show large wings is because the enhanced lift of the Burnelli fuselage merely permits the wings to be shortened, but does not require it. Whether the engineer who designs a particular aircraft chooses to do that depends on the type of performance he seeks out of the "puppy." In the photos, the goal was obviously to produce a plane capable of doing heavy lifting. (Note the automoble suspended under the fuselage in one of the photos.) Result: in those cases, the option of shortening the wings was not taken. (In the F-22, on the other hand, it *was* taken.) --MJ}*** If you design it >correctly, you don't need to DO that. The more stress, the shorter the >time to a major overhaul and inspection of the stress parts. > >There is certainly NO SHORTAGE of lift in these puppies. > >Do you know there is such a thing as too much lift? ***{It depends on your purpose. If, for example, your purpose is haul massive tonnages of freight, then the more lift the better, as long as the weight of the cargo does not exceed the structural limitations of the airframe. --MJ}*** > >> and produces a lot of drag at high speeds >> >> ***{Drag increases as speed increases, other things equal. This applies to >> *all* aircraft, not merely to a lifting body design. Thus if there were no >> techniques available by which lift could be altered while an aircraft was >> in flight, the entire enterprise of flight would be called into question. >> --MJ}*** >> >> , and >> >moves like a slug in low speeds >> >> ***{Wrong. It would move like a butterfly at low speeds, because of the >> greater lift and lower stalling speeds. --MJ}*** > >I say it moves slow at low speeds, and YOU disagree! ***{You need to wake up, Steve. Obviously, anything in the universe that "moves slow" does it at "low speeds!" But that's not what you said, and it's not what I denied. To verify that, remove the blindfold from your eyes and read your statement and my response. --MJ}*** You're in contrary >mode now, pal! ***{"Projection" is a technical term used by psychologists. I suggest that you look it up. --MJ}*** > >Ever watch a butterfly in the wind? Ever watch a fast moving hawk in the >wind? ***{The Burnelli design, as demonstrated above, can be either, depending on the performance specs that the designer has in mind. --MJ}*** > >> , and god help you in a cross wind >> >or weather because being a high lift body you are going so slow you >> >pretty much move with the air. >> >> ***{Wrong again: shorter winged designs are more, not less, stable in cross >> winds, other things equal. And, as noted earlier, the greater earning power > >Again, look at those airplanes and ask yourself why your God's gift to >aerospace put big old long wings on it. ***{I repeat: the obvious intent of those particular aircraft was to carry heavy freight. That's why the wings were not shortened. --MJ}*** You CAN'T put short wings on the >things! ***{Rubbish. Check out the photos of the F-15 and the F-22 at http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/tunnel5.htm . --MJ}*** What are you trying to do? KILL PEOPLE? :-) Oh! I forgot! I'm the >fascist. ***{The alternatives to fascism are capitalism, under which property rights are absolute, and socialism, under which property rights do not exist. Anything in between is fascism, which I assume is the system that you prefer. --MJ}*** > >> of the design coupled with the savings in materials--not to mention the >> eventuality of lower insurance fees--would provide the funds for larger >> engines. Thus it does not follow that the cruising speeds would be less >> than for conventional designs. --MJ}*** > >I don't see your buddy putting shorter wings on his airplanes. ***{I repeat: the obvious design goal of the planes in the photos that you cited was to maximize payload. --MJ}*** He is >putting BIGGER lifting surfaces OUT FARTHER because they are needed to >wrestle that damn lifting body around. If he had made the fuselage round, >like conventional airplanes, he wouldn't need to do that. ***{I repeat: the center of lift in a Burnelli design is at the center of the fuselage. There is no built-in torque about the roll axis. Nor is there a similar built-in torque about the yaw axis, or about the pitch axis. Thus there is nothing for the pilot of a Burnelli airframe to "wrestle" against. --MJ}*** > >He also needs these big control surfaces because of WEATHER. Lift and >control is dependent upon having airflow over the surfaces. Weather makes >that a lot more problematic in low speed airplanes rather than fast ones, >because the % change in air over the wings is far greater in slow than >fast planes. ***{I repeat: the fact that a Burnelli airframe will go slower without stalling does not *require* that it be flown at low speeds. It merely provides an extra margin of safety to the pilot. --MJ}*** > >In the REAL WORLD, if you have to plan on gusty winds! ***{And, under those conditions, the Burnelli design provides an increased margin of safety, since the airspeed is further above stall speed. --MJ}*** > >> >Or you can have a nice, safe, high speed airplane with thin wings, >> >controlled lift and fly with enough momentum and speed that the >> >weather just doesn't affect you much. >> > >> >That's the physics. >> >> ***{Nope. It's just another fantasy which exists only in your mind. --MJ}*** > >Good comback. That's very convincing. The same people who think I'm a >fascist are going to be convinced. ***{You made an obviously false assertion, and I responded with a more accurate description. I'm willing to let readers of this thread decide for themselves what is convincing and what is not. --MJ}*** > >One big safety thing is weather. It's why we put weather radar on >airplanes. You don't get much weather at 30,000 feet or more. To get to >30,000 feet, you need good aerodynamics at that altitude. Thiner, faster >wings. > >Now, your plodding body (odd that