From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 00:07:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA17259;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 00:06:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 00:06:06 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b58340c922b1 [207.8.127.61]>
In-Reply-To: <E2814ZYNMLW4WH*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000630071103.2282B-100000 eskimo.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:03:16 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
Resent-Message-ID: <"qJJKx1.0.LD4.NXPNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35964
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Steve,
>
>All-right, you seem to have recovered from a mental stall condition brought
>on  by Mitchell's vitriolic style of writing.

***{So you think Steve's ranting was provoked by my "vitriolic style of
writing"? OK, let's check the facts and see if that theory holds up.

This all began when, under the subject line of "Fascist Aviation Cartel
Exposed," I said:

>Check out http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/n21.htm. --MJ

That's it. That's all I said.

Before I said one more solitary word on the subject, Steve put up a series
of posts from which the following excerpts were taken:

>to call the aviation industry "fascist" is nothing less than slander.

>There was no facts presented on the website. They had a little bit of
>jibberish about landing speed and that was it.

>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.

>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.

At that point I agreed with Knuke's suggestion that political activism was
needed here, as follows:

>***{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}***

Then Lajoie said, among other things:

>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!

>This is just a bunch of rubbish. Get real.

>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.

>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?

Conclusion: it was Steve, not me, who introduced a "vitriolic style of
writing" into the conversation. Thus your claim, above, that his
emotionalism was provoked by me, is false.

--Mitchell Jones}***

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  Sat Jul  1 01:46:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA01500;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:43:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:43:55 -0700
Message-ID: <00df01bfe338$698104c0$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000630071103.2282B-100000 eskimo.com> <v04011700b58340c922b1@[207.8.127.61]>
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:43:17 -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-3Nh.0.MN.BzQNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35965
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.



> Conclusion: it was Steve, not me, who introduced a "vitriolic style of
> writing" into the conversation. Thus your claim, above, that his
> emotionalism was provoked by me, is false.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***

Right. To call someone a fascist is to call him a goose stepping, genocidal
baby killer. You hide behind an economic definition when you knew what
the implications were. People greatly disdain fascists and see fascist and
Nazi's as one and the same.

It's like going around calling people "gay" and then when they say they're
straight and you're telling lies about them to claim that you fully intended
to mean the "happy and joyeous" meaning and were not making a referece
to their sexual orientaition.

Oh, grow up. No one wants to play the word games and people can
see it. You got my goat because I don't like to see all these hard working,
dedicated people who really CARE about safety being slandard so.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 02:56:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA11180;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:55:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:55:15 -0700
Message-ID: <00e201bfe342$6065e360$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v04011700b581591731ef [207.8.127.215]> <v04011700b5828063464e@[207.8.127.176]>
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:54:38 -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: <"DUkmr.0.ck2.30SNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35966
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.

It's become clear that Jones here doesn't even know what the design is that
he is
advocating.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.



[snip]

It just occured to me that the only person who has Mitchell
Jone's opinion on this is, Mitchell Jones.

This aircrash website never say what feature, exactly, is in the
patent 1,758,498 and I couldn't find it myself, but I think later
on they deliberatly confuse the Burnelli design with Northrup's
blended wing or flying wing desigs.

The crank "aircrash", which sees conspiracies everywhere, says
that the "reason" why non-existant Burnelli design is safer than
conventional airplanes is because the engines are in the back
and not on the wings, and  that the wheels are no where near fuel.
They don't say one word about "lifting body" or low airspeed when
they come to make their case about safety, and with good reason.
Those would be wrong. Why is Mr. Jones making these claims?
I don't know. Maybe he knows he's wrong and is just jerking my
claim because I'm so funny when I go ape over something that
isn't true. Clearly, they are of his own invention, because they
are not even mentioned when aircrash goes to make their
safety case!

Here is where the aircrash.org cranks make their case:
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cmpcht2a.htm
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cmpcht2c.htm

This argument has nothing at all to do with what Michell Jones
was arguing about. Hense, I clipped Mitchell's reply all out.

Here are my comments about the aircrash org claim to safety...

1) Engines.

Engines are dangerous puppies. We put them on the side of airplanes
in the DC-9 through MD-90 series, the DC-10, and the 727. We have a
problem. Engines do fail, and when they fail, they sometimes throw blades.
Imagine being in one of those knife throwing magic acts, only this time
there are dozens of high speed blades coming at you and they can slice right
through aluminum. If they get out of the containment vessel they pretty much
go where they want. Not only that, but the way they positioned them, you're
their being tossed right near all the control Surfaces and their hydrolic
lines.
There was one DC-10 that had it's center engine fail and it threw blades
that chopped all three redundant hydrolic lines. BADBADBAD!

Ever see what happens when a jet fighter crashes? Ick. You see, there's
this big ol' high horse power engine back there, and, well, if the pilot
doesn't
get out of the way, the engines just don't care that the front of the
airplane
has stopped. The result is the engine just sucks up everything forward of
it.
In this case, that's all the passengers....

Besides, putting engines inside the airplane is just too damn noisey. You
can't
make your passenger's deaf.

You can put the engines there, but they are probably LESS safe than out on
the wings.

On most conventional airplanes, the philosophy is that if the engine siezes,
it's allowed to wrench itself free from it's pylon so that it's not able to
cause
any more damage. People are sometimes amazed to hear that. I hear Airbus
hangs on to it, and doesn't let it seperate. It can put a heck of a lot of
torque
on the wing when is stops rotating with a bang, tho'. I think the American
way to do it is better. Who wants a trashed engine? It's better than having
to design your wings so they can't be ripped off if it seizes!

2) Wheels.

Passenger's carry baggage. Wheels like that take up baggage space. If you
don't put the wheels in the wings, we like to put them in pods, like the
C-17.

Other than that, no problem. They kind of make a big deal out of nothing,
here.

3) Fuel

The as shown design is "safer" because it simply shows a configuration that
doesn't have enough fuel. That's a cheap shot. There are conventional
airplanes
with out center fuel tanks, too, and MOST don't have any in the tail. They
say
that the engines are prone to causing fire because they are there on the
wings
with the fuel. This hasn't been a problem.

They mentiond the staged crash. Yeah, we put things on the ground to rip
open
the fuel tanks. The though was that the thing wouldn't burn even IF we did
that
what with the fuel addititive. Well, it did burn. That's how you GET Jet-A
to
burn, make a cloud of it, mix well with air, and expose to high heat. In
hind site,
that was a dumb idea, ripping open the fuel tanks.

4) Box vs. Tube.

They make the claim that their box shape is safer than the long round tube.
I don't see one being better than the other. Their "proof" is that one of
their
nine airplanes CRASHED (1 in 9 ?!!) and the pilot survived.

Sorry, that's no proof!

And you're not going to get me on an airplane where 1 in 9 has crashed.
I don't find that encouraging.

Now if you look at them all combined, their safety issues have nothing to
do with the Burnelli design at all! You can put engines on the back of a
round tube, that's been done. You can eliminate the center fuel tank, too.
You just have less fuel on board, like in their diagram.

So, their safety issues have nothing to do with Burnelli vs. Conventional.
You can put the tires and engines on a Burnelli and have a center fuel
tank on their airplane, too. Nothing special about either design when it
comes to these safety features.

So why are they bringing up Burnelli, anyway? They SAID they were going
to make the case why the  Burnelli desing had "principal characteristics
(that)
make it more survivable". Then in their safety discussion say NOTHING at
that's special about the Burnelli design.

I could make a few other comments about their picture, but they are neither
here nor there, I think, because I don't think they have much to do with
the Burnelli patent. Like the forward canards. Oh, those are bad. Great
in conditions where they don't ice up, but when they do ice, the ice tends
to end up in the engines. That doesn't happen with most conventional
designs.
Their turbulance on the run way also kicks up FOD, and gets where the FOD
goes? Right, into the air intakes!

They talk about a gear up landing as being okay because you're on a flat
bottom fusilage. More surface, more friction, just like the tire on your
car.
Usually, they foam the run way when you have a stuck landing gear condition.
Not sure how the foam is suppose to get under that flat surface. I think
that
it will bring you to a much more abrupt stop. Landing on the rounded body
is a bit like landing on a single rail of a sled. Is this safer? Only
difference I
see is that you will feel more "g" force. If that doesn't kill you, I
suppose it
is not less safe.






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 03:32:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA16802;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:30:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:30:23 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.39]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 03:29:52 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F184hODt9Cz93MgPPf3000003cb hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2000 10:29:52.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AAB32A0:01BFE347]
Resent-Message-ID: <"AfvQ71.0.S64.-WSNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35967
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dr. Vera Rubin, top astrophysicist, "scientists are going to have to give up 
their most precious beliefs".  And, "scientists will go kicking and 
screaming" into this century due to all the new data the Hubble is bringing 
in, far beyond any scientists wildest dreams or predicted by any theory.  
(ABC News, transcript at my website)

No anti-semetic or anti-woman views in my camp.
Just anti-big shot know it alls.

Dr. Stephen Hawking recently published, "cosmology is not science if it 
cannot predict the data".

Interesting, Whirlpower Theory has been %100 accurate in predicting the data 
for three years across 10,000 archived pages due to the logic of relative 
density displacemet and fluid space.

Space is not void, curved, finite.
Space is fluid, flat, infinite.

Airplanes fly because of the cosmological constant.

The paradigm shift is amost here.  :)

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc
"he got early warning"
"he come grovin' up sowly"


>From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
>Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:54:38 -0700
>
>
>I don't speak for Boeing.
>
>It's become clear that Jones here doesn't even know what the design is that
>he is
>advocating.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 1:37 PM
>Subject: RE: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
>
>
>
>[snip]
>
>It just occured to me that the only person who has Mitchell
>Jone's opinion on this is, Mitchell Jones.
>
>This aircrash website never say what feature, exactly, is in the
>patent 1,758,498 and I couldn't find it myself, but I think later
>on they deliberatly confuse the Burnelli design with Northrup's
>blended wing or flying wing desigs.
>
>The crank "aircrash", which sees conspiracies everywhere, says
>that the "reason" why non-existant Burnelli design is safer than
>conventional airplanes is because the engines are in the back
>and not on the wings, and  that the wheels are no where near fuel.
>They don't say one word about "lifting body" or low airspeed when
>they come to make their case about safety, and with good reason.
>Those would be wrong. Why is Mr. Jones making these claims?
>I don't know. Maybe he knows he's wrong and is just jerking my
>claim because I'm so funny when I go ape over something that
>isn't true. Clearly, they are of his own invention, because they
>are not even mentioned when aircrash goes to make their
>safety case!
>
>Here is where the aircrash.org cranks make their case:
>http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cmpcht2a.htm
>http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cmpcht2c.htm
>
>This argument has nothing at all to do with what Michell Jones
>was arguing about. Hense, I clipped Mitchell's reply all out.
>
>Here are my comments about the aircrash org claim to safety...
>
>1) Engines.
>
>Engines are dangerous puppies. We put them on the side of airplanes
>in the DC-9 through MD-90 series, the DC-10, and the 727. We have a
>problem. Engines do fail, and when they fail, they sometimes throw blades.
>Imagine being in one of those knife throwing magic acts, only this time
>there are dozens of high speed blades coming at you and they can slice 
>right
>through aluminum. If they get out of the containment vessel they pretty 
>much
>go where they want. Not only that, but the way they positioned them, you're
>their being tossed right near all the control Surfaces and their hydrolic
>lines.
>There was one DC-10 that had it's center engine fail and it threw blades
>that chopped all three redundant hydrolic lines. BADBADBAD!
>
>Ever see what happens when a jet fighter crashes? Ick. You see, there's
>this big ol' high horse power engine back there, and, well, if the pilot
>doesn't
>get out of the way, the engines just don't care that the front of the
>airplane
>has stopped. The result is the engine just sucks up everything forward of
>it.
>In this case, that's all the passengers....
>
>Besides, putting engines inside the airplane is just too damn noisey. You
>can't
>make your passenger's deaf.
>
>You can put the engines there, but they are probably LESS safe than out on
>the wings.
>
>On most conventional airplanes, the philosophy is that if the engine 
>siezes,
>it's allowed to wrench itself free from it's pylon so that it's not able to
>cause
>any more damage. People are sometimes amazed to hear that. I hear Airbus
>hangs on to it, and doesn't let it seperate. It can put a heck of a lot of
>torque
>on the wing when is stops rotating with a bang, tho'. I think the American
>way to do it is better. Who wants a trashed engine? It's better than having
>to design your wings so they can't be ripped off if it seizes!
>
>2) Wheels.
>
>Passenger's carry baggage. Wheels like that take up baggage space. If you
>don't put the wheels in the wings, we like to put them in pods, like the
>C-17.
>
>Other than that, no problem. They kind of make a big deal out of nothing,
>here.
>
>3) Fuel
>
>The as shown design is "safer" because it simply shows a configuration that
>doesn't have enough fuel. That's a cheap shot. There are conventional
>airplanes
>with out center fuel tanks, too, and MOST don't have any in the tail. They
>say
>that the engines are prone to causing fire because they are there on the
>wings
>with the fuel. This hasn't been a problem.
>
>They mentiond the staged crash. Yeah, we put things on the ground to rip
>open
>the fuel tanks. The though was that the thing wouldn't burn even IF we did
>that
>what with the fuel addititive. Well, it did burn. That's how you GET Jet-A
>to
>burn, make a cloud of it, mix well with air, and expose to high heat. In
>hind site,
>that was a dumb idea, ripping open the fuel tanks.
>
>4) Box vs. Tube.
>
>They make the claim that their box shape is safer than the long round tube.
>I don't see one being better than the other. Their "proof" is that one of
>their
>nine airplanes CRASHED (1 in 9 ?!!) and the pilot survived.
>
>Sorry, that's no proof!
>
>And you're not going to get me on an airplane where 1 in 9 has crashed.
>I don't find that encouraging.
>
>Now if you look at them all combined, their safety issues have nothing to
>do with the Burnelli design at all! You can put engines on the back of a
>round tube, that's been done. You can eliminate the center fuel tank, too.
>You just have less fuel on board, like in their diagram.
>
>So, their safety issues have nothing to do with Burnelli vs. Conventional.
>You can put the tires and engines on a Burnelli and have a center fuel
>tank on their airplane, too. Nothing special about either design when it
>comes to these safety features.
>
>So why are they bringing up Burnelli, anyway? They SAID they were going
>to make the case why the  Burnelli desing had "principal characteristics
>(that)
>make it more survivable". Then in their safety discussion say NOTHING at
>that's special about the Burnelli design.
>
>I could make a few other comments about their picture, but they are neither
>here nor there, I think, because I don't think they have much to do with
>the Burnelli patent. Like the forward canards. Oh, those are bad. Great
>in conditions where they don't ice up, but when they do ice, the ice tends
>to end up in the engines. That doesn't happen with most conventional
>designs.
>Their turbulance on the run way also kicks up FOD, and gets where the FOD
>goes? Right, into the air intakes!
>
>They talk about a gear up landing as being okay because you're on a flat
>bottom fusilage. More surface, more friction, just like the tire on your
>car.
>Usually, they foam the run way when you have a stuck landing gear 
>condition.
>Not sure how the foam is suppose to get under that flat surface. I think
>that
>it will bring you to a much more abrupt stop. Landing on the rounded body
>is a bit like landing on a single rail of a sled. Is this safer? Only
>difference I
>see is that you will feel more "g" force. If that doesn't kill you, I
>suppose it
>is not less safe.
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 05:30:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02182;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 05:29:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 05:29:27 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000630153028.00b59d88 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 08:26:03 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF
In-Reply-To: <395CC732.2C91E350 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v04011701b572c6f40513 [207.8.127.166]>
 <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"K5DIc2.0.xX.cGUNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35968
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 09:13 AM 6/30/2000 -0700, Ed Storms wrote:

> >  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.
>
>  (Ed) The optimum operating point ,as you define it, is the point of greatest
>efficiency, not the conditions of greatest output of cold fusion energy.


     It is the point of peak power gain, and there is evidence that
beyond it, breakpoints in the power-delivery-curve exist.


   ====================================================


> > > >      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.
> > >
> > > (Ed) 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) ].
>
>  (Ed) 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.


   Ed, first, not all the work quoted was mine.
    Second, unfortunately, you appear unfamiliar or dismissive
with these impt. scientific issues again.

    Third, it is not clear there is evidence that "temperature controls the
rate of the nuclear reactions", but it does control the other reactions.
  As stated, it controls the branches available to de-excitation of He*
which lose their "forbidden"-nature in hot fusion, so that there is a ..
 > "..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. .....
 >    Temperature is a critical variable for other reasons, too, both
 > in initiating and quenching the desired reactions."


   ====================================================


> > > >     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.
> > >
> > > (Ed) 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
>
>  (Ed) This is like saying that CF is influenced by electrons. Such a 
> statement, while
>true, provides no unique insight.


    Other than engineering insight into the loading, processes and
breakdown.  Specifically, for example, the paper on Q1D loading gave insight
based upon continuum electromechanics and well-known physics,
and there was insight as proven by the efficiency of codeposition.

    Furthermore, it gives insight into the origin of the OOP-manifolds,
which in turn have given further useful insight into several types of
CF/LENR systems.


  Engineering and mathematics (including integral equations)
remain the keys to the universe in general, and cold fusion in particular.

    Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 07:43:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27130;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 07:42:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 07:42:44 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000701094200.012ccd60 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 09:42:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: Mars "sandworm"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_oH7Q3.0.qd6.aDWNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35969
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I think Rick was right about this one.  It's just a stream bed with oblique
lighting.  This hypothesis is supported by one of the new "water images"

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/gorgonum/gorgonum2_c50.jpg

where you can see identical "ribs" that are obviously (due to the better
lighting) just ridges in the sand at the very bottom of erosion gullies.


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  Sat Jul  1 07:53:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA30001;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 07:51:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 07:51:14 -0700
Message-ID: <002d01bfe36b$3677f420$12637dc7 computer>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Deuterium surprise in Milky Way
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 10:46:59 -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: <"erSE31.0.fK7.XLWNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35970
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

Looks as though our cold fusion powered interstellar vehicles will have no
problems getting refueled!

Ed Wall


Deuterium Showers Milky Way Center
UPI
Saturday July 1, 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, July 1 (UPI) -- To their surprise, astronomers have observed
deuterium -- heavy hydrogen thought to have formed during the universe's
birth -- at the star-studded center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Since deuterium is easily destroyed in stars, its presence there in
quantities a million times greater than expected indicates primordial gas
dating to the Big Bang showers the center from the outer regions, they said.

The scientists, who had expected the region to contain only negligible
amounts of deuterium, kept a round-the-clock surveillance of the heavens
with the 12-meter (40-foot) radio telescope -- similar to a large satellite
dish -- at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory atop Kitt Peak near
Tucson, Ariz.

They detected deuterium, a rare isotope of hydrogen (having the same
chemical but different physical properties), in a gargantuan gas cloud
located in a neighborhood crammed with stars, only 32 light years from the
galaxy center and 25,000 light years from Earth. The cloud is 15 light
years -- or 2 million times the distance from Earth to Sun -- in diameter. A
light year is the distance light traveling at 186,000 miles per second
covers in a year, or 6 trillion miles.

Since any deuterium in the galaxy center left over from the Big Bang should
have been destroyed by now, the amounts found must have been supplied by gas
that was not processed in stars, said lead study author Don Lubowich,
adjunct professor at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., senior scientist
at the American Institute of Physics and self-professed "deuterium hunter"
for 12 years.

The new measurements may shed light on conditions at the very beginning of
the universe, Lubowich and colleagues concluded in the British journal
Nature.|

"The ratio of the abundance of deuterium to that of hydrogen immediately
after the three-minute 'nucleosynthesis' stage when the universe was hot
enough to make neutrons and protons is a crucial test for Big Bang
theories," the study authors said.

"The deuterium or heavy hydrogen that rains into the galaxy comes from the
halo of the Milky Way and may be the gas out of which the Milky Way was
formed," Lubowich told United Press International.

"We only state that our results can only be explained by the infall of gas
containing more deuterium than exists near the Sun, but we can't distinguish
the source of the gas. The gas is at least 10 billion to 12 billion years
old if it comes from gas that formed the Milky Way and 13 billion to 15
billion years old if it is primordial."

"We suggest that it (the deuterium) is from the infall of clouds of gas from
outside our galaxy," study co-author Jay Pasachoff, professor at Williams
College in Williamstown, Mass., told UPI. "Since these clouds have not had
stars in them eating up the deuterium, they would still have their original
deuterium from the Big Bang, which is about 10 times higher in abundance
than we found in the galactic center."

Because the center is "very different from the local neighborhood of the
Sun, it was vital to find out what the deuterium abundance is there,"
Pasachoff said. "There had been a possibility that there were some local
ways of forming deuterium there, perhaps from cosmic rays, but our
measurements, linked with measurements of other elements there, do not fit
in with that theory, so one of our major discoveries is a proof that there
is no substantial formation of deuterium near the galactic center."

The deuterium measurements provide key insights into the formation of the
Milky Way, show the isotope is made by neither stars nor stellar activity
and give important clues to the origin of the light elements in the
universe, said Francesca Matteucci of the Universita Degli Studi di Trieste
in Italy, who wrote an accompanying News and Views article.|

"The main point is to derive the deuterium abundance at the Big Bang. We can
do it by means of chemical evolution models or by measuring deuterium in
highly unevolved objects," Matteucci told UPI.

"The presence of more deuterium in the galactic center.... can be explained
by recent -- no more than 1 billion years ago -- infall of gas with the
chemical composition of the Big Bang."

"The amount of deuterium left as the Big Bang era ended about 10 minutes
after the Big Bang itself tells us how dense the universe is. Deuterium is
cooked into helium so easily that if the universe were relatively dense,
little deuterium would have been left because it would have been cooked,"
Pasachoff said.

"Thus, if there were a lot of gravity there would have been slow expansion
and little deuterium. If, on the other hand, there was little gravity
because there was low density, the universe would have been expanding so
fast that deuterium could have formed and not been transformed into helium.
That is what we find."

The amount of deuterium measured indicates "only 4 percent of the mass that
would be necessary to pull the universe back on itself ever ending the
expansion is present," Pasachoff said.

"The fact that we find deuterium and other light elements (lithium,
beryllium, for example) in the amounts that we find them near the Sun are
strong backing for the Big Bang."

Lubowich, Pasachoff, Thomas Balonek, professor at Colgate University in
Hamilton, N.Y., a collaborator through the Keck Northeast Astronomy
Consortium, and a team of students took turns at the telescope to witness
the unfolding of the clues to the very beginning of the universe.

Since stars burn deuterium into helium, the deuterium they detected in the
Milky Way derived from the explosive forces of the Big Bang, they reasoned.

Tom Millar, professor at Manchester University, and colleagues joined the
team to help calculate theoretical models of how deuterium is incorporated
in molecules. The scientists then set about to determine the abundance of
deuterium from microwave observations of a molecule containing one atom of
deuterium, carbon and nitrogen, a form of hydrocyanic acid.

The investigators observed the molecule, called DCN, in the Sagittarius A
cloud near the galaxy center. While Nobel laureate Arno Penzias had
suggested the existence of deuterium in that vicinity, Lubowich, Pasachoff
and company were able to pin down the ratio of the heavy hydrogen to
ordinary hydrogen, a step essential to reaching their calculative
conclusions.

The scientists found one part per million of deuterium compared with
hydrogen, a million times more deuterium than had been expected in that
location.

"Comparing the abundance of deuterium found with the abundances known for
other light elements like lithium and for heavier elements like oxygen rules
out local formation of the deuterium," Lubowich said. "The most likely
source of the added deuterium is clouds of primordial matter from the halo
of our galaxy or from intergalactic space, with that primordial material
raining down into our galaxy's center."

The findings support the theory that deuterium -- including that found in
molecules on Earth, Venus, Jupiter and in meteorites -- originated in those
first explosive minutes, the scientists said.

Building on the work of nuclear astrophysicist William Fowler, who, with
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 for his
role in formulating a widely accepted theory of element generation, the team
concluded that ordinary matter comprises only 4 percent or so of the mass of
the universe. That figure is substantiated by other recent results.
Scientists think 33 percent of the mass is the mysterious, invisible "dark
matter," with the rest, an unfathomable energy with antigravity properties.

"If we know that all the deuterium is only produced in the Big Bang and the
abundance always goes down, then the current abundance can be used to
determine the cosmological deuterium/hydrogen after the big bang," Lubowich
said.

Lubowich plans to continue his search for deuterium in very old stars, in
nebulae at the edge of the Milky Way and in nearby galaxies and in massive
stars at galaxy's edge with an eye on his ultimate aim: "To determine the
origin and abundances of the light elements deuterium, lithium, beryllium
and boron that are not formed in stars."

"Many other astronomers are working in this field," he said. This will test
theories of the formation of the elements, theories of the evolution of the
Milky Way and models of the Big Bang." -- Copyright 2000 by United Press
International. All rights reserved. --






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 08:30:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA09488;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:29:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:29:05 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.59]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Deuterium surprise in Milky Way
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 08:28:30 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F86HaKtKufVma0osA9100000554 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2000 15:28:31.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[0314FD20:01BFE371]
Resent-Message-ID: <"S3Zga3.0.AK2.0vWNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35971
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

That is, if Whirlpower doesn't work. :)
Saucers are saucer shaped because they are Whirlpowered.

Betcha a dollar!

It's the bubbles man, hot or cold.

>From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Deuterium surprise in Milky Way
>Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 10:46:59 -0400
>
>Gnorts,
>
>Looks as though our cold fusion powered interstellar vehicles will have no
>problems getting refueled!
>
>Ed Wall
>
>
>Deuterium Showers Milky Way Center
>UPI
>Saturday July 1, 2000
>SAN FRANCISCO, July 1 (UPI) -- To their surprise, astronomers have observed
>deuterium -- heavy hydrogen thought to have formed during the universe's
>birth -- at the star-studded center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
>Since deuterium is easily destroyed in stars, its presence there in
>quantities a million times greater than expected indicates primordial gas
>dating to the Big Bang showers the center from the outer regions, they 
>said.
>
>The scientists, who had expected the region to contain only negligible
>amounts of deuterium, kept a round-the-clock surveillance of the heavens
>with the 12-meter (40-foot) radio telescope -- similar to a large satellite
>dish -- at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory atop Kitt Peak near
>Tucson, Ariz.
>
>They detected deuterium, a rare isotope of hydrogen (having the same
>chemical but different physical properties), in a gargantuan gas cloud
>located in a neighborhood crammed with stars, only 32 light years from the
>galaxy center and 25,000 light years from Earth. The cloud is 15 light
>years -- or 2 million times the distance from Earth to Sun -- in diameter. 
>A
>light year is the distance light traveling at 186,000 miles per second
>covers in a year, or 6 trillion miles.
>
>Since any deuterium in the galaxy center left over from the Big Bang should
>have been destroyed by now, the amounts found must have been supplied by 
>gas
>that was not processed in stars, said lead study author Don Lubowich,
>adjunct professor at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., senior 
>scientist
>at the American Institute of Physics and self-professed "deuterium hunter"
>for 12 years.
>
>The new measurements may shed light on conditions at the very beginning of
>the universe, Lubowich and colleagues concluded in the British journal
>Nature.|
>
>"The ratio of the abundance of deuterium to that of hydrogen immediately
>after the three-minute 'nucleosynthesis' stage when the universe was hot
>enough to make neutrons and protons is a crucial test for Big Bang
>theories," the study authors said.
>
>"The deuterium or heavy hydrogen that rains into the galaxy comes from the
>halo of the Milky Way and may be the gas out of which the Milky Way was
>formed," Lubowich told United Press International.
>
>"We only state that our results can only be explained by the infall of gas
>containing more deuterium than exists near the Sun, but we can't 
>distinguish
>the source of the gas. The gas is at least 10 billion to 12 billion years
>old if it comes from gas that formed the Milky Way and 13 billion to 15
>billion years old if it is primordial."
>
>"We suggest that it (the deuterium) is from the infall of clouds of gas 
>from
>outside our galaxy," study co-author Jay Pasachoff, professor at Williams
>College in Williamstown, Mass., told UPI. "Since these clouds have not had
>stars in them eating up the deuterium, they would still have their original
>deuterium from the Big Bang, which is about 10 times higher in abundance
>than we found in the galactic center."
>
>Because the center is "very different from the local neighborhood of the
>Sun, it was vital to find out what the deuterium abundance is there,"
>Pasachoff said. "There had been a possibility that there were some local
>ways of forming deuterium there, perhaps from cosmic rays, but our
>measurements, linked with measurements of other elements there, do not fit
>in with that theory, so one of our major discoveries is a proof that there
>is no substantial formation of deuterium near the galactic center."
>
>The deuterium measurements provide key insights into the formation of the
>Milky Way, show the isotope is made by neither stars nor stellar activity
>and give important clues to the origin of the light elements in the
>universe, said Francesca Matteucci of the Universita Degli Studi di Trieste
>in Italy, who wrote an accompanying News and Views article.|
>
>"The main point is to derive the deuterium abundance at the Big Bang. We 
>can
>do it by means of chemical evolution models or by measuring deuterium in
>highly unevolved objects," Matteucci told UPI.
>
>"The presence of more deuterium in the galactic center.... can be explained
>by recent -- no more than 1 billion years ago -- infall of gas with the
>chemical composition of the Big Bang."
>
>"The amount of deuterium left as the Big Bang era ended about 10 minutes
>after the Big Bang itself tells us how dense the universe is. Deuterium is
>cooked into helium so easily that if the universe were relatively dense,
>little deuterium would have been left because it would have been cooked,"
>Pasachoff said.
>
>"Thus, if there were a lot of gravity there would have been slow expansion
>and little deuterium. If, on the other hand, there was little gravity
>because there was low density, the universe would have been expanding so
>fast that deuterium could have formed and not been transformed into helium.
>That is what we find."
>
>The amount of deuterium measured indicates "only 4 percent of the mass that
>would be necessary to pull the universe back on itself ever ending the
>expansion is present," Pasachoff said.
>
>"The fact that we find deuterium and other light elements (lithium,
>beryllium, for example) in the amounts that we find them near the Sun are
>strong backing for the Big Bang."
>
>Lubowich, Pasachoff, Thomas Balonek, professor at Colgate University in
>Hamilton, N.Y., a collaborator through the Keck Northeast Astronomy
>Consortium, and a team of students took turns at the telescope to witness
>the unfolding of the clues to the very beginning of the universe.
>
>Since stars burn deuterium into helium, the deuterium they detected in the
>Milky Way derived from the explosive forces of the Big Bang, they reasoned.
>
>Tom Millar, professor at Manchester University, and colleagues joined the
>team to help calculate theoretical models of how deuterium is incorporated
>in molecules. The scientists then set about to determine the abundance of
>deuterium from microwave observations of a molecule containing one atom of
>deuterium, carbon and nitrogen, a form of hydrocyanic acid.
>
>The investigators observed the molecule, called DCN, in the Sagittarius A
>cloud near the galaxy center. While Nobel laureate Arno Penzias had
>suggested the existence of deuterium in that vicinity, Lubowich, Pasachoff
>and company were able to pin down the ratio of the heavy hydrogen to
>ordinary hydrogen, a step essential to reaching their calculative
>conclusions.
>
>The scientists found one part per million of deuterium compared with
>hydrogen, a million times more deuterium than had been expected in that
>location.
>
>"Comparing the abundance of deuterium found with the abundances known for
>other light elements like lithium and for heavier elements like oxygen 
>rules
>out local formation of the deuterium," Lubowich said. "The most likely
>source of the added deuterium is clouds of primordial matter from the halo
>of our galaxy or from intergalactic space, with that primordial material
>raining down into our galaxy's center."
>
>The findings support the theory that deuterium -- including that found in
>molecules on Earth, Venus, Jupiter and in meteorites -- originated in those
>first explosive minutes, the scientists said.
>
>Building on the work of nuclear astrophysicist William Fowler, who, with
>Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 for his
>role in formulating a widely accepted theory of element generation, the 
>team
>concluded that ordinary matter comprises only 4 percent or so of the mass 
>of
>the universe. That figure is substantiated by other recent results.
>Scientists think 33 percent of the mass is the mysterious, invisible "dark
>matter," with the rest, an unfathomable energy with antigravity properties.
>
>"If we know that all the deuterium is only produced in the Big Bang and the
>abundance always goes down, then the current abundance can be used to
>determine the cosmological deuterium/hydrogen after the big bang," Lubowich
>said.
>
>Lubowich plans to continue his search for deuterium in very old stars, in
>nebulae at the edge of the Milky Way and in nearby galaxies and in massive
>stars at galaxy's edge with an eye on his ultimate aim: "To determine the
>origin and abundances of the light elements deuterium, lithium, beryllium
>and boron that are not formed in stars."
>
>"Many other astronomers are working in this field," he said. This will test
>theories of the formation of the elements, theories of the evolution of the
>Milky Way and models of the Big Bang." -- Copyright 2000 by United Press
>International. All rights reserved. --
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 11:27:33 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25426;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:25:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:25:42 -0700
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 11:31:19 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
In-reply-to: <F184hODt9Cz93MgPPf3000003cb hotmail.com>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <200007011825.LAA09256 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: <"ld7Qx.0.4D6.bUZNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35972
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:29 AM 7/1/2000 -0700, you wrote:

>Interesting, Whirlpower Theory has been %100 accurate in predicting the data 
>for three years across 10,000 archived pages due to the logic of relative 
>density displacemet and fluid space.

>David Dennard
>http://www.whirlpower.cc

My cat barfs up these hairballs that are kind of twisted up vortex-like.
Does your whirlpower theory predict this?

--Lynn

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 13:52:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31927;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:51:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:51:34 -0700
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:56:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  Magnetic Electric Cause and effect (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"TieiS.0.no7.MdbNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35973
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Background:

	When a changing magntic field is close to a conductor a current
tends to flow.

	Q:  Does one CAUSE the other?

	OR

	Q:	Is some other mechanism in play and the two properties
happen at the same time?


	Q:	How do we know?



			J


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5480/4/_/2785/_/962484587/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Messages archives at :

http://www.egroups.com/group/jlnlabs/

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to jlnlabs-unsubscribe egroups.com

JLN Labs web site at: http://go.to/jlnlabs

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 15:07:38 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15462;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:06:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:06:38 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.30]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 15:06:02 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1314aJ6pkNzPZrIkyP00000445 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2000 22:06:02.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BB63BD0:01BFE3A8]
Resent-Message-ID: <"aaNsG.0.Vn3.jjcNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35974
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ha!  Hadn't caught that one in the lastest series of scientific discoveries 
due to our new Hubble Vision, or Chandra, or Rossi, or any of our other more 
new advanced methods of observation,

But, I'm sure since you are a scientist you can write a paper on it and 
publish it and go to a fancy seminar and no one will ignore your cat's hair 
balls.  :)

If you are interested in how Whirlpower Theory relates to physiology, we are 
having a good discusion right now on the Whirlpower List about how bubbles 
expand and contract the cells of our body via the Mitochondria's action of 
relative density displacement giving us a wide variety of spasmodic 
reactions, pleasureable and not so pleasurable, not to mention just plain 
old movement.

In the cosmological constant Einstein said all energy of motion comes from 
gravity.  The thermodynamic paradigm is all but history.

David Dennard
The Paradigm Shift
http://www.whirlpower.cc



>From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
>Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 11:31:19 -0700
>
>At 03:29 AM 7/1/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Interesting, Whirlpower Theory has been %100 accurate in predicting the 
>data
> >for three years across 10,000 archived pages due to the logic of relative
> >density displacemet and fluid space.
>
> >David Dennard
> >http://www.whirlpower.cc
>
>My cat barfs up these hairballs that are kind of twisted up vortex-like.
>Does your whirlpower theory predict this?
>
>--Lynn
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 16:07:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27687;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:06:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:06:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210100b58426e1b984 [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000701094200.012ccd60 earthtech.org>
References: <3.0.1.32.20000701094200.012ccd60 earthtech.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:06:12 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Mars "sandworm"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ne2vL2.0.Xm6.mbdNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35975
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I was surprised that some folks were having a hard time making that 
conclusion here. It really helps to do detailed comparisons with 
other images when analyzing images rather than just staring at one 
image and letting the imagination run away (although it's fun 
sometimes).

Sometimes comparing things carefully can really surprise you. One of 
my favorite: here, a patently silly image (on first glance) that no 
one would likely give any credibility to actually has some rather 
surprising features when compared with certain other imagery, both 
recent and ancient.

http://216.68.77.17/img/chupa.jpg


- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


>I think Rick was right about this one.  It's just a stream bed with oblique
>lighting.  This hypothesis is supported by one of the new "water images"
>
>http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/gorgonum/gorgonum2_c50.jpg
>
>where you can see identical "ribs" that are obviously (due to the better
>lighting) just ridges in the sand at the very bottom of erosion gullies.
>
>
>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  Sat Jul  1 16:16:31 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29637;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:15:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:15:51 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210101b5842ad1a64d [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
References: 
 <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:15:10 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Magnetic Electric Cause and effect (fwd)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wT8OU.0.-E7.ckdNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35976
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John -

Q:	Is some other mechanism in play and the two properties
happen at the same time?

Q:	How do we know?

Jeffimenko thinks E & B are simply concurrent, one not causing the 
other. Both arise from a changing current of charge, a reasoning 
which still seems too circular for me. But he has nice math offered 
as the answer to how we know. The same math works for "mass currents" 
giving rise to gravity too.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 16:19:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30850;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:19:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:19:10 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210102b5842c37fa63 [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <200007011825.LAA09256 smtp.asu.edu>
References: <200007011825.LAA09256 smtp.asu.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:18:48 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Lifting body, facist, and airplanes.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NVzxw2.0.yX7.jndNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35977
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:31 AM -0700 7/1/00, Lynn Kurtz wrote:

>My cat barfs up these hairballs that are kind of twisted up vortex-like.
>Does your whirlpower theory predict this?

Might I suggest that you:

Feed your cat Petro-malt.

Feed the trolls nothing.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  1 19:04:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA31102;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:03:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:03:43 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Magnetic Electric Cause and effect (fwd)
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:03:07 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <8j8tls0qhtfsg8cvdc3fc33gna2ebev42d 4ax.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.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 TAA31080
Resent-Message-ID: <"lGrOT.0.tb7.-BgNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35978
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  John Schnurer's message of Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:56:55 -0400
(EDT):

>
>
>	Background:
>
>	When a changing magntic field is close to a conductor a current
>tends to flow.
>
>	Q:  Does one CAUSE the other?
>
>	OR
>
>	Q:	Is some other mechanism in play and the two properties
>happen at the same time?
>
>
>	Q:	How do we know?
IMO the fact that the energy extracted from the induced current doesn't
reproducibly exceed that used to generate the changing magnetic field would
tend to argue for cause and effect.

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 Jul  1 19:10:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA32417;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:09:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:09:22 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:08:45 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <ko8tls4gca9h8cqtp3k6lc7ti7glvjsv3a 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 TAA32393
Resent-Message-ID: <"VYcq23.0.Rw7.IHgNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35979
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The two possible causes of global warming that I am aware of are 
Greenhouse effect, and increased solar heating.
Here's a third. Increasing geothermal heat under the oceans. The recent
increase in vulcanism and earthquake activity would also be consequences of
such heating.

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 Jul  1 20:37:59 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17698;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:36:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:36:47 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000701222514.012da778 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 22:25:14 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: Re: Magnetic Electric Cause and effect (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <8j8tls0qhtfsg8cvdc3fc33gna2ebev42d 4ax.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000701165641.26895K-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cZDeM3.0.SK4.EZhNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35980
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:03 PM 7/2/2000 +1000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>>	When a changing magntic field is close to a conductor a current
>>tends to flow.
>>
>>	Q:  Does one CAUSE the other?

>>	Q:	Is some other mechanism in play and the two properties
>>happen at the same time?

>IMO the fact that the energy extracted from the induced current doesn't
>reproducibly exceed that used to generate the changing magnetic field would
>tend to argue for cause and effect.

I've also read Jefimenko's little book that Rick mentioned and J's argmuent
makes perfect sense to me.  There certainly is a cause and effect
relationship between the changing current in one wire and the induced
current in a second parallel wire...it's just not the magnetic field
created by the first wire that causes the current in the second.  Rather,
it's the electric field created by the changing current in the first wire,
which is parallel to the current that starts the charges in the second wire
moving.

Maxwell's eqns relating B and E are often misinterpreted as causal
relationships (i.e. folks think that dB/dt creates an E) Instead they
simply describe the relationship between the fields that both arise from
the movement of charges.

J provides some direct quotes from Maxwell himself that indicate that
Maxwell did not suffer from this causality misconception.

I forget the examples that J produces to show that the situation really is
like this...but he definitely has some.


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  Sat Jul  1 20:38:53 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA17832;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:37:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:37:40 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210100b5846782e91c [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <ko8tls4gca9h8cqtp3k6lc7ti7glvjsv3a 4ax.com>
References: <ko8tls4gca9h8cqtp3k6lc7ti7glvjsv3a 4ax.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 17:37:20 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WLSFp1.0.YM4.3ahNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35981
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:08 PM +1000 7/2/00, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>Increasing geothermal heat under the oceans. The recent
>increase in vulcanism and earthquake activity would also be consequences of
>such heating.

This is the one that has my interest. I think some evidence has been 
presented that the El Nino cycle, for instance, may be geothermally 
driven, at least in part. But the question is, what would cause the 
increase in geothermal heat? Something from the sun or deep space 
that has the ability to penetrate deep into the earth and alter the 
level of activity of the processes that create geothermal heat? Some 
people claim to see a correlation between earthquakes/volcanism and 
the solar cycle, but I don't know how good their numbers are. Maybe 
some of the reactions involved in CF are a component of these 
geological processes, and get affected by changes in neutrino flux? 
Many questions.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 00:06:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA21570;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530502b584998873bb [12.21.208.217]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 23:06:26 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Resent-Message-ID: <"IwieI3.0.uG5.WckNv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35982
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:08 PM 7/2/0, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>The two possible causes of global warming that I am aware of are
>Greenhouse effect, and increased solar heating.
>Here's a third. Increasing geothermal heat under the oceans. The recent
>increase in vulcanism and earthquake activity would also be consequences of
>such heating.


Conversely, vulcanism and earthquakes may be increased by crustal
expansions and contractions due to global warming.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 00:15:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA22026;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:14:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:14:58 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b5849b29d59e [12.21.208.217]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 23:16:20 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Resent-Message-ID: <"g5b3P3.0.4O5.olkNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35983
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:08 PM 7/2/0, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>The two possible causes of global warming that I am aware of are
>Greenhouse effect, and increased solar heating.
>Here's a third. Increasing geothermal heat under the oceans. The recent
>increase in vulcanism and earthquake activity would also be consequences of
>such heating.


Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough.  You wrote "would also be consequences of
such heating."

Similar feedback loops exist with reqard to atmospheric methane, and upper
atmosphere water vapor, both of which are far more effective greenhouse
agents than carbon dioxide.  If we are already in a runaway mode to end up
like venus, then I think methane and upper atmosphere water vapor are more
likely than vulcanism to be the the prinicple cause, but it may be
difficult to tell because these things are all involved in the positive
feedback loop.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 00:28:53 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA24562;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:28:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:28:18 -0700
Message-ID: <01BFE3BC.B2074180 istf-1-65.ucdavis.edu>
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Mars "sandworm"
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:29:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BFE3BC.B2074180"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QCS_k3.0.e_5.HykNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35984
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BFE3BC.B2074180
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rick said:

>It really helps to do detailed comparisons with=20
>other images when analyzing images rather than just staring at one=20
>image and letting the imagination run away (although it's fun=20
>sometimes).

Agreed. Which is why I came to a different conclusion.
Please realize that I don't think the "sandworm" is/was a critter. I =
don't know what kind of structure it is, but it doesn't look like it's =
from water or wind flow.

In the "water" photo, the endpoints of almost all of the arcs are on =
what is apparently the uphill side. But in the "sandworm" photo (must we =
call it that? I'm going to call it "tubes" - M0400291.gif ) that is not =
apparently the case -- unless M.C. Escher designed the place.

In "water" the arcs follow the apparent bottom of the canyons; but in =
"tubes" they appear to be on the sides of canyon walls in many places.

And in "water" the tips of the arcs tend to splay out and fuse with the =
canyon, while in "tubes" they mostly come to a point and look distinct.=20

Also, check this out: see the bright spot (it looks like a high spot or =
bubble) on the upper-left "tube", about 1/3 from its bottom end? Now go =
"southeast" a bit, just the other side of the "tube"; there's an =
apparent pit right at its edge. What I see there is the "tube" covering =
a bit of the left part of the pit, and a faint image of the pit behind =
the "tube" - as though it were partially transparent. Look at the image =
with a viewer that lets you zoom in and get down to the pixels, and see =
if you don't see the same thing. Hey, now that I'm looking at the image =
again with that in mind, I see another of these juxtapositions at about =
the 1/3 mark from the top of the same tube, and another (possibly) near =
the right-hand side of the image, "under" the rightmost "tube".

Can anyone explain away all of the above for me? I'm open to a more =
mundane explanation, but for now I see translucent tubes.=20

-Dan Quickert
------ =_NextPart_000_01BFE3BC.B2074180
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BFE3BC.B2074180--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 00:59:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA29062;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:57:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 00:57:27 -0700
From: dtmiller midiowa.net (Dean T. Miller)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 07:57:40 GMT
Organization: Miller and Associates
Reply-To: dtmiller midiowa.net
Message-ID: <3960f2e1.192196674 mail.midiowa.net>
References: <ko8tls4gca9h8cqtp3k6lc7ti7glvjsv3a 4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <ko8tls4gca9h8cqtp3k6lc7ti7glvjsv3a 4ax.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 AAA29002
Resent-Message-ID: <"oGeTd.0.w57.WNlNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35985
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Robin,

Hmm.  Should I?  Why not?

On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:08:45 +1000, Robin van Spaandonk
<rvanspaa bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>The two possible causes of global warming that I am aware of are 
>Greenhouse effect, and increased solar heating.

Greenhouse effect is self-regulating.
Increased solar heating (insolation) is fairly self-regulating.

>Here's a third. Increasing geothermal heat under the oceans. The recent
>increase in vulcanism and earthquake activity would also be consequences of
>such heating.

Now you got it!  Quick summary:

The interior of the Earth is slowly getting warmer and has been for
some time.  But it takes a while -- decades to centuries -- for the
effect to reach the surface.

The reason, IMO, is an increased ionized particle output from the sun
(which goes along with increased radiation from the sun).  The solar
wind (and CME's), in conjunction with the Earth's magnetic field,
create an electric current through the "solid" earth (as well as
producing light shows at times).  This current produces resistance
heating (and some magnetic hysterisis heating) within the earth --
which is why the interior of the earth is still hot after 4.5 billion
years.  

In addition to that, really large CMEs have a mechanical effect on the
Earth.  Because CMEs have an associated large (but diffuse) magnetic
field, when nearing the Earth, the CME magnetic field interacts with
the Earth's field.

Since a magnetic field is "tied" to the physical material that
produces the field, any external change to the magnetic field
necessarily causes a change in the physical material.  In the case of
the Earth, a CME's magnetic field will cause a change in the Earth's
magnetic field -- which must then produce a torque on the material
inside the Earth that produces the magnetic field.

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines  (CDP, KB0ZDF)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 01:08:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA30590;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:06:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:06:18 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 18:05:42 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <ssttlsk7n4qenhfhuacvduc659hkt8q52u 4ax.com>
References: <v01530503b5849b29d59e [12.21.208.217]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530503b5849b29d59e [12.21.208.217]>
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 BAA30573
Resent-Message-ID: <"tf86A1.0.uT7.wVlNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35986
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 1 Jul 2000 23:16:20 -0800:

>At 12:08 PM 7/2/0, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>The two possible causes of global warming that I am aware of are
>>Greenhouse effect, and increased solar heating.
>>Here's a third. Increasing geothermal heat under the oceans. The recent
>>increase in vulcanism and earthquake activity would also be consequences of
>>such heating.
>
>
>Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough.  You wrote "would also be consequences of
>such heating."
I think you got it right the first time. I meant geothermal heating, not
global warming ;).



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 Jul  2 04:06:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA24792;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 04:05:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 04:05:50 -0700
Message-ID: <395F23E1.81308063 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 04:13:37 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: BL Power Hi-Fi replication?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GdKvU.0.I36.E8oNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35987
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 2, 2000

Vortex,

I wonder how the replication effort by Scott (Earthtech) is coming
along?
Any status report?

-ak-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 05:19:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA02064;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:18:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:18:28 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.31]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Global warming - an alternative explanation?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 05:17:56 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F70pFVjCRGryWtIIZS200000535 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2000 12:17:56.0143 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DA8C3F0:01BFE41F]
Resent-Message-ID: <"shXuQ1.0.9W.KCpNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35988
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

And of course the only thing not mentioned;

The Wobble of the Earth.

Every revolution the Earth makes, the polar axis is off dead center.  This 
measurment varies constantly but increases as the spin of the Earth 
decreases.

This action increases wave motion to the crust.

And in Whirlpower Theory this action actually causes the tides, the ocean 
currents, the wind, and increases the orbital radius of the Moon due to the 
frame dragging lever action on fluid space.

TA DA!!!!

Like most things on this backwards, ignorant, and polluted planet, the 
laughing stock of the galaxy, our science just can't cut the mustard where 
the rubber meets the road; no vision, and a big shot know it all attitude.  
But scientists will be giving up their most precious beliefs when the 
Whirlpower Wobble is understood and we are running on clean infinite gravity 
power.  Won't be long now.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 08:25:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA09167;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:22:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:22:41 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011702b583568c4058 [207.8.127.250]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000630101014.10510A-100000 eskimo.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 10:18:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Fascist airplanes.
Resent-Message-ID: <"fN0hl1.0.9F2.1vrNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35989
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
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.

***{As I have noted repeatedly, to no avail, configuring the fuselage to
give it lift reduces the need for lift in the wings, if the payload is
constant. Thus material trimmed from the wings permits the installation of
larger engines and the expansion of control surfaces, without an increase
in the weight of the aircraft, thereby producing high performance vehicles
such as the F-22. On the other hand, if it is desired to *increase* the
payload, then you could leave the wings the same length, or even increase
them; and you also could even reduce the size of the engines, thereby
saving more weight, which would enable you to increase the payload still
further. Or you could opt in favor of one of the myraid compromises on the
scale between maximizing performance and maximizing payload. Fast, slow,
highly maneuverable, less maneuverable--all are options available to the
designer of a Burnelli airframe, just as they are options available to the
designer of a conventional airframe.

I would add that your utter refusal to acknowledge this point or respond to
the reasons given to support it, and your continued repetition of these
absurd "slow airplane" claims, is the same behavior by which you infuriated
people on sci.physics.fusion, after which you were in effect tarred and
feathered and run out of the group on a rail. The question is: why can't
you modify your inappropriate behavior? Do you think your words have
magical powers? Do you think that, by a mere act of will, you can somehow
force people to ignore plain facts that are staring them in the face?

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>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).

***{Yes, I get it. The question is, can you comprehend the difference
between the ability to fly slowly, and the *requirement* to do so?

To put the matter simply: it is the pilot's job to adjust his landing and
departure speeds to the conditions at the airfield. Those conditions
include the length of the available runways, the presence of crosswinds,
turbulence, etc. It is desirable, if the conditions are turbulent, to leave
a larger margin of safety between the approach or departure speed of the
aircraft and its stall speed. However, as I have once again noted
repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored, if the proper margin of safety
has been allotted, a lower approach or departure speed is better than a
high one. The reason: KE = (1/2)mV^2--which means that if something goes
wrong and you do, in fact, crash, you want the speed of impact to be as low
as possible. Result: low approach and departure speeds are better than
higher ones, if reasonable safety margins above stall speed have been
maintained. Because of that, the habit of imparting a cylindrical shape to
the fuselage and the engines of an aircraft is an unarguably bad design
practice: it converts them into dead weights that exert a continual force
dragging the airplaine toward the ground, and there is no forward velocity,
however great, which alters this state of affairs. With the Burnelli
design, on the other hand, the longitudinal cross section of the engines
and the fuselage is that of a cambered airfoil. Result: the engines and the
fuselage have *lift*--which means: there is an upward pointing force vector
that opposes the force of gravity and, at sufficient speed, cancels it out
entirely. Result: you could chop both wings off of a Burnelli aircraft and
it could still fly, assuming that the engines had enough thrust to achieve
the necessary forward velocity. That is something which is not possible
even in principle with a conventional aircraft.

--Mitchell Jones}***

 Thus, they are safer if faster in weather. Do you
>want to fly in real air? Or some hypthetical still air?

***{The performance related superiority of the Burnelli airframe on
takeoffs and landings, when compared to conventional airframes that are
otherwise equal (so we are comparing apples to apples), arises out of the
fact that it offers the pilot the capability, but not the requirement, to
fly slowly. Result: if the Burnelli pilot and the conventional pilot have
added *exactly the same* margin of safety above stall speed, the Burnelli
pilot will *still* approach and depart the airport at a substantially lower
speed, and, as a result, will experience a lower-impact and hence much more
survivable crash if something does, in fact, go wrong. Thus the superior
safety of the Burnelli airframe does not merely apply in hypothetical air,
but also in real air. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{You keep saying that, and you even posted a little drawing with some
vectors on it that showed an unopposed component of upward force on the
lifting body airframe. What you left out, of course, was the downward
pointing vector representing the force of gravity on the fuselage, which is
utterly unopposed in the conventional airframe even in level flight.

Concerning stability in turns, there is no effect in the pure case where
the direction of flight is altered using the rudder, since the wings remain
level. However, in the case where the wings are moved away from the level
position by using the ailerons (known as a bank), it is worth noting that
*lift* is what makes it possible to turn in this way. What happens is that
when, say, the right wing is dipped below the horizon, the lift vector is
no longer vertical, and, as such, now has a component pointing to the
right. It is this component of force that makes it possible to turn an
aircraft by banking it. Result: the greater the amount of lift available to
an aircraft in level flight, the better its performance in a bank. Hence
the lifting body aircraft will exhibit superior performance in a bank, not
inferior performance.

Bottom line: every single technical criticism you have aimed at the
Burnelli design has been wrong.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>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!

***{I repeat: the fact that the Burnelli design is capable of going much
more slowly than a conventional airframe without stalling is not the same
as a requirement that it do so. That means approaches and departures are
safer even after a margin of safety above stall speed has been added, to
deal with possible gusts or wind shear; and it means you can cruise more
slowly at altitude without stalling if you so desire--e.g., if you are
sight seeing or doing photo reconnaissance--but if you are flying a lifting
body aircraft with big pipes (such as an F-22), you can also go like blazes
if you want to. --MJ}***

Besides, by (1) & (2) you're going to be hitting
>the ground so often you'll increase your odds of not surviving.

***{To a scientific mind, mere repetition cannot transform a false
assertion into a perceived fact. --MJ}***

>
>4) Us so called dullard, complacent, fascist, kill crazy engineers

***{Most members of any profession, including engineers, are conformists
who adopt the conventions of their peers pretty much without question. That
is simply a fact. On the other hand, engineers must be very disciplined and
logical in their thinking, and mathematically sophisticated, in order
produce workable designs even within the conventional framework. The fact
that the conventional airframe is flawed, for example, does not mean
sophistical intellectual skills are not required to make such designs work,
and I never said or implied the contrary. It is the conformist tendencies
of typical engineers to which I object, not their technical skills.

As for the fascist label, I am really getting tired of having to repeat
that, when I used the subject line "Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed," I did
*not* apply the fascist label to engineers in general or to you in
particular. Moreover, that fact is so palpably obvious that even a drooling
retard can see it, and so it is apparent that you take offense about it
because you simply *want* to take offense. The only question is *why*, and
my best guess is that you want to divert attention from the fact that the
technical arguments you have attempted to make on this issue are utterly in
ruins.

As for "kill crazy," I never used the expression at all, or anything
resembling it. I have alleged that the conventional airframe is less safe
than the Burnelli airframe, and that the result is carnage in the skies.
The suggestion that that is due to conscious intent on the part of the
engineers who design such aircraft--or on the part of the cartel members or
their allies in government, for that matter--is entirely a figment of your
own imagination. The fact is that the aeronautical engineers don't have a
choice in the matter, since if they submit Burnelli designs, those designs
will be rejected--as I have said previously. And the actual cartel bigwigs
and their allies in government doubtlessly do not see themselves as
killers, either: I have no doubt that each and every one of them has
managed to convince himself that what he wants to believe is, in fact,
true. Evil, after all, is merely the state of mind of a person who
habitually believes what he wants to believe. That means criminals do not
see themselves for what they are (though they may confess and feign remorse
in hopes of lighter sentences). Even Hitler did not see himself as a
monster: he hated Jews because, during his years as an artist in Vienna, he
had lots of arguments with individual Jews--arguments which he almost
invariably lost. However, rather than alter the opinions which he could not
defend, he chose to hate those who exposed their flaws.  His anti-Semitism
arose, in short, out of his own character flaws, but he did not admit that,
even in the privacy of his own thoughts. Instead, he concocted tortured
rationalizations and used them to convince himself and others that all Jews
were intrinsically evil, and that slaughtering them was in the interests of
mankind.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>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.

***{If you are not deserving of those labels, then stop howling about them.
I may believe that you are a fascist, for example, but there is obviously
nothing in the subject line "Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed" which implies
that you are, and no  amount of pretended indignation on your part is going
to alter that state of affairs. The fact is that from a technical
standpoint your position is in ruins, and running on endlessly about
made-up insults is apparently your only hope of diverting attention from
that state of affairs. --MJ}***

>
>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!

***{I disagree, for reasons given previously. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{As I have noted elsewhere, it is the pilot's job to adjust his approach
and departure speeds to to the existing conditions. The ability to fly
slowly is not the same as a requirement for doing so. (You might as well
argue that a Ferrari is intrinsically dangerous because it is capable of
being driven at 5 mph on the Autobahn.) --MJ}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 08:54:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA19152;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:52:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:52:56 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 10:52:10 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: Re: BL Power Hi-Fi replication?
In-Reply-To: <395F23E1.81308063 ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"w7Boh3.0.Ah4.OLsNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35990
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:13 AM 7/2/2000 -0700, Akira Kawasaki wrote:

>Vortex,
>
>I wonder how the replication effort by Scott (Earthtech) is coming
>along?

It is coming along miserably at a standstill.  Pope Scientific has just
announced that it will cost me $200 to get a specially prepared Certified
Dewar from them that performs as well as a $10 Thermos bottle from the
grocery store.  They have therefore essentially admitted that their
standard Model 8600 laboratory-grade Dewar ($86) cannot be expected to
perform as well as the $10 Thermos bottle.

They advertise a vacuum of 10^-7 torr in their standard Dewar.  I have
calculated that is must be at least 4 orders of magnitude worse than that
in the bad ones they've been sending me (I'm on #5 now).  I have advised
them of my findings and suggested that they have a problem with their
production vacuum system (or technique) that leaves a condensible vapor
(most likely H2O) in the Dewars at the millitorr level.  When they perform
their standard LN2 test, this vapor rapidly cryopumps out and the Dewar
looks great.  However, when Mommy fills the Dewar with little Johnny's hot
soup, the vapor makes the Dewar's thermal performance very poor and Johnny
ends up with yukky cool soup for lunch...a situation that definitely does
not occur in your standard $10 grocery-store Thermos bottle.  Pope doesn't
appear to care about my findings.

Since I decided to be a purist about this experiment, Pope has put me
between a rock and a hard place:  in order to get a Dewar that behaves like
Mills' did, I have to order a different Dewar (i.e. the Certified one).
Plus the fact that they are now up to $200 for the same thermal performance
I can get for $10 elsewhere....bitch, moan, bleed....

However, another significant reason we're not making any progress on the
Hi-Fi replication is that I'm busy getting ready for our beamtime allotment
(July 10-July28) at the synchrotron facility in Madison Wisconsin.   We
have an exciting experiment planned, to see if the vibrational ground state
of the H2 molecule is not fixed but rather a dynamic equilibrium with the
zero-point field.  We will place H2 molecules in a Casimir cavity which
excludes ZPF radiation at the vibrational frequency and then look to see if
the ground states have lost some energy.  We will use the classic
spectroscopic method pioneered by Beutler (1933) and then Herzberg
(1960-1970) to measure the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.  If the
ground state loses some energy, the dissociation energy must increase
correspondingly.  We're expected a large effect (like half of the normal
ground state energy), not a tiny Lamb shift thing.


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 Jul  2 11:26:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA29282;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:24:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:24:19 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fascist airplanes.
In-Reply-To: <v04011702b583568c4058 [207.8.127.250]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702095716.8470B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oA9k22.0.M97.IZuNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35991
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >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.
> 
> ***{As I have noted repeatedly, to no avail, configuring the fuselage to
> give it lift reduces the need for lift in the wings, if the payload is
> constant.

Yeah. What's the advantage, other than you have positive feedback when you
roll the airplane? You may as well designing the wings properly and have
stable control. 

> Thus material trimmed from the wings permits the installation of
> larger engines and the expansion of control surfaces, without an increase
> in the weight of the aircraft,

But because the lifting body has different lift, drag, and mach
characteristics from the wings, you're limited by the lifting body.

Not really an advantage. Notice that Burnelli never built your stubby
winged airplane. The obvious reason is that he needed still larger wings
to wrestle that lifting body around. 

> thereby producing high performance vehicles
> such as the F-22.

Prove that the F-22 is a Burnelli design. The F-22 has a fuselage and two
swept back thin wings with a definitely pointed and aerodynamic nose. I
don't see much resemblance, or are we not claiming that any fuselage that
isn't exactly round is now a Burnelli design?

What, exactly, IS the Burnelli (expired) patent claiming? Let's pin that
down. There have been other airplanes covered by other patents, like
Northrup's flying wing. What's different?

> On the other hand, if it is desired to *increase* the
> payload, then you could leave the wings the same length, or even increase
> them; and you also could even reduce the size of the engines, thereby
> saving more weight,

We size the engines according to drag, not weight. We make lift equal
weight. 

One problem with this big fat lifting body is that the air going over the
fuselage has to go too mush faster than the airplane speed. Pretty soon
you find that the air going over the fuselage has reached the speed of
sound well before your airplane reaches Mach 1. This limits speed.

The other problem is that the airplane is inheritantly unstable. As I have
shown before, if wind conditions raise one wing above the other, a
conventional airplane will return to level flight. The Burnelli's design
will make the airplane continue to roll.

> which would enable you to increase the payload still
> further. Or you could opt in favor of one of the myraid compromises on the
> scale between maximizing performance and maximizing payload. Fast, slow,
> highly maneuverable, less maneuverable--all are options available to the
> designer of a Burnelli airframe, just as they are options available to the
> designer of a conventional airframe.


Yawn. Tell you what. Start your own company and build this wonderful
design, and try and get it certified and try an sell it to customers.

Oh, I forgot! They're all fascist and in on the plot to suppress this
design, because....  

Why was it we fascist are suppressing the design anyway? Everyone from the
pilots and passengers to the engineers and regulators? If the designed
SUCKED, then that would be understandable. How do we profit, again, from
suppressing a design who's patent protection lapsed 60 years ago?

> I would add that your utter refusal to acknowledge this point or respond to
> the reasons given to support it, and your continued repetition of these
> absurd "slow airplane" claims, is the same behavior by which you infuriated
> people on sci.physics.fusion, after which you were in effect tarred and
> feathered and run out of the group on a rail.

Oh, yes. People who dismiss great masses of independent and replicated
data as "error" because it proves cold fusion are great authorities on
science. I especially enjoyed your own magic, unknown contaminate theory
and your statistical approach to finding if an experiment as valid. It
was, well, very amusing. 

I believe the are posting flame poetry and invoking God almighty in their
physics discussions since I left. Great group. By all means, cite them as
your authority on well done science. 

> The question is: why can't
> you modify your inappropriate behavior? Do you think your words have
> magical powers? Do you think that, by a mere act of will, you can somehow
> force people to ignore plain facts that are staring them in the face?
>

Humm. Lets see, if someone calls you the village idiot, and then you say
that is childish (and their physics was wrong on a 6th grade level, too,
but you only point out the error and not the fundamental nature of the
error) you find that inappropriate behavior.

That's why I left! People like you have no good, mature judgment.

> >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).
> 
> ***{Yes, I get it. The question is, can you comprehend the difference
> between the ability to fly slowly, and the *requirement* to do so?

The requirement, The FAA REQUIREMENT, is that when you approach landing
you do so at 1.3 x Vstall. You do that because you want to be able to
minimize lift as soon as you put wheels on the ground. This is called
"landing".

Problems occur when you come in much faster than 1.3 x Vstall. You get
ground effects, lifting your airplane from the runway. You are also
more likely to fly the airplane into the ground. 

On wings, we can control the amount of lift with flaps and slats to
optimize the lift for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Now, where are these
surfaces on that lifting body?

Another factor is that the coefficient of lift of the surfaces. Your
lifting body has a great deal of lift; your wings, if you note, have
little bend to them. At low speeds, they have much less lift. Another
reason why the large wings are required; to wrestle that big uncontrolled
pig of a fuselage around on takeoff and landing. And in cruise, that pig
limits you to 300-400 knots.

If you have to make the wings big anyway so you have all that force to
wrestle the pig around, why bother with the pig and just use large wings?

> To put the matter simply: it is the pilot's job to adjust his landing and
> departure speeds to the conditions at the airfield. Those conditions
> include the length of the available runways, the presence of crosswinds,
> turbulence, etc. It is desirable, if the conditions are turbulent, to leave
> a larger margin of safety between the approach or departure speed of the
> aircraft and its stall speed. However, as I have once again noted

You don't understand the concept of "landing", I see. You want to be on
the ground with as little lift as possible. If you have lift, even lift
that's less than your weight by a bit, you end up bouncing down the run
way like a big rubber ball. What the passengers and airframe feels is more
like what you'd feel inside a Samsonite suitcase when the guerilla gets
hold of it and bangs it about his cage. 

> repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored, if the proper margin of safety
> has been allotted, a lower approach or departure speed is better than a
> high one. The reason: KE = (1/2)mV^2--which means that if something goes
> wrong and you do, in fact, crash, you want the speed of impact to be as low
> as possible. Result: low approach and departure speeds are better than
> higher ones, if reasonable safety margins above stall speed have been

If you want to design an airplane that is unstable in a roll, (which is
pure HELL when you're trying to land, btw) and is susceptible to weather,
but will be moving so slow that you will have a decent chance of surviving
a crash at 30 mph or some such...

You're going to be crashing so often that you're more likely to be dead. 



> maintained. Because of that, the habit of imparting a cylindrical shape to
> the fuselage and the engines of an aircraft is an unarguably bad design
> practice: it converts them into dead weights that exert a continual force

You don't know diddly about aircraft design, are making this stuff up as
you go, and are more than a little paranoid. About being paranoid, I don't
know how else to describe a belief that everyone from pilots, passengers,
engineers, business men, bankers, presidents, DoD officials, ICAO, NTSB,
and the FAA are all fascist conspirators trying to put out unsafe
airplanes because of some grudge against this Burnelli fellow. 

In your own wacky calculus that you use for "science", what are the odds
that each one of these organizations would be in the conspiracy vs. the
odds that the Burnelli designed just plain ol' SUCKS? Occum's razor. 

> dragging the airplaine toward the ground, and there is no forward velocity,
> however great, which alters this state of affairs. With the Burnelli
> design, on the other hand, the longitudinal cross section of the engines
> and the fuselage is that of a cambered airfoil. Result: the engines and the
> fuselage have *lift*--which means: there is an upward pointing force vector
> that opposes the force of gravity and, at sufficient speed, cancels it out
> entirely. Result: you could chop both wings off of a Burnelli aircraft and
> it could still fly, assuming that the engines had enough thrust to achieve
> the necessary forward velocity. That is something which is not possible
> even in principle with a conventional aircraft.

That's the most absurd claim I've ever heard. FLY? With what for control
surfaces? That tail (do we still have a tail?) is going to go up, your
nose will go down, and you're going to auger in. Or it's going to go into
an uncontrolled roll, and spin like a badly made paper airplane about it's
axis. 

How can you even say such a think without numbers is beyond me. One thing
all engineers know is that if you HAVEN'T designed it that way, it won't
work the way you want it. 


> --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>  Thus, they are safer if faster in weather. Do you
> >want to fly in real air? Or some hypthetical still air?
> 
> ***{The performance related superiority of the Burnelli airframe on
> takeoffs and landings, 

The only performance claim you've made on takeoff and landings is that when
you get to your crash, (as 11% of Burnelli planes have during testing,
that we know of) your crash isn't as likely to be fatal because you're
moving so slow. 

As I said, moving slow makes the lifting body just that much more
difficult for the wings to wrestle with. 

> when compared to conventional airframes that are
> otherwise equal (so we are comparing apples to apples), arises out of the
> fact that it offers the pilot the capability, but not the requirement, to
> fly slowly.

Yeah. You need to find a good book on airplanes and read about the theory
of landing. It is not goodness to be on the ground with a lot of lift...

> Result: if the Burnelli pilot and the conventional pilot have
> added *exactly the same* margin of safety above stall speed, the Burnelli
> pilot will *still* approach and depart the airport at a substantially lower
> speed, and, as a result, will experience a lower-impact and hence much more
> survivable crash if something does, in fact, go wrong. Thus the superior
> safety of the Burnelli airframe does not merely apply in hypothetical air,
> but also in real air. --MJ}***
> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> ***{You keep saying that, and you even posted a little drawing with some
> vectors on it that showed an unopposed component of upward force on the
> lifting body airframe. What you left out, of course, was the downward
> pointing vector representing the force of gravity on the fuselage, which is
> utterly unopposed in the conventional airframe even in level flight.

So much for your ability to do vector summations....

 
> Concerning stability in turns, there is no effect in the pure case where
> the direction of flight is altered using the rudder, since the wings remain
> level.

Oh my god... I should have expected this from someone that doesn't
understand vectors!

I suppose the damn tires keep the thing on the road in your aerodynamics
book! Or perhaps it is a long keel like a boat?

Now, airplane bank so that a component of lift counters the centrifugal
force of the turn, thus MAKING THEM TURN!!! You can't turn with the wings
level.

All the rudder is going to do is turn the nose at an angle to the wind. If
you don't bank, the wind will try and turn you back like a weather vane. 

> However, in the case where the wings are moved away from the level
> position by using the ailerons (known as a bank), it is worth noting that
> *lift* is what makes it possible to turn in this way. What happens is that
> when, say, the right wing is dipped below the horizon, the lift vector is
> no longer vertical, and, as such, now has a component pointing to the
> right. It is this component of force that makes it possible to turn an
> aircraft by banking it. Result: the greater the amount of lift available to
> an aircraft in level flight, the better its performance in a bank. Hence
> the lifting body aircraft will exhibit superior performance in a bank, not
> inferior performance.

Except this puppy is UNSTABLE in banking and will simply roll over and
head for ground. Low stall speed isn't going to help in that case. 

> Bottom line: every single technical criticism you have aimed at the
> Burnelli design has been wrong.

Your capacity to misunderstand doesn't make it wrong. Same with quantum
mechanics and relativity, too. You don't even understand what you're
slamming! Just call 'em fascist!

> --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> >
> >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!
> 
> ***{I repeat: the fact that the Burnelli design is capable of going much
> more slowly than a conventional airframe without stalling is not the same
> as a requirement that it do so.

Only if you like to be slammed against the ground repeatedly and think
that's safe...


> That means approaches and departures are
> safer even after a margin of safety above stall speed has been added, to
> deal with possible gusts or wind shear; and it means you can cruise more
> slowly at altitude without stalling if you so desire--e.g., if you are
> sight seeing or doing photo reconnaissance--but if you are flying a lifting
> body aircraft with big pipes (such as an F-22), you can also go like blazes
> if you want to. --MJ}***
> 
> Besides, by (1) & (2) you're going to be hitting
> >the ground so often you'll increase your odds of not surviving.
> 
> ***{To a scientific mind, mere repetition cannot transform a false
> assertion into a perceived fact. --MJ}***

Brother, all you've ever had ANYWHERE is repetition of false assertions. 

Doesn't it bother you that when it gets down to brass tacks, your webite
doesn't even MENTION any of this crap your advocating? The focus on wheel,
fuel, and engine placement and ignore your energy and stall speed
arguments all together! 

YOU are the only one with this unique opinion based on paranoia.

> >4) Us so called dullard, complacent, fascist, kill crazy engineers
> 
> ***{Most members of any profession, including engineers, are conformists
> who adopt the conventions of their peers pretty much without question. That
> is simply a fact. On the other hand, engineers must be very disciplined and
> logical in their thinking, and mathematically sophisticated, in order
> produce workable designs even within the conventional framework. The fact
> that the conventional airframe is flawed, for example, does not mean
> sophistical intellectual skills are not required to make such designs work,
> and I never said or implied the contrary. It is the conformist tendencies
> of typical engineers to which I object, not their technical skills.

You know, I am QUITE happy to have you go around spouting this crap. You
go on believe we are a bunch of kill happy fascist wackos out to get some
idiot named Burnelli. Keep repeating your story. There's no arguing with
someone who thinks you're a kill crazy nazi who likes to design airplanes
that kill people. You're beyond reasoning with.

As I've said, I've been in this business awhile and tho' I can't say what
Boeing or Douglas have looked at, they've looked at designs that are FAR
more unconventional than this Burnelli design. Your claims that we're a
buch of dullars performing route design routines is a bunch of crap, and
it smells REALLY bad. It's all related to your self esteem issues and you
can pay for your own therapist, I don't care to offer any free help.
 
> As for the fascist label, I am really getting tired of having to repeat
> that, when I used the subject line "Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed," I did
> *not* apply the fascist label to engineers in general or to you in
> particular. Moreover, that fact is so palpably obvious that even a drooling
> retard can see it, and so it is apparent that you take offense about it
> because you simply *want* to take offense. The only question is *why*, and
> my best guess is that you want to divert attention from the fact that the
> technical arguments you have attempted to make on this issue are utterly in
> ruins.

You, personally, I note pick words for what they connote, and then often
defend yourself by what they mean. For example, you KNOW fascist bring
goose stepping SS bastards to mind, then you defend yourself with
technical definitions. 

> As for "kill crazy," I never used the expression at all, or anything
> resembling it.

Your website does. 

> I have alleged that the conventional airframe is less safe
> than the Burnelli airframe, and that the result is carnage in the skies.

Carnage? Hardly! 

You might note that most incidents are the slow, plodding low energy
airplanes you've been advocating.

[snip stuffed based on insults and a lack of understanding of air safety]

Yawn. Had gone over most of it already. 




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 11:35:38 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32672;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:33:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:33:34 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000702132940.01363100 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 13:29:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: The Pope situation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"iUcJp.0.J-7.-huNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35992
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Here's the latest statement from Pope.  The information I have presented
them includes a report I put on our website at:

http://www.earthtech.org/misc/dewtest.html

from Pope:

Dear Mr. Little:

Shannon Swoboda has referred this issue to me regarding your issue of
8600. 

I have reviewed the information as presented by Shannon and your
previous correspondence. 

It appears that natural variation in manufacturing technologies,
including compositions of raw materials have created enough of a
discrepancy from the original experiment specifications to appear that
this Dewar directly off our production line will not work for your tight
requirements. 

What we would be willing to create a special Dewar that is certified to
fit within the specific parameters of your experiment, however, that
would not meet with the original experiment.

The true nature of the 8600 and other Lab Grade Dewars is that there are
inherent variations.  So this would have needed to be considered as part
of the original experiment. Additionally, the Dewars are primarily used
for Liquid Nitrogen service, even though they are used for hot water
service.   

While we try to minimize these variations, in keeping regulated
tolerances, we cannot provide an exact replica of the original Dewar
from the original experiment date in the eighties.  The probability
exists that the Dewar in the original experiment could have exceeded our
required specifications. (It even, in fact, could have been a certified
Dewar (30006) renumbered for Lab Grade Service).  

Therefore, the options for resolution are: 

		1.)  Certified Dewar -  $202.00 cost  (This cost would be the price
for the special order 		     Dewar)

		2.)  Take your specifications and test on a per hour basis our
inventory of 8600 until we find                      a Dewar within
these specific parameters.  The cost would be $100 per hour for the
first 		     hour and $50.00 for each additional hour, prepayment.   

Please let me know how you would like to proceed. 

Signed, 

Amy Martin
Distributor

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 11:37:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01339;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:35:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:35:52 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000702133218.013630e0 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 13:32:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: more Pope
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"EdPRR1.0.lK.7kuNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35993
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

...and here's what I said to Amy Martin:

Thanks so much for responding, Amy.  

>It appears that natural variation in manufacturing technologies,
>including compositions of raw materials have created enough of a
>discrepancy from the original experiment specifications to appear that
>this Dewar directly off our production line will not work for your tight
>requirements. 

I do not accept your explanation:

1.  Your literature states the the vacuum in your Dewars is 10^-7 torr.  My
calculations indicate that, in the bad 8600 Dewars I've been getting, it is
about 4 orders of magnitude worse than that...i.e. in the millitorr range!
That's not something you should try to chalk up to a "natural variation in
mfg technology, etc.".

2.  I can go to the grocery store and purchase a glass-vacuum Thermos
bottle for $10 that vastly outperforms the bad 8600's I've been getting
from you.  Are you telling me that Pope is willing to manufacture a
"laboratory-grade" Dewar that sells for $86 that is not as good as a $10
Thermos bottle from the grocery store!!!???

3. It is clear from a comparison of my warm-liquid tests and your LN2 tests
that the problem is the presence of a condensible vapor, most likely H2O,
at millitorr pressure levels in your current stock of Model 8600 Dewars.
This is a standard problem with vacuum systems and it should be readily
remediable.  At least you need to pump and bake the Dewars longer and
hotter before sealing them off.

4. You have made good 8600's in the past.  I have one of them.  Dr. Randall
Mills, whose experiment I am trying to replicate, has a pair of them.  I
can tell that his had good vacuums in them because his data reveals their
thermal performance.

>While we try to minimize these variations, in keeping regulated
>tolerances, we cannot provide an exact replica of the original Dewar
>from the original experiment date in the eighties.

It does not have to be an exact replica.  As you should know, any residual
pressure less than 10^-5 torr in the Dewar will provide excellent thermal
performance essentially indistinguishable from a perfect vacuum.  In other
words, if you could only come closer to your specified 10^-7 torr residual
pressure, I would be quite pleased with it.

>The probability
>exists that the Dewar in the original experiment could have exceeded our
>required specifications. (It even, in fact, could have been a certified
>Dewar (30006) renumbered for Lab Grade Service).  

He specifially identifies it as a Model 8600 Dewar.

>Therefore, the options for resolution are: 
>
>		1.)  Certified Dewar -  $202.00 cost  (This cost would be the price
>for the special order 		     Dewar)

Let me see if I understand this correctly:  You ARE willing to provide me a
Dewar that has similar performance to a $10 Thermos bottle from the grocery
store...but only if I pay you $202!

>		2.)  Take your specifications and test on a per hour basis our
>inventory of 8600 until we find                      a Dewar within
>these specific parameters.  The cost would be $100 per hour for the
>first 		     hour and $50.00 for each additional hour, prepayment.   

Would you consider a 3rd option?  Send me a dozen 8600's, I'll do the
testing for free and provide you with detailed test report on each one.
I'll select the best one (assuming that at least one of them comes close to
the performance it SHOULD have) and return the bad one I now have in its
place...i.e. you will get a dozen Dewars back.



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  Sun Jul  2 12:41:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18106;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 12:39:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 12:39:02 -0700
Message-ID: <001801bfe45c$e2766f80$5db356d1 default>
From: "Chalmers H. Goodlin" <goodlink mindspring.com>
To: "Mitchell Jones" <mjones jump.net>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v04011702b58515f17f96 [207.8.127.167]>
Subject: Re: Debate About Burnelli Design
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:36:55 -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: <"XEeGw3.0.mQ4.LfvNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35994
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Mr. Jones

I would like to compliment you on your expertise in dealing with Mr. Lajoie.
You have obviously, seriously studied the aircrash web-site and the facts
contained therein, whereas Mr. Lajoie has ignored them in a manner that
typifies those in industry and government who refuse to think.  Your
rebuttal of Mr. Lajoie's preposterous arguments is highly professional and I
admire your perspicacity.

Sincerely,

Chalmers H. Goodlin
Chairman & C.E.O.
The Burnelli Company

P.S. If you haven't yet seen the Boeing Correspondence on the aircrash
web-site and particularly the Luplow correspondence you ought to look at it.
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/boeing.htm.

"I recently sent a clipping that I saw in Aviation Week to Pete Gifford,
which, in effect, vindicated the Burnelli design by virtue of its present
day look alikes such as the F-117, the B-2 , and the ill fated A-12 which
has just been cancelled. .... One of these days the Burnelli design will be
recognized for its inherent merits and perhaps be awarded some monetary
recompensation as well. Let's hope so."

Retired Boeing Senior Vice-President, Ken Luplow in a letter dated April 5,
1991




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 13:06:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA23656;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:04:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:04:18 -0700
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:09:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Sub Second ... Magnetic - Electric Cause and Effect
In-Reply-To: <v04210101b5842ad1a64d [192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000702155224.11753C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"29EYS.0.Yn5.11wNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35995
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Magnetic and electric events occur...and tend to associated with
one another closely in time.  But we cannot say one causes the other or
VV.

	I still think there is a big piece missing....

	It might go something like this:

	1]    Magnetic and electric events occur...and tend to associated
with one another closely in time.

	2]	For the sake of brevity I will say there is a "block of
time" or  "an area or time"   or   "XXX small-ish duration" ..

	NEW VAGUE TERM

	And this "XXX smallish duration of time associated with Electric,
Magnetic and Electro Magnetic events that are seemingly simultaneous or
close to simultaneous might be called Short EM Time, or abbreviated,
	"""SEMT"""  "

	2]	Other events probably occur as well and occur in or near,
time-wise SEMT.

	3]	SEMT might be a few is Eldridges Sub Seconds....
Eldridge's Sub Second is the time it takes Light to travel 1 CM.
	4]	SO:  The SEMT might take place in 10 subS ....

	5]	What OTHER events and phenomena occur before, in, near or
shortly after 10 SubS  ... as delineated by, some beginning place,
	
	6]	A beginning	Might be;

		6a]	current stops flowing
		6b]	current starts flowing
		6c]	first complete E-M-E "cycle"
		6d]	magnetic field magnitude
				i]	changes
				ii]	begins to change 
				iii]	stops changing
		6e]	electric charge effect
		6f]	electric field effect
		6g]	static or stationary electric effect

		6 :: e through g :::]	changes of and to e-g


	Other thoughts, please.......

			JH Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 13:21:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28627;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:19:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:19:14 -0700
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
cc: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Re: Magnetic Electric Cause and effect (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000701222514.012da778 earthtech.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000702162358.11753I-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wipso.0.D_6.1FwNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35996
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Scott,

	Thanks.

			J

On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Scott Little wrote:

> At 12:03 PM 7/2/2000 +1000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> 
> >>	When a changing magntic field is close to a conductor a current
> >>tends to flow.
> >>
> >>	Q:  Does one CAUSE the other?
> 
> >>	Q:	Is some other mechanism in play and the two properties
> >>happen at the same time?
> 
> >IMO the fact that the energy extracted from the induced current doesn't
> >reproducibly exceed that used to generate the changing magnetic field would
> >tend to argue for cause and effect.
> 
> I've also read Jefimenko's little book that Rick mentioned and J's argmuent
> makes perfect sense to me.  There certainly is a cause and effect
> relationship between the changing current in one wire and the induced
> current in a second parallel wire...it's just not the magnetic field
> created by the first wire that causes the current in the second.  Rather,
> it's the electric field created by the changing current in the first wire,
> which is parallel to the current that starts the charges in the second wire
> moving.
> 
> Maxwell's eqns relating B and E are often misinterpreted as causal
> relationships (i.e. folks think that dB/dt creates an E) Instead they
> simply describe the relationship between the fields that both arise from
> the movement of charges.
> 
> J provides some direct quotes from Maxwell himself that indicate that
> Maxwell did not suffer from this causality misconception.
> 
> I forget the examples that J produces to show that the situation really is
> like this...but he definitely has some.
> 
> 
> 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 Jul  2 14:10:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09803;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:08:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:08:13 -0700
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:13:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: patent of Burnelli
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702095716.8470B-100000 eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000702171256.11753U-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"YPc3d.0.3P2.yywNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35997
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

n

	Is there a patent number for Burnelli [spelling?] design?


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 15:10:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA26041;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:09:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:09:40 -0700
Message-ID: <000701bfe471$f4026be0$7aba56d1 default>
From: "Chalmers H. Goodlin" <goodlink mindspring.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000702171256.11753U-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Re: patent of Burnelli
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:07:44 -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: <"rkx2G3.0.lM6.ZsxNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35998
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Yes, United States Patent Office #1,758,498
filed January 6, 1921,
Awarded May 13, 1930

This was followed by a further 69 patents which were issued to Mr. Burnelli
relating to the Lifting-Body principle of design up through 1964 and can be
obtained from the U.S. Patent Office.

Your spelling is correct.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 5:13 PM
Subject: patent of Burnelli


> n
>
> Is there a patent number for Burnelli [spelling?] design?
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 15:36:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00349;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:36:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:36:26 -0700
Message-ID: <395FC510.F1817586 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:41:27 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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 airplanes.
References: <v04011702b583568c4058 [207.8.127.250]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HV_e53.0.N5.gFyNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/35999
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >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.
>
> ***{As I have noted repeatedly, to no avail, configuring the fuselage to
> give it lift reduces the need for lift in the wings, if the payload is
> constant. Thus material trimmed from the wings permits the installation of
> larger engines and the expansion of control surfaces, without an increase
> in the weight of the aircraft, thereby producing high performance vehicles
> such as the F-22. On the other hand, if it is desired to *increase* the
> payload, then you could leave the wings the same length, or even increase
> them; and you also could even reduce the size of the engines, thereby
> saving more weight, which would enable you to increase the payload still
> further. Or you could opt in favor of one of the myraid compromises on the
> scale between maximizing performance and maximizing payload. Fast, slow,
> highly maneuverable, less maneuverable--all are options available to the
> designer of a Burnelli airframe, just as they are options available to the
> designer of a conventional airframe.
>
> I would add that your utter refusal to acknowledge this point or respond to
> the reasons given to support it, and your continued repetition of these
> absurd "slow airplane" claims, is the same behavior by which you infuriated
> people on sci.physics.fusion, after which you were in effect tarred and
> feathered and run out of the group on a rail. The question is: why can't
> you modify your inappropriate behavior? Do you think your words have
> magical powers? Do you think that, by a mere act of will, you can somehow
> force people to ignore plain facts that are staring them in the face?
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >

I would like to resuggest a point that has been ignored in this discussion.
The most efficient airplane is one that has the necessary lift at cruising
speed and altitude without the need for any trim which produces drag, hence
causes more fuel to be used. Therefore, the natural lift of the body plus the
natural lift of the wings should nearly equal the weight of the plane under
cruising conditions.  (I realize that cruising conditions are chosen for many
other reasons, but once chosen, the conditions I  propose must exist.)   When
the plane lands, the amount of lift is reduced as speed is reduce.  This
reduction is countered by increasing the lift of the wing. This additional
lift has a limit because of mechanical considerations. The smaller the wing,
the less additional lift would be available. I suggest that if a lifting body
were used, the wing area would have to be reduced so that the total lift under
cruising conditions would be constant, assuming a constant weight and other
conditions.  The question at this point is, just how small could the wings be
made and still have the required additional lift under landing conditions?  Of
course, the slower the landing speed, the more additional lift would be
required, hence the greater the demand on the required change in wing
configuration.  In addition, the effect of these changes in wing shape on the
stall speed also must be addressed.  I suggest that the trade-off between fuel
efficiency and landing speed would be made more complex by using a lifting
body.