us plodding engineers build fast >airplanes and your gods gift to aviation builds flying slugs ***{Like the F--22, I suppose? --MJ}*** ...) can't >get that high. ***{More utter rubbish. If the F--22 couldn't fly above 30,000 feet, it would be useless against bombers. As noted previously, there exists a broad continuum of possible designs that make various trade-offs between payload and performance, and one of the variables is the maximum cruising altitude. --MJ}*** > >> Bottom line is, this thing has a lot of lift. >> >The faster you go, the more lift. That limits speed >> >> ***{Nope. As noted above, pilots have to make adjustments in the settings >> of various control surfaces to compensate for speed increases on *all* >> aircraft, because lift increases as speed increases, other things equal. >> Since the same types of control surfaces are available to the engineer who >> designs lifting-body aircraft as are available to one who designs >> conventional aircraft, your argument is bogus. --MJ}*** > >How those lifting surfaces perform are important. You'll note that your >buddy didn't put little stubbie wings on his airplane, but GREAT BIG ones >so that the controls would work. ***{You need to stop and think, Steve. You are just repeating the same errors over and over again. (For my response--multiple times--see above.) --MJ}*** > >Of course, if you're going to make wings that big, you don't need the lift >from the fuselage! ***{You do if you are trying to maximize payload--which is obviously what he was doing. --MJ}*** Make a round fuselage, and low and behold, your plane >moves faster, performs better in weather because of that, and you need >even smaller wings. ***{Wrong again, for reasons repeated multiple times above. --MJ}*** > >It's one of those number things. You can't go with intuition all the time. >These things are engineered, after all. ***{Good advice. Since it is you who are obviously trapped by intuitively based preconceptions, I suggest that you should try to get past your belief that the fascist regulatory system works, and see if you can reach a decision based on the technical merits of the design. --MJ}*** > >Well, I don't see the point in going on. I see that most of the rest of >your post is as bad or worse than what I've covered all ready. ***{If assertions were arguments, you would have me down in flames. The question is, where's the beef? --MJ}*** All us >engineers are evil fascist, the FAA and NTSB are evil fascist, only you >know how to design airplanes, the pilots and passengers are suicidal >fascist... > >Get help, dude. ***{Pathetic. --MJ}*** From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 14:06:51 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20640; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:05:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:05:20 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.94] From: "David Dennard" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes. Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:04:53 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2000 21:04:53.0230 (UTC) FILETIME=[D615E0E0:01BFE2D6] Resent-Message-ID: <"Rz4l71.0.P25.EkGNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35958 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: What a tower of babble, on and on and on. Lift of the airplane wing comes from "The Force" of gravity. Gravity's constant pressure will fill any space of lesser density and move that space to its density threshold. Same thing happens in hot air ballons, evaporation, even the speed of light. All explained and ignored Mother Nature abhors a vacuum and she really can't stand a void. The cosmological constant, "The Pearl of Wisdom". It is all about bubbles. Bubble Up!! "It's the fizz in the physics" David ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 14:27:41 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28891; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:26:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:26:26 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Message-ID: <29.735a933.268e6a5d aol.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:25:49 EDT Subject: Re: Problem with pdf.zip files solved To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Resent-Message-ID: <"zCJdO1.0.K37.22HNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35959 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 06/28/2000 7:07:11 PM, hheffner mtaonline.net writes: << The PDF format already includes it own compression, so there is no need to compress PDF files. They are already compressed. >> Too bad the email program that zipped them the first time around didn't know that. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 14:48:48 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02481; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:47:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:47:32 -0700 Message-ID: <01b901bfe2db$f3fca800$9b8080d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:41:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"J16-K.0.hc.qLHNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35960 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At $110 Million what is its cost efficiency to distributed computing - it can do 12 teraflops but seti home is http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/totals.html 1.850130e+18 (21.41 TeraFLOPs/sec) in the last 24 hours - how much cheaper? http://www.top500.org/ breaking the $1000 per gflops barrier: http://aggregate.org/KLAT2/press.html Pay distributed computing seems that it will be much cheaper than $110 million: http://www.processtree.com/?sponsor=31747 > See: > > http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/business_ > 93a59d8ac00d220800d8.html > > Quotes: > > The new IBM computer, called ASCI White, weighs 106 tons and occupies an > area the size of two NBA basketball courts. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 14:50:17 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03681; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:49:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:49:13 -0700 Message-ID: <01ba01bfe2dc$30425800$9b8080d8 n8o9m1> From: "Bill Wallace`" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000630120638.007a3c60 pop.mindspring.com> <395CEB24.5F44D3ED@verisoft.com.tr> Subject: Re: New IBM supercomputer Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:43:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Resent-Message-ID: <"HlHwl2.0.Qv.PNHNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35961 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Back in the day Bill Gates tried to tell IBM that paying programmers for lines of code gave the wrong incentive - then he realized it was best to let them do this and OS/2 was born :-) > Why programmers write such a shitty codes? Company policies force programers act like this I think. This policy continuously reduce the quality of programmers. This is very unfortunate and will have even more serious consequence in future. > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 17:08:20 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA14271; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:07:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:07:07 -0700 Message-ID: <395D3805.66ACF5D ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:15:01 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jun 30, 2000] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GnIxJ3.0.nU3.gOJNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35962 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for Jun 30, 2000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:21:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Jun 00 Washington, DC 1. SO LONG SNS? BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES IS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. The House version of the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill slashes $224M from the President's request for BES. The Spallation Neutron Source, which the APS describes as an "urgent national need" http://www.aps.org/statements/99.4.html, would be among the casualties. The House plays this reckless game each year, betting that threats of a Presidential veto will prompt the Senate to restore the funds. But with DOE under heavy fire, the White House has made it clear that the President is not thinking veto. For the Senate to restore the funds, there must be prompt phone calls to Senate Energy & Water Appropriators to save DOE basic science initiatives. E-mail opa aps.org for more details. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE: INCOMING! INCOMING! Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) announced at a hearing on the beleaguered NMD yesterday that he will hold yet another hearing in the immediate future. The goal, according to Warner, is to increase public awareness of missile threats by states-formerly-known-as-rogues. Cynics see the flurry of NMD hearings as an effort to shoot down embarrassing revelations of rigged tests and covered-up failures (WN 23 Jun 00). 3. LOS ALAMOS: CONGRESS BELIEVES IN THE POLYGRAPH. Whatever the security problem is, Congress seems convinced that the polygraph will cure it. Tuesday night, the House Armed Services Committee approved the Nuclear Secrets Safety Act, which would require polygraph exams "for individuals who have access to any vault containing Restricted Data." A number of senior scientists at Los Alamos insist they will take early retirement rather than submit to a procedure they regard as pseudoscientific garbage. Meanwhile, the Lab is having trouble trying to recruit new staff. 4. NUTRI PAIN: LIGHTEN UP, KELLOGG'S. Don Mueller, President of Good Guy & Co., and a Ph.D. physicist, is toe to toe with the corn-flakes giant. A New Jersey science tutor, Mueller wants to market products that foster science literacy, including cookies stamped with physics formulas. He says the cookies "would make science more palatable." He calls them "Nutri Brain" cookies. Kellogg's insists that infringes on their Nutri-Grain trademark. 5. CAMPAIGN 2000: JOHN HAGELIN TAKES ON PAT BUCHANAN? While the power brokers inside the Beltway battle over budgets and missile defenses, the Reform Party is about to begin a month-long primary process. Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura have fallen. Pat Buchanan now faces new-age physicist John Hagelin, vying for a $12.6M taxpayer-financed campaign fund. Can Buchanan's Brigade meet the challenge of Hagelin's corps of yogic flyers (WN 9 Apr 00)? (Maria Cranor contributed to this week's WN.) THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 30 18:31:52 2000 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10386; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:30:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:30:17 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630213001.007ab820 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:30:01 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Zappy scooter sold Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qdOM_.0.CY2.fcKNv" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/35963 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Zappy scooter is sold. Thanks for the enquiries. It sold so quickly, I begin to feel the lure of the Internet get-rich-quick business models. It's really simple! You buy something for $600 and then two weeks later, you turn around and sell it for $300. The goods fly out of your hands at that rate. That's what . . . 50% profit? 100% profit? A few months ago I could have launched an IPO and made $100 million doing this. - Jed