In other words,  a continuum exists in the trade-off between having lift in
the wings and lift in the body.  I'm suggesting that the more lift that is
assigned to the body, the less control one has over the range of lift
available to the aircraft.  The question is, does a better compromise exist
between a body having no lift, the present situation, and a body having some
lift?  I would hope the experts would address this question rather than
debating the extremes, which are obviously flawed.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 17:02:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA00814;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:01:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:01:20 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BL Power Hi-Fi replication?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:00:38 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <hqlvlsonvojkmnvnbosga1pouo8alc3ogs 4ax.com>
References: <395F23E1.81308063 ix.netcom.com> <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0@earthtech.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0 earthtech.org>
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 RAA00795
Resent-Message-ID: <"S42Wa2.0.eC.FVzNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36000
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  Scott Little's message of Sun, 02 Jul 2000 10:52:10 -0500:
[snip]
>It is coming along miserably at a standstill.  Pope Scientific has just
>announced that it will cost me $200 to get a specially prepared Certified
>Dewar from them that performs as well as a $10 Thermos bottle from the
>grocery store.  They have therefore essentially admitted that their
>standard Model 8600 laboratory-grade Dewar ($86) cannot be expected to
>perform as well as the $10 Thermos bottle.
[snip]
Hi Scott,

Have you considered asking Mills if it would be possible to borrow the
actual dewars he used?


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 Jul  2 17:25:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA06231;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:24:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:24:59 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fascist airplanes.
In-Reply-To: <395FC510.F1817586 ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702171749.25084C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"sfHJL1.0.HX1.RrzNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36001
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Edmund Storms wrote:

> 
> 
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> > >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.
> >
> > ***{As I have noted repeatedly, to no avail, configuring the fuselage to
> > give it lift reduces the need for lift in the wings, if the payload is
> > constant. Thus material trimmed from the wings permits the installation of
> > larger engines and the expansion of control surfaces, without an increase
> > in the weight of the aircraft, thereby producing high performance vehicles
> > such as the F-22. On the other hand, if it is desired to *increase* the
> > payload, then you could leave the wings the same length, or even increase
> > them; and you also could even reduce the size of the engines, thereby
> > saving more weight, which would enable you to increase the payload still
> > further. Or you could opt in favor of one of the myraid compromises on the
> > scale between maximizing performance and maximizing payload. Fast, slow,
> > highly maneuverable, less maneuverable--all are options available to the
> > designer of a Burnelli airframe, just as they are options available to the
> > designer of a conventional airframe.
> >
> > I would add that your utter refusal to acknowledge this point or respond to
> > the reasons given to support it, and your continued repetition of these
> > absurd "slow airplane" claims, is the same behavior by which you infuriated
> > people on sci.physics.fusion, after which you were in effect tarred and
> > feathered and run out of the group on a rail. The question is: why can't
> > you modify your inappropriate behavior? Do you think your words have
> > magical powers? Do you think that, by a mere act of will, you can somehow
> > force people to ignore plain facts that are staring them in the face?
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> > >
> 
> I would like to resuggest a point that has been ignored in this discussion.
> The most efficient airplane is one that has the necessary lift at cruising
> speed and altitude without the need for any trim which produces drag, hence
> causes more fuel to be used. Therefore, the natural lift of the body plus the
> natural lift of the wings should nearly equal the weight of the plane under
> cruising conditions.  (I realize that cruising conditions are chosen for many
> other reasons, but once chosen, the conditions I  propose must exist.)   When
> the plane lands, the amount of lift is reduced as speed is reduce.  This
> reduction is countered by increasing the lift of the wing. This additional
> lift has a limit because of mechanical considerations. The smaller the wing,
> the less additional lift would be available. I suggest that if a lifting body
> were used, the wing area would have to be reduced so that the total lift under
> cruising conditions would be constant, assuming a constant weight and other
> conditions.  The question at this point is, just how small could the wings be
> made and still have the required additional lift under landing conditions?  Of
> course, the slower the landing speed, the more additional lift would be
> required, hence the greater the demand on the required change in wing
> configuration.  In addition, the effect of these changes in wing shape on the
> stall speed also must be addressed.  I suggest that the trade-off between fuel
> efficiency and landing speed would be made more complex by using a lifting
> body.

Wings are designed for optimum cruse conditions. For landing and take off,
the wing is modified by flaps and slats. 

I've not seen anything that says that Burnelli designs of the fuselage are
modified by slats and flaps to make them optimal for landing and takeoff.
 
> In other words,  a continuum exists in the trade-off between having lift in
> the wings and lift in the body.  I'm suggesting that the more lift that is
> assigned to the body, the less control one has over the range of lift
> available to the aircraft.  The question is, does a better compromise exist
> between a body having no lift, the present situation, and a body having some
> lift?  I would hope the experts would address this question rather than
> debating the extremes, which are obviously flawed.

The issue must be is the characteristics of the lifting body compatible
with that of the wings. If the fuselage is neutral, then the wings and
tail structures can be placed in such a way as to best handle the
fuselage. If the fuselage is an active aerodynamic component, then the
optimum wing and tail placement would depend a lot more on what the wind
conditions are. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 17:33:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08475;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:32:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:32:48 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Debate About Burnelli Design
In-Reply-To: <001801bfe45c$e2766f80$5db356d1 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702172652.25084E-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"sG6kA.0.G42.myzNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36002
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Chalmers H. Goodlin wrote:

> Dear Mr. Jones
> 
> I would like to compliment you on your expertise in dealing with Mr. Lajoie.
> You have obviously, seriously studied the aircrash web-site and the facts
> contained therein, whereas Mr. Lajoie has ignored them in a manner that
> typifies those in industry and government who refuse to think.  Your
> rebuttal of Mr. Lajoie's preposterous arguments is highly professional and I
> admire your perspicacity.

Yes, about as professional as claiming that everyone from DoD secrataries
and the NTSB and ICAO, airline pilots and passengers, as well as bankers,
are all conspiring against you. 
 
I have noticed that Jone's arguments have nothing to do with the safety
claims offered in the website, and are contrary to sound aerodynamic
principles. 

You care to share your view on high speed landings where Vapproach >>
Vstall?

> Sincerely,
> 
> Chalmers H. Goodlin
> Chairman & C.E.O.
> The Burnelli Company

Yes. I can't seem to find the ticker symbol for this company. What is it?
 
> P.S. If you haven't yet seen the Boeing Correspondence on the aircrash
> web-site and particularly the Luplow correspondence you ought to look at it.
> http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/boeing.htm.
> 
> "I recently sent a clipping that I saw in Aviation Week to Pete Gifford,
> which, in effect, vindicated the Burnelli design by virtue of its present
> day look alikes such as the F-117, the B-2 , and the ill fated A-12 which
> has just been cancelled. .... One of these days the Burnelli design will be
> recognized for its inherent merits and perhaps be awarded some monetary
> recompensation as well. Let's hope so."
> 
> Retired Boeing Senior Vice-President, Ken Luplow in a letter dated April 5,
> 1991

Considering the complete lack of objectivity of the website, and it's
shrill nature, I am unimpressed. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 17:35:31 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA09462;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:34:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:34:58 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: patent of Burnelli
In-Reply-To: <000701bfe471$f4026be0$7aba56d1 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702173311.25084G-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Muqf73.0.mJ2.o-zNv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36003
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Chalmers H. Goodlin wrote:

> Yes, United States Patent Office #1,758,498
> filed January 6, 1921,
> Awarded May 13, 1930

Since the patent office finds this patent so old as not worth bothering to
post, would you care to make some statement as to what claims are made as
novel and covered by the patent?

Is it your position that the Northrup wing design infringes upon your
patent?
 
> This was followed by a further 69 patents which were issued to Mr. Burnelli
> relating to the Lifting-Body principle of design up through 1964 and can be
> obtained from the U.S. Patent Office.

Not easily, they're too old.

> Your spelling is correct.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 5:13 PM
> Subject: patent of Burnelli
> 
> 
> > n
> >
> > Is there a patent number for Burnelli [spelling?] design?
> >
> >
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 17:42:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12141;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:42:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:42:09 -0700
Message-Id: <200007030054.TAA26067 cablecom.pearlriver.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:47:15 CST
From: John N <jrneer freewwweb.com>
Reply-to: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3)
Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF
Resent-Message-ID: <"7zP922.0.dz2.W5-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36006
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> > 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

   You're on a wrong track.
   There actually are high school chemistry texts, written by folk who laugh at 
the QM atom, which would be useful in addressing this far more than college 
undergraduate or graduate physics. CF isn't a nuclear problem until the last
few nuclear radii. It's just charge attract/repel logic.

    It all starts from the abnormality of the Mills effect bond.

    The formation of K - H itself violates normal bonding rules as does 
the compound B - H3. One is now on alert.

   Then the statement is made that K - H reacts to form K - H - I.

   In order for that reaction to occur, K-H*  must be highly charged at the * 
where one would expect no particular reactivity to be after K-H is formed. 
It could not react further, stably, if it weren't highly charged there. 
   Since I is a positive charge surrounded by negative, to achieve K - H - I, 
the H* must be positive to react with, to bond with, the I electrons, stably.
Any normal bond will be unstable.

   If we say the H electron completes the K, then the reactivity of the H
there is over. If H actually bonds with K normally in any sense, then as
long as the H is onsite, its reactivity is over. It can be taken away from
the K; it cannot double bond (with a single positive charge) except in 
easily destabilized imaginary scenarios.

   Any normal chemical bond there will not allow the hydrogen to bond again. 
Attempts to do so will either fail completely or succeed in breaking the 
hydrogen bond to have it attach to the new system. It won't bond with both 
K and a second atom stably. It is a one proton  - one electron  - one bond 
system.

   (Don't look too closely; the entire bonding facade can collapse, taking
the arbitrary elements of the theoretical atom with it.)

     A +2 valence there could double bond. A double positive charge
could double bond.
    Oops.  
    Another impossibility. There is no normal explanation of how a
double positive charge could be there. There is a mathematical
description of how abnormal photon energy emissions could exist.
The same energy levels produced from this math description can 
be produced from the Bohr equation by substituting a double positive 
charge where only one should be. 

    But that doesn't explain a 'valence of two' for a hydrogen abnormally
bonded to a K.

    You don't need an explanation for that. 

   In the impossibility camp -

    K-H(site-bond) is impossibly abnormal.
    PdCF is impossibly abnormal.
   Therefore Pd-D (site-bond) may be abnormal.
   K-H-anything blocks.
   Therefore Pd-D-anything may block,

    There has never been a reaction mechanism for CF. 
    There it is. Just read a few Mills abstracts and mentally substitute
Pd-D whenever he uses something like K - H. You can wait for an
energy release explanation until after reliability is achieved. A
side point of that logic is that there ** cannot ** exist a causal 
explanation that doesn't violate existing epistemological (charge) 
limits. Forget about it. There's more to come. Just make CF reliable
asap.

   John Neergaard

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 17:42:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12161;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:42:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:42:14 -0700
Message-Id: <200007030054.TAA26063 cablecom.pearlriver.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:47:12 CST
From: John N <jrneer freewwweb.com>
Reply-to: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3)
Subject: Re: Toward a Unifying Theory of CF
Resent-Message-ID: <"HQfts1.0.Xy2.S5-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36004
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

     Sure. A lot even, but I have honored the unquoted part of the Vortex
post I referenced when I first posted. It is important that the CF
community have opportunity to understand before the fact that reliability 
experiments can now exist, based purely on experimental logic. Princeton 
will probably run them, because of Mills' proximity and reliability influence, 
within 18 months. Stanford or SRI might also. But even an underfunded 
eclectic individual can.

   Mainstream physics could not handle one totally new idea (CF). The 
CF community cannot handle a second new idea - Mills' abnormal bond.
A fraud jury will interpret 2-1=1 and 1-0 =1 as same difference.

   So for a brief instant, let's just go back to Mills' effect basics. Leave
Isobe for next.

   The Mills abnormal bond reliability speaks for itself. Anyone who doesn't
connect K-H  with Pd-D, without explanation, has personal reasons, including
too busy, which are beyond my powers of persuasion.  I'll post a few more
Mills related things and then retire. Any potentially copyright material of mine
on the internet is hereby converted to a GNU license.

   Theory isn't needed anymore folks. CF is headed mainstream in one
form or another, from one source or another, with a new name and pr
agent if the non CF community produces reliability first.

   But theory does return to a bubble chamber collision between a 1 MeV photon
and a proton, and a temporary, abnormal bond between p - p - e,  allowed
because the p has adequate KE from the photon. That combination switches
the charge on the electron to positive because the double proton field shifts
it across an equilibrium line. (Requires particle epistemology change for
proof.) Doesn't the fact that the allegedly stable hydrogen atom is never found
to be stable arouse suspicions about the epistemology of charge? The hydrogen
atom is highly charged and highly reactive, not nearly neutral. The rest is
attraction and annihilation.
    The bubble chamber experimental sequence can be described as a 'self
catalyzed' Mills effect  bond, with CF type reaction. 

   John Neergaard

   My isp is being acquired. erev4 yahoo.com will remain.


 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 17:45:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA12090;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:42:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:42:05 -0700
Message-Id: <200007030054.TAA26060 cablecom.pearlriver.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:47:08 CST
From: John N <jrneer freewwweb.com>
Reply-to: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3)
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Resent-Message-ID: <"prjlM2.0.hy2.S5-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36005
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?
>>

   It came to vortex from Jed Rothwell's summary of ICCF-8, May 21 - 26, 
2000, in Lereci, Italy.

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.

>Horace Heffner          
>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

   Notice how interestingly this description achieves the same result as two
positive particles where one should be. The postulate is for a special 
positive attraction from a location near the positive charge (here without
cause). It suggests an attraction to + surrounded by -. Such strange logic 
is needed to explain CF.

   Nota bene.

   In the Pd-D bond, the D+ nucleus has an electron on the away side, in 
addition to the Pd electron sea. The D+ nucleus is indeed surrounded 
by negative charge

   Therefore, that away electron cannot be an electron with negative charge 
... because then there can be no abnormal reactions at all, either CF or Mills.

   As an electron, it will attract the D nucleus. There will be no fusion from
a normal electron attraction of a nucleus. Fusion is merely prevented in a 
normal manner. There will be no abnormal energy release. There is no 
abnormal source. CF is impossible if the D electron is a normal electron.

   As an electron, in the Mills reaction K - H + I, the I will take either the
electron (shell completion logic), or the proton (normal attraction), or both. 
The forces from I are too unequal to the forces from K for stability over a 
normal hydrogen atom. Even K - H - K would be unastable even though
the average forces could be equal. Any normal attempt at a bond there 
will be unstable. 

   The 'away side' electron on Pd-D or K - H cannot be normal else both CF 
and the Mills effect (abnormal bond) do not exist. The impossible exists ...
therefore ...

   John N


>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  Sun Jul  2 17:47:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15125;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:46:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:46:34 -0700
Message-ID: <395F3225.FA0AC01F ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 05:14:29 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: ICCF-8 trivia
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FG7eg1.0.Fi3.e9-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36007
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 2, 2000

Vortex,

In looking over the final (as of the last day, May 26, 2000) and
detailed List of Participants to the ICCF-8, I noticed some items of
interest which may be a commentary on the CF scene.
1. Both James Redding and Patterson of CETI was in attendance (at least
paid), but neither wrote any information about CETI as to phone, fax, or
e-mail but left a postal address.
2. Mitchell Swartz submitted a Poster Absatract but is not listed in the
final list.
3. Russ George submitted a Poster Abstract but also is not listed in the
list. Although he was physically seen at the Conference Tuesday morning
of the scheduled Poster Preview Presentation but missing in the
afternoon.
4. The largest representartion to the Conference was from Osaka
University, Japan with 8 individuals split into several groups.
5. Reiko Notoya of Hokkaido University was in the initial List but
missing in the final.
6. Hokkaido University had three in attendance including Mizono and
Omori.
7. Eighteen countries were represented at the Conference.
    1. Italy=43
    2. U.S.=40
    3. Japan=22
    4. France-6
    5. Germany=4
    6. Britain=3
    7. Awitzerland=3
    8. Australia=2
    9. China=2
    10. Denmark, Greece, India, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Romania,
Spain, Ukraine, all one each.
    11. There was one individual from the University of Utah. Steven
Jones was not listed.

-AK-


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 18:03:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20478;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:02:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:02:32 -0700
Message-ID: <001d01bfe48a$4b38d9e0$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v04011702b58515f17f96 [207.8.127.167]> <001801bfe45c$e2766f80$5db356d1@default>
Subject: Re: Debate About Burnelli Design
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:01:24 -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: <"npvM2.0.q_4.eO-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36008
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I speak only for myself and not my employer.

----- Original Message -----
From: Chalmers H. Goodlin <goodlink mindspring.com>
To: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Debate About Burnelli Design


> Dear Mr. Jones
>
> I would like to compliment you on your expertise in dealing with Mr.
Lajoie.
> You have obviously, seriously studied the aircrash web-site and the facts
> contained therein, whereas Mr. Lajoie has ignored them in a manner that
> typifies those in industry and government who refuse to think.  Your
> rebuttal of Mr. Lajoie's preposterous arguments is highly professional and
I
> admire your perspicacity.

Speaking of preposterous arguments, how come you only make vague claims
about your conspiracy theory on http://www.burnelli.com and leave it to
"volunteers" to carry this conspiracy claim? When exactly did all these
people
meet to make the conspiracy? What was their motivation? What is their
motivation
to continue with the conspiracy today?

If it was true, it wouldn't expose you to slander and libel. Why didn't you
post it
to your company website?

How many people does your company employ? What are your yearly sales?
Are you listed on any stock exchange? What is your company's book value,
not including your estimates from litigation?

The shrill aircrash site does not duplicate or support Jones' claims; rather
they
speak of tire placement, fuel placement, and engine placement as safety
factors.
These do not appear to be unique to the Burnelli design, whatever those
unstated
design claims are. Neither your website nor the aircrash org website tells
exactly
what these claims are as patented, which seems odd.

Is it the claim of the Burnelli company that airplanes can land at speeds >>
Vstall?
As Jones is saying?

Perhaps you would like to explain to the readers why the large tail
surfaces, and
what happens when the pitch of the wide lifting body becomes too great, and
what
that does to the ability of the tail to control the airplane.

Why do all the photos show big wings?

Just some questions I'm sure you can answer!



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 18:07:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA21796;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:06:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:06:45 -0700
Message-ID: <395FCAAD.D7D783A earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 17:05:17 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: visualize delta Eo!
References: <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0 earthtech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kz2Mf2.0.UK5.aS-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36009
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

July 2 2000   Hey Scott Little, Hal Puthoff, & Earthtech team,

My psychic powers indicate a strong reading for successful
delta Eo and appropriate Nobel Prize-- go for it guys!

I hope you make daily postings on Vortex-L.

Rich Murray

Scott Little wrote:

>
> However, another significant reason we're not making any progress on the
> Hi-Fi replication is that I'm busy getting ready for our beamtime allotment
> (July 10-July28) at the synchrotron facility in Madison Wisconsin.   We
> have an exciting experiment planned, to see if the vibrational ground state
> of the H2 molecule is not fixed but rather a dynamic equilibrium with the
> zero-point field.  We will place H2 molecules in a Casimir cavity which
> excludes ZPF radiation at the vibrational frequency and then look to see if
> the ground states have lost some energy.  We will use the classic
> spectroscopic method pioneered by Beutler (1933) and then Herzberg
> (1960-1970) to measure the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.  If the
> ground state loses some energy, the dissociation energy must increase
> correspondingly.  We're expected a large effect (like half of the normal
> ground state energy), not a tiny Lamb shift thing.
>
> 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 Jul  2 18:43:38 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29639;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:42:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:42:13 -0700
Message-ID: <395FF0C9.C85D2B9 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 18:47:53 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: re ICCF Trivia (corrections)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QMh0s2.0.1F7.rz-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36011
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 2, 2000

Vortex,

The correct names are Mizuno, not Misono, and Switzerland, not
Awitzerland.

-AK-


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 18:44:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA29598;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:42:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:42:10 -0700
Message-ID: <395FEF9C.30032F0E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 18:42:52 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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: BL Power Hi-Fi replication?
References: <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0 earthtech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1AdzZ3.0.OE7.nz-Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36010
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 2, 2000

Scott & Vortex,

I hope your upcoming ZPE experiment has very interesting positive results.

As I gather from your writing, Pope claims to get their Dewars vacuumed to -7
but it CAN be within 4 orders of magnitude in variation? A hilarious situation
for 'quality control'.

Perhaps it would not be straying  far from "hi fi"  if  inquiries were made,
about their use of certain Dewars, to those many other labs that BLP gives
reference to as having successfully replicated his findings.

-AK-

> It is coming along miserably at a standstill.  Pope Scientific has just
> announced that it will cost me $200 to get a specially prepared Certified
> Dewar from them that performs as well as a $10 Thermos bottle from the
> grocery store.  They have therefore essentially admitted that their
> standard Model 8600 laboratory-grade Dewar ($86) cannot be expected to
> perform as well as the $10 Thermos bottle.
>
> They advertise a vacuum of 10^-7 torr in their standard Dewar.  I have
> calculated that is must be at least 4 orders of magnitude worse than that
> in the bad ones they've been sending me (I'm on #5 now).  I have advised
> them of my findings and suggested that they have a problem with their
> production vacuum system (or technique) that leaves a condensible vapor
> (most likely H2O) in the Dewars at the millitorr level.  When they perform
> their standard LN2 test, this vapor rapidly cryopumps out and the Dewar
> looks great.  However, when Mommy fills the Dewar with little Johnny's hot
> soup, the vapor makes the Dewar's thermal performance very poor and Johnny
> ends up with yukky cool soup for lunch...a situation that definitely does
> not occur in your standard $10 grocery-store Thermos bottle.  Pope doesn't
> appear to care about my findings.
>
> Since I decided to be a purist about this experiment, Pope has put me
> between a rock and a hard place:  in order to get a Dewar that behaves like
> Mills' did, I have to order a different Dewar (i.e. the Certified one).
> Plus the fact that they are now up to $200 for the same thermal performance
> I can get for $10 elsewhere....bitch, moan, bleed....
>
> However, another significant reason we're not making any progress on the
> Hi-Fi replication is that I'm busy getting ready for our beamtime allotment
> (July 10-July28) at the synchrotron facility in Madison Wisconsin.   We
> have an exciting experiment planned, to see if the vibrational ground state
> of the H2 molecule is not fixed but rather a dynamic equilibrium with the
> zero-point field.  We will place H2 molecules in a Casimir cavity which
> excludes ZPF radiation at the vibrational frequency and then look to see if
> the ground states have lost some energy.  We will use the classic
> spectroscopic method pioneered by Beutler (1933) and then Herzberg
> (1960-1970) to measure the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.  If the
> ground state loses some energy, the dissociation energy must increase
> correspondingly.  We're expected a large effect (like half of the normal
> ground state energy), not a tiny Lamb shift thing.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 19:21:33 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07469;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 19:19:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 19:19:08 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b585973a7686 [12.21.208.77]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:20:23 -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: <"ub9te.0.Zq1.RW_Nv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36012
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:47 PM 7/2/0, John N wrote:

>>Horace Heffner
>>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
>
>   Notice how interestingly this description achieves the same result as two
>positive particles where one should be.


Hopefully it will be clear that this is not what I was saying.  All that is
achieved is that the separation between the positive particles is
momentarily reduced to less than 1/2 the minimum deBroglie wavelength of
the impinging (3 keV) electron.   The impinging electron provides both
sheilding and momentum to the positive particles, provided they are aligned
in the path of the impinging 3 keV electron.  This increases the tunneling
probablity.


>The postulate

Uh... what posulate?


>  is for a special
>positive attraction from a location near the positive charge (here without
>cause). It suggests an attraction to + surrounded by -. Such strange logic
>is needed to explain CF.


I am suggesting (speculating) the net attraction between the nucleii is due
to the imposition of the waveform of the impinging electron, as it wraps
itself around the first nucleus (the primary nucleus) thus adding net
charge between the two nucleii IN ADDITION to the multiple partial charges
already between the two positive nucleii due the wavefunctions (or partial
wavefunctions) of the lattice electrons and conduction band electrons in
the vicinity of the two involved nucleii.  I imply no STABLE orbital
(chemical) bond, only a momentary electrostatic bond between the impinging
electron and the first nucleus.  This bond transfers momentum from the
impinging electron to the first nucleus, driving it toward the second
nucleus.    Further, the  enveloping wavefunction of the impinging
electron, which is superpositioned over the waveform of the existing low
energy electrons and the first nucleus, would, even in the absence of the
neighborhood electrons, would be sufficient to provide a shielding effect
of the first nucleus.  However, the presence of neighborhood electrons,
which already maintained the nuclear separation in equilibrium, makes the
total charge between the two nucleii strongly to the negative of the prior
equlibrium value, thus attracting the two nucleii closer together.  This
process is continued as the impinging electron, which has far more energy
than the ionizing energy, continues on its path toward the secondary
nucleus, thus extending the shielding time and further decreasing the
minimum nuclear distance.  The prospect of electron tunneling into one of
the nucleii is much increased, as is the prospect of a three  body (two
nucleii, one lepton) interaction, which may explain unusual branching
ratios, and the possibility of the exchange of energy  with the lattice in
small increments.  Simultaneous mutli-body tunneling is not an unusual
phenomenon.  About 50% of pairs which tunnel across a Josephson Junction do
so as pairs.  I suggest the possibilty that similar effects are possible
between hadron-lepton pairs.



>
>   Nota bene.
>
>   In the Pd-D bond, the D+ nucleus has an electron on the away side, in
>addition to the Pd electron sea. The D+ nucleus is indeed surrounded
>by negative charge


Yes, and there is insufficient room for an H2 atom to form without a highly
distorted bond - i.e. in the "face anvil", but the expansion of the Pd
lattice by only a few percent will accomodate H2.  The nature of the
electron cloud about the D+ in low loading conditions is likely dynamic,
changeable by phonons, and thus comprized of "partial orbitals".  In the
low loading state the D+ ion distorts the lattice in its neighborhood
somewhat, by about 0.1 angstrom.  However, in the higher loading states,
hydrogen distribution is more uniform, and thus the lattice mut expand to
accomodate the extra electrons in the conduction bands, which I suggest
occasionally are freed to form H2 and expand the face holes.  High loading
may be a necessary condition for clean alignment shots of the impinging
electrons down the face holes of the lattice.  Further, since diffusion of
the D+ through the lattice is in part due to tunneling of the D+ ions, the
reduction of the required tunneling distance greatly increases an already
significant probablity of tunneling to the seconday nucleus location
(provided the other nucleus is not there).  The overlap of the secondary
nucleus by a small electron wavefunction, then opens the possibility of
that electron momentarily tunneling into the secondary nulceus and thus
providing the primary nucleus a vastly larger probability of tunneling in
due to the increased the cross section, i.e. the increased volume where
tunneling is feasible due to the tunneling energy being less than or equal
to zero.  Thus the three-body interaction may have a higher proabability
than appears superficially.




>
>   Therefore, that away electron cannot be an electron with negative charge
>... because then there can be no abnormal reactions at all, either CF or Mills.



This does not follow.  The more negative charge you place between two
positive charges the closer they can get to each other.  The closer they
get, the higher the tunneling probability.



>
>   As an electron, it will attract the D nucleus. There will be no fusion from
>a normal electron attraction of a nucleus. Fusion is merely prevented in a
>normal manner. There will be no abnormal energy release. There is no
>abnormal source. CF is impossible if the D electron is a normal electron.


The thing that is difficult to understand is why there is no high energy
radiation from the low energy nuclear reactions.  The nuclear reaction
byproducts are found, thus the reactions occur.  The problem is how the
reaction energy gets distributed.  I think a stagewise energy exchange
process must exist between the lattice and the excited fused nucleus.



>
>   As an electron, in the Mills reaction K - H + I, the I will take either the
>electron (shell completion logic), or the proton (normal attraction), or both.
>The forces from I are too unequal to the forces from K for stability over a
>normal hydrogen atom. Even K - H - K would be unastable even though
>the average forces could be equal. Any normal attempt at a bond there
>will be unstable.


It sounds like you are talking chemistry, which CF is not.  Yoiu have to
account for the nuclear products of the reactions.


>
>   The 'away side' electron on Pd-D or K - H cannot be normal else both CF
>and the Mills effect (abnormal bond) do not exist. The impossible exists ...
>therefore ...


There are errors in some assumptions.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 20:51:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA07181;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 20:50:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 20:50:29 -0700
Message-ID: <395FF10D.8FAC0677 earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:49:01 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Murray: Little & Puthoff: biomolecules use Casimer structures to 
 catalyse reactions 7.2.00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RFVBD1.0.7m1.5s0Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36013
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


Murray: Little & Puthoff: biomolecules use Casimer structures to
catalyse reactions 7.2.00

July 2 2000   Hello Vortexans,   Little and Puthoff are soon testing a
very simple prediction that Casimer effects from a tiny resonant
structure with conducting walls will change the interior spectrum
of zero-point-energy fluctuations of the quantum vacuum and thus
cause a major shift in the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.
They wouldn't even try this experiment, if they weren't sure that
it will work.  In fact, if they get an unexpected result, that will be
an even bigger discovery than would be confirmation of their
predictions, because they will have proved an anomaly in
fundamental quantum physics-- so they can't lose either way.

Surely this principle would have been exploited by natural
selection to be a fundamental feature of biochemical
catalysis: small, precise, structures of conducting
molecules to create regions in which chemical energies
are adjusted to maximize the precise and efficient
disassociation and recombination of complex molecules.

I had this insight, just now, explaining the Little-Puthoff
experiment to my acapuncturist friend Sondra Spies, at our
kitchen table, when she replied, "Well, it must apply
somehow to biology."

Rich Murray

Scott Little wrote on July 2 2000:

However, another significant reason we're not making any progress on
the Hi-Fi replication is that I'm busy getting ready for our beamtime
allotment (July 10-July28) at the synchrotron facility in Madison,
Wisconsin.   We have an exciting experiment planned, to see if the
vibrational ground state of the H2 molecule is not fixed but rather a
dynamic equilibrium with the zero-point field.  We will place H2
molecules in a Casimir cavity which excludes ZPF radiation at the
vibrational frequency and then look to see if the ground states have
lost some energy.  We will use the classic spectroscopic method
pioneered by Beutler (1933) and then Herzberg (1960-1970) to
measure the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.  If the
ground state loses some energy, the dissociation energy must increase
correspondingly.  We're expected a large effect (like half of the
normal ground state energy), not a tiny Lamb shift thing.

Scott Little   little earthtech.org
Hal Puthoff  puthoff earthtech.org
EarthTech International, Inc.
4030 Braker Lane West, Suite 300
Austin TX 78759
512-342-2185
512-346-3017 (FAX)
http://www.earthtech.org

H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a
Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State,"
Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987).

H. E. Puthoff, "Zero-Point Fluctuations of the Vacuum as the Source of
Atomic Stability and the Gravitational Interaction,"
Proc. of the British Soc. for the Philosophy of Science
Intern'l Conf. "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory,"
Imperial College, London, ed. M. C. Duffy
(Sunderland Polytechnic, 1988).

H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force,"
Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev. A 47, 3454 (1993).

H. E. Puthoff, "On the Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point
Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989);
Errata and Comments, Phys. Rev. A 44, 3382, 3385 (1991).

H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing,"
New Sci. 127, 52 (28 July 1990).

B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field
Lorentz Force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).
See also Science 263, 612 (1994).

B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Beyond E = mc2," The Sciences
(NY Acad. of Sciences) 34, 26 (Nov/Dec 1994).

B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff. "Physics of the Zero-Point
Field: Implications for Inertia, Gravitation and Mass,"
Spec. in Sci. and Technology 20, 99 (1997).
**********************************************************







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 23:02:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA09591;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:01:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:01:14 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Airspeed at landing.
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:00:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFE479.579AC600"
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: <"vl0xe1.0.jL2.gm2Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36014
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFE479.579AC600
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For people that would like to know a little more about landing =
airplanes,
including approach speed, (max 1.4xVstall according to this site...),=20
wind, bouncing down the runway, and other stuff that Jones should
know about and I'm sure that Goodlin does. He's a X test pilot, if
I'm not mistaken... Funny he didn't mention any of this!=20

http://www.cyberair.com/tower/faa/app/p8740-48/p8740-48.html

Note that the recommended approach speed is 1.4x Vstall, and=20
1.3x Vstall near the runway. It is not, as Jones claimed, "any ol'
speed the pilot wants".=20

Note that the answer to turbulence, wind gust or shear is to add=20
power and go around, not to do a hot landing. Slow speed designs
are SUSCEPTIBLE to this kind of air, and the answer is not to add
power and land, but add power and go around! Reasoning being,
fast landings are dangerous and so is slow speed in rough air.

Note that stall speed increases with bank angle, and that the Burnelli
design tends to increase bank once banked as I have shown. Again,
bad for slow speed designs.

Note that the wings on the Burnelli design have less curve than the=20
body. It appears possible that the wings could stall while the airplane
has plenty of lifting body lift. About 40% of the total lift, I =
understand,
in a Burnelli design can be due to the lifting body. My issue with this
is that if your wings stall, you've lost your control surfaces, =
especially
in a turn.=20

Note the section on "ballooning", which is what happens when you=20
have excessive airspeed above stall. You are to pull up and power out
and not land to get out of this situation. High speed is not, as Jones=20
suggested, a viable option for landing!=20

Notice the section on ground effect, another problem that can occur=20
from landing too fast. Note they re-affirm my concern about a gust
of wind here messing up a good landing if you are landing too fast.







------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFE479.579AC600
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For people that would like to know a =
little more=20
about landing airplanes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>including approach speed, (max =
1.4xVstall according=20
to this site...), </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>wind, bouncing down the runway, and =
other stuff=20
that Jones should</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>know about and I'm sure that Goodlin =
does. He's a X=20
test pilot, if</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm not mistaken... Funny he didn't =
mention any of=20
this! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.cyberair.com/tower/faa/app/p8740-48/p8740-48.html">htt=
p://www.cyberair.com/tower/faa/app/p8740-48/p8740-48.html</A></FONT></DIV=
>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that the recommended approach =
speed is 1.4x=20
Vstall, and </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1.3x Vstall near the runway. It is not, =
as Jones=20
claimed, "any ol'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>speed the pilot wants". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that the answer to turbulence, =
wind gust or=20
shear is to add </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>power and go around, </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>not to do a hot landing. Slow speed designs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>are SUSCEPTIBLE to this kind of air, =
and the answer=20
is not to add</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>power and land, but add power and go =
around!=20
Reasoning being,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>fast landings are dangerous and so is =
slow speed in=20
rough air.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that stall speed increases with =
bank angle,=20
and that the Burnelli</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>design tends to increase bank once =
banked as I have=20
shown. Again,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>bad for slow speed =
designs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that the wings on the Burnelli =
design have=20
less curve than the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>body. It appears possible that the =
wings could=20
stall while the airplane</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>has plenty of lifting body lift. About =
40% of the=20
total lift, I understand,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>in a Burnelli design can be due to the =
lifting=20
body. My issue with this</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>is that if your wings stall, you've =
lost your=20
control surfaces, especially</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>in a turn. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note the section on "ballooning", which =
is what=20
happens when you </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>have excessive airspeed above stall. =
You are to=20
pull up and power out</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and not land to get out of this=20
situation.&nbsp;High speed is not, as Jones </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>suggested, </FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>a viable=20
option for landing! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Notice the section on ground effect, =
another=20
problem that can occur </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>from landing too fast. Note they =
re-affirm my=20
concern about a gust</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>of wind here messing up a good landing =
if you are=20
landing too fast.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFE479.579AC600--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 23:28:05 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA14176;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:26:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:26:06 -0700
Message-ID: <001601bfe4b7$7fdcfb40$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Problems Burnelli knew about?
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:25:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01BFE47C.D15D6620"
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: <"aznVa2.0.QT3.z73Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36015
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_0013_01BFE47C.D15D6620
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I understand that Burnelli himself found problems with his Loadmaster
airplane. He found that if the wing is too short and the body of the =
airplane
is too thick compared to its size and force of the engines, it had =
aerodynamic
problems on takeoff. Like I said, long wings are needed to wrestle that =
big
pig around... That's the solution that A=E9rospatiale is taking to solve =
the=20
problem. Which brings me back to the original question: if the
design requires big wings, what's the advantage?  May as well=20
use those big wings to lift!
     =20

Funny, this isn't mentioned on any pro-Burnelli site. Perhaps they are=20
biased?=20

http://www.cybersciences.com/cyber/4.0/nov96/aile1196.htm

Another problem I have with the Burnelli design is the lack of=20
"sweep" in the main fuselage. This seems to make his design
different than, say, the B-2 or Northrup's flying wing. I have no idea
what are the claims made in the patent, so I confess I am not sure
what Burnelli's design even IS, or why and how it differs from =
Northrup's.





------=_NextPart_000_0013_01BFE47C.D15D6620
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I understand that Burnelli himself =
found problems=20
with his Loadmaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>airplane. He found that if the wing is =
too short=20
and the body of the airplane</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>is too thick compared to its size and =
force of the=20
engines, it had aerodynamic</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>problems on takeoff. Like I said, long =
wings are=20
needed to wrestle that big</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>pig around... That's the solution =
that <FONT=20
size=3D-1>A=E9rospatiale is taking to solve the =
</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>problem. Which brings me back to the =
original=20
question: if the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>design requires big wings, what's the=20
advantage?&nbsp; May as well </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>use those big wings to lift!</DIV>
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D600>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD width=3D20></TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D320></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Funny, this isn't mentioned on any =
pro-Burnelli=20
site. Perhaps they are </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>biased? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.cybersciences.com/cyber/4.0/nov96/aile1196.htm">http:/=
/www.cybersciences.com/cyber/4.0/nov96/aile1196.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Another problem I have with the =
Burnelli design is=20
the lack of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"sweep" in the main fuselage. This =
seems to make=20
his design</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>different than, say, the B-2 or =
Northrup's flying=20
wing. I have no idea</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>what are the claims made in the patent, =
so I=20
confess I am not sure</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>what Burnelli's design even IS, or why =
and how it=20
differs from Northrup's.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01BFE47C.D15D6620--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  2 23:37:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA15402;
	Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:31:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:31:52 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:39:53 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <5660ms8o261macv44im1h46amhhif47fks 4ax.com>
References: <200007030054.TAA26060 cablecom.pearlriver.net>
In-Reply-To: <200007030054.TAA26060 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 mx1.eskimo.com id XAA15328
Resent-Message-ID: <"AD2-u2.0.Nm3.JD3Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36016
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 Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:47:08 CST:
John,

Email to your email address bounces.

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 Jul  3 00:11:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA24087;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:10:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:10:28 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b585ed14a22c [12.21.208.77]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:11:56 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Murray: Little & Puthoff: biomolecules use Casimer structures to 	 catalyse
 reactions 7.2.00
Resent-Message-ID: <"_MmIV1.0.Hu5.an3Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36017
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 7:42 PM 7/2/0, Rich Murray wrote:
>Murray: Little & Puthoff: biomolecules use Casimer structures to
>catalyse reactions 7.2.00
>
>July 2 2000   Hello Vortexans,   Little and Puthoff are soon testing a
>very simple prediction that Casimer effects from a tiny resonant
>structure with conducting walls will change the interior spectrum
>of zero-point-energy fluctuations of the quantum vacuum and thus
>cause a major shift in the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.
>They wouldn't even try this experiment, if they weren't sure that
>it will work.  In fact, if they get an unexpected result, that will be
>an even bigger discovery than would be confirmation of their
>predictions, because they will have proved an anomaly in
>fundamental quantum physics-- so they can't lose either way.
[snip]


Therefore it is a brilliantly conceived experiment.   Funny how such things
look so simple AFTER they are conceived!   However, experiments of this
kind are no easy matter to execute.  Best of luck to Puthoff et al with a
difficult and important experiment.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 06:17:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16244;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:16:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:16:10 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000703080253.0348b1e0 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:08:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: Re: Murray: Little & Puthoff....
In-Reply-To: <v01530503b585ed14a22c [12.21.208.77]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"V3Dt_2.0.fz3.Q89Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36018
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:11 PM 7/2/00 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote:
>At 7:42 PM 7/2/0, Rich Murray wrote:
> >Murray: Little & Puthoff: biomolecules use Casimer structures to
> >catalyse reactions 7.2.00
> >
> >July 2 2000   Hello Vortexans,   Little and Puthoff are soon testing a
> >very simple prediction that Casimer effects from a tiny resonant
> >structure with conducting walls will change the interior spectrum
> >of zero-point-energy fluctuations of the quantum vacuum and thus
> >cause a major shift in the dissociation energy of the H2 molecule.
> >They wouldn't even try this experiment, if they weren't sure that
> >it will work.  In fact, if they get an unexpected result, that will be
> >an even bigger discovery than would be confirmation of their
> >predictions, because they will have proved an anomaly in
> >fundamental quantum physics-- so they can't lose either way.
>[snip]
>
>Therefore it is a brilliantly conceived experiment.   Funny how such things
>look so simple AFTER they are conceived!   However, experiments of this
>kind are no easy matter to execute.  Best of luck to Puthoff et al with a
>difficult and important experiment.

The situation is not as rosy as this sounds.  QM predicts only an 
ultra-tiny shift in the ground state, which our experiment will not be able 
to detect.  Therefore if we get a null result...i.e. no observed shift in 
the ground state, nobody will take much notice because it'll be consistent 
with QM's predictions.

Yes, the experiment is difficult...at least it seems so right now!





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 Jul  3 06:19:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA17406;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:18:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:18:58 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000703081433.0348f570 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:15:28 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: Re: BL Power Hi-Fi replication?
In-Reply-To: <hqlvlsonvojkmnvnbosga1pouo8alc3ogs 4ax.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0 earthtech.org>
 <395F23E1.81308063 ix.netcom.com>
 <3.0.1.32.20000702105210.012d94e0 earthtech.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"ExVQp3.0.uF4.2B9Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36019
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:00 AM 7/3/00 +1000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>Have you considered asking Mills if it would be possible to borrow the
>actual dewars he used?

No, I hadn't...but I'll give it a try (and spell Mills' name right as 
well...<g>).

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  Mon Jul  3 08:38:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28659;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:37:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:37:47 -0700
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000703215457.00c34930 popmail.esa.lanl.gov>
X-Sender: claytor popmail.esa.lanl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:56:04 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Thomas N. Claytor" <claytor lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: ICCF-8 trivia
In-Reply-To: <395F3225.FA0AC01F ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"FZfGy3.0.j_6.ADBOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36020
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Could you distribute the list as a file?
Tom.

At 05:14 AM 7/2/00 -0700, you wrote:
>July 2, 2000
>
>Vortex,
>
>In looking over the final (as of the last day, May 26, 2000) and
>detailed List of Participants to the ICCF-8, I noticed some items of
>interest which may be a commentary on the CF scene.
>1. Both James Redding and Patterson of CETI was in attendance (at least
>paid), but neither wrote any information about CETI as to phone, fax, or
>e-mail but left a postal address.
>2. Mitchell Swartz submitted a Poster Absatract but is not listed in the
>final list.
>3. Russ George submitted a Poster Abstract but also is not listed in the
>list. Although he was physically seen at the Conference Tuesday morning
>of the scheduled Poster Preview Presentation but missing in the
>afternoon.
>4. The largest representartion to the Conference was from Osaka
>University, Japan with 8 individuals split into several groups.
>5. Reiko Notoya of Hokkaido University was in the initial List but
>missing in the final.
>6. Hokkaido University had three in attendance including Mizono and
>Omori.
>7. Eighteen countries were represented at the Conference.
>     1. Italy=43
>     2. U.S.=40
>     3. Japan=22
>     4. France-6
>     5. Germany=4
>     6. Britain=3
>     7. Awitzerland=3
>     8. Australia=2
>     9. China=2
>     10. Denmark, Greece, India, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Romania,
>Spain, Ukraine, all one each.
>     11. There was one individual from the University of Utah. Steven
>Jones was not listed.
>
>-AK-

http://www.nde.lanl.gov/staff/claytor/claytor.htm
Thomas N. Claytor	Claytor lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESA-MT, MS C914
Los Alamos NM, 87545
505-667-6216 voice
505-665-7176 fax

Shipping Address:

Thomas N. Claytor
Los Alamos National Lab
Receiving/SM 30
Bikini Atoll Rd
Los Alamos NM 87545
Attention: Drop Point 01S



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 13:21:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA23014;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:20:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:20:19 -0700
Message-ID: <3960EF05.C9A2CD4D ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 12:52:37 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ICCF-8 trivia
References: <4.2.0.58.20000703215457.00c34930 popmail.esa.lanl.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9o67_2.0.Wd5.2MFOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36021
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 3, 2000

Vortex,

I would have no hesitancy to do so. However there was a consideration of
"invasion of privacy" concern by ICCF-8 that prevented the posting of
the list on their web site --- as mentioned by Jed Rothwell. So equally,
there may be that concern carrying over to a Vortex posting. There is no
copyright notice on the List nor any written ICCF-8 prohibition on its
distribution by the recipient participants however. So perhaps I, and
other participants, can fax the list to individuals requesting the list
separately. It's slower but can be done.

-AK-


"Thomas N. Claytor" wrote:
> 
> Could you distribute the list as a file?
> Tom.
> 
> At 05:14 AM 7/2/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >July 2, 2000
> >
> >Vortex,
> >
> >In looking over the final (as of the last day, May 26, 2000) and
> >detailed List of Participants to the ICCF-8, I noticed some items of
> >interest which may be a commentary on the CF scene.
> >1. Both James Redding and Patterson of CETI was in attendance (at least
> >paid), but neither wrote any information about CETI as to phone, fax, or
> >e-mail but left a postal address.
> >2. Mitchell Swartz submitted a Poster Absatract but is not listed in the
> >final list.
> >3. Russ George submitted a Poster Abstract but also is not listed in the
> >list. Although he was physically seen at the Conference Tuesday morning
> >of the scheduled Poster Preview Presentation but missing in the
> >afternoon.
> >4. The largest representartion to the Conference was from Osaka
> >University, Japan with 8 individuals split into several groups.
> >5. Reiko Notoya of Hokkaido University was in the initial List but
> >missing in the final.
> >6. Hokkaido University had three in attendance including Mizono and
> >Omori.
> >7. Eighteen countries were represented at the Conference.
> >     1. Italy=43
> >     2. U.S.=40
> >     3. Japan=22
> >     4. France-6
> >     5. Germany=4
> >     6. Britain=3
> >     7. Awitzerland=3
> >     8. Australia=2
> >     9. China=2
> >     10. Denmark, Greece, India, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Romania,
> >Spain, Ukraine, all one each.
> >     11. There was one individual from the University of Utah. Steven
> >Jones was not listed.
> >
> >-AK-
> 
> http://www.nde.lanl.gov/staff/claytor/claytor.htm
> Thomas N. Claytor       Claytor lanl.gov
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> ESA-MT, MS C914
> Los Alamos NM, 87545
> 505-667-6216 voice
> 505-665-7176 fax
> 
> Shipping Address:
> 
> Thomas N. Claytor
> Los Alamos National Lab
> Receiving/SM 30
> Bikini Atoll Rd
> Los Alamos NM 87545
> Attention: Drop Point 01S

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 14:32:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA15370;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:29:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:29:08 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
In-Reply-To: <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"dOxl61.0.-l3.ZMGOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36022
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



Well, not that vortex-L *HAS* any rigidly-defined topics...   

:)


Is everyone enjoying the "aerodynamics conspiracy" thread?  It has nothing
to do with CF or ZPE devices.  Heh.  I guess it's distantly related to
vortex fluid mechanics!  Yet it has nothing to do with physics anomalies. 

Whenever a long-running thread appears which doesn't have a clear link to
the usual Vortex-L topics, I fear that the extra 'noise' will drown out
the on-topic conversations, and even force people to unsubscribe in order
to avoid the unwanted stuff. 

What do Vortexians say?  Let it continue?  Move it to VortexB?


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Mon Jul  3 14:35:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18886;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:34:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:34:58 -0700
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000 eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000703143739.1150B-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"tpjux1.0.zc4.2SGOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36023
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortex-B
Hank

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, William Beaty wrote:

> 
> 
> Well, not that vortex-L *HAS* any rigidly-defined topics...   
> 
> :)
> 
> 
> Is everyone enjoying the "aerodynamics conspiracy" thread?  It has nothing
> to do with CF or ZPE devices.  Heh.  I guess it's distantly related to
> vortex fluid mechanics!  Yet it has nothing to do with physics anomalies. 
> 
> Whenever a long-running thread appears which doesn't have a clear link to
> the usual Vortex-L topics, I fear that the extra 'noise' will drown out
> the on-topic conversations, and even force people to unsubscribe in order
> to avoid the unwanted stuff. 
> 
> What do Vortexians say?  Let it continue?  Move it to VortexB?
> 
> 
> ((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Mon Jul  3 14:40:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21439;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:39:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:39:24 -0700
Message-ID: <001601bfe53f$4030bee0$e6441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Alchemy Article in Britannica Online Science & Technology Section
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:37:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFE504.8E9DCF40"
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: <"Z9N2q3.0.rE5.BWGOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36024
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_01BFE504.8E9DCF40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cornelis Drebble had a "Chymicall Liquor" that purified the air in
a Submarine powered by 12 Oarsmen from Westminster to Greenwich
in 1621!  :-)

 http://www.britannica.com/bcom/original/article/0,5744,7148+4,00.html

An aqueous solution of Potassium Permanganate can absorb CO2 (from the
Oarsmen's respiration) and release O2:

4 KMnO4aq + 6 CO2aq ---> 2 K2CO3aq +  4 MnCO3 (insoluble) + 5 O2  

A slightly exothermic reaction, ~ 20 Kcal. A heated mix of KNO3 (saltpeter) and
Manganese Dioxide to get the KMnO4, Robin?

Regards,    Frederick

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFE504.8E9DCF40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Britannica.com.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Britannica.com.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.britannica.com/bcom/original/article/0,5744,7148+4,0=
0.html

[DOC#26]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/dart.britannica/default;pgpos=3D1=
;sz=3D468x60;tile=3D1;ord=3D5494224839012856

[DOC#46]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/dart.britannica/default;pgpos=3D2=
;sz=3D120x60;tile=3D2;ord=3D5494224839012856

[DOC#468]
BASEURL=3Dhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/dart.britannica/default;pgpos=3D5=
;sz=3D468x60;tile=3D5;ord=3D5494224839012856

[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://www.britannica.com/bcom/original/article/0,5744,7148+4,00.ht=
ml
Modified=3D80B519543DE5BF0184

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFE504.8E9DCF40--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 15:27:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02733;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:26:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:26:26 -0700
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000704044301.00c27810 popmail.esa.lanl.gov>
X-Sender: claytor popmail.esa.lanl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 04:44:44 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Thomas N. Claytor" <claytor lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: ICCF-8 trivia
In-Reply-To: <3960EF05.C9A2CD4D ix.netcom.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20000703215457.00c34930 popmail.esa.lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"i2Y0n3.0.dg.ICHOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36025
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

If anyone cares to fax the list, my fax number is at the end of my email.
Tom

At 12:52 PM 7/3/00 -0700, you wrote:
>July 3, 2000
>
>Vortex,
>
>I would have no hesitancy to do so. However there was a consideration of
>"invasion of privacy" concern by ICCF-8 that prevented the posting of
>the list on their web site --- as mentioned by Jed Rothwell. So equally,
>there may be that concern carrying over to a Vortex posting. There is no
>copyright notice on the List nor any written ICCF-8 prohibition on its
>distribution by the recipient participants however. So perhaps I, and
>other participants, can fax the list to individuals requesting the list
>separately. It's slower but can be done......
>
>-

http://www.nde.lanl.gov/staff/claytor/claytor.htm
Thomas N. Claytor	Claytor lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESA-MT, MS C914
Los Alamos NM, 87545
505-667-6216 voice
505-665-7176 fax

Shipping Address:

Thomas N. Claytor
Los Alamos National Lab
Receiving/SM 30
Bikini Atoll Rd
Los Alamos NM 87545
Attention: Drop Point 01S



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 15:58:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12915;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:56:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:56:22 -0700
Message-ID: <39611397.C8FC82D1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:28:39 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>,
        "Thomas N. Claytor" <claytor lanl.gov>
Subject: re: ICCF-8 TRIVIA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"BwHTp1.0.j93.MeHOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36026
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 3, 2000

Tom,

Get the fax ok?

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 16:12:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18683;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:11:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:11:02 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Murray: Little & Puthoff....
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000703080253.0348b1e0 earthtech.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703143030.12412B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"8jdMN2.0.rZ4.6sHOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36027
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Scott Little wrote:

> The situation is not as rosy as this sounds.  QM predicts only an 
> ultra-tiny shift in the ground state, which our experiment will not be able 
> to detect.  Therefore if we get a null result...i.e. no observed shift in 
> the ground state, nobody will take much notice because it'll be consistent 
> with QM's predictions.

Wow!  The whole concept is stunning.  I've been arguing with people for
months about atoms as hi-Q electromagnetic resonators, and about the true
nature of "Photons."  It never occured to me to consider the presence of
ZPE noise as a possible component of interatomic forces.  Doh!  But now
the light bulb has turned on for me.

If your experiment is wildly successful, here's something to ponder: 
perhaps the hydrogen bond itself is entirely produced by a variation on
the same phenomenon you're investigating.  No shared electrons, but ZPE
electromagnetism instead.

If an H atom is analogous to a high-Q electromagnetic resonator, and if
space is full of ZPE "noise," then each passive atomic resonator should
behave as an oscillator, but an oscillator which does not detectably
radiate any EM waves (it would be in equilibrium with the ZPE).  However,
in the electromagnetic nearfield region, each atom's oscillating EM field
would be significant.  Two adjacent H atoms would behave as coupled
oscillators, and should experience a significant mechanical force between
them.  The force might even vary in an interesting way versus the
separation distance.

Has Hal ever seen these papers?

     H. Paul and R. Fischer "Light Absorbtion by a dipole", SOV. PHYS.
     USP., 26(10) Oct. 1983 pp 923-926 

     C. F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light
     incident on it?", Am J Phys, 51 #4, pp323 Apr 1983

They deal with atoms as resonant receivers (rather than as photon-
colliders.)  The authors note that during the act of optical absorbtion,
an atom creates a coherent AC electromagnetic field around itself.  As far
as I know, mainstream physics totally ignores this sort of phenomenon. 
But what if the same kind of oscillating EM field arises even around all
ground-state atoms, since the ZPE drives the oscillations?  Such a thing
should impact all of particle physics, and especially chemistry. 

Another biological implication: if molecular structures have strong EM
resonances, and if the ZPE makes them oscillate, then the coupling forces
should be significant across 1/4-wavelength distances.  Since these
frequencies are typically in the infrared, a distance of a single
1/4-wavelength will span across thousands of molecular diameters. This
means that the quantum uncertainty in atomic bonding might not just be
fuzzy whitenoise, but it might hide a wideband "communication channel" by
which widely separated molecules could affect each other.

Possibilities which spring to mind:  how do bio-molecules seek out
receptors?  Perhaps a bio-molecule experiences an attraction force towards
a receptor-site over a great distance, while at the same time ignoring all
other receptors which have the wrong resonance "code".  And how does the
relatively small ribosome attract the appropriate nucleic acid building
blocks during its manufacturing of RNA?  Maybe it uses this long-range
bonding force to pull them in over relatively vast distances.  Also during
certain types of crystal growth, sometimes a long-range organizing factor
exists which is not easily explained by the geometry of close-packing.  If
atoms and molecules can selectively affect each other over hundreds of
nanometers distance, then the long-range structure of certain crystals
(such as hi-temp superconductors and Penrose aperiodic crystals) would be
readily explained.  I'm sure that many other obscure phenomenon would
suddenly become explainable if a long range and SELECTIVE bonding force
exists.  Attraction between separate clusters of EM resonators driven by
ZPE might supply such a force. 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Mon Jul  3 16:23:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21900;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:21:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:21:36 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b586d09b12c2 [12.21.208.30]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:23:00 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Resent-Message-ID: <"Oi_XM3.0.3M5.00IOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36028
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 2:29 PM 7/3/0, William Beaty wrote:
>Well, not that vortex-L *HAS* any rigidly-defined topics...

>
>What do Vortexians say?  Let it continue?  Move it to VortexB?


Move to VortexB.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 17:44:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17883;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:41:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:41:52 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b586cebf91b4 [207.8.127.167]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702095716.8470B-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <v04011702b583568c4058 [207.8.127.250]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:39:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Fascist airplanes.
Resent-Message-ID: <"KUvmM2.0.LN4.FBJOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36030
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

***{This is a continuation of my previous post. --MJ}***

>
>In your own wacky calculus that you use for "science", what are the odds
>that each one of these organizations would be in the conspiracy vs. the
>odds that the Burnelli designed just plain ol' SUCKS? Occum's razor.

***{Duh! --MJ}***

>
>> dragging the airplaine toward the ground, and there is no forward velocity,
>> however great, which alters this state of affairs. With the Burnelli
>> design, on the other hand, the longitudinal cross section of the engines
>> and the fuselage is that of a cambered airfoil. Result: the engines and the
>> fuselage have *lift*--which means: there is an upward pointing force vector
>> that opposes the force of gravity and, at sufficient speed, cancels it out
>> entirely. Result: you could chop both wings off of a Burnelli aircraft and
>> it could still fly, assuming that the engines had enough thrust to achieve
>> the necessary forward velocity. That is something which is not possible
>> even in principle with a conventional aircraft.
>
>That's the most absurd claim I've ever heard. FLY? With what for control
>surfaces?

***{If you made even a token effort to understand what other parties to a
discussion were trying to say, then you would of course realize that I
referred to chopping the wings off, not to removing the control surfaces!
(Ailerons, for example, are *not* wings!) But, of course, you don't *want*
to comprehend what the other person is saying. After all, if you did that,
you might--horror of horrors--realize on occasion that you are wrong.
--MJ}***

That tail (do we still have a tail?) is going to go up, your
>nose will go down, and you're going to auger in. Or it's going to go into
>an uncontrolled roll, and spin like a badly made paper airplane about it's
>axis.
>How can you even say such a think without numbers is beyond me. One thing
>all engineers know is that if you HAVEN'T designed it that way, it won't
>work the way you want it.

***{If you will look on the aircrash website, you will see several drawings
depicting Burnelli airframes in flight with vestigial wings. No, that
doesn't mean they have no ailerons. It merely means they have, for
practical purposes, no wings. And, obviously, you could use a carbide saw
and remove *all* of the wings, provided that you left the ailerons, a spar
to hang each of them on, and their respective control mechanisms. --MJ}***

>
>
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>>
>>  Thus, they are safer if faster in weather. Do you
>> >want to fly in real air? Or some hypthetical still air?
>>
>> ***{The performance related superiority of the Burnelli airframe on
>> takeoffs and landings,
>
>The only performance claim you've made on takeoff and landings is that when
>you get to your crash, (as 11% of Burnelli planes have during testing,
>that we know of

***{If you are implying that a sample size of 9 is large enough to support
comparisons between the Burnelli airframe and the conventional one, then I
guess you will also have to accept the deaths per passenger mile figure
which follows from that sample--to wit: *zero*. (It's real sad! :-) --MJ}***

 ) your crash isn't as likely to be fatal because you're
>moving so slow.
>
>As I said, moving slow makes the lifting body just that much more
>difficult for the wings to wrestle with.

***{Yet another repetition of the mindless chant. --MJ}***

>
>> when compared to conventional airframes that are
>> otherwise equal (so we are comparing apples to apples), arises out of the
>> fact that it offers the pilot the capability, but not the requirement, to
>> fly slowly.
>
>Yeah. You need to find a good book on airplanes and read about the theory
>of landing. It is not goodness to be on the ground with a lot of lift...

***{See above. --MJ}***

>
>> Result: if the Burnelli pilot and the conventional pilot have
>> added *exactly the same* margin of safety above stall speed, the Burnelli
>> pilot will *still* approach and depart the airport at a substantially lower
>> speed, and, as a result, will experience a lower-impact and hence much more
>> survivable crash if something does, in fact, go wrong. Thus the superior
>> safety of the Burnelli airframe does not merely apply in hypothetical air,
>> but also in real air. --MJ}***
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> ***{You keep saying that, and you even posted a little drawing with some
>> vectors on it that showed an unopposed component of upward force on the
>> lifting body airframe. What you left out, of course, was the downward
>> pointing vector representing the force of gravity on the fuselage, which is
>> utterly unopposed in the conventional airframe even in level flight.
>
>So much for your ability to do vector summations....

***{We were talking about the fuselage, you idiot. Of course, if you sum
the lift vectors for the wings, you get a lift resultant upwards through
the center of gravity in the middle of the fuselage. But, in that case,
look what happens to your argument: now the conventional design has an
"unopposed" lift vector pointing upwards through the fuselage, just like
the Burnelli design. Duh! --MJ}***

>
>
>> Concerning stability in turns, there is no effect in the pure case where
>> the direction of flight is altered using the rudder, since the wings remain
>> level.
>
>Oh my god... I should have expected this from someone that doesn't
>understand vectors!
>
>I suppose the damn tires keep the thing on the road in your aerodynamics
>book! Or perhaps it is a long keel like a boat?
>
>Now, airplane bank so that a component of lift counters the centrifugal
>force of the turn, thus MAKING THEM TURN!!! You can't turn with the wings
>level.

***{Sure you can, you moron: if you keep the rudder hard to the right and
the wings level--not recommended, but possible--then the thrust of the
engines is going to point in the direction of the fuselage, rather than in
the direction of the line of flight. Result: there will be a component of
thrust perpendicular to your original line of flight, and the line of
flight will slowly shift to the right. The fact that this is not the proper
way to turn doesn't mean you can't turn that way, as you would have figured
out if you were capable of pausing to think for a moment before beginning
to bang away at your keyboard. --MJ}***

>
>All the rudder is going to do is turn the nose at an angle to the wind. If
>you don't bank, the wind will try and turn you back like a weather vane.

***{Your thrust vector is pointing in the same direction as the nose of
your aircraft. Result: if you maintain hard right rudder and level flight,
you will slowly turn to the right. The fact that this is not a proper way
to turn does not mean you can't turn an aircraft this way. In fact, most
pilots have practiced turning in this way, and on some occasions--e.g.,
when ailerons have become jammed in the level position--have wound up
damned glad they did! --MJ}***

>
>> However, in the case where the wings are moved away from the level
>> position by using the ailerons (known as a bank), it is worth noting that
>> *lift* is what makes it possible to turn in this way. What happens is that
>> when, say, the right wing is dipped below the horizon, the lift vector is
>> no longer vertical, and, as such, now has a component pointing to the
>> right. It is this component of force that makes it possible to turn an
>> aircraft by banking it. Result: the greater the amount of lift available to
>> an aircraft in level flight, the better its performance in a bank. Hence
>> the lifting body aircraft will exhibit superior performance in a bank, not
>> inferior performance.
>
>Except this puppy is UNSTABLE in banking and will simply roll over and
>head for ground. Low stall speed isn't going to help in that case.

***{Repeated rubbish is rubbish still. There is *no* built-in torque about
the roll axis in a Burnelli airframe. Result: when you release the
ailerons, they will return to the equilibrium positions as dictated by the
airflow, and the roll will cease, leaving the aircraft with whatever bank
angle it was in when they were released. This is exactly the same behavior
as we see in a conventional aircraft. --MJ}***

>
>> Bottom line: every single technical criticism you have aimed at the
>> Burnelli design has been wrong.
>
>Your capacity to misunderstand doesn't make it wrong. Same with quantum
>mechanics and relativity, too. You don't even understand what you're
>slamming! Just call 'em fascist!

***{When I used the subject line "Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed," I
didn't call any specific person a fascist, and your repeated insinuations
to the contrary are intellectually dishonest. --MJ}***

>
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>>
>> >
>> >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!
>>
>> ***{I repeat: the fact that the Burnelli design is capable of going much
>> more slowly than a conventional airframe without stalling is not the same
>> as a requirement that it do so.
>
>Only if you like to be slammed against the ground repeatedly and think
>that's safe...

***{Hey, keep repeating the nonsense. You never know, there may be someone
out there who is dumb enough to believe it! Might as well be optimistic,
right? --MJ}***

>
>
>> That means approaches and departures are
>> safer even after a margin of safety above stall speed has been added, to
>> deal with possible gusts or wind shear; and it means you can cruise more
>> slowly at altitude without stalling if you so desire--e.g., if you are
>> sight seeing or doing photo reconnaissance--but if you are flying a lifting
>> body aircraft with big pipes (such as an F-22), you can also go like blazes
>> if you want to. --MJ}***
>>
>> Besides, by (1) & (2) you're going to be hitting
>> >the ground so often you'll increase your odds of not surviving.
>>
>> ***{To a scientific mind, mere repetition cannot transform a false
>> assertion into a perceived fact. --MJ}***
>
>Brother, all you've ever had ANYWHERE is repetition of false assertions.

***{A bald-faced lie. --MJ}***

>
>Doesn't it bother you that when it gets down to brass tacks, your webite
>doesn't even MENTION any of this crap your advocating? The focus on wheel,
>fuel, and engine placement and ignore your energy and stall speed
>arguments all together!

***{They mentioned the lower stall and landing speeds, and the safety
implications--and everybody in this group who read the website knows they
did. Thus all the above statement proves is your tendency toward wishful
thinking. Of course, we are well past any need to prove that, now aren't
we? --MJ}***

>
>YOU are the only one with this unique opinion based on paranoia.

***{You are a liar. --MJ}***

>
>> >4) Us so called dullard, complacent, fascist, kill crazy engineers
>>
>> ***{Most members of any profession, including engineers, are conformists
>> who adopt the conventions of their peers pretty much without question. That
>> is simply a fact. On the other hand, engineers must be very disciplined and
>> logical in their thinking, and mathematically sophisticated, in order
>> produce workable designs even within the conventional framework. The fact
>> that the conventional airframe is flawed, for example, does not mean
>> sophistical intellectual skills are not required to make such designs work,
>> and I never said or implied the contrary. It is the conformist tendencies
>> of typical engineers to which I object, not their technical skills.
>
>You know, I am QUITE happy to have you go around spouting this crap. You
>go on believe we are a bunch of kill happy fascist wackos out to get some
>idiot named Burnelli.

***{I repeat: if you will read back through my messages on this topic, you
will find explicit and repeated denials that all aeronautical engineers are
in on a comspiracy, or that most aeronautical engineers are in or a
conspiracy, etc. As I have said over and over and over again, ad nauseam,
the type of conspiracy I have in mind only requires conscious knowledge by
a few people at the top. --MJ}***

Keep repeating your story. There's no arguing with
>someone who thinks you're a kill crazy nazi who likes to design airplanes
>that kill people. You're beyond reasoning with.

***{One of us, without doubt, is beyond reason. --MJ}***

>
>As I've said, I've been in this business awhile and tho' I can't say what
>Boeing or Douglas have looked at, they've looked at designs that are FAR
>more unconventional than this Burnelli design. Your claims that we're a
>buch of dullars performing route design routines is a bunch of crap, and
>it smells REALLY bad. It's all related to your self esteem issues and you
>can pay for your own therapist, I don't care to offer any free help.

***{Now that's a image to remember! Steve Lajoie: psychotherapist! Wow! I
think we can all guess what the suicide rate is going to do when that
happens! --MJ}***

>
>> As for the fascist label, I am really getting tired of having to repeat
>> that, when I used the subject line "Fascist Aviation Cartel Exposed," I did
>> *not* apply the fascist label to engineers in general or to you in
>> particular. Moreover, that fact is so palpably obvious that even a drooling
>> retard can see it, and so it is apparent that you take offense about it
>> because you simply *want* to take offense. The only question is *why*, and
>> my best guess is that you want to divert attention from the fact that the
>> technical arguments you have attempted to make on this issue are utterly in
>> ruins.
>
>You, personally, I note pick words for what they connote, and then often
>defend yourself by what they mean. For example, you KNOW fascist bring
>goose stepping SS bastards to mind, then you defend yourself with
>technical definitions.

***{Of course it brings them to mind. That's why Austrian economists use
the term that way: because they believe the connotations are appropriate.
And I agree with them. NEVERTHELESS, THE PHRASE "FASCIST AVIATION CARTEL
EXPOSED" DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ANY PERSON IN PARTICULAR, INCLUDING YOU, IS A
FASCIST. Do you comprehend that yet? No, of course not! You will never
comprehend it, regardless of the fact that it is obvious to virtually
everyone else, because you simply don't want to understand. The most
reasonable interpretation of your behavior, as I said, is that you wanted
to pick a fight with me (done), because you wanted to divert attention from
the fact that the technical arguments you have been making are utterly in
ruins. --MJ}***

>
>> As for "kill crazy," I never used the expression at all, or anything
>> resembling it.
>
>Your website does.

***{I doubt it, but in any case it isn't my website. You are not arguing
with them, but with me. --MJ}***

>
>> I have alleged that the conventional airframe is less safe
>> than the Burnelli airframe, and that the result is carnage in the skies.
>
>Carnage? Hardly!
>
>You might note that most incidents are the slow, plodding low energy
>airplanes you've been advocating.

***{Rubbish. The types of airplanes I have been advocating do not exist, so
they aren't producing any fatalities at all. Nor would they be any slower
than existing aircraft if they did exist--though they would surely be much
safer. --MJ}***

>
>[snip stuffed based on insults and a lack of understanding of air safety]
>
>Yawn. Had gone over most of it already.

***{I'm sick of this. This isn't a reasoned, civil exchange of views, and
with you in it, there is no way it can be. Even Job would be calling you an
imbecile after awhile.

To Bill Beaty: I vote for vortex-b.

--Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 17:44:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA17842;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:41:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:41:44 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b585cde2a892 [207.8.127.167]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000702095716.8470B-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <v04011702b583568c4058 [207.8.127.250]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:47:07 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Fascist airplanes.
Resent-Message-ID: <"w4eat2.0.iM4.7BJOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36029
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>> ***{As I have noted repeatedly, to no avail, configuring the fuselage to
>> give it lift reduces the need for lift in the wings, if the payload is
>> constant.
>
>Yeah. What's the advantage, other than you have positive feedback when you
>roll the airplane?

***{This is becoming ridiculous. I have answered that question repeatedly,
yet you keep asking it. --MJ}***

You may as well designing the wings properly and have
>stable control.

***{I have responded in detail to every argument you have made claiming
there is a built-in source of instability in the Burnelli design. In reply,
you ignore those arguments and simply keep repeating the claims. --MJ}***

>
>> Thus material trimmed from the wings permits the installation of
>> larger engines and the expansion of control surfaces, without an increase
>> in the weight of the aircraft,
>
>But because the lifting body has different lift, drag, and mach
>characteristics from the wings, you're limited by the lifting body.

***{An utterly nebulous, undefined, and incoherent comment. But, hey, at
least I don't have a target to shoot at, right? :-) --MJ}***

>
>Not really an advantage. Notice that Burnelli never built your stubby
>winged airplane.

***{Unfair. The 1947 Burnelli fighter shown at
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/tunnel5.htm had shorter wings than the
F-15 which copied most of its characteristics, as shown in the  photo on
the same page. The fact that it was not built under the Burnelli name does
not alter the plain fact that the design concept does work when the wings
are shortened and powerful engines are installed, as the F-15 clearly
demonstrated. --MJ}***

The obvious reason is that he needed still larger wings
>to wrestle that lifting body around.

***{There you go again. I respond to a claim, and you ignore the response
and simply keep repeating the claim. You have a rather odd concept of
reasoned discourse, don't you think? --MJ}***

>
>> thereby producing high performance vehicles
>> such as the F-22.
>
>Prove that the F-22 is a Burnelli design.

***{Sorry, I can't do that. I don't know enough about the structure of the
aircraft, or its intended performance characteristics, to supply a "proof".
Nor am I likely to, since that sort of information is classified, for
obvious reasons. (But, hey, you knew that before you asked the question,
right?) Anyway, all I am saying is that the claim made on the website that
it is a lifting body design seems reasonable to me, based on eyeballing the
photo and looking at a number of other views of the aircraft from various
angles. (See, for example, http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_airfr.htm.)

The criteria I am applying to reach that conclusion are described below.

The lifting body concept is simply the idea of giving the fuselage of an
aircraft the same lengthwise profile as the airfoils that are used on the
wings. In the case of passenger aircraft designed to operate primarily at
subsonic speeds (i.e., less than Mach 0.8), a cambered airfoil is
used--which means: it has the shape of an elongated teardrop which is
flatter on the bottom than on the top. Therefore, let me explain how a
cambered airfoil works.

The chordline is defined as a straight line parallel to the midline of the
fuselage that connects the frontmost and rearmost points of an airfoil.
When an airfoil has camber the surface below the cordline is flatter than
the surface above the chordline, and thus the distance from the front of
the chordline to the back is greater over the top of the wing than over the
bottom. Result: when the airstream divides at the front of the airfoil, air
molecules that travel over the top must cover a greater distance than those
that travel over the bottom, to get to the point where the airstreams blend
back together again. That means the airstream over the top of the wing is
moving faster, and, since every unit volume of a fluid at equilibrium
contains the same amount of energy (Bernoulli's law), that means average
pressure on the upper surface of the wing is less than that on the lower
surface. (Kinetic energy is greater on the top side, and so pressure energy
must be less, in order for total energy per unit volume on the two sides to
be equal.) Lower pressure on the top, naturally, translates into lift.

To determine whether a particular aircraft has a lifting body design,
therefore, it is necessary to use your imagination to make vertical slices
through the fuselage, down the midline, and parallel to the midline--every
centimeter say--and ask yourself what the lengthwise profiles of those cuts
would be. Specifically, you need to ask yourself whether the path from
front to back over the top is longer than the path from front to back over
the bottom. If, in the typical case, the answer is yes, then you are
looking at a lifting body aircraft.

Based on such criteria, both the F-15 and the F22, as shown on the website,
look like lifting body designs to me. The F-22, however, is a
state-of-the-art fighter, and too few details are available about its
performance characteristics for me to be willing to endorse that claim in
blood. It does, however, seem clear from visual inspection that in the
typical case the distance from front to back over the top of the
fuselage--which in this case includes the engines--is greater than the
distance from front to back over the bottom. Thus the fuselage will have
significant lift. I conclude that the F-22 is a supersonic aircraft that
has been designed for high performance dogfighting in the subsonic range,
and is of basically a lifting body configuration.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>swept back thin wings with a definitely pointed and aerodynamic nose. I
>don't see much resemblance, or are we not claiming that any fuselage that
>isn't exactly round is now a Burnelli design?

***{No, "we" are claiming that if the typical path from the front of a
fuselage cordline to the back is longer over the top than over the bottom,
then the fuselage will generate lift, and hence exhibits lifting body
design characteristics. --MJ}***

>
>What, exactly, IS the Burnelli (expired) patent claiming? Let's pin that
>down. There have been other airplanes covered by other patents, like
>Northrup's flying wing. What's different?

***{The body of an aircraft needs to have sufficient vertical height to
accomodate a person in a comfortable position. The wing does not face that
constraint, and can be thinner, saving money and materials. Result: a
competently laid out design will have a clear-cut line of demarcation
between where the body ends and the wings begin. However, a "flying wing"
lacks that line of demarcation. Instead, it thins out gradually, as you
move outward from the midline toward the tips of the wings, and thus
obscures, from the perspective of an outside viewer, where the body ends
and the wing begins. By doing that, however, it does not alter the fact
that, at some point within the aircraft, it becomes too thin to accomodate
a person comfortably, and, by logic, the body ends there. Thus a flying
wing would qualify as a lifting body aircraft, but one in which materials
were wasted either due to incompetence or in an unsuccessful attempt to
obscure that state of affairs. --MJ}***

>
>> On the other hand, if it is desired to *increase* the
>> payload, then you could leave the wings the same length, or even increase
>> them; and you also could even reduce the size of the engines, thereby
>> saving more weight,
>
>We size the engines according to drag, not weight.

***{Drag is not a constant. It is equal to the product of the coefficient
of drag, the kinetic energy of a unit volume of air relative to the
aircraft, and the vertical cross-sectional area of the aircraft
perpendicular to its direction of motion. Result: the faster the aircraft
goes, the more drag. Thus it is impossible to "size the engines according
to the drag." Instead, engine selection faces a minimum constraint--to wit:
it must have enough power to push the airframe above stall speed. That
means it must provide thrust in excess of the drag at stall speed, in order
for the aircraft to fly, but how much in excess is not a matter that is
dictated by drag. Instead, it depends on the capabilities that the designer
wants the aircraft to have. --MJ}***

We make lift equal
>weight.

***{No you don't. Lift only equals weight during level flight. On a climb,
lift exceeds weight; and on a descent, lift is less than weight. These are
matters that are controlled by the pilot, not by the designer. --MJ}***

>
>One problem with this big fat lifting body is that the air going over the
>fuselage has to go too mush faster than the airplane speed. Pretty soon
>you find that the air going over the fuselage has reached the speed of
>sound well before your airplane reaches Mach 1. This limits speed.

***{It is a characteristic of a cambered airfoil that air going over the
top surface covers a greater distance in the same amount of time as air
going over the bottom, and thus air over the top moves faster. Result: as
you approach close to Mach 1 (the so called "transonic" regime between Mach
0.8 and 1.2), drag increases very rapidly. However, this truth does not
merely apply to a lifting body fuselage: it also applies to the wings of a
conventional aircraft. Thus I do not claim that a cambered airfoil, either
in the conventional or the lifting-body embodiment, represents an ideal
solution either for transonic or supersonic passenger flight, since other
airfoil profiles are more efficient in those regimes. (In the supersonic
regime, for example, the best solution seems to be what is called a
*biconvex* airfoil, while in the transonic regime opinions vary depending
on the latest computer simulation results.) Such an admission, however,
does not compromise the claim that the Burnelli airframe is superior for
passenger jets, since passenger jets in common use today are designed to
cruise at subsonic speeds. Moreover, the logical extension of the
lifting-body principle to supersonic flight would involve the application
of the biconvex airfoil profile to the fuselage of the aircraft, for the
same reason that the cambered airfoil ought to be applied to the body of a
subsonic aircraft. Likewise, if an aircraft is designed for transonic
flight, then whatever the latest trendy, computer-generated airfoil profile
may be that is used for the wings, it should also be used for the body as
well. The generalized principle of the lifting body design, after all, is
that whatever airfoil profile is applied to the wings should also be
applied to the fuselage. --MJ}***

>
>The other problem is that the airplane is inheritantly unstable. As I have
>shown before, if wind conditions raise one wing above the other, a
>conventional airplane will return to level flight.

***{You haven't shown diddley squat. I responded to your various claims of
instability, and you ignored those responses.

Concerning your new claim, above, that a conventional airplane will return
to level flight after the wings have been moved off of horizontal, that is
also wrong. Control surfaces for roll have equilibrium positions to which
they tend to return, but the return to such positions merely prevents the
continuation of a roll once the external stimulus has abated. It does not
restore the wings to a horizontal orientation. Thus if you drop the left
aileron and raise the right one, the aircraft will roll to the right until
you release the ailerons, after which they will return to their equilibrium
positions. The aircraft, however, will *not* resume level flight. Instead,
it will remain at the bank angle it was at when you released your pressure
on the ailerons. As pilot and aeronautical engineer H.C. Smith put it:

"...if the airplane is rotated in pitch or yaw, stabilizers can provide
restoring moments to reinstate the trim position. Pure rolling motion is a
different situation. There really is no aerodynamic force created in
rolling that tends to restore the wings to level flight." [*The Illustrated
Guide to Aerodynamics*, 2nd edition, pg. 172]

Enough said.

--Mitchell Jones}***

The Burnelli's design
>will make the airplane continue to roll.

***{Incorrect. The lift vector points straight up through the midline of
the aircraft, at the point where the center of gravity is located, and thus
does not exert any torque on the wings whatsoever. This is so obvious that
your repeated claims to the contrary can only be described as ridiculous.
--MJ}***

>
>> which would enable you to increase the payload still
>> further. Or you could opt in favor of one of the myraid compromises on the
>> scale between maximizing performance and maximizing payload. Fast, slow,
>> highly maneuverable, less maneuverable--all are options available to the
>> designer of a Burnelli airframe, just as they are options available to the
>> designer of a conventional airframe.
>
>
>Yawn. Tell you what. Start your own company and build this wonderful
>design, and try and get it certified and try an sell it to customers.
>
>Oh, I forgot! They're all fascist and in on the plot to suppress this
>design, because....
>
>Why was it we fascist are suppressing the design anyway? Everyone from the
>pilots and passengers to the engineers and regulators? If the designed
>SUCKED, then that would be understandable. How do we profit, again, from
>suppressing a design who's patent protection lapsed 60 years ago?

***{As I pointed out several times in the past, bureaucratic momentum
causes regulations to continue to be enforced long after the reasons that
brought them into existence have ceased to apply--or to even be remembered,
for that matter. That means the conspiracy began while the patents were
active. At that time, politically connected insiders within the aviation
cartel persuaded their allies in government to enact regulations that
penalized the Burnelli company, and, once those regulations and the
regulatory attitudes they fostered were in place, momentum did the rest.
But then you know that, since I explained it all to you before, several
times, and you said not a single word in rebuttal. --MJ}***

>
>> I would add that your utter refusal to acknowledge this point or respond to
>> the reasons given to support it, and your continued repetition of these
>> absurd "slow airplane" claims, is the same behavior by which you infuriated
>> people on sci.physics.fusion, after which you were in effect tarred and
>> feathered and run out of the group on a rail.
>
>Oh, yes. People who dismiss great masses of independent and replicated
>data as "error" because it proves cold fusion are great authorities on
>science.

***{Some of them do that. But you succeeded in infuriating even people who
tended to agree with you, because of the behaviors that you are exhibiting
now. To be specific: you make false statements, ignore detailed and polite
rebuttals without so much as a word of comment, and then continue merrily
to repeat the same assertions as before. Most people find that kind of
behavior quite infuriating. --MJ}***

  I especially enjoyed your own magic, unknown contaminate theory
>and your statistical approach to finding if an experiment as valid. It
>was, well, very amusing.

***{It takes a special kind of mind to remain amused when one's position is
in ruins. Pretending to be amused, however, requires nothing special at
all. --MJ}***

>
>I believe the are posting flame poetry and invoking God almighty in their
>physics discussions since I left. Great group. By all means, cite them as
>your authority on well done science.

***{I never did that. The group has its share of cold fusion skeptics who
are fully as pathological in their disbelief as you are in your belief,
truth be told. --MJ}***

>
>> The question is: why can't
>> you modify your inappropriate behavior? Do you think your words have
>> magical powers? Do you think that, by a mere act of will, you can somehow
>> force people to ignore plain facts that are staring them in the face?
>>
>
>Humm. Lets see, if someone calls you the village idiot, and then you say
>that is childish (and their physics was wrong on a 6th grade level, too,
>but you only point out the error and not the fundamental nature of the
>error) you find that inappropriate behavior.
>
>That's why I left! People like you have no good, mature judgment.

***{You are  ignoring the plain point of my comment, above, as surely as if
it were never made. Amazing. What a conundrum! The riddle is this: how do
you convey to a person that he has a character flaw, if the flaw  in
question is ignoring criticism? After all, when you talk about the
character flaw, that's criticism, so he will ignore whatever you say about
it! Thus it would appear that the habit of tuning out criticism is an
*irreversible* character defect. Once it is in place, the person is doomed
to spiral down, over the years, into the depths of pure evil, and there
isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it! It is a kind of death spiral of
the mind. How sad. --MJ}***

>
>> >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).
>>
>> ***{Yes, I get it. The question is, can you comprehend the difference
>> between the ability to fly slowly, and the *requirement* to do so?
>
>The requirement, The FAA REQUIREMENT, is that when you approach landing
>you do so at 1.3 x Vstall.

***{You are ignoring my point again. I was not talking about legal
requirements, but about the requirements of physics. You alleged that a
lifting body aircraft was dangerous because it was too slow, so I pointed
out that the fact that such aircraft had low stall speeds did not force the
pilot to fly at those speeds. Indeed, the FAA requirement that you cited
(which, by the way, only applies to transport aircraft) proves *my* point,
not yours: the FAA could hardly require planes to approach at 1.3 times
stall speed, if physics forced them to stay right at stall speed, now could
they? Therefore, your repeated insinuation that a low stall speed implies a
slow aircraft is obviously wrong. But you don't care. I demonstrated that
conclusion a number of different ways, and you ignored them all. You are
simply bound and determined to believe that a low stall speed forces an
aircraft to be slow, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can say to
convince you otherwise! --MJ}***

You do that because you want to be able to
>minimize lift as soon as you put wheels on the ground. This is called
>"landing".

***{You are totally confused on this topic. Above, you were quoting FAA
regs requiring pilots to come in at 1.3 times stall speed, and now you are
back to your original notion of landing at stall speed. As H.C. Smith said:

"In the good old days (or bad old days, depending on how you regard them),
pilots were taught to make full-stall landings. Touching down at stall
speed ensured the shortest possible landing roll; however, this procedure
required the final stage of an approach to be very close to stall.
Operating close to stall speed on short final is not too safe, and also
makes handling rather difficult." [Op. cit., pg. 143]

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Problems occur when you come in much faster than 1.3 x Vstall. You get
>ground effects, lifting your airplane from the runway. You are also
>more likely to fly the airplane into the ground.

***{However much you may pretend otherwise, this point continues to support
what I said earlier, and to conflict with what *you* said. It was you who
originally claimed that an aircraft with a low stall speed was, thereby,
necessarily a slow aircraft, and it was I who denied that claim by pointing
out that a pilot of an aircraft with a low stall speed was not required (by
physics) to land at stall speed, but instead could allow a margin of safety
above stall speed, as a safeguard against gusts and wind shear. It must
have been a real shock when you discovered that not merely was I correct in
saying that pilots could land at more than stall speed if they wanted to,
but that in fact the FAA *required* the pilots of transport aircraft to do
so! Moreover, now that you (in some paragraphs :-) accept my point, you
must also accept the implication: that the Burnelli airframe is safer to
land than a conventional airframe. The reason: when the .3 times stall
margin of safety is added, the aircraft with the lower stall speed winds up
with the lower landing speed! Since kinetic energy is what kills people in
crashes (e.g., by rupturing fuel tanks), and since it is proportional to
the *square* of the impact velocity, and since the vast majority of crashes
occur during approaches to or departures from airfields, logic suggests
that a Burnelli design ought to be vastly safer than a conventional
airframe, rather than merely slightly safer. --MJ}***

>
>On wings, we can control the amount of lift with flaps and slats to
>optimize the lift for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Now, where are these
>surfaces on that lifting body?

***{The same place they are on the conventional body--to wit: wherever the
designer of the aircraft decides is the best place to put them. --MJ}***

>
>Another factor is that the coefficient of lift of the surfaces. Your
>lifting body has a great deal of lift; your wings, if you note, have
>little bend to them.

***{I never noted any such thing. --MJ}***

At low speeds, they have much less lift. Another
>reason why the large wings are required; to wrestle that big uncontrolled
>pig of a fuselage around on takeoff and landing. And in cruise, that pig
>limits you to 300-400 knots.

***{I have responded to this false claim repeatedly, and you have ignored
those responses. Now you are repeating the falsehoods again, with the
addition of derisive terminology. What that means is that the only "pig"
involved in this discussion is not the Burnelli airframe, but you. --MJ}***

>
>If you have to make the wings big anyway so you have all that force to
>wrestle the pig around, why bother with the pig and just use large wings?

***{Amazing. Ignore the reasoning and escalate the rhetoric. There is
simply no way to have a civil discussion with you. --MJ}***

>
>> To put the matter simply: it is the pilot's job to adjust his landing and
>> departure speeds to the conditions at the airfield. Those conditions
>> include the length of the available runways, the presence of crosswinds,
>> turbulence, etc. It is desirable, if the conditions are turbulent, to leave
>> a larger margin of safety between the approach or departure speed of the
>> aircraft and its stall speed. However, as I have once again noted
>
>You don't understand the concept of "landing", I see. You want to be on
>the ground with as little lift as possible. If you have lift, even lift
>that's less than your weight by a bit, you end up bouncing down the run
>way like a big rubber ball. What the passengers and airframe feels is more
>like what you'd feel inside a Samsonite suitcase when the guerilla gets
>hold of it and bangs it about his cage.

***{See quote, above, from H.C. Smith, concerning the problems associated
with touching down at stall speed. --MJ}***

>
>> repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored, if the proper margin of safety
>> has been allotted, a lower approach or departure speed is better than a
>> high one. The reason: KE = (1/2)mV^2--which means that if something goes
>> wrong and you do, in fact, crash, you want the speed of impact to be as low
>> as possible. Result: low approach and departure speeds are better than
>> higher ones, if reasonable safety margins above stall speed have been
>
>If you want to design an airplane that is unstable in a roll

***{The Burnelli airframe is *not* unstable in a roll, as I have explained
repeatedly in detail, and which you have repeatedly ignored. But, of
course, what else could you do. Admitting that you are wrong is obviously
not an option you are capable of considering, and simply ceasing to drone
on isn't in your bag of tricks, either. :-) --MJ}***

, (which is
>pure HELL when you're trying to land, btw) and is susceptible to weather,
>but will be moving so slow that you will have a decent chance of surviving
>a crash at 30 mph or some such...
>
>You're going to be crashing so often that you're more likely to be dead.

***{Dream on. --MJ}***

>> maintained. Because of that, the habit of imparting a cylindrical shape to
>> the fuselage and the engines of an aircraft is an unarguably bad design
>> practice: it converts them into dead weights that exert a continual force
>
>You don't know diddly about aircraft design, are making this stuff up as
>you go, and are more than a little paranoid. About being paranoid, I don't
>know how else to describe a belief that everyone from pilots, passengers,
>engineers, business men, bankers, presidents, DoD officials, ICAO, NTSB,
>and the FAA are all fascist conspirators trying to put out unsafe
>airplanes because of some grudge against this Burnelli fellow.

***{I have stated repeatedly that the kind of conspiracy I have in mind
only requires conscious knowledge by a few people at the top. Thus your
continued insinuations to the contrary are little more than bald-faced
lies. But, of course, that all you've got, now isn't it? --MJ}***

[to be continued]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 18:26:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA31168;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:23:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:23:53 -0700
From: BriggsRO aol.com
Message-ID: <78.761207f.26929687 aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:23:19 EDT
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
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 110
Resent-Message-ID: <"twrlz.0.wc7.foJOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36031
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In a message dated 7/3/00 2:32:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, billb eskimo.com 
writes:

<< What do Vortexians say?  Let it continue?  Move it to VortexB? >>

I vote B.

Bob Briggs

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 18:38:04 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01762;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:34:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:34:17 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b586ea7718c9 [207.8.127.134]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:32:50 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Resent-Message-ID: <"I1kN81.0.DR.NyJOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Unidentified subject!
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36032
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>On wings, we can control the amount of lift with flaps and slats to
>>optimize the lift for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Now, where are these
>>surfaces on that lifting body?
>
>***{The same place they are on the conventional body--to wit: wherever the
>designer of the aircraft decides is the best place to put them. --MJ}***

***{Note that the preceding statement should read as follows:

"The same place they are on the conventional aircraft--to wit: wherever the
designer of the aircraft decides is the best place to put them."

Why bother to change the word "body" to "aircraft"? Simple: I am dealing
with a person who appears to be thoroughly intellectually dishonest. He
will *not* make the reasonable and correct assumption that I meant
"aircraft." Instead, he will gleefully imply what he believes to be false:
that I think there are lots of flaps and slats on the fuselage of a
conventional jetliner.

To nip that particular ploy in the bud, therefore, I am posting a
correction that, under ordinary circumstances, would be unneeded.
(Unfortunately, I can't nip all such possibilities in the bud, because my
opponent has demonstrated an ability to take statements the wrong way even
when when, to a normal mind, they seem to be crystal clear. :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 18:56:07 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA07166;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:55:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:55:13 -0700
Message-ID: <008201bfe562$fbd10b00$e6441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <78.761207f.26929687 aol.com>
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:53:01 -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: <"hZRxS3.0.sl1.0GKOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36033
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <BriggsRO aol.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?

Bob Briggs wrote:


> In a message dated 7/3/00 2:32:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, billb eskimo.com 
> writes:
> 
> << What do Vortexians say?  Let it continue?  Move it to VortexB? >>
> 
> I vote B.

I vote B also,and the sooner the better.

Regards,   Frederick
> 
> Bob Briggs
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 19:24:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15910;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:24:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:24:08 -0700
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: HLafonte aol.com
cc: mconnolly grainsystems.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com, energy21@listbot.com,
        vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Is  Mike Connolly on a pulse in a wire?  Better let him off!
In-Reply-To: <75.4e4680c.266809ef aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000703222819.14430E-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"AWOw12.0.Su3.7hKOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36034
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Folks,

	Really.

	Is there a paper on pulse in wire?


			John

	

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 HLafonte aol.com wrote:

>  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  Mon Jul  3 19:35:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA19296;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:33:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:33:58 -0700
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:39:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Test for correct address (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000703223911.14905A-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"H2mGt3.0.Fj4.MqKOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36035
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: layo compuserve.com, Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Test for correct address



	Dear Layo,


	Do I have the correct address for the aluminum and water hodrox
process?

	I would like to enter into technical dialog.


			Thank you 

			John Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 21:34:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA00693;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:24:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:24:47 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Alchemy Article in Britannica Online Science & Technology Section
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:24:07 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <mlp2ms0lgsjnlmo6ankgbpjfnh71557qm0 4ax.com>
References: <001601bfe53f$4030bee0$e6441d26 fjsparber>
In-Reply-To: <001601bfe53f$4030bee0$e6441d26 fjsparber>
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 VAA00641
Resent-Message-ID: <"fNc2o1.0.iA.CSMOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36037
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  Frederick Sparber's message of Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:37:12 -0700:
[snip]
>Manganese Dioxide to get the KMnO4, Robin?

Personally, I'd buy it from my local chemist :).
>
>Regards,    Frederick

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 Jul  3 21:36:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA26907;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:08:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:08:21 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:07:46 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <tko2ms47b5beapa8m855ejeefdnb10d90r 4ax.com>
References: <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation> <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000@eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000 eskimo.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 VAA26887
Resent-Message-ID: <"7up7v1.0.La6.rCMOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36036
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In reply to  William Beaty's message of Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:29:02 -0700
(PDT):
[snip]
>Is everyone enjoying the "aerodynamics conspiracy" thread?  It has nothing
>to do with CF or ZPE devices.  Heh.  I guess it's distantly related to

It may however have some bearing on fuel usage by the airlines, and thus on
global warming. However as I am subscribed to all vortex lists, I don't
really care which one it crops up on.
[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  Mon Jul  3 21:48:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA06894;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:47:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:47:43 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:47:34 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040447.AAA06441 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: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"1qN3K1.0.Uh1.knMOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36038
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Gnorts,

Somewhere in Mitch's comments about airplane design, he mentioned the famous
Bernoulli's Law which describes how lift can be achieved with the correct
geometric airfoil.  I was taught this explanation at a very young age, it
made sense at the time, and I never really questioned it, but during my
reading of some of these more public lists, one of The Hecklers asked, "If
this wing shape provides lift in the manner so described, how is it that
airplanes can fly upside-down?"  There was some hem-hawing about by some of
the more expert of the group (none of whom professed to be flyers or
airplane designers, BTW) that, if I remember correctly, involved something
regarding Von Karmen's Vortex Streets, but there was no real, distilled
explanation that was very satisfying.  Does anyone have The Official Bazooka
Bubblegum Wrapper Version of the answer to the above question?

P.S.  My best guess was that you would have to put the wingflaps into a
downward position relative to the ground and add a lot of thrust, but I
don't know.

Knuke - Proud Member of the Drooling Retard School of Flying and Economics.



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 Jul  3 22:24:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA14893;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:20:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:20:45 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b5872075de61 [207.8.127.2]>
In-Reply-To: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:18:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"EjA5B1.0.de3.iGNOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36039
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Gnorts,
>
>Somewhere in Mitch's comments about airplane design, he mentioned the famous
>Bernoulli's Law which describes how lift can be achieved with the correct
>geometric airfoil.  I was taught this explanation at a very young age, it
>made sense at the time, and I never really questioned it, but during my
>reading of some of these more public lists, one of The Hecklers asked, "If
>this wing shape provides lift in the manner so described, how is it that
>airplanes can fly upside-down?"  There was some hem-hawing about by some of
>the more expert of the group (none of whom professed to be flyers or
>airplane designers, BTW) that, if I remember correctly, involved something
>regarding Von Karmen's Vortex Streets, but there was no real, distilled
>explanation that was very satisfying.  Does anyone have The Official Bazooka
>Bubblegum Wrapper Version of the answer to the above question?

***{Excellent question. I, also, read that bit about flying upside down,
many years ago. The answer is that when an aircraft with cambered airfoils
is flown right-side-up, the chordline--the straight line connecting the
front of the wing to the back--is roughly horizontal. That means the angle
of attack (the angle between the chordline and the horizontal) is zero. In
such a case, the stagnation point (i.e., where the airflow divides at the
front of the wing) is on the chordline. In that configuration, the distance
from the stagnation point over the top of the wing is greater than the
corresponding distance over the bottom of the wing, and the lift vector
points through the top of the wing. However, when an aircraft with a
cambered airfoil is flown upside down, the angle of attack must be very
large. The reason: it is necessary to move the stagnation point far enough
so that, once again, the pathway from the stagnation point over the "top"
of the wing (i.e., over the bottom of the upside-down wing) is longer than
the corresponding pathway over the "bottom" of the wing! In other words,
Bernoulli's law explains both right-side-up flight and upside-down flight.
Neat, eh? --Mitchell Jones}***

>
>P.S.  My best guess was that you would have to put the wingflaps into a
>downward position relative to the ground and add a lot of thrust, but I
>don't know.
>
>Knuke - Proud Member of the Drooling Retard School of Flying and Economics.
>
>
>
>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 Jul  3 22:46:28 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA20780;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:45:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:45:49 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:45:45 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040545.BAA17007 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: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"l_rr4.0.c45.DeNOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36040
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitch writes:
>***{Excellent question. I, also, read that bit about flying upside down,
>many years ago. The answer is that when an aircraft with cambered airfoils
>is flown right-side-up, the chordline--the straight line connecting the
>front of the wing to the back--is roughly horizontal. That means the angle
>of attack (the angle between the chordline and the horizontal) is zero. In
>such a case, the stagnation point (i.e., where the airflow divides at the
>front of the wing) is on the chordline. In that configuration, the distance
>from the stagnation point over the top of the wing is greater than the
>corresponding distance over the bottom of the wing, and the lift vector
>points through the top of the wing. However, when an aircraft with a
>cambered airfoil is flown upside down, the angle of attack must be very
>large. The reason: it is necessary to move the stagnation point far enough
>so that, once again, the pathway from the stagnation point over the "top"
>of the wing (i.e., over the bottom of the upside-down wing) is longer than
>the corresponding pathway over the "bottom" of the wing! In other words,
>Bernoulli's law explains both right-side-up flight and upside-down flight.
>Neat, eh? --Mitchell Jones}***

Yeah, I think I got it, and if what you are saying is correct, then a lot
more thrust is not necessary to stay flying, although the increased angle of
attach may decrease the speed of flight somewhat.  Is that right?

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 Jul  3 23:29:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA28410;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:28:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:28:13 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b587343378fd [12.21.208.55]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:29:34 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Thought Experiment
Resent-Message-ID: <"1FHDX2.0.px6.wFOOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36041
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Posted by Evan Soule on vortex 4/11/97 at 9:10 AM:

______________________________________________________
Historical Note: No doubt the reader is familiar with the popular story
about Einstein's "thought experiment" regarding his "riding on a beam of
light."  The following "thought experiment" may also help one to think
'outside the square.'
E. Soule'    (Drawings converted to ascii format by ERS)
______________________________________________________

From: HLafonte aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: josephnewman earthlink.net
Subject: Thought experiment from H.W. (Butch) La Fonte

ANALYSIS OF THOUGHT EXPERIMENT CONCERNING BEHAVIOR OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
CHARGES IN A SUPER CONDUCTING DIRECT CURRENT CIRCUIT AND THE ASSOCIATED
BEHAVIOR OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD THAT SURROUNDS THE SOLID CONDUCTOR OF THE
CIRCUIT DURING THE INITIAL ELECTRICAL IMPULSE THROUGH THE CIRCUIT

AUTHOR:
HAROLD W. LA FONTE     Copyright 3-26-96
                       First posting: 4-11-97

Figure 1.
CIRCUIT LENGTH 1 LIGHT HOUR (669,600,000 MILES)
FROM VOLTAGE SOURCE TO POINT E (1,339,200,000 MILES
TOTAL CIRCUIT LENGTH)

[Note: Some mail programs may distort the ascii diagrams; it is hoped that
the recipient can re-construct the original diagram, if necessary.]

   _____________________________________________
   |                       C     ^             |
   |                             |             |
 A | (+)                         |             |
-------                          |             |
|     | Direct Current           |             |
|     | Voltage Source           |             | E
|     |                          |             |
-------                         6 ft.          |
 B | (-)                         |             |
   |                             |             |
   |                       D     v             |
   _____________________________________________
            \
             \___________ Superconducting Wire



   This simple looking circuit as shown in figure 1, has some very
interesting aspects. In talking with physics and electrical instructors
that teach on the college level, many believed that a large number of
students at all levels lacked knowledge of the fundamental behavior of this
circuit.
   It appears to me that the initial behavior of current flow (electron
drift), with respect to current impulse, and the formation of a magnetic
field around a conductor of this length has not been presented in any text
books or publications of any type to my knowledge.
   The behavior of the magnetic field around this straight conductor of
such length, I believe, will behave in a very unique way. I think the field
will take on a " pumping" type action not seen in any type circuit
described previously. I see the expanding magnetic field along such a long
conductor causing a back EMF that will begin to decrease the current rise.
When this is sensed by the magnetic field at the beginning of the
conductor, the field will collapse and try to maintain the present current
flow . When this field collapses and the current rate starts to reach zero,
the field will start to re-establish. This will start a wave like "pumping
action," in my opinion. If this wave aspect does exist, then the circuit
would have a wave-particle duality as does light. The electron aspect of
the circuit being the particle aspect, the wave "pumping action" of the
magnetic field being the wave aspect.
   There are other unique aspects to this circuit also, that I will cover
in this paper.  I believe that every student should have knowledge of the
fundamental behavior of this circuit, though it has no practical
application at this time.
   The sequence of events in this circuit as the circuit is simultaneously
closed at the positive and negative terminals of the power source are as
follows:


1. An electrical impulse originates at near light speed from the negative
terminal of the battery, electron drift is started at this instant also,
but at a slower speed, less than a millimeter per second for a current of
one ampere flowing through a wire of very small diameter, such as the
filament of a light bulb. A magnetic field starts to build around the
conductor at this instant also. The only resistance to current flow
(electron drift) in the direction from point B to point E is the
counter-electromotive force induced in the opposite direction by the
expanding magnetic field around the conductor.

2. At the same time that current flow starts at the negative terminal
toward point E, electrons start flowing into the voltage source at the
positive terminal, causing a progression of positive charged atoms to
originate in the wire from point A to point E at near light speed. These
atoms are bound in the solid conductor  and they do not drift down the wire
as do the negative charged electrons drifting from the negative terminal of
the voltage source, point B to point E. A magnetic field builds around the
wire, starting at the positive terminal of the voltage source, and
progresses down the wire toward point E at the same rate as the magnetic
field in the lower wire in the illustration. To help visualize this, what
has happened after the circuit was closed at the voltage source is, two
magnetic fields are building around the wires starting at the voltage
source, and are racing "neck and neck" to point E to meet with each other.

3. It needs to be made clear that electron drift does not get left behind
at the voltage source by the electrical impulse traveling at near light
speed, but is continuously initiated at the leading point of the impulse.
In other words, the electrical impulse strikes the electrons in its path
and initiates their drift.  The impulse at near light speed and the
initiation of electron drift at near light speed must not be confused with
the actual speed of the drift, it being much slower as stated previously.

4.  Now we come to some very interesting aspects of this circuit.  First,
with a circuit one light hour long, with the electrical impulses from the
voltage source being at points C and D, heading toward point E , a person
at point E with a meter would not have any indication of electrical
activity in the circuit for thirty minutes.  He could actually cut the
wires and the impulses traveling in the two wires toward him at near light
speed, would behave no differently!  The impulses at this point do not know
if they are in an open circuit or a closed circuit!  If you were to put a
light bulb in the circuit at point D, the light would reach the person at
point E before the electrical impulse, even with the wires cut at point E,
due to the impulse being slightly slower than the speed of light due to its
travel in the wire.  After the two impulses meet, a continuous transfer of
impulses from atom to atom by negatively charged electrons takes place
while the actual drift of electrons is also continuous.  The direction of
electron drift is from the negative terminal around to the positive
terminal of the voltage source.

5.  Another interesting aspect of this circuit is if the superconductor
weighed the same as #30 gauge copper wire, and the two wires were put close
together before the circuit was closed, the wires would want to repel each
other due to their currents flowing in opposite directions.  If they did
repel each other only 1/4", then 833,702,726 pounds or 416,850 tons of wire
would have been  moved!  That's roughly the weight of 208,000 large
automobiles.  What if the voltage source was a AAA battery 1.5v?

Figure 2.
CIRCUIT LENGTH 1 LIGHT HOUR (669,600,000 MILES)
FROM VOLTAGE SOURCE TO POINT E (1,339,200,000 MILES
TOTAL CIRCUIT LENGTH)

             switch    light
   ___________    _____ (Y)_____________________
   |             /           C    ^            |
   |            /                 |            |
 A | (+)                          |            |
-------                           |            |
|     | Direct Current            |            |
|     | Voltage Source            |            | E
|     |                           |            |
-------                          6 ft.         |
 B | (-)                          |            |
   |                              |            |
   |                         D    v            |
   _____________________________________________
            \
             \___________ Superconducting Wire


6.  If you were to put a light bulb a few feet from the positive terminal
in the circuit, and as the two magnetic fields meet at point E, you were to
short out the circuit at the switch shown in figure 2 at switching time =
0, the current would decrease exponentially to zero, during this time, (
this inductive time constant needs to be calculated ) the light bulb would
continue to burn, though decreasing in brightness.  This would take place
with the voltage source disconnected!  This takes place after the light
burned for one hour during the original pulse!

SUMMARY

1. The inductive time constant of this circuit is at this point unknown to
me. This time constant is, in my opinion, the governing factor in the
behavior of this circuit. This value needs to be formulated.

2.  The wave properties of the magnetic field that surround the conductor
need to be analyzed, if indeed they do exist.

3.  The total amount of energy stored in the magnetic field for a given
current flow would be of interest also.

4.  The circuit, I believe, needs to be mathematically verified.  If one
looks deeper into the possible behavior of this circuit, much can be
learned and made available to the student.  Certain anomalies with respect
to energy conservation laws will have to be explained. This simple circuit
as part of a thought experiment might explain some of the over-unity claims
being reported in this country (i.e., Joseph Newman) and in JAPAN and other
countries.  If we cannot or simply will not take the time to analyze the
behavior of this circuit, that is, the cemf, with respect to wave
properties, inductive time constant, and the total energy of the magnetic
field, and the total power available from that field, we will continue to
work within a science of which we don't fully understand the fundamentals.
I would greatly appreciate anyone willing to help in verifying this circuit
behavior.

Figure 3. (Please draw lines connecting the asterisks)
[Drawn lines actually intersect the horizontal & cross over]

Expanding Field              Collapsing Field
(being pumped)                  (pumping)
    \             *                /
     \                            /
      \ *                     *  /               *

*                                      *
------------------------------------------solid conductor
*                                      *

        *                     *                  *

                   *

Figure 4. (Please draw lines connecting the asterisks)
[Drawn lines actually intersect the horizontal & cross over]
(Vertically compressed versions of Figure 3]


             *                          *
       *            *            *              *
*                         *                            *
-----------------------------solid conductor------------
*                         *                            *
       *            *            *              *
             *                          *


H. W. (BUTCH) LA FONTE
119 ROBERT E. LEE AVE.
LEEDS, ALABAMA  35094
PHONE-1-205-699-5364
FAX- 1-205-699-5141
E-MAIL   hlafonte aol.com

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 23:34:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA29295;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:32:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:32:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210100b58734e45369 [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
References: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:32:19 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wlQvE2.0.L97.0KOOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36042
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Recent experiments have proven what I always thought: Bernoulli's law 
is the lesser component of why wings work. Mostly they grab air and 
hurl it downwards.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul  3 23:56:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA01002;
	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:55:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:55:09 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b5872e882e9d [207.8.127.2]>
In-Reply-To: <200007040545.BAA17007 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:43:11 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fy94A3.0.aF.CfOOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36043
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitch writes:
>>***{Excellent question. I, also, read that bit about flying upside down,
>>many years ago. The answer is that when an aircraft with cambered airfoils
>>is flown right-side-up, the chordline--the straight line connecting the
>>front of the wing to the back--is roughly horizontal. That means the angle
>>of attack (the angle between the chordline and the horizontal) is zero. In
>>such a case, the stagnation point (i.e., where the airflow divides at the
>>front of the wing) is on the chordline. In that configuration, the distance
>>from the stagnation point over the top of the wing is greater than the
>>corresponding distance over the bottom of the wing, and the lift vector
>>points through the top of the wing. However, when an aircraft with a
>>cambered airfoil is flown upside down, the angle of attack must be very
>>large. The reason: it is necessary to move the stagnation point far enough
>>so that, once again, the pathway from the stagnation point over the "top"
>>of the wing (i.e., over the bottom of the upside-down wing) is longer than
>>the corresponding pathway over the "bottom" of the wing! In other words,
>>Bernoulli's law explains both right-side-up flight and upside-down flight.
>>Neat, eh? --Mitchell Jones}***
>
>Yeah, I think I got it, and if what you are saying is correct, then a lot
>more thrust is not necessary to stay flying, although the increased angle of
>attack may decrease the speed of flight somewhat.  Is that right?

***{Yes, but you need to be far above stall speed and at high altitude the
first time you try it. The reason: if you stall out when you are upside
down, one possible result is a tailspin, which is *not* a situation a
novice pilot wants to be in. Also, as you correctly surmised, the high
angle of attack increases drag and, other things equal, will slow the
aircraft. (Drag increases because the cross-sectional area of the aircraft
perpendicular to the direction of motion increases.) --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  Tue Jul  4 00:08:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04648;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:07:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:07:15 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 03:07:04 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040707.DAA28663 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: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"V-R0_1.0.O81.WqOOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36044
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick writes:
>Recent experiments have proven what I always thought: Bernoulli's law 
>is the lesser component of why wings work. Mostly they grab air and 
>hurl it downwards.

I've read this too, but have never been able to visualize it.  There weren't
any accompanying diagrams to what I read, and the way it was presented was
something along the lines of "BERNOULLI'S LAW A FRAUD!!!", so I didn't give
it too much consideration.  What I wanted to know was what imaging
techniques the researchers used to determine this.  Schleiren Photography is
used in tanks of water to get the wavefront characteristics of transducers
for example, and I've always thought that it might be a good method of
imaging air currents as well.  It might be a real boon for pilots of small
planes and hang gliders if the gear could be made small and light enough.
It may also be possible to do some useful thermal imaging with IR, and it
wouldn't take near the same amount of computing power or electronic gear.  I
would think that it would be pretty cool to be able to see those crosswinds
and weird air pockets before you hit them.

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 Jul  4 00:11:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA05645;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:10:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:10:37 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 03:10:29 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040710.DAA29194 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: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"RIpkW2.0.7O1.jtOOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36045
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitch writes:

>***{Yes, but you need to be far above stall speed and at high altitude the
>first time you try it. The reason: if you stall out when you are upside
>down, one possible result is a tailspin, which is *not* a situation a
>novice pilot wants to be in. Also, as you correctly surmised, the high
>angle of attack increases drag and, other things equal, will slow the
>aircraft. (Drag increases because the cross-sectional area of the aircraft
>perpendicular to the direction of motion increases.) --MJ}***

Thanks, and it also occurred to me that this maneuver should not be tried
while wearing the traditional garb of a Scotsman.

Knuke - Elvis is my Co-Pilot
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 Jul  4 00:50:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA14573;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:49:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:49:10 -0700
Message-ID: <39617A7C.8246F673 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:47:40 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: airfoil lift not caused by Bernoulli effect
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WSe3Z1.0.dZ3.sRPOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36046
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

July 4 2000   Hi Vorts,  We had a discussion about this, I believe in
spring, 1997... the Bernoulli effect provides only about 5 % of the
lift.
A wing has to be curved convex on the upper surface to produce
lift without turbulence, because the air flow sticks to the wing as
a low-friction boundary layer, attracted to the surface by Van
der Waals intermolecular forces, so as the moving sheet of air is
pulled down, the wing is pulled up, a la Newton's Law of equal and
opposite reaction.  That is why if you direct a air flow along the
edge of a ping pong ball by blowing through a soda straw, the
ball will be pulled into the tangential air flow, which tends to
stick to the ball and bend a little around it.

Rich Murray


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 01:47:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA29820;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:47:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:47:22 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 04:47:17 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040847.EAA10901 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: airfoil lift not caused by Bernoulli effect
Resent-Message-ID: <"4suLh3.0.sH7.PIQOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36047
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rich writes:
>July 4 2000   Hi Vorts,  We had a discussion about this, I believe in
>spring, 1997... the Bernoulli effect provides only about 5 % of the
>lift.
>A wing has to be curved convex on the upper surface to produce
>lift without turbulence, because the air flow sticks to the wing as
>a low-friction boundary layer, attracted to the surface by Van
>der Waals intermolecular forces, so as the moving sheet of air is
>pulled down, the wing is pulled up, a la Newton's Law of equal and
>opposite reaction.  That is why if you direct a air flow along the
>edge of a ping pong ball by blowing through a soda straw, the
>ball will be pulled into the tangential air flow, which tends to
>stick to the ball and bend a little around it.
>
>Rich Murray

Hi Rich,

Was there any actual imaging technique used to determine this that you know of?

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 Jul  4 07:28:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA13932;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:28:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:28:10 -0700
Message-ID: <002001bfe5c4$01a05a20$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation> <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000@eskimo.com> <tko2ms47b5beapa8m855ejeefdnb10d90r@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:27:04 -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: <"IDgKT1.0.YP3.wHVOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36048
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


----- Original Message -----
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?


> In reply to  William Beaty's message of Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:29:02 -0700
> (PDT):
> [snip]
> >Is everyone enjoying the "aerodynamics conspiracy" thread?  It has
nothing
> >to do with CF or ZPE devices.  Heh.  I guess it's distantly related to
>
> It may however have some bearing on fuel usage by the airlines, and thus
on
> global warming. However as I am subscribed to all vortex lists, I don't
> really care which one it crops up on.
> [snip]

Personally, I don't like being called a Nazi and moron over aerodynamic
issues that the other person is completely ignorant of. I would rather this
discussion be moved to someplace else where I am not subscribed to.
I would rather all messages by people who make it a irrational, personal
issue have their post moved to somewhere else, preferably a trash bin.

Steve Lajoie

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 08:12:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA29647;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:11:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:11:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20000704151101.58575.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.86.187.236]
From: "Goodlin Chalmers" <goodlin_c hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Cc: goodlink mindspring.com
Subject: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3, 2000
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:11:01 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bh0Yp3.0.9F7.pwVOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36049
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

With regard to Mr. Lajoie's six emails on the Burnelli subject of July 2 and 
July 3, 2000:

It is pointless to dwell on theory when there is a plethora of factual 
evidence at hand, which proves that the Burnelli configuration totally 
outclasses the streamlined fuselage designs. For example, let us go back to 
1948 when the USAF conducted a flight-test evaluation of the Burnelli CBY-3 
at Wright Field. Shortly afterwards the Defense Department ordered a 
conventional design of similar size to be built in Canada called the AC-1A. 
Both the Burnelli CBY-3 and the AC-1A were powered by the same engines & 
both licensed by Canadian Dept. Of Transport. Both were licensed at gross 
weights of 28,500 lbs. and by using total horsepower value (2,900) as a 
common denominator and extracting all values from Defense Dept. Flight test 
reports, it's possible to compare salient efficiency:

                                Burnelli CBY-3     AC-1A

Volume per hp-cu.ft.                 0.713         0.373

Floor area per hp - sq. in.          19.17         8.74

Useful load per hp - lbs             3.45          2.48

Cruise speed per hp - knots          0.51          0.507

We see the Burnelli CBY-3 excels in every respect over the conventional but 
the Defense Dept. bought the AC-1A. The AC-1A proved to be totally 
unsatisfactory and by 1960 the U.S. Army was demanding more adequate 
transportation. In February 1962, the US Army Air Materiel Command issued a 
scorching report condemning the AC-1A and the suggested replacement, the 
AC-II (see http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/pdf/compeval.pdf.)

This report caused congress to demand a new competition and that the 
Burnelli Company be invited to participate. The competition was held and 
Burnelli entered an upgraded version of the CBY-3 designated the MCBY-100 
and powered by the same T-64 engines as the other entries. This competition 
turned out to be a pure sham affair as the contract was awarded to the 
manufacturer of the AC-1A in spite of the damning report mentioned above and 
the superiority of the Burnelli design as follows:

                                Burnelli MCBY-100     AC-II

Volume per hp-cu.ft.                     0.498         0.275

Floor area per hp - sq. ft.              0.081         0.048

Useful load per hp - lbs                 4.456         2.973

Cruise speed per hp - knots              0.042         0.035

Take-off distance over 50ft

  Obstacle - full gross weight           690 ft        1,410 ft

Landing distance over 50 ft

  Obstacle - 34,000 lbs

  gross weight.                          800 ft        1,060 ft

Now, let's jump to 1973 and the Boeing 754 which employed Burnelli 
technology. Here are the actual Boeing figures comparing the freight 
carrying capability of the Burnelli-type Boeing 754 with the Boeing 767 (see 
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cnsp8.htm and following page).

Boeing 754 comparison with Boeing 767:

(see http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/754v767.jpg)

When the Burnelli Company became aware of the Boeing 754, a letter was 
written to Boeing pointing out that the B-754 violated the Burnelli patent 
and intellectual property rights but that the Burnelli Company would be glad 
to negotiate a license agreement with the Boeing Company. The Boeing Company 
responded saying that while:

"… we have considered such lifting-body aircraft in our studies; however, 
other designs appear more promising to us at this time. Accordingly, we are 
not interested in acquiring patent or proprietary rights from the Burnelli 
Company." (Boeing letter of June 13, 1977 Ref: 6-1101-9-227)

Nothing further was heard on the B-754 since that time.

The Boeing Company has now again complimented the Burnelli principle of 
design by proceeding with the Boeing-NASA Blended Wing Body, which is a 
clear copy of Mr. Burnelli's 1940s technology (see 
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/megajet.jpg).

With all respect the above examples clearly point out that the Burnelli 
configuration offers much greater value per horse-power employed while 
offering much lower take-off and landing speeds and providing unparalleled 
safety advantages.

With regard to your inquiry about Northrop's relationship to Burnelli, it is 
my opinion that Northrop was a "Johnny come lately" in the lifting body / 
flying-wing field. I refer you to George Larson's (present editor of the 
Smithsonian Air & Space magazine) article "The Flying Wing" which appeared 
in Business and Commercial Aviation, March 1985:

"Americans, too, were active in tailless design. The first to touch on the 
concept was Vincent Burnelli, who really aimed at the span-loader idea with 
a "lifting body" fuselage shaped like an airfoil intended to contribute to 
lift. (Anyone who has seen an experimental design called the Hyperbipe 
perform its aerobatics routine in air shows can imagine Burnelli's design 
without seeing it in a photograph.) And then there was Northrop." (complete 
text see: http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/pdf/larson.pdf).

Strangely, since joining the Smithsonian, Mr. Larson seems to have forgotten 
what he wrote in 1985. (see http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/si_gcl1r.htm.)

You must admit that the B-2 is a copy of Burnelli's 1940s technology and not 
a derivative of Northrop's B-49 technology.

Regarding your questions about the Burnelli Company: this company dates back 
to 1921 when it was known as the Remington-Burnelli Company and in the 
interim other Burnelli interests have been merged into it. It owns all 
patent, proprietary and intellectual property rights relating to Burnelli 
Lifting-Body principle of design. The Burnelli Company is not listed on the 
New York Stock Exchange for the simple reason that the Department of Defense 
notified the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1958 that there was no 
market for Burnelli airplanes for the following reasons:

"a. That the Burnelli 'lifting fuselage' design does not offer sufficient 
new or novel ideas of military value to warrant the construction of 
experimental or production airplanes.
b. That the principal aerodynamic benefits claimed by V.J. Burnelli have 
been achieved on present experimental and production airplanes through the 
use of properly shaped streamlined bodies upon which low drag rather than 
high lift has been emphasized.
c. That the Burnelli emphasis upon the 'lifting fuselage' is not in 
accordance with best aeronautical practice based upon best aerodynamic 
information, since such a fuselage has a relatively low critical speed which 
definitely limits the future development of this type of airplane."

These above-listed asseverations stem from the fraudulent 1941 U.S. Army Air 
Corps Proceedings of a Board of Review Report (see: 
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/aircorps.htm) which was politically 
motivated to eliminate Mr. Burnelli and his company from the procurement 
scene. This behavior on the part of the Department of Defense has been 
supported by the aircraft industry in general for obvious commercial 
reasons.

Any qualified aeronautical engineer will recognize the glaring contradiction 
between these three asseverations and the claims made by McDonnell Douglas - 
now Boeing - with regards to their BWB (see 
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/bwb.htm.)

All of the above shows that the Burnelli Company has always had the superior 
product and that it has been denied its inalienable right to compete in the 
marketplace by criminal conspiracy on the part of the Department of Defense, 
industry and others which President Eisenhower referred to as the 
military-industrial complex.

You are not correct in saying that the aircrash web-site does not duplicate 
or support Mr. Jones' claims in regard to safety factors, the truth is that 
the public has been forced to fly in streamlined fuselage airliners, which 
are fundamentally flawed. What could be more stupid than the common practice 
of hanging engines and landing-gear on fuel-tank supporting structure in 
combination with excessively high take-off and landing-speeds on 
over-stressed tires? The Burnelli configuration does not suffer from these 
flaws which are inherent in the streamlined fuselage designs.

As you work for Boeing, we assume you are a graduate aeronautical engineer 
from one of the leading universities, as you like to talk about litigation, 
you might consider the wisdom of claiming a rebate of your college tuition 
because your university failed to alert you to the importance of America's 
greatest aeronautical genius, Vincent Justus Burnelli and the Burnelli 
Lifting Body principle of design. (see also 
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/fawcett.htm.)

I hope you'll take the time to really seriously view the aircrash web-site 
which contains abundant material of great educational value.

With best regards,

Chalmers H. Goodlin



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 09:26:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17495;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:25:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:25:47 -0700
Message-ID: <3961F386.AB4F6682 earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 08:24:06 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: convex boulders lifted by flowing water
References: <200007040847.EAA10901 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6owYH3.0.HH4.B0XOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36050
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 4 2000   Hello Michael Huffman,  Probably it's been done, but
mostly it's evident from simple theory.  I've watched the same thing
happen to boulders in the bed of an arroyo during a heavy rain that
produced a 2 foot deep flow 20 feet wide: as the water rushed over
the convex upper surface of the boulder, it would be lifted up into
the water and carried downstream.  Only part of the weight was
supported by static buoyancy in the dense, silt-ladened water.
To prevent my 2 foot high dam of boulders from being carried
away rock by rock, I set up jagged boulders in front to disrupt
the water flow and creat turbulence, that prevented the linear
flow that promotes the lift process.   Rich Murray

Michael T Huffman wrote:

> Rich writes:
> >July 4 2000   Hi Vorts,  We had a discussion about this, I believe in
> >spring, 1997... the Bernoulli effect provides only about 5 % of the
> >lift.
> >A wing has to be curved convex on the upper surface to produce
> >lift without turbulence, because the air flow sticks to the wing as
> >a low-friction boundary layer, attracted to the surface by Van
> >der Waals intermolecular forces, so as the moving sheet of air is
> >pulled down, the wing is pulled up, a la Newton's Law of equal and
> >opposite reaction.  That is why if you direct a air flow along the
> >edge of a ping pong ball by blowing through a soda straw, the
> >ball will be pulled into the tangential air flow, which tends to
> >stick to the ball and bend a little around it.
> >
> >Rich Murray
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> Was there any actual imaging technique used to determine this that you know of?
>
> 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 Jul  4 10:16:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA31286;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:15:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:15:32 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b5873aa207ee [207.8.127.2]>
In-Reply-To: <v04210100b58734e45369 [192.168.0.2]>
References: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
 <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:13:16 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZrasE1.0.me7.pkXOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36051
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Recent experiments have proven what I always thought: Bernoulli's law
>is the lesser component of why wings work. Mostly they grab air and
>hurl it downwards.

***{Hi Rick. Bernoulli's law, as previously noted, states that every unit
volume of a homogeneous fluid at thermal equilibrium possesses the same
total energy as any other unit volume. Written in the full form, it states
that P + U + K = C, where P is pressure energy, U is potential energy, K is
kinetic energy, and C is a constant. In the case of a cambered airfoil at
low angles of attack, variations in potential energy are negligible from
the top of the airfoil to the bottom, and can be neglected. Thus we have: P
+ K = C.

To determine the lift of an airfoil your way, we would have to determine
the pressure differences between differentially small volumes on opposite
sides of the airfoil, average those differences (using calculus) and then
multiply the average times the cross sectional are of the wing parallel to
the direction of motion. Comparing two such differentially small volumes on
a vertical line, but on opposite sides of the wing, we find that Pt + Kt =
Pb + Kb, where the subscripts t and b represent the top and bottom of the
wing, respectively. Result: Pb - Pt = Kt - Kb. Since Pb - Pt is the lift
exerted across the wing along a specific vertical line, and since it equals
the kinetic energy difference from the top of the wing to the bottom, it
follows that we don't need to consider the pressure difference to determine
the lift. Using the kinetic energy difference Kt - Kb will work equally
well. Result: the approach you are suggesting--i.e., using the pressure
difference Pb - Pt to calculate lift--is mathematically equivalent to the
traditional approach of using the kinetic energy difference Kt - Kb.

In actual practice, of course, calculus is not used to calculate lift. The
reason: force equals average pressure difference times area, and thus it
follows that, if the actual upward force on the wing were known, it would
have the form (Pa)A, where Pa is the average value of the pressure
differences, and A is the cross sectional area of the lifting surface
parallel to the direction of motion. In other words lift, L, is such that L
= (Pa)A. But, as we have seen, the average value of Pb - Pt is the same as
the average value of Kt - Kb. That means we can substitute Ka, the average
value of the kinetic energy difference across the wing, for Pa, obtaining:

L = (Ka)A.

After examining the above, it was at some point conjectured that, to
approximate accuracy, Ka = Cl[(1/2)DV^2], which gives L = Cl[(1/2)DV^2]A,
and this was subsequently verified by wind tunnel experiments. In this
formula, Cl is a constant known as the coefficient of lift (which must be
determined by measurements that use a scale model of the aircraft in a wind
tunnel), D is the density of the air, V is the airspeed of the aircraft,
and A is the cross-sectional area of its lifting surfaces parallel to the
direction of motion. Needless to say, it is for the most part pointless to
go through the complexities of an exact Bernoulli's law calculation, when
in the vast majority of cases this simple rule of thumb works perfectly
well.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 12:49:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA19163;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:47:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:47:43 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210102b587ef66fdb5 [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <002001bfe5c4$01a05a20$0601a8c0 federation>
References: <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation>
 <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000 eskimo.com>
 <tko2ms47b5beapa8m855ejeefdnb10d90r 4ax.com>
 <002001bfe5c4$01a05a20$0601a8c0 federation>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:47:04 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ihwHY.0.Ih4.UzZOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36052
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 7:27 AM -0700 7/4/00, Steve Lajoie wrote:

>Personally, I don't like being called a Nazi and moron over aerodynamic
>issues that the other person is completely ignorant of.

And since that never happened in the thread, I gues you've got 
nothing to complain about, right?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 13:19:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27636;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:18:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:18:34 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210103b587f15f7477 [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <v04011703b5873aa207ee [207.8.127.2]>
References: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
 <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
 <v04011703b5873aa207ee [207.8.127.2]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:18:27 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6xJhw.0.kl6.PQaOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36053
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell -

As is getting to be usual these days, there's this little, seemingly 
insignificant glitch between a common math application which works, 
and the relevance of that math to the reality underlying and 
*causing* the physical processes they describe. It comes down, as 
your post clearly describes, to the situation where we have been 
describing the same set of events from different starting points or 
perspectives. I think there are problems that arise when people 
assume that in limited sets of circumstances like that, the math 
describing them will always map out nicely to the extremities, and 
will also explain the problem of cause and effect as well ("FTL is 
impossible because..."). Math is seductive like that; it's so exact, 
and defensible with self-fulfilling logic. But I think true 
understanding of processes is a lot harder than that.

Thorough cause and effect descriptions seems to need fundamental 
definitions of things at a level where science currently doesn't yet 
have much to offer, i.e. 'what is electricity and magnetism and which 
causes which' etc. as Schnurer just asked. Textbooks describe the 
Bernoulli effect with venturis and curved upper surfaces. None I 
recall mention Van der Waals forces (which presumably includes the 
Casimir force - hey, airplanes fly on ZPE?! Why not, geckos walk with 
it.) in this context, which given the need for basic simplicity and 
focus is understandable. But then it just gets left there, and little 
questions like planes flying upside down start to cause people 
problems.

Sometimes I feel like the irritating little kid who just keeps 
whining "why?" to the question that every explanation inevitably 
leaves dangling behind itself. Brat!

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

 
>***{Hi Rick. Bernoulli's law, as previously noted, states that every unit
>volume of a homogeneous fluid at thermal equilibrium possesses the same
>total energy as any other unit volume. Written in the full form, it states
>that P + U + K = C, where P is pressure energy, U is potential energy, K is
>kinetic energy, and C is a constant. In the case of a cambered airfoil at
>low angles of attack, variations in potential energy are negligible from
>the top of the airfoil to the bottom, and can be neglected. Thus we have: P
>+ K = C.

[snip]

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 13:38:42 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA01947;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:37:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:37:49 -0700
Message-ID: <008101bfe5f7$a3536e60$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <20000704151101.58575.qmail hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3, 2000
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:37:11 -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: <"Fh7D13.0.GU.TiaOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36054
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I'm not speaking for Boeing, just myself!

----- Original Message -----
From: Goodlin Chalmers <goodlin_c hotmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <goodlink mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 8:11 AM
Subject: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3, 2000


> With regard to Mr. Lajoie's six emails on the Burnelli subject of July 2
and
> July 3, 2000:
>
> It is pointless to dwell on theory when there is a plethora of factual
> evidence at hand, which proves that the Burnelli configuration totally
> outclasses the streamlined fuselage designs.

You fail to explain what exactly is the Burnelli claim to uniqueness, so
you could be comparing apples to oranges for all anyone knows. We
must first define terms before we can talk about them.

[snip]

> We see the Burnelli CBY-3 excels in every respect

In the four areas that you present, apparently so.  But there are many
other issues regarding airworthness, dispatch reliability, and so on
that you don't even address.

[snip]

> When the Burnelli Company became aware of the Boeing 754, a letter was
> written to Boeing pointing out that the B-754 violated the Burnelli patent
> and intellectual property rights but that the Burnelli Company would be
glad
> to negotiate a license agreement with the Boeing Company. The Boeing
Company
> responded saying that while:

>From what I've read, the reason why no one built the Burnelli design was
that he refused to license the design to anyone and wanted to build them
himself. The banks were reluctant to fund this, given the already crowded
airplane industry. Hardly a conspiracy, simply bad management.

> ". we have considered such lifting-body aircraft in our studies; however,
> other designs appear more promising to us at this time. Accordingly, we
are
> not interested in acquiring patent or proprietary rights from the Burnelli
> Company." (Boeing letter of June 13, 1977 Ref: 6-1101-9-227)

A bit before my time. But so what? Boeing has looked at many designs
and, after consideration, rejects them. Nothing sinister in that. Like any
other design it was considered and rejected.

I've noted that neither Boeing nor Douglas minded paying reasonable
license fees on patents.

> license further was heard on the B-754 since that time.

What patents were at issue?  Didn't the original patent protection
end after 20 years?

> The Boeing Company has now again complimented the Burnelli principle of
> design by proceeding with the Boeing-NASA Blended Wing Body, which is a
> clear copy of Mr. Burnelli's 1940s technology (see
> http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/megajet.jpg).

Again, without a clear definition of what is claimed in the patent,
it is difficult to tell if this is what is protected or not. I note you have
not been forthcoming in that definition.

> With all respect the above examples clearly point out that the Burnelli
> configuration offers much greater value per horse-power employed while
> offering much lower take-off and landing speeds and providing unparalleled
> safety advantages.

What, exactly, are the claimed safety advantages, and please
describe how they are unique to a Burnelli design, once you
tell is what, exactly, the Burnelli design is, and what patent that
is in force that it violates.

> With regard to your inquiry about Northrop's relationship to Burnelli, it
is
> my opinion that Northrop was a "Johnny come lately" in the lifting body /
> flying-wing field.

Yes, this and the snipped portion didn't address my question:
What is the difference between the Northrup and Burnelli design?

[snip]

> You must admit that the B-2 is a copy of Burnelli's 1940s technology and
not
> a derivative of Northrop's B-49 technology.

The B-2 looks a lot more like Northrup's 1940's technology to me.
Again, what are the claims being made by Burnelli, and what current
patent protects those claims from being used by others?

> Regarding your questions about the Burnelli Company: this company dates
back
> to 1921 when it was known as the Remington-Burnelli Company and in the
> interim other Burnelli interests have been merged into it. It owns all
> patent, proprietary and intellectual property rights relating to Burnelli
> Lifting-Body principle of design. The Burnelli Company is not listed on
the
> New York Stock Exchange for the simple reason that the Department of
Defense
> notified the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1958 that there was no
> market for Burnelli airplanes for the following reasons:

I asked about market cap, sales, and book value exclusing what you
perceive as assets from litigation. You have not answered those questions.

Further, the SEC, not the DoD, determins who can list shares. A
company need not be traded on the NYSE, either. Microsoft,
for example, is listed on the NASDAQ. What you seem to be
telling me is that your company isn't a public one. The SEC doesn't
care if a company doesn't produce products for the military market,
either.

[snip stuff where the DoD says that the Burnelli design is not good
design practice and not sufficently novel.]

Not exactly making your case there...

> These above-listed asseverations stem from the fraudulent 1941 U.S. Army
Air
> Corps Proceedings of a Board of Review Report (see:
> http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/aircorps.htm) which was politically
> motivated to eliminate Mr. Burnelli and his company from the procurement
> scene.

That's a flat assertion with no supporting evidence.

> This behavior on the part of the Department of Defense has been
> supported by the aircraft industry in general for obvious commercial
> reasons.

Ditto.

> Any qualified aeronautical engineer will recognize the glaring
contradiction
> between these three asseverations and the claims made by McDonnell
Douglas -
> now Boeing - with regards to their BWB (see
> http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/bwb.htm.)
>
> All of the above shows that the Burnelli Company has always had the
superior
> product

What product would that be, exactly?

> and that it has been denied its inalienable right to compete in the
> marketplace by criminal conspiracy on the part of the Department of
Defense,
> industry and others which President Eisenhower referred to as the
> military-industrial complex.

Can you PROVE criminal action? I'm sorry, but to me it looks like
this criminal conspiracy stuff is to serve your own interest and there
is simply no evidence for it.

> You are not correct in saying that the aircrash web-site does not
duplicate
> or support Mr. Jones' claims in regard to safety factors, the truth is
that
> the public has been forced to fly in streamlined fuselage airliners, which
> are fundamentally flawed.

I see, you agree with Mr. Jones then about landing at high speeds
if the wind conditions are unfavorable. :-)

> What could be more stupid than the common practice
> of hanging engines and landing-gear on fuel-tank supporting structure in
> combination with excessively high take-off and landing-speeds on
> over-stressed tires? The Burnelli configuration does not suffer from these
> flaws which are inherent in the streamlined fuselage designs.

As I said, I see nothing unique about the issues raised on the website
wrt one design or the other. Note the C-17 uses landing gear pods
on the main fusilage, so landing gear isn't unique to Burnelli. The
727 & DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 hangs engines on the fusilage, so
that's not unique to Burnelli, either. And many airplanes don't have
a center fuel tank.

For various reasons that have nothing to do with Burnelli design,
they are put where they are put. Nothing about conventional
design REQUIRES them to be where they are.

[snip gratuitus insult]

Insults don't make your case, do they?

> I hope you'll take the time to really seriously view the aircrash web-site
> which contains abundant material of great educational value.

The shrill tone of the aircrash website doesn't allow any serious
consideration.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 13:45:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03774;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:44:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:44:33 -0700
Message-ID: <009001bfe5f8$950758c0$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation><Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12412A-100000@eskimo.com><tko2ms47b5beapa8m855ejeefdnb10d90r@4ax.com><002001bfe5c4$01a05a20$0601a8c0@federation> <v04210102b587ef66fdb5@[192.168.0.2]>
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:43:56 -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: <"NyaQe1.0.uw.moaOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36055
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?


> At 7:27 AM -0700 7/4/00, Steve Lajoie wrote:
> 
> >Personally, I don't like being called a Nazi and moron over aerodynamic
> >issues that the other person is completely ignorant of.
> 
> And since that never happened in the thread, I gues you've got 
> nothing to complain about, right?
 
>From Mitchell Jones' Monday, July 03 2000 5:39 PM addition to
the e-mail list, in responce to my well known statement that airplanes
bank while turning...

"***{Sure you can, you moron: if you keep the rudder hard to the right and
the wings level"

I don't even care to address how wrong he is. 

And you will note that his original subject is about a fascist conspiracy.

It appears you are not well informed. 
 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 14:52:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26002;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 14:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 14:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b58804b155db [207.8.127.50]>
In-Reply-To: <v04210103b587f15f7477 [192.168.0.2]>
References: <v04011703b5873aa207ee [207.8.127.2]>
 <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
 <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
 <v04011703b5873aa207ee [207.8.127.2]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:47:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law
Resent-Message-ID: <"-LI_g.0.5M6.8mbOv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36056
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell -
>
>As is getting to be usual these days, there's this little, seemingly
>insignificant glitch between a common math application which works,
>and the relevance of that math to the reality underlying and
>*causing* the physical processes they describe. It comes down, as
>your post clearly describes, to the situation where we have been
>describing the same set of events from different starting points or
>perspectives. I think there are problems that arise when people
>assume that in limited sets of circumstances like that, the math
>describing them will always map out nicely to the extremities, and
>will also explain the problem of cause and effect as well ("FTL is
>impossible because..."). Math is seductive like that; it's so exact,
>and defensible with self-fulfilling logic. But I think true
>understanding of processes is a lot harder than that.
>
>Thorough cause and effect descriptions seems to need fundamental
>definitions of things at a level where science currently doesn't yet
>have much to offer, i.e. 'what is electricity and magnetism and which
>causes which' etc. as Schnurer just asked. Textbooks describe the
>Bernoulli effect with venturis and curved upper surfaces. None I
>recall mention Van der Waals forces (which presumably includes the
>Casimir force - hey, airplanes fly on ZPE?! Why not, geckos walk with
>it.) in this context, which given the need for basic simplicity and
>focus is understandable. But then it just gets left there, and little
>questions like planes flying upside down start to cause people
>problems.
>
>Sometimes I feel like the irritating little kid who just keeps
>whining "why?" to the question that every explanation inevitably
>leaves dangling behind itself. Brat!

***{You are right, of course: Bernoulli's law is just another of those
pesky mathematical constructs that have been fitted to experimentally
determined data points. It doesn't provide a visualizable model of the
causal processes that are going on--i.e., of the billiard-ball collisions
between lesser particles that, in the aggregate, give rise to the
mathematical relationships--any more than Newton's law of universal
gravitation does so. If you are interested in such things then you would,
in a rational world, naturally find yourself motivated to take up
theoretical physics. Unfortunately, in the "modern" world where, thanks to
"quantum mechanics," we are taught that billiard-ball causality doesn't
apply to the microcosm, the distinction between theoretical and
mathematical physics has been lost. Result: people such as yourself have no
calling, are by default relegated to roles as gadflies and irritants, and
are normally labeled as "cranks" by people who, in a rational world,
wouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet. It's a sad, sorry state of
affairs, but, unfortunately, it is also the world we live in. :-(
--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 15:19:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25308;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:18:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:18:38 -0700
Message-Id: <200007042218.SAA23652 maynard.mail.mindspring.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3, 2000
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:13:12 -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: <"V8Zhy1.0.FB6.zAcOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36057
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

----------
> From: Steve Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3,
2000
> Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 3:37 PM
> 
> I'm not speaking for Boeing, just myself!

We get the point dammit! You've said this too many times already. WE KNOW!
Unless you're going to reply to someone's point, then please refrain from
writing this same cryptic remark over and over. It wastes bandwidth and our
time.

Respectfully,
Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 16:01:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA02943;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:01:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:01:24 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3, 2000
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:00:48 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <53r4ms0oqufg08gkhbueppug7br9t5f4vf 4ax.com>
References: <200007042218.SAA23652 maynard.mail.mindspring.net>
In-Reply-To: <200007042218.SAA23652 maynard.mail.mindspring.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 QAA02917
Resent-Message-ID: <"NHH0D3.0.rj.4pcOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36058
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In reply to  Kyle R. Mcallister's message of Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:13:12 -0500:
[snip]
>> I'm not speaking for Boeing, just myself!
>
>We get the point dammit! You've said this too many times already. WE KNOW!
>Unless you're going to reply to someone's point, then please refrain from
>writing this same cryptic remark over and over. It wastes bandwidth and our
>time.
[snip]
Actually, to me it says "Boeing have warned me that I must include this
disclaimer".

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 Jul  4 16:02:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03120;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:02:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:02:03 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210100b5881c4764ab [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <009001bfe5f8$950758c0$0601a8c0 federation>
References: 
 <000d01bfe4b4$063bece0$0601a8c0 federation><Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703141837.12
 412A-100000 eskimo.com><tko2ms47b5beapa8m855ejeefdnb10d90r@4ax.com><002001
 bfe5c4$01a05a20$0601a8c0 federation>
 <v04210102b587ef66fdb5 [192.168.0.2]>
 <009001bfe5f8$950758c0$0601a8c0 federation>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:01:58 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: 'Aircraft conspiracy', on-topic or not?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hzEnM.0.Xm.hpcOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36059
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 1:43 PM -0700 7/4/00, Steve Lajoie wrote:

>It appears you are not well informed.

I'm as informed as well as need be, and you're complaining WAY too 
much about things that didn't happen. So take it off the forum please 
unless you have anything of substance to add to the topics here. 
Isn't there a newsgroup or something for people who just want to 
whine about having been (or have imagined to have been ) called 
names? Sheesh!

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 16:39:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA16750;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:39:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:39:09 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: OK, lets use vortexB for aircraft discussion
In-Reply-To: <v04210100b5881c4764ab [192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000704163236.19350I-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"BJiAH1.0.e54.SMdOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36060
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


OK, let's move the aircraft discussion to vortexB-L.

VortexB-L is the "off topic annex" for vortex-L.  It's a forum just like
vortex-L, but with no topic guidelines or rules.  To subscribe, send a
blank message to vortexB-L-request eskimo.com, and put the word
"subscribe" in the subject line.  Right now there are about a hundred
people on vortexB.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Jul  4 16:46:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19921;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:45:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:45:39 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Bernoulli's Law on vortexB
In-Reply-To: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000704164228.19350J-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vqfpe2.0.Bt4.ZSdOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36061
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote:

> Gnorts,
> 
> Somewhere in Mitch's comments about airplane design, he mentioned the famous
> Bernoulli's Law which describes how lift can be achieved with the correct
> geometric airfoil.  I was taught this explanation at a very young age, it
> made sense at the time, and I never really questioned it, but during my
> reading of some of these more public lists, one of The Hecklers asked, "If
> this wing shape provides lift in the manner so described, how is it that
> airplanes can fly upside-down?"

This is an extremely interesting topic (and don't get me started!)  But
like the lifting body topic, let's continue it on vortexB.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Jul  4 17:09:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29569;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:09:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:09:16 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:09:11 -0400
Message-Id: <200007050009.UAA10376 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: convex boulders lifted by flowing water
Resent-Message-ID: <"LI4eF3.0.rD7.iodOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36062
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Rich writes:

>July 4 2000   Hello Michael Huffman,  Probably it's been done, but
>mostly it's evident from simple theory.  I've watched the same thing
>happen to boulders in the bed of an arroyo during a heavy rain that
>produced a 2 foot deep flow 20 feet wide: as the water rushed over
>the convex upper surface of the boulder, it would be lifted up into
>the water and carried downstream.  Only part of the weight was
>supported by static buoyancy in the dense, silt-ladened water.
>To prevent my 2 foot high dam of boulders from being carried
>away rock by rock, I set up jagged boulders in front to disrupt
>the water flow and creat turbulence, that prevented the linear
>flow that promotes the lift process.   Rich Murray

That's pretty amazing really, I've never seen nor heard of anything like
that happening.  Given the obvious surface differences between say, a
polished or coated Aluminum airfoil and a boulder, even one with a convex
upper surface, I would still be hesitant to exactly what was happening here
in the fluid dynamic sense.  Intuitively, Van der Waal forces don't seem
like they would be large enough to explain lifting that much weight, unless
there were additional factors at play.  I'll continue to keep my eye open
for any additional information on it.

Thanks,
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 Jul  4 17:14:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA31262;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:14:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:14:06 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6 email messages of July 2 & 3, 2000
In-Reply-To: <53r4ms0oqufg08gkhbueppug7br9t5f4vf 4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000704171213.21271B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"aKYAg2.0.Oe7.DtdOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36063
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> In reply to  Kyle R. Mcallister's message of Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:13:12 -0500:
> [snip]
> >> I'm not speaking for Boeing, just myself!
> >
> >We get the point dammit! You've said this too many times already. WE KNOW!
> >Unless you're going to reply to someone's point, then please refrain from
> >writing this same cryptic remark over and over. It wastes bandwidth and our
> >time.
> [snip]
> Actually, to me it says "Boeing have warned me that I must include this
> disclaimer".

Yes. I am required to make it very clear that I don't speak for the Boeing
company and everything I write is my own opinion. Only stuff from Boeing's
Public Relation's office is "Boeing's Opinion".

I am sorry it is so annoying, but think of it as a sig file. Lots of
people have sig files that get printed over and over again. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul  4 20:22:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA25575;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:21:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:21:51 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5884ad1859e [207.8.127.97]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000704164228.19350J-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <200007040447.AAA06441 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:20:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law on vortexB
Resent-Message-ID: <"uvlqg.0.SF6.EdgOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36064
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote:
>
>> Gnorts,
>>
>> Somewhere in Mitch's comments about airplane design, he mentioned the famous
>> Bernoulli's Law which describes how lift can be achieved with the correct
>> geometric airfoil.  I was taught this explanation at a very young age, it
>> made sense at the time, and I never really questioned it, but during my
>> reading of some of these more public lists, one of The Hecklers asked, "If
>> this wing shape provides lift in the manner so described, how is it that
>> airplanes can fly upside-down?"
>
>This is an extremely interesting topic (and don't get me started!)  But
>like the lifting body topic, let's continue it on vortexB.

***{For the record: I stopped posting to vortexb-l long ago because it
isn't archived, which turns it essentially into a garbage chute. (With no
record of anything that ever happened there, it is as if it never happened
in my book.) If we are now going to have an important discussion of
Bernoulli's law--which has widespread applications throughout science--in
vortexb-l, then I think you should begin to archive that group, and humbly
request that you do so. (What can it hurt? The volume of posts in that
group is virtually zero anyway, right? :-) Thanks. --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  Tue Jul  4 22:53:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA28944;
	Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:53:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:53:10 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b58879306ca5 [207.8.127.131]>
In-Reply-To: <3961F386.AB4F6682 earthlink.net>
References: <200007040847.EAA10901 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:41:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: convex boulders lifted by flowing water
Resent-Message-ID: <"6lAe81.0.A47.6riOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36065
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rich Murray wrote:

>July 4 2000   Hello Michael Huffman,  Probably it's been done, but
>mostly it's evident from simple theory.  I've watched the same thing
>happen to boulders in the bed of an arroyo during a heavy rain that
>produced a 2 foot deep flow 20 feet wide: as the water rushed over
>the convex upper surface of the boulder, it would be lifted up into
>the water and carried downstream.

***{This sounds like a simple Bernoulli's law situation to me: water moving
freely over the top of the boulder would move at high velocity, while water
moving underneath would move very slowly or not at all, due to the rocks
and other obstructions lying along the bottom. Since the water is moving a
substantially higher velocity over the top of the boulder, and since each
unit volume of that water would carry the same total energy as equal
volumes of water underneath the boulder, it follows that the pressure
across the top would be *much* lower, thereby tending to lift the boulder
up. --MJ}***

  Only part of the weight was
>supported by static buoyancy in the dense, silt-ladened water.
>To prevent my 2 foot high dam of boulders from being carried
>away rock by rock, I set up jagged boulders in front to disrupt
>the water flow and creat turbulence, that prevented the linear
>flow that promotes the lift process.   Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 07:29:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA30962;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:28:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:28:49 -0700
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000705204548.00c3bd90 popmail.esa.lanl.gov>
X-Sender: claytor popmail.esa.lanl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:47:19 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Thomas N. Claytor" <claytor lanl.gov>
Subject: re: ICCF-8 TRIVIA
In-Reply-To: <39611397.C8FC82D1 ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vu2b52.0.iZ7.XOqOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36066
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Akira,
Yes, I just picked it up when I came in this morning. It looks perfect.
Tom.

At 03:28 PM 7/3/00 -0700, you wrote:
>July 3, 2000
>
>Tom,
>
>Get the fax ok?
>
>-AK-

http://www.nde.lanl.gov/staff/claytor/claytor.htm
Thomas N. Claytor	Claytor lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESA-MT, MS C914
Los Alamos NM, 87545
505-667-6216 voice
505-665-7176 fax

Shipping Address:

Thomas N. Claytor
Los Alamos National Lab
Receiving/SM 30
Bikini Atoll Rd
Los Alamos NM 87545
Attention: Drop Point 01S



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 09:00:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA00691;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:58:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:58:47 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.39]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: airfoil lift not caused by Bernoulli effect
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 08:58:12 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F117hib5COCHT8TXx3j00001885 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2000 15:58:12.0655 (UTC) FILETIME=[D28DB3F0:01BFE699]
Resent-Message-ID: <"OvQoG.0.iA.sirOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36067
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rich writes:

>We had a discussion about this, I believe in spring, 1997... the Bernoulli 
>effect provides only about 5 % of the lift.

Rick writes:
>Textbooks describe the Bernoulli effect with venturis and curved upper 
>surfaces. None I recall mention Van der Waals forces (which presumably 
>includes the Casimir force - hey, airplanes fly on ZPE?! Why not, geckos 
>walk  with it.) in this context, which given the need for basic simplicity 
>and focus is understandable. But then it just gets left there, and  little 
>questions like planes flying upside down start to cause people problems.
Sometimes I feel like the irritating little kid who just keeps whining 
"why?" to the question that every explanation inevitably
leaves dangling behind itself. Brat!

My reply;
And I just love being called a troll and ignored, but I have brought this 
issue up several times.

The lift is ZPE, I said it many times.  It is gravity pulling the more dense 
beneath the less dense thus pushing the less dense away.  Same thing in 
evaporation, hot air ballons, bubbles, even lightspeed.  Gravity will always 
fill and space of lesser density or lift it to its density threshold.

Ignoring it is not going got make it go away.  Ignorance is head in the 
sand.  Not seening this thread IS ZPE shows how far we have to go.

David



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 10:07:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28653;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:04:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:04:40 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b57e73d9d265 [207.8.127.56]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000627182453.0095a810 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
References: <v04011709b57dbe5f5e5b [207.8.127.56]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:03:04 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics  "Quantum Mechanical  
 Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"TxCsc.0.Z_6.dgsOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36068
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{Hi John. I'm sorry for the delay in responding to this. It was much
more interesting than most of the stuff I have been dealing with of late,
as you may have noticed. Unfortunately, detaching myself from that other
discussion was not easy. Anyway, better late than never! --MJ}***

>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.
>

John Winterflood wrote:

>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.

***{The point was that, in physics, mathematical relationships are
deliberately fitted to experimentally determined data points. Result: if,
when more data are obtained, a formula that formerly was a good fit begins
to come up short, it will be modified ("tweaked") or replaced outright
("tossed"). That means the relationship E = hf (Planck's formula) would not
have been applied if, when energy was plotted against frequency, the
resulting function had been non-linear. We continue to use it only because
it continues to "fit " the data. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{It depends on the nature of the oscillator. For example, the frequency
of a simple pendulum is directly proportional to the square root of the
gravitational force exerted by the attracting body, which means it will
have a lower frequency when swinging on the Moon than on the Earth, despite
the fact that the restoring force is proportional to the displacement
(Hooke's law). --MJ}***

 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).

***{You seem to think I advocate constructing physical analogies--that is,
macroscopic situations which exhibit the same behavior as microcosmic
phenonena--and that this is what I mean by the expression "visualizable
mental model." For the record: that isn't what I mean. By a visualizable
mental model, I refer to an image depicting, in terms of essentials, what
the actual phenomenon would look like, if we could see it. The atomic
model, for example, is not a physical analogy. Instead, it is an attempt to
imagine, in terms of essentials, what atoms would look like if we could
actually see them. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{Actually, he had the De Broglie equation (w = h/mv) more in mind at the
time, based on the accounts I have read. --MJ}***

 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.

***{Familiarity with an equation is not the same thing as having an
explanation. To explain a phenomenon, it is necessary to construct a
picture that resolves it into the lesser entities of which it is composed,
and shows how those entities interact to produce the effect. This is the
principle of classical reductionism: that all the phenomena of nature are
the result of the interactions of lesser entities.

A good example of the utter lack of explanatory power of an equation is
Newton's law of universal gravitation, F = GmM/r^2. Any student who has
taken an elementary physics course is familiar with the workings of this
equation--with what sorts of units to use and what the answers mean--yet
almost no one has a model that explains the equation in terms of the
interactions of lesser entities. To do that, something such as the LeSage
theory--which explains gravitation in terms of "ultramundane corpuscles"
that rain down on us from deep space at superluminal velocities, and push
nearby masses toward one another--is required.

As for your suggestion that it would never be possible to verify or falsify
a visualizable model of the causation underlying the Schroedinger equation,
I simply see no factual basis for that belief. You are attempting to
predict the future, which is a notoriously problematic enterprise.

--Mitchell Jones}***

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.

***{If newly collected and reliable data clashes with the predictions of
the formula, then the formula will either be modified or replaced by
something else. That is simply the way physics works: in the final
analysis, experiment rules.

Concerning the Schroedinger equation in particular, history tells us that
Schroedinger began working on the idea in 1925, and, at first, was
unsuccessful in obtaining a formula that gave energy levels which matched
known spectroscopic results. Thus he put the project aside for several
months. Eventually, however, he found a tweak involving ignoring
relativistic effects that enabled him to match some of the spectroscopic
results, and, some months later still, made a second tweak to take electron
spin into account, and was then able to produce calculations that matched
up well with all the then know spectroscopic data. It was only then, in
1926, that his work was published. [See *Q is for Quantum*, by John
Gribben, pg. 427.]

--Mitchell Jones}***

All
>of the values used in it are fundamental physical
>constants which are known to high precision and
>cannot be tweaked at all.

***{The fact that physical measurements can't be tweaked doesn't mean
formulae cannot be. Mathematical expressions do not merely contain symbols
representing constants. They also contain symbols representing variable
quantities, numerical coefficients, signs, exponents, varying numbers of
terms, etc. Result: as a mathematical physicist struggles to come up with a
construct that fits the measured data points, terms can be added or
deleted, exponents can be changed, variables can be moved about among
terms, and so on. Whether a given formula is tweaked or tossed, of course,
depends on the specifics of the case. When new data points are obtained
that do not fit the previously accepted formulae, sometimes it is
sufficient to make a small change to an existing formula, and sometimes the
best fit requires going over to something entirely different. (And
sometimes it is hard to say whether a given change is a tweak or a toss.
For example, compare E = mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2 with E = [m/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5]c^2.
Both expressions give the total energy of a body in motion to good
accuracy, yet the latter one is alleged to be a slightly better fit to the
data. The question is, does it constitute a tweak or a toss? :-) --MJ}***

>
>As I understand it, the rest of QM follows from this
>equation - including the electron shell structures in
>atoms (beautiful visualisable orbit patterns)

***{The electron shell structures were laboriously worked out over a span
of many decades, by a deliberate process of fitting mathematical
expressions to spectral data, long before Schroedinger came onto the scene.
The process began in the 1880's when Balmer, a German physicist, came up
with a formula that exactly matched the spectral lines of hydrogen that had
been observed at that time (i.e., the visible lines produced by jumps to
the 2nd orbit); next, Bohr, just before WWI, tweaked the Balmer formula a
bit and extended it to explain spectral emissions from any hydrogen orbit
to any other; and then another German Physicist, Sommerfeld, extended
(tweaked) the Bohr system a bit in order to apply it to larger atoms that
contained elliptical orbits. This process had been going on long before
Schroedinger entered the picture. Bottom line: it is simply a historic fact
that the system of formulae presently claimed by "quantum mechanics" is, in
reality, the result of a laborious process of fitting mathematical
constructs to experimentally determined data points. That process has been
going on for centuries, and the resulting mathematical system still
contains far more material created during the classical era than in the
modern one. Given that state of affairs, it is obvious that the math is
*theory neutral*, and cannot be preferentially claimed by the proponents of
any school of physics, whether classical or "quantum mechanical." --MJ}***

 , 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.

***{Schroedinger's equation was obtained by focusing on the requirements of
the more fundamental mathematical constructs that were already available at
that time, particularly the De Broglie equation, and those constructs, it
must be emphasized, had been deliberately fitted to experimentally measured
data points. (De Broglie merely took the relationship that was thought to
apply to all photons--to wit: w = h/mc--and conjectured that it would also
work for larger particles moving at smaller velocities. Result: w = h/mv.)
By focusing on the constraints imposed by the presumed validity of those
relationships and, as noted above, by continuing to tweak his approach
until it made a good fit to the spectroscopic data, Schroedinger was able
to concoct a wave equation from which useful predictions could be obtained.
As such, his equation was in part an instance of what we may term *second
order* data fitting: instead of fitting his equation directly to
experimental data, he fitted it instead to simple formulae which,
themselves, had been directly fitted to experimental data (and, in
addition, kept an eye on newly emerging data as well). Nothing about the
fundamental nature of the procedure changes, however, when second order
fitting comes into play: the entire structure of mathematical physics
remains exactly what it has always been--to wit: an assemblage of
constructs that have been deliberately fitted to experimentally determined
data points. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{I did not use the word "tweaking" to refer to the laws of mathematics,
John. I tried to make it clear from the beginning that "tweaking" referred
to the process of finding mathematical formulae that conformed to
experimentally measured data points. In this sense, we say that a change in
a formula is a "tweak" if, in most of its particulars, the formula remains
recognizably the same, and is a "toss" if it does not. --MJ}***

>
>So maybe you can explain where the "fitting" of curves
>to "data points" and "tweaking" takes place?

***{See above. --MJ}***

>
>>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.

***{And it is a language from which all reference to underlying processes
and the entities that give rise to them has been deleted. All that remains
is the numerical relationships between specific, measured variables.
Without a specific picture--a theory or model--we have no idea what is
going on. Gravity, as noted above, is a perfect illustration of this:
Newton's gravitational formula says nothing whatsoever about whether the
force between the two bodies arises as a result of "ultramundane
corpuscles" raining down on the bodies from deep space and pushing them
together, or from "action at a distance," or from "gravitons" that rush out
from the masses themselves and, when they strike other masses, cause them
to somehow accelerate in the opposite direction. --MJ}***

>
>> ...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.

***{In my view, the photon is a moving oscillator, not a wave. I picture it
as a sort of squat whirlwind--a dust devil in the shape of a spinning disc,
in which the grains of blowing sand are electric microcharges, and the spin
axis is normally perpendicular to the direction of motion. Apparent wave
behavior arises as a result of the interactions of the moving oscillators
with the medium--the aether--through which they are passing. [Note: I view
the aether as a particulate medium that pervades all of space. It consists
of a series of substrates, E1, E2, E3, etc. Each successive substrate is
composed of smaller particles. Hence between particles of matter, we have a
sea consisting of particles of E1 (which, by the way, I call etherons);
between the particles of E1, we have a sea consisting of particles of E2;
between the particles of E2, we have a sea consisting of particles of E3;
etc. Each sea has its own properties such as density, viscosity,
compressibility, etc.] --MJ}***

 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).

***{In my view, these wavelike impressions are merely associated with
photon motion, in much the same way that a wake is associated with a moving
boat. (A boat is not a wave, even though as it moves through the water, it
is intimately associated with waves.) --MJ}***

  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.

***{No, the "vacuum"--i.e., the aether--is highly compressible at the E1
level. The particles of the largest aether substrate (E1) are mutually
repellent, and stand off from one another in the same manner as electrons.
Thus E1 is, in fact, highly compressible. E1 particles are, however,
essentially uncharged, and it is this fact which prevents longitudinal
electric waves in a vacuum. If, for example, all of space were packed with
electrons, then when they were disturbed in one area, the result would be a
rolling readjustment that would propagate away from the center of the
disturbance, and take the form of a longitudinal electric wave. Instead of
a compressible sea of charged, mutually repelling electrons, however, we
instead have a compressible sea of uncharged, mutually repelling etherons.
Result: there are no longitudinal electric waves in a vacuum. --MJ}***

>
>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?

***{If you are now referring to the superluminal shock waves that I
proposed to explain the results of the Aspect experiment, then my response
is that they have been detected: by the Aspect experiment. :-)

By the way: waves are *always*  particulate in nature. Water waves consist
of up-and-down (transverse) motions of water molecules; sound waves consist
of back-and-forth (longitudinal, or compressive) motions of air molecules;
and the superluminal shock wave that we have been discussing probably
consists of a compression wave in E2 that is channeled down the track
opened in E1 by the photon's passage through it. Because the walls of the
track suffice to prevent the compression wave from spreading, its amplitude
does not decline as it travels, and it behaves as a soliton, impacting the
other photon from behind with the full force that it possessed when it
departed from the other polarizer.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>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)?

***{The photon carries with it a blob of entrained E2. (That is the "air"
in the dust devil analogy). When it enters the polarizer, it enters a more
dense medium. Result: side-to-side and top-to-bottom compression of that
entrained blob occurs, causing its length to increase from front to back.
Result: a powerful, backwards-moving, superluminal shock wave is set off in
the channel behind it. When that shock wave catches the other photon from
behind, it gives it a push which assists it in passing through its
polarizer, but does not change its frequency, and so there is no measured
net energy gain in the system as a whole. All that changes is the
probability that the second photon will get through rather than be absorbed
or reflected. --MJ}***

>
>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?

***{I already answered that: the photons open up a channel in E1 as they
pass through it, and the shock wave merely follows that channel, and runs
up the backside of the other photon as it enters its polarizer. --MJ}***

>
>What is the nature of this "trail" left behind by the
>photon (does a photon leave "footprints" in the vacuum?)

***{What we call "vacuum" is filled with a particulate medium, the aether.
The photon pushes the particles of the largest aether substrate (E1) aside
as it moves, and those particles do not instantly snap back to their
original positions. Result: moving photons cut tracks, ruts, or channels
through the aether which take a finite, though very short, period of time
to close. As  long as they remain open, the possibility that a very fast
soliton may traverse them exists, and such a possibility is one way to
explain what is happening in the Aspect experiment. --MJ}***

>
>How long does the trail remain in place?

***{I don't know. That will have to be determined by experiment. Simply
move the polarizers farther and farther apart, until the "entanglement"
effect disappears, and you will know. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{In the vast majority of cases, such trails would not intersect the
channel in which the soliton is running, and even if they did, they would
do so at too large an angle to divert it from its course. Result: in
virtually all cases the soliton would run straight back across the
apparatus, strike the other photon from behind, and give it a push that
would increase its chances of going through its polarizer. --MJ}***

>
>If there are oscillations remaining behind after it has
>past then are their frequency the same as the photons?

***{There are undoubtedly oscillations left behind in some of the aether
substrates, after the photon passes, and there are some observations--e.g.,
double-slit experiments--which hint that they may retain the frequency of
the photon. --MJ}***

>
>Could we fool the shock wave to follow a different
>photon by shining a powerful laser beam of the same
>frequency across its path?

***{It would be very difficult. Even the most powerful laser beam in
existence has a cross-sectional area that is vastly greater than the
cross-sectional area of the photons in that cross section. Thus the odds
would remain very high that none of the tracks produced by photons in the
beam would intersect the tracks left by the photons in the Aspect
experiment. It is, however, an ingenous idea that might be useful in some
context, and is worth thinking about. --MJ}***

>
>How about if we reflect the laser from the surface of
>the polarizer at the same spot as the photon hits?

***{That would destroy the experiment, since the correlations can only be
measured if the photons enter the individual polarizers one at a time.
--MJ}***

>
>If we can fool it then apparently the superposition
>principle doesn't work - ie the vacuum is not linear?

***{I'm not sure what you have in mind here. --MJ}***

>
>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?

***{Are you talking about the superluminal soliton? If so, I don't see any
clear way to predict the frequency of any associated oscillations. Even if
they occur, they are not really relevant to the question at issue, as far
as I can see. --MJ}***

>
>How far apart are they?  How wide?

***{A soliton is a solitary wave. It exists only when there is a channel
having sufficient integrity so that it gets reflected back before it can
spread out of the channel. For a superluminal soliton with a relatively
slow rate of transverse spread, such conditions are easily achieved.
Result: the soliton behaves like a particle, despite being, at root, a
wave. --MJ}***

>
>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?

***{The transverse spread rate has to be less than the longitudinal
velocity of the wave, but that is not an obstacle here: the media that have
flowed back into the channel are, obviously, more fluid than those that
have not. Thus the channel has walls that are made up of different material
than the material inside it. Result: the situation is exactly analogous to
the classical situation in which a soliton was first observed. (A huge hump
of water set in motion when a canal barge struck a dock was observed to
propagate literally for miles down the canal, before the horse of the 18th
century Englishman who followed it became exhausted.) --MJ}***

>
>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?

***{Since my theory of the aether is uniquely my own, I suppose the
particles comprising the various aether substrates would qualify as "new
types of particles." --MJ}***

>
>How is a shock wave produced by merely affecting the
>oscillation direction of a shear wave?

***{It isn't. See above. --MJ}***

>
>What is a "photon" that it can be "struck" and "pushed".

***{See above. --MJ}***

>
>And a million other questions if I could be bothered!
>
>But the main reason why this explanation is useless

***{The fact that you can ask lots of questions is not evidence that my
explanation is useless. --MJ}***

[rest snipped]

***{Note: I snipped the remainder of your stuff because you went off on a
tangent. We started out talking about the original Aspect experiment, and I
proposed a theory that accounts for those results in classical,
deterministic terms. In response, you are now showering me with unsupported
assertions about other experiments, and, in essence, switching the
discussion to completely different subject matter. I suggest that before we
begin discussing other experiments, we need to settle the immediate issue,
which is whether my superluminal shock wave hypothesis does, or does not,
explain the Aspect experiment. --MJ}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 11:16:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23882;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:12:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:12:45 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000705130643.02bd7690 earthtech.org>
X-Sender: little earthtech.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:08:52 -0500
To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little earthtech.org>
Subject: Re: Murray: Little & Puthoff....
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000703143030.12412B-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000703080253.0348b1e0 earthtech.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bf5h62.0.0r5.SgtOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36069
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:10 PM 7/3/00 -0700, William Beaty wrote:


>If your experiment is wildly successful, here's something to ponder:
>perhaps the hydrogen bond itself is entirely produced by a variation on
>the same phenomenon you're investigating.  No shared electrons, but ZPE
>electromagnetism instead.
<snip> thanks for this interesting perspective, Bill.  Sorry I don't have 
time to consider it in detail right now but I'll study it while babysitting 
my experiment in the coming weeks.

Has Hal ever seen these papers?

>      H. Paul and R. Fischer "Light Absorbtion by a dipole", SOV. PHYS.
>      USP., 26(10) Oct. 1983 pp 923-926
>
>      C. F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light
>      incident on it?", Am J Phys, 51 #4, pp323 Apr 1983

I'll check.  Thanks again!



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 Jul  5 11:18:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA25058;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:16:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:16:13 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]>
In-Reply-To: <394D029D.208C686D centurytel.net>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>	
 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>
 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:11:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"auapP1.0.O76.ijtOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36070
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{I am sorry for the delayed response. I was less productively occupied,
as you may have noticed. :-) --MJ}***

>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.

***{True, but it is worth noting that "action at a distance" does not clash
with any data whatsoever. There is no data set that man is capable of
gathering, even in principle, that could refute the notion of "action at a
distance." The reason: however hard we may try, we can never view any
causal chain in its entirety. There will always be links in the chain that,
for one reason or another, we failed to observe. Thus the possibility will
always remain, for every process, that there is a link somewhere in the
chain across which the cause jumped via "action at a distance." Bottom
line: such notions cannot be refuted experimentally, and, thus, lay outside
the province of science--specifically: they lie in philosophy. The only way
to deal with them is to apply reason's shining sword: the principle of
continuity. --MJ}***

 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.

***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible: all particles are
composed of lesser particles, ad infinitum. --MJ}***

  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?

***{In my view, a photon is just an etheron (i.e., a particle of E1) that
has been given a charge and set in motion at the speed of light. --MJ}***

  Or do the emitted photns "pop" into existence?

***{No. When electrons move through conductors (e.g., the tungsten filament
of a light bulb), they undergo violent accelerations as they follow crooked
paths, and, like a dump truck loaded with dirt speeding down a bumpy road,
they give leave trails of microcharges floating in the aether behind them.
Those charges collect on etherons, which become particles of flux in
magnetic flux lines, and, if the  flux line is subjected to sufficiently
violent accelerations, they are set free, carrying their accumulated
microcharges with them, to begin lives as photons. --MJ}***

>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.

***{No, it doesn't "pop" out of existence. The violent deceleration throws
the microcharges forward, separating them from the etheron to which they
had been attached, which then settles back into its original role as a
particle of E1, no different from its incomprehensibly numerous neighbors.
The microcharges that are thrown forward, on the other hand, are taken up
by the particle of matter that was struck by the photon, and confer upon it
an acceleration that may bring about a subsequent change of state. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{No. As I have pointed out many times in the past, if things could leap
into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing, then the entire
structure of knowledge that we have built up would be based on nothing.
Even our practice, employed since infantcy, of assuming that sensations
have sources would rest on nothing whatsoever: a person could be simply a
brain floating in an infinite black void, deluded into thinking it had a
body attached and there was an external world, by sensations which were
leaping into existence out of nothing. Thus if it is possible for things to
leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing, in violation of
the principle of continuity, experimental science has no basis. There is no
experiment that, even in principle, can demonstrate any conclusion
whatsoever, if the principle of continuity may be false. --Mitchell
Jones}***

>
>Action at a distance could explain how Schroedinger's cat
>meets its fate at the instant something happens millions
>of light years away.

***{Schroedinger's cat example was his attempt to demonstrate the absurdity
of the Copenhagen interpretation, which he despised. He thought it would be
such obvious nonsense that no one would continue to take the idea
seriously. Unfortunately, reasonableness is a test that ceases to be
applied to physical theories, as soon as irrational dogma becomes enshrined
and doubters are no longer permitted to pursue career paths in physics.
Under those circumstances, you either suck up the bullshit, or you get out.
Result: from the time that "quantum mechanics" became dominant, literal
mental retardation, or extreme intellectual dishonesty, became virtual
prerequisites for obtaining a degree in physics. Thereafter, most physics
students with good minds took their degrees in engineering rather than in
physics. --MJ}***

 One does not need superluminal particles
>if action at a distance is a fact of nature.

***{If "action at a distance" is possible, then the principle of continuity
is false. In that case, as noted above, the entire structure of human
knowledge collapses. Thus either we know nothing whatsoever, or "action at
a distance" is wrong. --MJ}***

  Is the principle of
>continuity only an axiom from which a train of logic can be deduced?

***{It is an axiomatic truth--i.e., a truth so fundamental that, without
it, knowledge itself is impossible. --MJ}***

>Or is it a statement about nature that is open to demonstration
>that it does not clash with any body of experimental data?

***{No such demonstration is possible, even in principle, because
continuity is a principle upon which all knowledge, including scientific
knowledge, rests. --MJ}***

>
>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.

***{This sounds interesting. Please give some details. --MJ}***

>
>Enough rambling for now,  Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 11:59:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA12159;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:58:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:58:16 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: puthoff earthtech.org
Subject: Re: Murray: Little & Puthoff....
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000705130643.02bd7690 earthtech.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000705114038.22643D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"rCnYY3.0.vz2.8LuOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36071
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Scott Little wrote:

> <snip> thanks for this interesting perspective, Bill.  Sorry I don't have 
> time to consider it in detail right now but I'll study it while babysitting 
> my experiment in the coming weeks.

Best of luck!  I sincerely hope that you are not only successful, but that
you shake up the orthodoxy.  The orthodoxy has a way of remaining
unshaken, no? 


Hal sez that the Van der Waals forces are caused by ZPE.  Briefly, I'm
speculating that these forces are strong between pairs of tiny resonators. 
It would be like improving the Casmir metal-plates phenomenon by making
them far more opaque to the ZPE.  It's totally wild/untested speculation. 

If atom-sized resonators do attract each other via Casmir force, then
perhaps a complex molecule will selectively attract an identical molecule,
while exterting little force on any other particle.  In the macro world,
it would be as if AM radios would fiercely attract each other, but only if
tuned to the same station.  This would resemble electric charge, but
electric charge which could be turned on and off by detuning one
resonator.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Wed Jul  5 12:23:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21857;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:18:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:18:28 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law on vortexB
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b5884ad1859e [207.8.127.97]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000705120650.22643E-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Denf61.0.NL5.4euOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36072
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >This is an extremely interesting topic (and don't get me started!)  But
> >like the lifting body topic, let's continue it on vortexB.
> 
> ***{For the record: I stopped posting to vortexb-l long ago because it
> isn't archived, which turns it essentially into a garbage chute. (With no
> record of anything that ever happened there, it is as if it never happened
> in my book.)

Huh?  Conversations never happened, or are "garbage" unless they are
recorded?  What a strange viewpoint.  VortexB currently has about 100
subscribers, so it more resembles a lecture hall than a garbage chute. 

I've been keeping vortexB messages in an email folder, although I had to
delete quite a bit when it grew too huge.  I've made this archive folder
public, and added it to the vortex-L website.

  http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html
  http://www.amasci.com/weird/vtxb2000.txt

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Wed Jul  5 12:44:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32735;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:41:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:41:51 -0700
Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net
Message-ID: <39638F9A.53D26FA3 centurytel.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:42:18 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
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: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>	
	 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>
	 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]> <v04011700b572c178bab6@[207.8.127.166]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"cVJXc3.0.P_7._zuOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36073
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
infinitum. --MJ}***

Jack writes:

Yes, this is a matter of opinion.

Jack Smith wrote:

An "atom" is not cuttable; but it is also not
indestructible.  Does the filament of an incandescent
bulb contains all the photns that it will ever emit,
like an ovary with a lifetime supply of eggs?

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{In my view, a photon is just an etheron (i.e., a
particle of E1) that has been given a charge and set in
motion at the speed of light. --MJ}***

Jack Smith wrote:

Or do the emitted photns "pop" into existence?

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{No. When electrons move through conductors (e.g., the
tungsten filament of a light bulb), they undergo violent
accelerations as they follow crooked paths, and, like a
dump truck loaded with dirt speeding down a bumpy road,
they give leave trails of microcharges floating in the
aether behind them.  Those charges collect
on etherons ...  --MJ}***

Jack writes:

Are you saying that the filament of an incandescent
bulb contains all the "etherons" that it will ever need
since "... a photon is just an etheron ...  that has been given a
charge and set in motion at the speed of light. --MJ}***"?

Jack Smith wrote:

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.

... One does not need superluminal particles
if action at a distance is a fact of nature.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{If "action at a distance" is possible, then the
principle of continuity is false. In that case, as
noted above, the entire structure of human knowledge
collapses. Thus either we know nothing whatsoever, or
"action at a distance" is wrong. --MJ}***

***{ ... continuity is a principle upon which all knowledge,
including scientific knowledge, rests. --MJ}***

Hi Mitchell,

How is the "entire structure of human knowledge"
essentially different from the structure of knowledge
possessed by a spirochete?  Spirochetes are not
interested in continuity or discontinuity; they are
interested in "design equations." perhaps encoded in
their DNA, which allow them to successfully perpetuate
themselves in their chosen host.

This makes the statement "either we know nothing whatsoever, or
'action at a distance' is wrong" extreme, since spirochetes will
continue to know something regardless of whether or not action
at a distance is wrong.  Having no "knowledge" would condemn them
to extinction, as it would even the smallest virus or prion.

Rambling is fun,  Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 13:28:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28870;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
In-Reply-To: <39638F9A.53D26FA3 centurytel.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000705131019.2140B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"yoecX3.0.x27.DYvOv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36074
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 





On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Taylor J. Smith wrote:

> How is the "entire structure of human knowledge"
> essentially different from the structure of knowledge
> possessed by a spirochete?  Spirochetes are not
> interested in continuity or discontinuity; they are
> interested in "design equations." perhaps encoded in
> their DNA, which allow them to successfully perpetuate
> themselves in their chosen host.
> 
> This makes the statement "either we know nothing whatsoever, or
> 'action at a distance' is wrong" extreme, since spirochetes will
> continue to know something regardless of whether or not action
> at a distance is wrong.  Having no "knowledge" would condemn them
> to extinction, as it would even the smallest virus or prion.
> 
> Rambling is fun,  Jack Smith

Most physics books speak of interactions of particles and fields, the rest
speak of an exchange of quantum particles. I don't know any that speak of
"action at a distance". As for knowing nothing whatsoever, if you don't
know anything, how the heck can you say "we"? :-)  If you know the other
fella is as ignorant as you are, you do know something.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 13:43:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28304;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:41:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:41:32 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b58948fb5410 [207.8.127.235]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000705120650.22643E-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <v04011700b5884ad1859e [207.8.127.97]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:38:49 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Bernoulli's Law on vortexB
Resent-Message-ID: <"4iQWt.0.6w6.yrvOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36075
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> >This is an extremely interesting topic (and don't get me started!)  But
>> >like the lifting body topic, let's continue it on vortexB.
>>
>> ***{For the record: I stopped posting to vortexb-l long ago because it
>> isn't archived, which turns it essentially into a garbage chute. (With no
>> record of anything that ever happened there, it is as if it never happened
>> in my book.)
>
>Huh?  Conversations never happened, or are "garbage" unless they are
>recorded?  What a strange viewpoint.

***{Not strange at all. Without a public record, there is no incentive to
post any sort of creative writing to a group, because anyone who likes your
ideas or your writing will be free to rip them off without credit, and
there isn't any way you could ever demonstrate priority of authorship. From
the standpoint of proof, it's as if the conversation never happened.
Result: most people who have something new to say will say it elsewhere,
and the content of the group, by default, becomes dominated by banal
subject matter and opinions that have been discussed a thousand times
before--i.e., by garbage. --MJ}***

VortexB currently has about 100
>subscribers, so it more resembles a lecture hall than a garbage chute.
>
>I've been keeping vortexB messages in an email folder, although I had to
>delete quite a bit when it grew too huge.

***{Two questions:

(1) Have you deleted messages from the regular vortex-l archives?

(2) Do you plan to continue the practice of deleting material from the
vortexb-l archives?

Inquiring minds want to know! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

I've made this archive folder
>public, and added it to the vortex-L website.
>
>  http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html
>  http://www.amasci.com/weird/vtxb2000.txt

***{I'm glad to hear that you are keeping the material, and that it is
publicly available. Good show! --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  Wed Jul  5 15:14:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA31158;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:13:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:13:12 -0700
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Thought Experiment
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b587343378fd [12.21.208.55]>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000705151330.3927A-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"SZPgf1.0.ic7.tBxOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36076
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace
	This circuit is a transmission line, and fairly straightforward to
analyze. See the first chapter of Ramo and Whinnery, Fields and waves in
Modern Radio. The current propagates down the line at the speed of light,
and reflects from the end if the line is not terminated in the
characteristic impedance.


Hank

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:

> Posted by Evan Soule on vortex 4/11/97 at 9:10 AM:
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Historical Note: No doubt the reader is familiar with the popular story
> about Einstein's "thought experiment" regarding his "riding on a beam of
> light."  The following "thought experiment" may also help one to think
> 'outside the square.'
> E. Soule'    (Drawings converted to ascii format by ERS)
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> From: HLafonte aol.com
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
> To: josephnewman earthlink.net
> Subject: Thought experiment from H.W. (Butch) La Fonte
> 
> ANALYSIS OF THOUGHT EXPERIMENT CONCERNING BEHAVIOR OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
> CHARGES IN A SUPER CONDUCTING DIRECT CURRENT CIRCUIT AND THE ASSOCIATED
> BEHAVIOR OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD THAT SURROUNDS THE SOLID CONDUCTOR OF THE
> CIRCUIT DURING THE INITIAL ELECTRICAL IMPULSE THROUGH THE CIRCUIT
> 
> AUTHOR:
> HAROLD W. LA FONTE     Copyright 3-26-96
>                        First posting: 4-11-97
> 
> Figure 1.
> CIRCUIT LENGTH 1 LIGHT HOUR (669,600,000 MILES)
> FROM VOLTAGE SOURCE TO POINT E (1,339,200,000 MILES
> TOTAL CIRCUIT LENGTH)
> 
> [Note: Some mail programs may distort the ascii diagrams; it is hoped that
> the recipient can re-construct the original diagram, if necessary.]
> 
>    _____________________________________________
>    |                       C     ^             |
>    |                             |             |
>  A | (+)                         |             |
> -------                          |             |
> |     | Direct Current           |             |
> |     | Voltage Source           |             | E
> |     |                          |             |
> -------                         6 ft.          |
>  B | (-)                         |             |
>    |                             |             |
>    |                       D     v             |
>    _____________________________________________
>             \
>              \___________ Superconducting Wire
> 
> 
> 
>    This simple looking circuit as shown in figure 1, has some very
> interesting aspects. In talking with physics and electrical instructors
> that teach on the college level, many believed that a large number of
> students at all levels lacked knowledge of the fundamental behavior of this
> circuit.
>    It appears to me that the initial behavior of current flow (electron
> drift), with respect to current impulse, and the formation of a magnetic
> field around a conductor of this length has not been presented in any text
> books or publications of any type to my knowledge.
>    The behavior of the magnetic field around this straight conductor of
> such length, I believe, will behave in a very unique way. I think the field
> will take on a " pumping" type action not seen in any type circuit
> described previously. I see the expanding magnetic field along such a long
> conductor causing a back EMF that will begin to decrease the current rise.
> When this is sensed by the magnetic field at the beginning of the
> conductor, the field will collapse and try to maintain the present current
> flow . When this field collapses and the current rate starts to reach zero,
> the field will start to re-establish. This will start a wave like "pumping
> action," in my opinion. If this wave aspect does exist, then the circuit
> would have a wave-particle duality as does light. The electron aspect of
> the circuit being the particle aspect, the wave "pumping action" of the
> magnetic field being the wave aspect.
>    There are other unique aspects to this circuit also, that I will cover
> in this paper.  I believe that every student should have knowledge of the
> fundamental behavior of this circuit, though it has no practical
> application at this time.
>    The sequence of events in this circuit as the circuit is simultaneously
> closed at the positive and negative terminals of the power source are as
> follows:
> 
> 
> 1. An electrical impulse originates at near light speed from the negative
> terminal of the battery, electron drift is started at this instant also,
> but at a slower speed, less than a millimeter per second for a current of
> one ampere flowing through a wire of very small diameter, such as the
> filament of a light bulb. A magnetic field starts to build around the
> conductor at this instant also. The only resistance to current flow
> (electron drift) in the direction from point B to point E is the
> counter-electromotive force induced in the opposite direction by the
> expanding magnetic field around the conductor.
> 
> 2. At the same time that current flow starts at the negative terminal
> toward point E, electrons start flowing into the voltage source at the
> positive terminal, causing a progression of positive charged atoms to
> originate in the wire from point A to point E at near light speed. These
> atoms are bound in the solid conductor  and they do not drift down the wire
> as do the negative charged electrons drifting from the negative terminal of
> the voltage source, point B to point E. A magnetic field builds around the
> wire, starting at the positive terminal of the voltage source, and
> progresses down the wire toward point E at the same rate as the magnetic
> field in the lower wire in the illustration. To help visualize this, what
> has happened after the circuit was closed at the voltage source is, two
> magnetic fields are building around the wires starting at the voltage
> source, and are racing "neck and neck" to point E to meet with each other.
> 
> 3. It needs to be made clear that electron drift does not get left behind
> at the voltage source by the electrical impulse traveling at near light
> speed, but is continuously initiated at the leading point of the impulse.
> In other words, the electrical impulse strikes the electrons in its path
> and initiates their drift.  The impulse at near light speed and the
> initiation of electron drift at near light speed must not be confused with
> the actual speed of the drift, it being much slower as stated previously.
> 
> 4.  Now we come to some very interesting aspects of this circuit.  First,
> with a circuit one light hour long, with the electrical impulses from the
> voltage source being at points C and D, heading toward point E , a person
> at point E with a meter would not have any indication of electrical
> activity in the circuit for thirty minutes.  He could actually cut the
> wires and the impulses traveling in the two wires toward him at near light
> speed, would behave no differently!  The impulses at this point do not know
> if they are in an open circuit or a closed circuit!  If you were to put a
> light bulb in the circuit at point D, the light would reach the person at
> point E before the electrical impulse, even with the wires cut at point E,
> due to the impulse being slightly slower than the speed of light due to its
> travel in the wire.  After the two impulses meet, a continuous transfer of
> impulses from atom to atom by negatively charged electrons takes place
> while the actual drift of electrons is also continuous.  The direction of
> electron drift is from the negative terminal around to the positive
> terminal of the voltage source.
> 
> 5.  Another interesting aspect of this circuit is if the superconductor
> weighed the same as #30 gauge copper wire, and the two wires were put close
> together before the circuit was closed, the wires would want to repel each
> other due to their currents flowing in opposite directions.  If they did
> repel each other only 1/4", then 833,702,726 pounds or 416,850 tons of wire
> would have been  moved!  That's roughly the weight of 208,000 large
> automobiles.  What if the voltage source was a AAA battery 1.5v?
> 
> Figure 2.
> CIRCUIT LENGTH 1 LIGHT HOUR (669,600,000 MILES)
> FROM VOLTAGE SOURCE TO POINT E (1,339,200,000 MILES
> TOTAL CIRCUIT LENGTH)
> 
>              switch    light
>    ___________    _____ (Y)_____________________
>    |             /           C    ^            |
>    |            /                 |            |
>  A | (+)                          |            |
> -------                           |            |
> |     | Direct Current            |            |
> |     | Voltage Source            |            | E
> |     |                           |            |
> -------                          6 ft.         |
>  B | (-)                          |            |
>    |                              |            |
>    |                         D    v            |
>    _____________________________________________
>             \
>              \___________ Superconducting Wire
> 
> 
> 6.  If you were to put a light bulb a few feet from the positive terminal
> in the circuit, and as the two magnetic fields meet at point E, you were to
> short out the circuit at the switch shown in figure 2 at switching time =
> 0, the current would decrease exponentially to zero, during this time, (
> this inductive time constant needs to be calculated ) the light bulb would
> continue to burn, though decreasing in brightness.  This would take place
> with the voltage source disconnected!  This takes place after the light
> burned for one hour during the original pulse!
> 
> SUMMARY
> 
> 1. The inductive time constant of this circuit is at this point unknown to
> me. This time constant is, in my opinion, the governing factor in the
> behavior of this circuit. This value needs to be formulated.
> 
> 2.  The wave properties of the magnetic field that surround the conductor
> need to be analyzed, if indeed they do exist.
> 
> 3.  The total amount of energy stored in the magnetic field for a given
> current flow would be of interest also.
> 
> 4.  The circuit, I believe, needs to be mathematically verified.  If one
> looks deeper into the possible behavior of this circuit, much can be
> learned and made available to the student.  Certain anomalies with respect
> to energy conservation laws will have to be explained. This simple circuit
> as part of a thought experiment might explain some of the over-unity claims
> being reported in this country (i.e., Joseph Newman) and in JAPAN and other
> countries.  If we cannot or simply will not take the time to analyze the
> behavior of this circuit, that is, the cemf, with respect to wave
> properties, inductive time constant, and the total energy of the magnetic
> field, and the total power available from that field, we will continue to
> work within a science of which we don't fully understand the fundamentals.
> I would greatly appreciate anyone willing to help in verifying this circuit
> behavior.
> 
> Figure 3. (Please draw lines connecting the asterisks)
> [Drawn lines actually intersect the horizontal & cross over]
> 
> Expanding Field              Collapsing Field
> (being pumped)                  (pumping)
>     \             *                /
>      \                            /
>       \ *                     *  /               *
> 
> *                                      *
> ------------------------------------------solid conductor
> *                                      *
> 
>         *                     *                  *
> 
>                    *
> 
> Figure 4. (Please draw lines connecting the asterisks)
> [Drawn lines actually intersect the horizontal & cross over]
> (Vertically compressed versions of Figure 3]
> 
> 
>              *                          *
>        *            *            *              *
> *                         *                            *
> -----------------------------solid conductor------------
> *                         *                            *
>        *            *            *              *
>              *                          *
> 
> 
> H. W. (BUTCH) LA FONTE
> 119 ROBERT E. LEE AVE.
> LEEDS, ALABAMA  35094
> PHONE-1-205-699-5364
> FAX- 1-205-699-5141
> E-MAIL   hlafonte aol.com
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 15:28:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA04932;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:27:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:27:33 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b58965ad9901 [12.21.211.203]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:28:49 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Thought Experiment
Resent-Message-ID: <"6Cu7l.0.vC1.LPxOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36077
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:16 PM 7/5/0, hank scudder wrote:
>Horace
>        This circuit is a transmission line,


I am aware of that.


>and fairly straightforward to
>analyze. See the first chapter of Ramo and Whinnery, Fields and waves in
>Modern Radio. The current propagates down the line at the speed of light,
>and reflects from the end if the line is not terminated in the
>characteristic impedance.
>
>
>Hank


I did not write the subject material.  I merely dug it out of the archives
at the request (see below) of the author HAROLD W. LA FONTE.


>
>On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> Posted by Evan Soule on vortex 4/11/97 at 9:10 AM:
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Historical Note: No doubt the reader is familiar with the popular story
>> about Einstein's "thought experiment" regarding his "riding on a beam of
>> light."  The following "thought experiment" may also help one to think
>> 'outside the square.'
>> E. Soule'    (Drawings converted to ascii format by ERS)
>> ______________________________________________________
>>
>> From: HLafonte aol.com
>> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
>> To: josephnewman earthlink.net
>> Subject: Thought experiment from H.W. (Butch) La Fonte
[snip]

At 10:29 PM 7/3/0, John Schnurer wrote:
>        Dear Folks,
>
>        Really.
>
>        Is there a paper on pulse in wire?
>
>
>                        John
>
>
>
>On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 HLafonte aol.com wrote:
>
>>  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
>>

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 15:39:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09625;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:37:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:37:46 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.49]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Put Off and Ripped Off - The Archive
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:37:10 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F82Q3coC886R40R7dA900001816 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2000 22:37:10.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[8EA5FF20:01BFE6D1]
Resent-Message-ID: <"hwxjA3.0.GM2.wYxOv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36078
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I think the archive is important.  How else can anyone date what they say, 
to whom, on the Information Super Highway?

I've posted this list for years now.  And it appears recently my 
explaination of The Root of the Problem in Physics has been adapted by Hal 
Puhoff.  Hal wrote to me early on saying ZPE was about gravity and 
Whirlpower was ZPE, "if it works".  I wrote to him personally and asked for 
his help to find out and I have never gotten a reply.

It does appear he now using my slipstream effect explaination of gravitation 
lensing.

Now, to be clear, science may have always taken this view but I have never 
seen it written like Hal says, "goes around" like I say slipstream effect.

Either way, the angle is not as sharp as Einstein said it must be for his 
theory to be correct due to the fluid flat nature of space, not the void 
curved nature of space.


Einstein stated the measurement of the angle of perceived bend in
light inthe gravitational lens effect had to be 1.75 seconds of an
arc if his theory on void curved space were to be correct.  He staked
his entire theory on  this measurment.  Stated it "hinged" on this
measurment.  But the measurement comes up to 1.64.
(Quote, Lincoln Barnett, "The Universe and Dr. Einstein".. A Five
Star book touted the best book ever written about Einstein, and
endorsed by Einstein himself.)

The real posistion of the star and the apparent posistion of the
star had to  have the angle to fit his theory, all the curvature of
space stuff, figuring all the math, ect ect ect.

      Einstein
        ...
Real  *   *Apparent


      |||||
Sun O//|||
      |||||


       o Earth


Here we see Einstein's perspective.  Starlight passes the Sun and is
bent in, "deflected" a term used that basically describes what we
usually call refracted.  But was mean to fit the void curved space
concept.  Refraction is associated with density.

Now. if this angle is not exactly 1.75 it will throw the known
posistion of the star off according to what my research has shown.
So if it is not 1.75 something else must be happening.

If gravity repels light in flat fluid space (the way I have
screaming my head off for years and been ignored because I don't have
the clout or prestige of a big shot scientist), then we would get
the slipstream effect.

Now my perspective, and I say the "going around" or "wheels around"
terminolog Puthoff has just come up with describes the slipstream
effect.

      Dennard
        ..
Real  *  * Apparent


      |||||
Sun O))|||
      |||||


      o Earth
This is the "going around" or "wheels around" slipstream effect.

       O))

Quote, Dr. Hal Puthoff:
"Therefore, for a light ray grazing the body, that part of the wavefront 
closest to the body will, by virtue of its reduced velocity, cause the 
wavefront to "wheel about" the body, so to speak. As a result the light ray 
is deflected toward the body. This deflection, in GR terms, yields a measure 
of "local curvature," while in the PV approach it is interpreted as a 
measure of the spatially dependent vacuum polarizability."

This "wheel about" is the slipstream affect I refer to in my work.

Then "as a result" the light curves back around.

He is saying exactly what I am saying, using different words and
showing the "local curvature" is not accurate in GR and introduces
his PV perspective.

Now if space were a total null void his explaination would be
correct, but in fluid space gravity is pulling/pushing the more dense space 
beneath the less dense light thus pushing it away.  That is relative density 
displacemant of light due to gravity.

The bend in is a RESULT of light being "wheeled about" as Puthoff says, not 
due to gravity attracting light.  If gravity attracted light it would mean 
light has to overcome the gravititational field of the Sun to go into space. 
  That makes no sense at all.  A flame points up.  Just common sense.

Starting, going around then coming back in on the other side.  This
angle is the "RESULT" of this action, as Puthoff puts it.  That means
the angle itself is not from the action but the reaction.  If science
would learn to use the map perspective and look at this from the
overview, not the self-centered view, it would be very clear.  That
has been the trouble with science throughout history.

This point /.< is the angle that is measured and does not fit.

This point ).< is the way it should be measured and should line up
exactly if my theory is correct.

It is shown the distance is 3 ... in the Einstein Perspective.

It is shown the distance is 2 ..  in the Dennard Perspective.

This approximates the difference in 1.75 and 1.64.

I say the reason it is 1.64 instead of 1.75 is because of the
slipstream effect of gravity's repulsion of light in flat fluid space by 
relative density displacement, not gravity's bending in of light in void 
curved space.

Light is comimg off the Sun like a blast of bubbles, gravity powered by the 
gravity of the Sun by relative density displacement.  The gravity power that 
pushes this blast of light also pushes the starlight coming by from outer 
space o) around the Sun, slipstream.  It is not bending light in.  This 
angle ).< right there appears gravity is bending light in if you don't have 
the proper perspective.  You have to backup like looking at map and look at 
it.  Not look at it
from the Self-Centered perspective, like Einsten did.  He was obviously 
hynotized and brainwashed of all commn sense.

And that is where the error was made.

And this is my work, not copied out of some book somewhere. References
given to Lincoln Barnett.

My theory gives three testable conclusions.

1. The whirlpool test.

2. The vacuum pipe light test.

3. The adjusted perception of the slipstream effect in the gravitation lens 
measurment.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul  5 20:00:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03409;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:54:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:54:53 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Vortex archives are public domain
In-Reply-To: <v04011701b58948fb5410 [207.8.127.235]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000705192811.16431B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oqnnm.0.Br.yJ_Ov" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36079
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >Huh?  Conversations never happened, or are "garbage" unless they are
> >recorded?  What a strange viewpoint.
> 
> ***{Not strange at all. Without a public record, there is no incentive to
> post any sort of creative writing to a group,

There is plenty of incentive, and if vortex-L never had an archive, the
content of my own postings would be unchanged.  I am conversing with other
subscribers, not trying to establish priority for ideas, and anything I
write on an internet forum goes into the public domain.  Ask the other
subscribers if they would change their behavior if there was no archive.


> because anyone who likes your
> ideas or your writing will be free to rip them off without credit, and
> there isn't any way you could ever demonstrate priority of authorship.

Even with an archive, I doubt it would make much difference legally.  As
far as I am aware, only nettiquet protects you from ripoff, and if you
post a message in a public forum, it goes into the public domain.  If you
want to keep your vortex-L messages from being "ripped off", you'd better
cover them with copyright notices.  And since the archives aren't 100%
reliable, you'd best rely on your own sent-mail folders for verifying old
messages.

> From
> the standpoint of proof, it's as if the conversation never happened.
> Result: most people who have something new to say will say it elsewhere,

Where?  On newsgroups?  If somebody's writing needs to be copyrighted,
they'd better not post it on a public forum.



> ***{Two questions:
> 
> (1) Have you deleted messages from the regular vortex-l archives?


Not recently.  I vaguely remember deleting some flamewar stuff long ago
when I was throwing someone off the list.

Vortex-L archive is simply the folder for the billb email program.  If
eskimo.com screws up, sometimes I never receive a message, even though
others do.  In that case, the message will be missing from the archive.

Escribe is different.  It acts as an independant subscriber.  I don't know
if the messages there are deletable.  Escribe added some maintainence
features, so it might be possible for me to delete messages, but I've
never looked into it.  I wonder what Escribe thinks of the legal status of
their archives... 

> (2) Do you plan to continue the practice of deleting material from the
> vortexb-l archives?

I don't know.  If they grow really huge, and I run out of room, I might.
But first I would announce it, let people grab copies.

> Inquiring minds want to know! :-)

I fail to understand why.  If you think the vortex-L archives could be
used in a future legal battle, you'd better verify the legal status of
messages on public forums.  See what dejanews and escribe has to say. 
If somebody plagerizes your writing from vortex-L, I don't know if you can
do anything to stop them.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Jul  6 04:21:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA02138;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:13:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:13:57 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.38]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex archives are public domain
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:13:25 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F149KufVma0osA91E9G00000a26 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2000 11:13:26.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[348B3BD0:01BFE73B]
Resent-Message-ID: <"axhdf.0.KX.rd6Pv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36080
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I think we had this discussion a whirl back.  :)

I am not up set Hal has adopted my versin of gravitational lensing.  I am 
glad.  It adds further to my work, not takes away.  When someone eventually 
rips off Whirlpower I will be glad.  At least someone will make it.  Can't 
rip it off if it doesn't work.  I am just a poor disabled person, nothing I 
can do about it.  Hawking is a rich disabled person, it is always about the 
rich and poor.

And surely the person that builds and proves Whirlpower will win the Nobel 
Prize.  Why any thinking person is not surprised a whirlpool has never been 
built in all recorded history, just can't see the missing piece of the 
puzzle.

And it is no longer just my saying it,
http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html
is saying it too.

All the the others are tornado type vorticies, not whirlpools.

David


>From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Vortex archives are public domain
>Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> > >Huh?  Conversations never happened, or are "garbage" unless they are
> > >recorded?  What a strange viewpoint.
> >
> > ***{Not strange at all. Without a public record, there is no incentive 
>to
> > post any sort of creative writing to a group,
>
>There is plenty of incentive, and if vortex-L never had an archive, the
>content of my own postings would be unchanged.  I am conversing with other
>subscribers, not trying to establish priority for ideas, and anything I
>write on an internet forum goes into the public domain.  Ask the other
>subscribers if they would change their behavior if there was no archive.
>
>
> > because anyone who likes your
> > ideas or your writing will be free to rip them off without credit, and
> > there isn't any way you could ever demonstrate priority of authorship.
>
>Even with an archive, I doubt it would make much difference legally.  As
>far as I am aware, only nettiquet protects you from ripoff, and if you
>post a message in a public forum, it goes into the public domain.  If you
>want to keep your vortex-L messages from being "ripped off", you'd better
>cover them with copyright notices.  And since the archives aren't 100%
>reliable, you'd best rely on your own sent-mail folders for verifying old
>messages.
>
> > From
> > the standpoint of proof, it's as if the conversation never happened.
> > Result: most people who have something new to say will say it elsewhere,
>
>Where?  On newsgroups?  If somebody's writing needs to be copyrighted,
>they'd better not post it on a public forum.
>
>
>
> > ***{Two questions:
> >
> > (1) Have you deleted messages from the regular vortex-l archives?
>
>
>Not recently.  I vaguely remember deleting some flamewar stuff long ago
>when I was throwing someone off the list.
>
>Vortex-L archive is simply the folder for the billb email program.  If
>eskimo.com screws up, sometimes I never receive a message, even though
>others do.  In that case, the message will be missing from the archive.
>
>Escribe is different.  It acts as an independant subscriber.  I don't know
>if the messages there are deletable.  Escribe added some maintainence
>features, so it might be possible for me to delete messages, but I've
>never looked into it.  I wonder what Escribe thinks of the legal status of
>their archives...
>
> > (2) Do you plan to continue the practice of deleting material from the
> > vortexb-l archives?
>
>I don't know.  If they grow really huge, and I run out of room, I might.
>But first I would announce it, let people grab copies.
>
> > Inquiring minds want to know! :-)
>
>I fail to understand why.  If you think the vortex-L archives could be
>used in a future legal battle, you'd better verify the legal status of
>messages on public forums.  See what dejanews and escribe has to say.
>If somebody plagerizes your writing from vortex-L, I don't know if you can
>do anything to stop them.
>
>((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Thu Jul  6 04:55:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA07559;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:55:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:55:14 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011700b589915c7bbe [207.8.127.235]>
In-Reply-To: <39638F9A.53D26FA3 centurytel.net>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>		
 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>	
 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>
 <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 05:51:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"6vmxa3.0.1s1.YE7Pv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36081
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
>infinitum. --MJ}***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>Yes, this is a matter of opinion.

***{Hi Jack. Actually, I see it as a matter of logic. Either matter is
infinitely subdivisible, or there is a particle of matter that cannot be
subdivided. If the latter, then as two such particles collide, their
surfaces will deform to a limit, but not to separation. Assume, therefore,
that there exists a particle which can be deformed to a limit, but not to
separation. In that case, such a particle would behave in a manner similar
to, say, a steel sphere a foot in diameter that had been coated with 6
inches of rubber. Two such spheres in violent collision would deform until
the steel spheres inside them touched, but no further. In effect, they
would be deformable particles that contained utterly rigid particles inside
them. (This is just an analogy, of course, since even steel deforms.)

The problem with such a notion, however, is this: when the inner, utterly
rigid surfaces touched, they would touch at a single mathematical point,
and, since no deformation would be possible, the pressure at the point of
contact would be infinite. The reason: pressure is force per unit
area--i.e., P = F/A. Result: any finite force of collision between the two
utterly rigid surfaces would be divided by A, which would equal zero,
giving an infinite value for P. Thus the notion of a particle that cannot
be deformed to separation boils down to the notion of a particle so rigid
that it cannot be deformed by an infinite pressure. Such a notion, of
course, is utterly absurd.

Bottom line: we can know for a fact, based on pure logic, that matter is
infinitely subdivisible.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>An "atom" is not cuttable; but it is also not
>indestructible.  Does the filament of an incandescent
>bulb contains all the photns that it will ever emit,
>like an ovary with a lifetime supply of eggs?
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{In my view, a photon is just an etheron (i.e., a
>particle of E1) that has been given a charge and set in
>motion at the speed of light. --MJ}***
>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>Or do the emitted photns "pop" into existence?
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{No. When electrons move through conductors (e.g., the
>tungsten filament of a light bulb), they undergo violent
>accelerations as they follow crooked paths, and, like a
>dump truck loaded with dirt speeding down a bumpy road,
>they give leave trails of microcharges floating in the
>aether behind them.  Those charges collect
>on etherons ...  --MJ}***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>Are you saying that the filament of an incandescent
>bulb contains all the "etherons" that it will ever need
>since "... a photon is just an etheron ...  that has been given a
>charge and set in motion at the speed of light. --MJ}***"?

***{"Contain" means to confine or hold within limits. However, a tungsten
filament can't do that, where etherons are concerned, any more than you can
make an airtight container using chicken wire. Etherons are mutually
repelling particles of very low, but not zero, charge and mass. They are a
bit smaller than electrons, are gravitationally entrained by matter, and at
Earth gravity literally billions of them pack inside the orbits of an
atomic system. That means the tungsten filament has access to an
essentially endless supply of etherons. As long as power continues to be
expended to force current to flow through the filament, more dustlike
microcharges are going to be shaken loose therein, and be absorbed onto the
surfaces of etherons, producing magnetic flux particles which, when shaken
free, fly off as photons. Each photon that flies off subtracts an etheron
from the incomprehensibly vast numbers that are present inside the
filament. That lowers the E1 pressure inside the filament, and a new
etheron moves in to replace the one that was lost. Bottom line: the
filament will have all the etherons it will ever need, where the production
of photons is concerned. [And, by similar reasoning, any electrons that are
stripped completely of their microcharges will leave nothing behind but
etherons. (Remember: positron-electron mutual annihilation produces two
oppositely directed gamma photons; hence positrons and electrons are
nothing more than etherons with huge accumulations of microcharges.) Hence
the resulting reduction in charge in the filament will permit another
electron to enter, replacing the one that was used up.] --MJ}***

>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>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.
>
>... One does not need superluminal particles
>if action at a distance is a fact of nature.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{If "action at a distance" is possible, then the
>principle of continuity is false. In that case, as
>noted above, the entire structure of human knowledge
>collapses. Thus either we know nothing whatsoever, or
>"action at a distance" is wrong. --MJ}***
>
>***{ ... continuity is a principle upon which all knowledge,
>including scientific knowledge, rests. --MJ}***
>
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>How is the "entire structure of human knowledge"
>essentially different from the structure of knowledge
>possessed by a spirochete?

***{Knowledge is reason-based belief. Spirochetes do not reason, and, thus,
are incapable of knowledge. --MJ}***

Spirochetes are not
>interested in continuity or discontinuity; they are
>interested in "design equations." perhaps encoded in
>their DNA, which allow them to successfully perpetuate
>themselves in their chosen host.

***{Spirochetes are not "interested" in anything, because they lack a
brain, a nervous system, organs of perception, etc. --MJ}***

>This makes the statement "either we know nothing whatsoever, or
>'action at a distance' is wrong" extreme

***{The fact that you may consider the statement to be "extreme"--i.e., not
generally accepted--does not alter its apodictic philosophical certainty.
"Action at a distance" involves causes that move from A to B without
following a continuous spatial pathway. Instead, such causes vanish from
their position at A and reappear at B, in violation of the principle of
continuity. But, if things can leap into existence out of nothing and
vanish into nothing, as "action at a distance" implies, then our sensations
could be simply leaping into existence out of nothing. But, in that case,
we would have no basis for believing in the existence of the external
world, or our bodies, or our brains--since the sensations from which those
things were inferred may have been leaping into existence out of nothing.
Result: the entire structure of knowledge that we have built up since
infantcy simply collapses. --Mitchell Jones}***

, since spirochetes will
>continue to know something regardless of whether or not action
>at a distance is wrong.  Having no "knowledge" would condemn them
>to extinction, as it would even the smallest virus or prion.

***{Indeed not, since in fact they have no knowledge, and yet are not
extinct. --MJ}***

>
>Rambling is fun,  Jack Smith



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 04:56:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA07620;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:55:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:55:21 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011700b58a15ab0b08 [207.8.127.235]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000705192811.16431B-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <v04011701b58948fb5410 [207.8.127.235]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:51:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Vortex archives are public domain
Resent-Message-ID: <"r14ee3.0.ws1.eE7Pv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36082
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> >Huh?  Conversations never happened, or are "garbage" unless they are
>> >recorded?  What a strange viewpoint.
>>
>> ***{Not strange at all. Without a public record, there is no incentive to
>> post any sort of creative writing to a group,
>
>There is plenty of incentive, and if vortex-L never had an archive, the
>content of my own postings would be unchanged.

***{I was speaking of incentive in the net. Yes, there are lots of
incentives to post, but there are also disincentives, and whether there is
an incentive in the net depends of whether, when all the incentives and
disincentives are added together, the result is positive or negative. Some
of the incentives to post are:

(1) The desire to test one's ideas, by eliciting criticism from persons who
believe differently.

(2) The desire to clarify and extend one's ideas to new subject matter, by
responding to the questions and arguments of others.

(3) The desire to give one's ideas concrete, written form, in order to
facilitate their eventual formal publication.

(4) The desire to learn from others.

Some disincentives to post, on the other hand, are:

(1) The unpleasantness associated with dealing with people whose focus is
on how they appear to others, rather than on (1) through (4), above.

(2) The unpleasantness associated with dealing with people who are *evil*,
and who see themselves as censors whose job is to silence those who try to
express unorthodox ideas.

(3) The risk that ideas with monetary value will be picked up by others and
used for their own gain--e.g., to obtain patents--before you can implement
them yourself.

(4) The risk that one's original ideas will be adopted by others and used
without credit or attribution.

In a particular group, whether there is *in the net* an incentive to post
depends on an intuitively based process of summation of the positive values
of the incentives with the negative values of the disincentives. Each
person, depending on his value system, weights such factors differently;
but, in each case, if the resulting sum is negative, he does not post.

--Mitchell Jones}***

I am conversing with other
>subscribers, not trying to establish priority for ideas

***{You oversimplify. I suspect that your list of incentives and
disincentives would be lengthy, like mine, and that you would list the
possibility that your original ideas will be adopted by others without
credit or attribution as a disincentive, just as I do. Granted, each of us
approaches this sort of problem from a unique perspective, and we apply our
unique value judgments when assigning weights to such concerns. Thus it may
be that you are less concerned with having your ideas ripped off without
credit than I am, or it may be that you are more concerned. I do, however,
feel quite sure that you would be galled by such an event if it happened,
whether you are willing to admit it or not. :-) --MJ}***

, and anything I
>write on an internet forum goes into the public domain.

***{Not exactly: that is a legal question which remains up in the air.
(Under fascism, all legal questions are perpetually up in the air, because
our rulers refuse to be encumbered by the necessity to respect our property
rights.) --MJ}***

Ask the other
>subscribers if they would change their behavior if there was no archive.

***{All I can say is that such concerns, while not dominant, do matter to
me. I prefer that there be a record of what I have written in these groups,
so that in the unlikely event that a dispute might arise over authorship in
the future, the facts will be clear. Others, particularly those who do not
view themselves as writers, may give less weight to such concerns. To each
his own. --MJ}***

>
>
>> because anyone who likes your
>> ideas or your writing will be free to rip them off without credit, and
>> there isn't any way you could ever demonstrate priority of authorship.
>
>Even with an archive, I doubt it would make much difference legally.

***{Legalisms are not a significant concern to me. I recognize that I live
under fascism, and that legalized parasitism is a fact of life that I
cannot change. My concern is that facts exist in the public record that
will enable me to prove when I said what, if the need should ever arise. If
I am destined to be ripped off, I at least want the satisfaction of being
able to prove that I was ripped off. --MJ}***

As
>far as I am aware, only nettiquet protects you from ripoff, and if you
>post a message in a public forum, it goes into the public domain.  If you
>want to keep your vortex-L messages from being "ripped off", you'd better
>cover them with copyright notices.  And since the archives aren't 100%
>reliable, you'd best rely on your own sent-mail folders for verifying old
>messages.

***{I have a record of every message sent to vortex during the time I have
been a subscriber here, including vortexb-l. However, such a record would
not be an acceptable citation in a proof, since the records in question
have been under my control. Thus I prefer that an independent archive be
maintained. --MJ}***

>
>> From
>> the standpoint of proof, it's as if the conversation never happened.
>> Result: most people who have something new to say will say it elsewhere,
>
>Where?  On newsgroups?  If somebody's writing needs to be copyrighted,
>they'd better not post it on a public forum.

***{I repeat: copyright is not my primary concern. That is in the hands of
the character disorders in the White House and Congress, and I have better
things to do than waste my time worrying about it. My concern is that if I
toss an important and original idea out into a public group, and if the
yahoos in Washington decree that by doing so I lose all legal rights to it,
then I should at least have the satisfaction of receiving credit for having
come up with it. --MJ}***

>
>> ***{Two questions:
>>
>> (1) Have you deleted messages from the regular vortex-l archives?
>
>
>Not recently.  I vaguely remember deleting some flamewar stuff long ago
>when I was throwing someone off the list.
>
>Vortex-L archive is simply the folder for the billb email program.  If
>eskimo.com screws up, sometimes I never receive a message, even though
>others do.  In that case, the message will be missing from the archive.
>
>Escribe is different.  It acts as an independant subscriber.  I don't know
>if the messages there are deletable.  Escribe added some maintainence
>features, so it might be possible for me to delete messages, but I've
>never looked into it.  I wonder what Escribe thinks of the legal status of
>their archives...
>
>> (2) Do you plan to continue the practice of deleting material from the
>> vortexb-l archives?
>
>I don't know.  If they grow really huge, and I run out of room, I might.
>But first I would announce it, let people grab copies.
>
>> Inquiring minds want to know! :-)
>
>I fail to understand why.  If you think the vortex-L archives could be
>used in a future legal battle, you'd better verify the legal status of
>messages on public forums.  See what dejanews and escribe has to say.
>If somebody plagerizes your writing from vortex-L, I don't know if you can
>do anything to stop them.

***{No, as I explained above, the legalities are out of my hands. I believe
authors ought to automatically retain copyright to their stuff, without the
bullshit of having to stick a copyright notice on it; but, of course, the
character disorders always want to do things the hard way, and so we have
to live with their nonsense. --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  Thu Jul  6 05:55:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA20083;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 05:53:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 05:53:52 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.29]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex archives are public domain
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:53:19 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F73uoe5cizlK4nNAR1J00000e6b hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2000 12:53:20.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[2951F890:01BFE749]
Resent-Message-ID: <"46m_k2.0.jv4.W58Pv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36083
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell writes;
>If I am destined to be ripped off, I at least want the satisfaction of 
>being able to prove that I was ripped off.

Very good!!  I figured I was destined to be ripped off long ago.  Really, no 
gov is going to allow a poor noboby or maybe even a rich somebody "own" a 
brand new clean simple source of energy anyway.  Trying to own it only 
promotes secrecy and leads to interests of only monetary concers.  There was 
one guy a whirl back really convinced I might be right but said HE would own 
Whirlpower, HE was putting up the money, thus HE owned it.

I told him to take a hike just like I told Jeane Manning to take a hike when 
she threatened to "embarass" me if I did not clear all my posts with her 
first.

I am far to poor to be pushed around by big shots.  And definately not, 
"poor me".

David

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 06:48:05 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02147;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:47:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:47:09 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011704b58a3b73f1a4 [207.8.127.174]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:45:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Blink Comparitor Mars Images
Resent-Message-ID: <"YCrHI1.0.OX.St8Pv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36084
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Those interested in the "Dalmatian Dunes" should check out
http://www.marscentral.com/Articles/SpringThaw/. Be sure to click on the
photo to the right of the graphic entitled "spring thaw." When you do so,
you will be able to switch back and forth between two images of the same
area, taken at different times. It's very interesting. Also, check out my
latest post on sci.bio.botany under the thread "Odd 'Dalmatian Dunes' on
Mars." --MJ

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 09:40:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA29094;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:37:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:37:13 -0700
Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net
Message-ID: <3964B5CD.10651679 centurytel.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:37:33 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
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: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>		
	 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>	
	 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>
	 <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]> <v04011700b589915c7bbe@[207.8.127.235]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"MRz5f.0.V67.uMBPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36085
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
infinitum. --MJ}***

Jack Smith wrote:

Yes, this is a matter of opinion.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{Hi Jack. Actually, I see it as a matter of
logic ...

Assume, a steel sphere a foot in diameter that had been
coated with 6 inches of rubber ...  }***

Jack writes:

I have an entirely different mental picture of an "atom"
such as photon, which, since it has no parts, may be transparent
to other atoms and, possibly, may coexist at the exact point
in time and space as another atom.  For example, I can imagine
complete superposition of a photon and a graviton, perhaps as 
non-interfering standing waves.  (Maybe the whole universe is
a big standing wave, formed from many waves, and maintained by
an oscillator that pops it in and out of existence.)

Superposition is not a new issue, since the question
"How many angels can [simultaneously] stand on the head of pin?"
has been around for centuries.

Jack Smith wrote:

Are you saying that the filament of an incandescent bulb
contains all the "etherons" that it will ever need ...?

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{"Contain" means to confine or hold within
limits. However, a tungsten filament can't do that,
where etherons are concerned, any more than you can make
an airtight container using chicken wire. Etherons are
mutually repelling particles of very low, but not zero,
charge and mass. They are a bit smaller than electrons,
are gravitationally entrained by matter, and at Earth
gravity literally billions of them pack inside the orbits
of an atomic system. That means the tungsten filament has
access to an essentially endless supply of etherons ...
...  positrons and electrons are nothing more than etherons
with huge accumulations of microcharges ... the resulting
reduction in charge in the filament will permit another electron
to enter, replacing the one that was used up. --MJ}***

Jack writes:

If a photon is composed of an etheron and other things,
then a photon is not an atom.  It would be an 
interesting experiment to try to split the photon and
detect its component parts.

"billions" of etherons is still a countable number, and
should not be considered an "endless supply."  On the other
hand, if photons pop in and out of existence, there is an
endless supply.

Or does your concept of the etheron have an infinite flux
of etherons moving through the filament?

Jack Smith wrote:

How is the "entire structure of human knowledge"
essentially different from the structure of knowledge
possessed by a spirochete?

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{Knowledge is reason-based belief. Spirochetes do not
reason, and, thus, are incapable of knowledge. --MJ}***

Jack writes:

We are making a serious mistake if, in our human arrogance,
we underestimate the spirochetes.  They can resist antibiotics
by eliminating their cell walls (also becoming unstainable), or
by forming cysts deep in the cartilage of our joints, or by
moving into the outer layers of the skin away from the blood
stream.  They "know" how to exchange information with each other,
picking up resistance, for example, by absorbing plasmids.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{ ... if things can leap into existence out of nothing and
vanish into nothing, as "action at a distance" implies,
then our sensations could be simply leaping into existence
out of nothing. But, in that case, we would have no basis
for believing in the existence of the external world,
... Result: the entire structure of knowledge that we
have built up since infantcy simply collapses. }***

Hi Mitchell,

Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action at
a distance were true, because "belief", like "truth", is
completely subjective -- an emotion or a sensation.  Any 
organism on this planet, including a spirochete, which did
not "believe" in the existence of the external world,  would
soon cease to exist, just as it would cease to exist if it
could not detect and move away from damaging heat.  Along
the same line, at a certain level, delusions are fatal.

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 11:43:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00493;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:40:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:40:48 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.55]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:40:11 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F115cm9t0CI76rOJhKP00000f37 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2000 18:40:11.0728 (UTC) FILETIME=[9DFC4D00:01BFE779]
Resent-Message-ID: <"yPZ2B1.0.V7.lADPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36086
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I have to agree with Mitchell, the Universe is infinite inward and outward.  
And fluid.

God is the Infinite Fluid Universe, the burning bush that does not consume 
itself.  Man can never and will never make a graven image of infinity.

David

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 13:08:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29737;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501b58a9598ba99 [12.21.209.73]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:04:59 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"tUp1x3.0.ZG7.dOEPv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36087
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 5:51 AM 7/6/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>
>>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
>>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
>>infinitum. --MJ}***


Mitchell,

After the achivement of what experimental or practical results will you
admit this view of the universe as a continuum is wrong?

  (1) Instant prime number factoring

  (2) Instant communications over a long distance

  (3) Instant telportation of matter

  (4) Other?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 13:51:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30870;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:46:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:46:41 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011706b58a95722434 [207.8.127.174]>
In-Reply-To: <3964B5CD.10651679 centurytel.net>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>			
 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>		
 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>	
 <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]>
 <v04011700b589915c7bbe [207.8.127.235]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:39:09 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"kC7ZZ2.0.BY7.m0FPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36088
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
>infinitum. --MJ}***
>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>Yes, this is a matter of opinion.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{Hi Jack. Actually, I see it as a matter of
>logic ...
>
>Assume, a steel sphere a foot in diameter that had been
>coated with 6 inches of rubber ...  }***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>I have an entirely different mental picture of an "atom"
>such as photon, which, since it has no parts, may be transparent
>to other atoms and, possibly, may coexist at the exact point
>in time and space as another atom.  For example, I can imagine
>complete superposition of a photon and a graviton, perhaps as
>non-interfering standing waves.  (Maybe the whole universe is
>a big standing wave, formed from many waves, and maintained by
>an oscillator that pops it in and out of existence.)

***{So the smallest unit of matter is impossible to subdivide, not because
it deforms to a limit but not to separation, but rather because it is a
ghost which can exert no force and upon which no force can be exerted?
Surely you aren't serious! How would we ever detect ghost entities that
exert no force, and upon which no force can be exerted? If the world  were
composed of entities that used ghost atoms as building blocks, entities
would pass through other entities, and there would be no way for any entity
to be detected or to affect any other entity. Such phenomena as mass,
inertia, force, etc., would never be observed. Indeed, nothing would be
observed. No thing would exhibit any properties whatsoever--which means:
nothing would exist. --MJ}***

>
>Superposition is not a new issue, since the question
>"How many angels can [simultaneously] stand on the head of pin?"
>has been around for centuries.

***{A good  analogy. "Superposition" is, indeed, the same old
superstitious, magical, religious nonsense that has ridden mankind down
into the dirt since time immemorial, albeit dressed up in fancy new
clothes. --MJ}***

>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>Are you saying that the filament of an incandescent bulb
>contains all the "etherons" that it will ever need ...?
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{"Contain" means to confine or hold within
>limits. However, a tungsten filament can't do that,
>where etherons are concerned, any more than you can make
>an airtight container using chicken wire. Etherons are
>mutually repelling particles of very low, but not zero,
>charge and mass. They are a bit smaller than electrons,
>are gravitationally entrained by matter, and at Earth
>gravity literally billions of them pack inside the orbits
>of an atomic system. That means the tungsten filament has
>access to an essentially endless supply of etherons ...
>...  positrons and electrons are nothing more than etherons
>with huge accumulations of microcharges ... the resulting
>reduction in charge in the filament will permit another electron
>to enter, replacing the one that was used up. --MJ}***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>If a photon is composed of an etheron and other things,
>then a photon is not an atom.  It would be an
>interesting experiment to try to split the photon and
>detect its component parts.
>
>"billions" of etherons is still a countable number, and
>should not be considered an "endless supply."

***{I said there are billions *within a single atomic system*. Since there
are incomprehensibly vast numbers of atomic systems in a tungsten filament,
the number of etherons in a filament is mind-bogglingly vaster still.
Moreover, since the filament is immersed in a vast ocean of aether that
fills the entirety of the infinite universe, and since every etheron that
is turned into a photon and shot off into space is immediately replaced by
another one moving into the filament, the supply available to the filament
is literally unlimited. --MJ}***

 On the other
>hand, if photons pop in and out of existence, there is an
>endless supply.

***{I responded to this previously. It violates continuity, and is
therefore impossible. --MJ}***

>
>Or does your concept of the etheron have an infinite flux
>of etherons moving through the filament?

***{Since you seem to be having trouble with this, consider an analogy to
something more familiar. Suppose you take one molecule from the air in your
living room, transport it to the opposite side of the Earth, and release
it. If you do that over and over and over again, will you ever succeed in
producing a vacuum in your living room? If not, why not? --MJ}***

>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>How is the "entire structure of human knowledge"
>essentially different from the structure of knowledge
>possessed by a spirochete?
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{Knowledge is reason-based belief. Spirochetes do not
>reason, and, thus, are incapable of knowledge. --MJ}***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>We are making a serious mistake if, in our human arrogance,
>we underestimate the spirochetes.  They can resist antibiotics
>by eliminating their cell walls (also becoming unstainable), or
>by forming cysts deep in the cartilage of our joints, or by
>moving into the outer layers of the skin away from the blood
>stream.  They "know" how to exchange information with each other,
>picking up resistance, for example, by absorbing plasmids.

***{You are wasting time with silliness. You know perfectly well that
spirochetes--a type of microbe--do not possess reason based beliefs, as is
clearly evident from your use of quotes around "know" in the above
sentence. --MJ}***

>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{ ... if things can leap into existence out of nothing and
>vanish into nothing, as "action at a distance" implies,
>then our sensations could be simply leaping into existence
>out of nothing. But, in that case, we would have no basis
>for believing in the existence of the external world,
>... Result: the entire structure of knowledge that we
>have built up since infantcy simply collapses. }***
>
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action at
>a distance were true, because "belief", like "truth", is
>completely subjective -- an emotion or a sensation.

***{Utter nonsense, and you don't believe it yourself. If you did, you
wouldn't bother to argue with anyone about anything. Therefore, once again,
you are wasting time with silliness. --MJ}***

  Any
>organism on this planet, including a spirochete, which did
>not "believe" in the existence of the external world,  would
>soon cease to exist, just as it would cease to exist if it
>could not detect and move away from damaging heat.  Along
>the same line, at a certain level, delusions are fatal.

***{Why bother to tell me that? It's all subjective, right? Any opinion is
as good as any other, right? So why affirm any opinion in preference to any
other, as you are presently doing? --MJ}***

>
>Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 19:18:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA27829;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:16:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:16:37 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b58ae65d9707 [207.8.127.174]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:03:27 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Stalking the "Dalmatian Dunes" of Mars
Resent-Message-ID: <"jenPo2.0.lo6.4sJPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36089
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

***{Here is a copy of my latest post to the sci.bio.botany thread that I
mentioned yesterday. (Note: my most recent comments, below, are preceded by
>, rather than by nothing. I did this to prevent fragmentation of the lines
by some mail reader programs.) --MJ}***

*****************************************************
> In article <3963B037.A6F3298E co.SPAM.honolulu.hi.us>, "Alex R. Blackwell"
> <ablackwellANTI co.SPAM.honolulu.hi.us> wrote:
>
> > Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> > > ***{I have several problems with the theory that the spots are areas of
> > > defrosting:
> >
> > Fortunately I do not have the same problem, especially considering that
> > I'm writing a dissertation on the subject.  While it is clear that the
> > model explaining the mechanism for defrosting needs more work (to which
> > hopefully I will contribute), this model appears to be the most
> > plausible (and supported by some literature), certainly more so than
> > alternatives such as "bacterial erosion" or "foliage" as hypothesized by
> > others.
> >
> > > (1) Areas that are defrosting would have no vertical height above the
> > > surrounding dune surface. In that case, there is no reason why, when a
> > > spot has a linear extension, it should be in the same direction as the
> > > shadows of the "dunes" themselves.
> >
> > Precisely what do you mean by "linear extension"?
>
> ***{If you examine the boundaries of the contiguous dark areas on the
> "dunes" (at http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0306104.jpg), you
> will find that the great majority of the ones that are in areas of direct
> sunlight near the tops of ridges show their greatest extension in one
> particular direction, and that the direction in question lines up very
> well with the dune shadows. On the other hand, when the spots fall deep in
> the shadows of the "dunes," there is no observable tendency for the
> directions of greatest extension to correlate with the shadow direction.
> If the linear extensions were not due to shadowing, then it would be a
> rather surprising coincidence that they line up so well with the shadows
> on the dunes when they are in areas of direct sunlight, and fail to line
> up when they are not. If, for example, the spots tended to spread
> downhill, then the observed parallelisms would be apparent regardless of
> whether the spots were in sunlight or in shadow. In my view, this state of
> affiars virtually proves that the spots have substantial vertical height.
> The indicated conclusion: they aren't defrost spots. --MJ}***
>
> If you are speaking
> > of the asymmetric morphology of the dark spots, then I believe that this
> > can be explained by differential defrosting (i.e. see the two abstracts
> > that I referenced in my previous post, as well as the captioned MSSS
> > releases on this general subject).  Moreover, I do not discern any
> > "height" to or shadows cast by the dark spots.  In fact, they appear to
> > follow the topographic contours of the dune field, which indicates to me
> > that they represent areas where the volatile has been removed exposing a
> > lower-albedo substrate.
>
> ***{Then why, when the spots are in areas of direct sunlight and, hence,
> capable of casting shadows, do they tend to have greatest extension in the
> direction that shadows would fall? --MJ}***
>
> >
> > OTOH, dark linear extensions (streaks) HAVE been observed in other
> > frosted areas (e.g. polar dunes) and have been attributed to the
> > entrainment of the lower-albedo substrate by the local wind, which
> > splays the particles onto the lighter frost covered surfaces.
>
> ***{Wind currents over the surface of an irregular, wavy structure would
> be highly turbulent and variable in terms of direction, and I would not
> expect the parallelisms that we see here. --MJ}***
>
> >
> > See:
> >
> >
>
>http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/10_29_98_gsa_release/10_29_98_dunes_rel/inde
>x.html
> >
> >
> > > (2) If these wavy surfaces were really "dunes,"
> >
> > To be clear, I do not concede that the identification of the feature is
> > anything other than an intracrater dune field.  The morphology and
> > albedo of the field is apparent in the Viking context image (albeit at
> > much lower resolution) and VERY consistent with other features that have
> > been widely accepted as dune fields.
>
> ***{The smooth edge isn't. It violates the physics of a dune field, which
> would be formed as the result of the interaction between independently
> mobile grains of sand and the wind, and ought to exhibit a sawtooth
> boundary, not a smooth one. --MJ}***
>
> >
> > > then the sand grains would
> > > be independently mobile, and the edge of the resulting dune field would
> > > show a sawtoothed boundary where it intersects the surrounding rock,
>as we
> > > see at http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0403432.jpg. As I
>said in
> > > my original post to this thread:
> >
> > IMHO, you are making a very speculative leap (presumably based on the
> > MOC N/A image) in assuming that the surrounding unit(s) are rock.
>
> ***{What else could it be? It is either rock or sand, right? And if it
> were sand, it would exhibit the wavelike surface common to dunes. Since it
> doesn't, and since it looks like rock, it must be rock. --MJ}***
>
> Or do
> > you have access to thermal inertia TES data?
>
> ***{No. --MJ}***
>
> Considering that the MOC
> > N/A image shows the entire scene to be frosted over (or are you
> > questioning that also?) one can only speculate as to the composition of
> > the surrounding terrain.
>
> ***{I repeat: what else could it be, if not sand or rock? Loam? On a
> "dead" planet? Not likely. And even if it were, the boundary with the dune
> field would still show a sawtooth configuration. Since it doesn't,
> something demonstrably odd is going on here. --MJ}***
>
>   In fact, based on my experience, it is very
> > conceivable that the regions between the dunes could represent areas of
> > a mixture of dune particles and those of the surrounding area, which
> > would .
> >
> > > > This is exactly how dunes behave here on Earth,
> >
> > Perhaps, but it is also very plausible that Martian dunes might not
> > behave exactly (or have exactly the same properties i.e., porosities,
> > particle sizes, and interstices) as terrestrial dunes. While using
> > Earth-based analogs as comparisons is very helpful, one must guard
> > against what Sagan referred to as "terrestrial chauvinism."
>
> ***{That's why I supplied the link to what are *unarguably* dune fields on
> Mars. (See http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/jpegmaps/M0403432.jpg.) Note
> that the dune fields in that image behave just like dune fields on Earth,
> and exactly as the physics of windblown sand requires them to behave.
> --MJ}***
>
> >
> > > and is also how any
> > > > windblown aggregate of independent particles *must* behave.
> >
> > Have you ever heard of sand particles having cohesion (mechanical or
> > electrostatic)?  Indeed, if the dunes contain a significant amount of
> > internal moisture or any other volatile (as alluded to in Edgett et al.,
> > 2000) then there is a strong possibility that the particles could
> > cohere. Moreover, it appears to me that you're assuming that the dune
> > field is active.  As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence
> > indicative of that in the image. In fact, the lack of an aeolian
> > signature on the surrounding frost would tend to indicate that the
> > prevailing wind regime the area (at least at the time of image
> > acquisition) is not significant enough to disturb the dunes.
>
> ***{When the wind stops blowing, dunes freeze into the positions they have
> at that time--which means: the dune boundary freezes into a sawtooth
> pattern. Thus this line of reasoning is useless, because it begs the
> question--to wit: what physical process converted the sawtooth boundary
> into a smooth boundary? Without the answer to that question, and without
> an answer to the question of why the directions of greatest extension of
> the dark spots behave like shadows would behave, the defrost theory cannot
> be taken seriously. --MJ}***
>
> To be
> > fair, however, I would not be surprised if the dune field was in fact
> > active; we need more imagery to be sure.
> >
> > Your model(s) and explanation are interesting and certainly thought
> > provoking.  Are there any works to which you can reference?  I'd be very
> > interested in seeing some.
>
> ***{No. I just became interested in the photos, posted them in a list
> server discussion group that I frequent, and we kicked the question back
> and forth for awhile. As a result, I convinced myself that *life* must be
> postulated on Mars, to account for what we see here. However, before fully
> embracing that explanation, I wanted to bring in some geologists and,
> preferably, some evolutionary biologists, and see what they had to say.
> Thus I originally added sci.geo.geology and sci.bio.evolution to the
> thread. However, I soon discovered that sci.bio.evolution is a group of
> weenies who have appointed a "moderator" to protect them from disturbing
> people and ideas, and so I tried sci.bio.botany instead. However, that
> seems to be an analog to the Ladies Home Garden Club, and thus I remain a
> bit frustrated regarding how to bring some really hard-nosed evolutionary
> biologists into this discussion. Any ideas? --MJ}***
>
> >
> >
> >
> > References:
> >
> > Edgett, K.S., K.D. Supulver, and M.C. Malin, 2nd International
> > Conference on Mars Polar Science and Exploration, #4041 (2000)
> >
> > M.C. Malin and K.S. Edgett, Lunar Planet Sci XXXI, 1056 (2000)
*****************************************************

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul  6 20:24:42 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA14935;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:23:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:23:04 -0700
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:22:54 -0400
Message-Id: <200007070322.XAA13170 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: Stalking the "Dalmatian Dunes" of Mars
Resent-Message-ID: <"re9JZ3.0.Hf3.OqKPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36090
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Well Mitch, you've done a splendid job of offending everyone on those
newsgroups.  If you keep it up, I'm sure that funding for any personal
deepspace exploration mission that you want will come your way.  I know of
several potential contributors on this group (who are notorious tightwads
otherwise), that would happily throw handfuls toward it. ;)

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 Jul  7 04:38:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA06682;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:38:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:38:02 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011701b58b0ddde466 [207.8.127.236]>
In-Reply-To: <200007070322.XAA13170 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:54:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Stalking the "Dalmatian Dunes" of Mars
Resent-Message-ID: <"OXxrJ3.0.Ke1.Q4SPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36091
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Well Mitch, you've done a splendid job of offending everyone on those
>newsgroups.  If you keep it up, I'm sure that funding for any personal
>deepspace exploration mission that you want will come your way.  I know of
>several potential contributors on this group (who are notorious tightwads
>otherwise), that would happily throw handfuls toward it. ;)

***{Show me the money. :-) --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  Fri Jul  7 05:45:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA21685;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:44:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:44:52 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011707b58a9fffa05c [207.8.127.174]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b58a9598ba99 [12.21.209.73]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:43:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"NchNy.0.fI5.43TPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36092
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 5:51 AM 7/6/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
>>>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
>>>infinitum. --MJ}***
>
>
>Mitchell,
>
>After the achivement of what experimental or practical results will you
>admit this view of the universe as a continuum is wrong?

***{Hi Horace. As you are probably aware by now, I am not an empiricist.
While science has an important place in the pursuit of knowledge, so does
philosophy. The reason: there exist principles that are so fundamental
that, if they were to be false, reason-based belief--i.e., knowledge--would
be impossible. Such principles fall within the province of philosophy,
where, properly, they have the status of axiomatic truths. We cannot deny
them, because to do so is to claim knowledge, and without them, knowledge
is impossible. Thus these sorts of bedrock principles are utterly
impervious to any sort of attack. They are absolutes which we simply have
no choice but to accept. One such principle is the principle of continuity:
that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing. If it were false, then it would be possible that our sensations
are leaping into existence out of nothing--which means: it would be
possible that none of the things that we believe in, including the external
world, our bodies, and our brains, actually exist. Result: we would have no
basis for believing in the existence of anything, including ourselves, if
the principle of continuity were false. And, of course, that would include
belief that experimental apparatus exists, that experiments have taken
place, etc. Without any basis for believing that an experiment has taken
place, how could an experiment possibly demonstrate that the principle of
continuity is wrong? --MJ}***

>
>  (1) Instant prime number factoring
>
>  (2) Instant communications over a long distance
>
>  (3) Instant telportation of matter
>
>  (4) Other?

***{You used the word "instant" in each of the three cases where you chose
to be specific. Thus I assume you think it would be possible to
scientifically demonstrate instantaneous motion, if it were to exist. If
so, that is incorrect. Science is, at any given point in time, constrained
by the accuracy of existing measuring instruments. At present, there is a
smallest interval of time that we can measure with our best instruments,
and in the future that will continue to be the case, however much our
instruments improve. Thus when we measure the time interval between
correlated changes at two points separated by a distance D, we will never
be able to flatly say that the time interval is exactly equal to zero.
There will always be a finite minimum time interval t' that we can measure,
and, thus, the possibility will exist that the value of t is such that 0 <
t < t'. Thus it will always be possible that the velocity, D/t, is finite.
What this means is that the question of instantaneous travel is one that
science cannot answer. Instead, it falls within the province of
philosophy--specifically: in the realm of metaphysics. To answer it, we can
only apply axiomatic constraints such as the principle of continuity, and
see if the notion of instantaneous travel violates those constraints. Since
it clearly does, we have no choice but to toss it out: if the principle of
continuity is wrong, then all knowledge is impossible, including knowledge
of instantaneous travel; and if the principle of continuity is correct,
then instantaneous travel is impossible. Thus if reason-based belief--i.e.,
knowledge--is possible, then instantaneous travel is impossible. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 08:57:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16186;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:53:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:53:42 -0700
Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net
Message-ID: <3965FD19.72D673A6 centurytel.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:54:01 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
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: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>		
	 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>	
	 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>
	 <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]> <v04011700b589915c7bbe@[207.8.127.235]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lBDKr1.0.qy3.6qVPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36093
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell Jones wrote:

How would we ever detect ghost entities that exert no force,
and upon which no force can be exerted? 

Jack writes:

The photon is hardly a ghost entity, but I am curious how you
propose to detect the etheron.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{ It's all subjective, right?
Any opinion is as good as any other, right? So why
affirm any opinion in preference to any other ...? --MJ}***

Jack writes:

Any opinion is NOT as good as any other -- for example, an
opinion which leads to a wrong move in high-speed automobile traffic.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

... They are absolutes which we simply have no choice but to accept.

Jack writes:

We can accept or reject anything we please, knowing that doing
or saying the wrong thing can have dire consequences, such as
torture and fiery execution by the Inquisition.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

If [the  principle of continuity] were false,
then it would be possible that our sensations are leaping
into existence out of nothing--which means: it would be
possible that none of the things that we believe in,
including the external world, our bodies, and our brains,
actually exist. Result: we would have no basis for believing
in the existence of anything, including ourselves ...

Jack writes:

It is quite possible that our sensations are leaping
into existence out of nothing, but that is irrelevant to what
we believe.  If we believe the wrong thing, we will die, or become
sick or severely injured.  The only basis for believing 
in the existence of anything, including ourselves and holy water,
is that it works.

Jack Smith wrote:

Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action
at a distance were true, because "belief", like "truth",
is completely subjective -- an emotion or a sensation.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{Utter nonsense, and you don't believe it yourself. If
you did, you wouldn't bother to argue with anyone about
anything. Therefore, once again, you are wasting time with
silliness. --MJ}***

Hi Mitchell,

That's right; I don't "believe" it myself.  I also
don't "believe", regarding balls rolling down inclined
planes, that  distance = k(time)^2.   I don't "believe"
that v + c = c.  However, I am quite content to use these
design equations as long as they work.

As for arguing, I do it because I enjoy it, not because
of any philosophical consideration.  I know I'm wasting my
time, but I hope that this kind of activity may help ward off senility.
If I didn't argue, I would just be wasting my time some other way,
such as reading or working in my garden or fooling around with the
Cavendish balance.

Jack Smith

PS  I think it is a good idea to believe in as little as possible.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 09:40:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00864;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:36:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:36:53 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.32]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:36:18 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F85ZfEAkqBiBsbrL1SC000008a9 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2000 16:36:19.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A2E00E0:01BFE831]
Resent-Message-ID: <"gJlk7.0.KD.bSWPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36094
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jack,

I have a way to test the fluid nature of space in THE ROSE.  The vacuum pipe 
light test.  Take a long pipe, longer the better.  Put a light on one end, a 
light meter on the other, pump out all the air.

Take a measurment of light intensity with the light pointing up.  Then 
reverse.  If a vacuum is subatomic fluid the light pointing up posistion 
should be brighter that the light pointing down posistion.

As shown in The Root of the Problem in Physics thinking gravity attracts 
light is the basic fundamental error in science and follows through to 
thinking heat causes evaporation or that there was a bang that set the 
universe in motion traveling on inertia through a frictionless void curved 
finite universe.

That stuff is just plain old bunk voodoo in my book.  Defies mathmatics and 
all common sense.

Dr. Rubin's work shows that concept is %90 in error.  Flat space has now 
been proven.  Everything points to the fluid nature of space and the 
cosmological constant.  One would have to be blind not to see it by now.

David


>From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
>Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:54:01 +0000
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>How would we ever detect ghost entities that exert no force,
>and upon which no force can be exerted?
>
>Jack writes:
>
>The photon is hardly a ghost entity, but I am curious how you
>propose to detect the etheron.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{ It's all subjective, right?
>Any opinion is as good as any other, right? So why
>affirm any opinion in preference to any other ...? --MJ}***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>Any opinion is NOT as good as any other -- for example, an
>opinion which leads to a wrong move in high-speed automobile traffic.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>... They are absolutes which we simply have no choice but to accept.
>
>Jack writes:
>
>We can accept or reject anything we please, knowing that doing
>or saying the wrong thing can have dire consequences, such as
>torture and fiery execution by the Inquisition.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>If [the  principle of continuity] were false,
>then it would be possible that our sensations are leaping
>into existence out of nothing--which means: it would be
>possible that none of the things that we believe in,
>including the external world, our bodies, and our brains,
>actually exist. Result: we would have no basis for believing
>in the existence of anything, including ourselves ...
>
>Jack writes:
>
>It is quite possible that our sensations are leaping
>into existence out of nothing, but that is irrelevant to what
>we believe.  If we believe the wrong thing, we will die, or become
>sick or severely injured.  The only basis for believing
>in the existence of anything, including ourselves and holy water,
>is that it works.
>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action
>at a distance were true, because "belief", like "truth",
>is completely subjective -- an emotion or a sensation.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{Utter nonsense, and you don't believe it yourself. If
>you did, you wouldn't bother to argue with anyone about
>anything. Therefore, once again, you are wasting time with
>silliness. --MJ}***
>
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>That's right; I don't "believe" it myself.  I also
>don't "believe", regarding balls rolling down inclined
>planes, that  distance = k(time)^2.   I don't "believe"
>that v + c = c.  However, I am quite content to use these
>design equations as long as they work.
>
>As for arguing, I do it because I enjoy it, not because
>of any philosophical consideration.  I know I'm wasting my
>time, but I hope that this kind of activity may help ward off senility.
>If I didn't argue, I would just be wasting my time some other way,
>such as reading or working in my garden or fooling around with the
>Cavendish balance.
>
>Jack Smith
>
>PS  I think it is a good idea to believe in as little as possible.
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 10:35:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19019;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:34:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:34:07 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b58bb44b49cc [207.8.127.136]>
In-Reply-To: <3965FD19.72D673A6 centurytel.net>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>			
 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>		
 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>	
 <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]>
 <v04011700b589915c7bbe [207.8.127.235]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:32:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"XKQUX3.0.5f4.EIXPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36096
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>How would we ever detect ghost entities that exert no force,
>and upon which no force can be exerted?
>
>Jack writes:
>
>The photon is hardly a ghost entity

***{Of course it isn't. But we were discussing "atoms" in the ancient Greek
sense--i.e., a particle of matter that cannot be subdivided further--and
you said:

>I have an entirely different mental picture of an "atom"
>such as photon, which, since it has no parts, may be transparent
>to other atoms and, possibly, may coexist at the exact point
>in time and space as another atom.

By the above statement, you implied that  the most basic constituents of
matter, including photons, are ghost entities that exert no force and upon
which no force can be exerted. For if force can be exerted upon them, then
my logic applies: there would have to be a limit beyond which further
deformation was impossible, and that, in turn, means a collision between
two such "atoms" would produce an infinite pressure at the point of
contact. Since no surface can be rigid enough to withstand an infinite
pressure, it follows that either "atoms" are ghost entities or else they do
not exist. And, of course, since ghost entities that exert no force and
upon which no force can be exerted obviously do not exist, it follows that,
either way you slice the pie, matter is infinitely subdivisible.

--Mitchell Jones}***

, but I am curious how you
>propose to detect the etheron.

***{The etheron is detected the same way the atom was detected: it is the
simplest explanation that fits the facts. --MJ}***

>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{ It's all subjective, right?
>Any opinion is as good as any other, right? So why
>affirm any opinion in preference to any other ...? --MJ}***
>
>Jack writes:
>
>Any opinion is NOT as good as any other -- for example, an
>opinion which leads to a wrong move in high-speed automobile traffic.

***{You said:

"Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action at a distance were
true, because "belief", like "truth", is completely subjective -- an
emotion or a sensation."

I took that to mean any opinion is as good as any other. Since you now deny
that is what you meant, I suppose I have to guess again, regarding what you
*did* mean. Let's see, do you mean that people are irrational, and, thus,
will continue to maintain their belief systems even if they rest on nothing?

If so, then that is true, but completely irrelevant. "Knowledge," as I am
using it, refers to *reason-based belief*, not to any belief that any fool
may concoct, based on social expediency, or whim, or blind faith.
Knowledge, in the sense of reason-based belief, most assuredly does depend
on the validity of the principle of continuity, and knowledge most
assuredly would be impossible if the principle of continuity might be
false. Thus, as I said, the entire structure of human knowledge would
instantly collapse, if the principle of continuity were false. In that
case, we would have no rational basis for belief in anything, including
ourselves, the external world, science, etc.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>... They are absolutes which we simply have no choice but to accept.
>
>Jack writes:
>
>We can accept or reject anything we please, knowing that doing
>or saying the wrong thing can have dire consequences, such as
>torture and fiery execution by the Inquisition.

***{I repeat: you can't *know* anything, in the sense of having a
reason-based belief about it, if the principle of continuity may be false.
That specifically includes "knowing that doing or saying the wrong thing
can have dire consequences."

Of course, as you say, we have the power to accept or reject anything we
please; but in order for that process to have anything to do with
knowledge, the principle of continuity must be true.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>If [the  principle of continuity] were false,
>then it would be possible that our sensations are leaping
>into existence out of nothing--which means: it would be
>possible that none of the things that we believe in,
>including the external world, our bodies, and our brains,
>actually exist. Result: we would have no basis for believing
>in the existence of anything, including ourselves ...
>
>Jack writes:
>
>It is quite possible that our sensations are leaping
>into existence out of nothing, but that is irrelevant to what
>we believe.  If we believe the wrong thing, we will die, or become
>sick or severely injured.

***{That's an assertion based on nothing, if sensations may be leaping into
existence out of nothing. For, in that case, what you believe are
remembrances from the past may be merely sensations leaping into existence
out of nothing. That means your "memories" of which behaviors led to bad
results and which to good may have just leaped into existence out of
nothing. Hence they may be utterly random, and may provide you with no
guide to future action whatsoever. --MJ}***

The only basis for believing
>in the existence of anything, including ourselves and holy water,
>is that it works.

***{How can you know what "works" if your memories may not have existed a
mere femtosecond ago? --MJ}***

>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action
>at a distance were true, because "belief", like "truth",
>is completely subjective -- an emotion or a sensation.
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>***{Utter nonsense, and you don't believe it yourself. If
>you did, you wouldn't bother to argue with anyone about
>anything. Therefore, once again, you are wasting time with
>silliness. --MJ}***
>
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>That's right; I don't "believe" it myself.  I also
>don't "believe", regarding balls rolling down inclined
>planes, that  distance = k(time)^2.   I don't "believe"
>that v + c = c.  However, I am quite content to use these
>design equations as long as they work.

***{As noted above, if sensations can leap into existence out of nothing,
your memories of what "works" may not have existed a femtosecond ago.
Indeed, your belief that your name is Taylor Jack Smith may have leaped
into existence along with them, obliterating in the process your real name.
How, in that case, can you decide what works; and how can you reasonably
expect the future to behave like the past, since what you think is the past
may be utterly unreal? --MJ}***

>
>As for arguing, I do it because I enjoy it, not because
>of any philosophical consideration.

***{I also enjoy it, when dealing with an opponent such as yourself, who
has good manners. --MJ}***

 I know I'm wasting my
>time

***{Is it a waste of time to put yourself in a situation that virtually
*forces* rapid, reasoned based learning? I think not. In my view, in fact,
these sorts of public debates are the most efficient way to acquire
knowledge. --MJ}***

, but I hope that this kind of activity may help ward off senility.
>If I didn't argue, I would just be wasting my time some other way,
>such as reading or working in my garden or fooling around with the
>Cavendish balance.
>
>Jack Smith
>
>PS  I think it is a good idea to believe in as little as possible.

***{Reason-based beliefs--i.e., knowledge--are something you cannot get too
much of. --MJ}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 10:36:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05106;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500b58bb39ca381 [12.21.208.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:34:40 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"RSBSW1.0.iF1.CIXPv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36095
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:43 AM 7/7/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>At 5:51 AM 7/6/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
>>>>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
>>>>infinitum. --MJ}***
>>
>>
>>Mitchell,
>>
>>After the achivement of what experimental or practical results will you
>>admit this view of the universe as a continuum is wrong?
>
>***{Hi Horace. As you are probably aware by now, I am not an empiricist.


Are you saying no amount of experimental proof can change your position?
Then your postings belong in a philosphy list, or maybe a religion list
This group is for serious scientific discussion.  Discussing physics within
your framework is like discussing evolution within a creationist framework.


At the risk of being off topic, I'll continue briefly.



[snip often repeated epistemological position]
>
>>
>>  (1) Instant prime number factoring
>>
>>  (2) Instant communications over a long distance
>>
>>  (3) Instant telportation of matter
>>
>>  (4) Other?
>
>***{You used the word "instant" in each of the three cases where you chose
>to be specific. Thus I assume you think it would be possible to
>scientifically demonstrate instantaneous motion, if it were to exist. If
>so, that is incorrect. Science is, at any given point in time, constrained
>by the accuracy of existing measuring instruments. At present, there is a
>smallest interval of time that we can measure with our best instruments,
>and in the future that will continue to be the case, however much our
>instruments improve. Thus when we measure the time interval between
>correlated changes at two points separated by a distance D, we will never
>be able to flatly say that the time interval is exactly equal to zero.
>There will always be a finite minimum time interval t' that we can measure,
>and, thus, the possibility will exist that the value of t is such that 0 <
>t < t'. Thus it will always be possible that the velocity, D/t, is finite.


The evidence that the quantum machine looks at all possible soutions
simultaneously, i.e. looks at each solution in zero time, lies in the fact
that the solution speed remains constant, even despite the number of
possible solutions increasing to a number greater than the number of
particles in the universe.  The unusual nature is the ability to solve
problems in O(0) time. If not precisely zero time, then such machines
(assuming they work as planned) certainly demonstrate a new paradigm of
existence, where solution sets (knowledge) can spring out of nothing.



>What this means is that the question of instantaneous travel is one that
>science cannot answer. Instead, it falls within the province of
>philosophy--specifically: in the realm of metaphysics. To answer it, we can
>only apply axiomatic constraints such as the principle of continuity, and
>see if the notion of instantaneous travel violates those constraints. Since
>it clearly does, we have no choice but to toss it out: if the principle of
>continuity is wrong, then all knowledge is impossible,


The above statement contains a false conclusion. It only follows that we
can not be certain about everything at every moment, not that we can not
rely on most things most of the time, and not that knowledge as we know it
in the practical sense, can not exist.  The universe can easily be a matter
of probabilities, which summed on a macro scale are most reliable -
sufficently so to support life.  The computer from which you read this text
can not be counted on to be accurate.  There is a finite probability that
the text is changed by a cosmic ray glitch in a way that changes its
meaning - yet does so in a away the error can not be detected.  So, all
communitication is hopeless?  I can assure you, from experience, there is a
much larger probability I have made a typo that completely changes my
meaning, and even a larger probability that I have not fully communicated
what is in my brain, and T think there is an even larger probability of
erroneous and incomplete communication if we were talking face to face
instead of by text.  None of this precludes my exisitence, your existence,
or the knowledge we think we have, or are exchanging. It only points out
our imperfections and the fact we can not be absolutely sure about
anything.  There is a colossal difference between absolutely sure and
sufficiently sure to survive.  It is not all knowledge that is impossible,
it is only all CERTAIN knowledge that is impossible.


>including knowledge
>of instantaneous travel; and if the principle of continuity is correct,
>then instantaneous travel is impossible. Thus if reason-based belief--i.e.,
>knowledge--is possible, then instantaneous travel is impossible. --MJ}***


So again, no amount of proof will convince you otherwise?

It sounds like discussion of this matter is a waste of time because your
mind is already made up.  However, I guess that approach fits well with
your model of the universe, because for you all is predetermined and
therefore you have no free will.  Thankfully, I am not confined by such
constraints.  I create, therefore I have free will.     8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 11:50:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA13801;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:46:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:46:59 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b58bb39ca381 [12.21.208.150]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000707114009.1394A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"dCowP2.0.ZN3.ZMYPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36097
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:

[snip]
> Are you saying no amount of experimental proof can change your position?

It seems you haven't read much of his writings.:-)

> This group is for serious scientific discussion. 

How do you know this? I sware, there is NO WAY to tell. It looks to me the
more off the wall you are, the more welcome the post. 

> Discussing physics within
> your framework is like discussing evolution within a creationist framework.

Funny. I said the exact same thing once. 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 12:26:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA26225;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:24:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:24:10 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.58]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 12:23:35 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F117kpLTkUD5euwdUTa00001b47 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2000 19:23:35.0414 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8510160:01BFE848]
Resent-Message-ID: <"qjWAp3.0.dP6.PvYPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36098
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Stephen writes:

>It looks to me the more off the wall you are, the more welcome the post.

:)  That means my posts must be right on!!!

But really this list is run by a click, much like high school, the cold 
fusion click, anything else is pretty much run out of town.  I think it is 
sad too, many new folks have come and gone over the past couple years 
because they thought this list was about the vortex, but quickly found out 
it is about cold fusion.

I stay on because cold fusinon is about bubbles and bubbles are about the 
vortex.

David


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 12:44:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31736;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:41:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:41:47 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
In-Reply-To: <F117kpLTkUD5euwdUTa00001b47 hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000707123551.4621A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"6xzGt.0.ol7.w9ZPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36099
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: A

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, David Dennard wrote:

> Stephen writes:
> 
> >It looks to me the more off the wall you are, the more welcome the post.
> 
> :)  That means my posts must be right on!!!
> 
> But really this list is run by a click, much like high school, the cold 
> fusion click, anything else is pretty much run out of town.  I think it is 
> sad too, many new folks have come and gone over the past couple years 
> because they thought this list was about the vortex, but quickly found out 
> it is about cold fusion.
> 
> I stay on because cold fusinon is about bubbles and bubbles are about the 
> vortex.
> 
> David

I came because I heard there were cold fusionist here. I don't see much
discussion. I wasn't really interested in spinning water. Cold fusion,
tho', is the greatest find since fire. 

I left sci.physics.fusion because it is full of name calling
conventionalist. I was told that name calling was quite acceptable. Now
some guy named Cagle is going around attacking everyone. Seems it is not
so acceptable when it is done to "respectable scientist (tm)".

I like to her RATIONAL criticism of cold fusion. It helps to know what the
objections are. It's the silly objections I can't stand. Like:

Skeptic "The data is in error."

Me  "Why?"

Skeptic "because if it was correct, there would be cold fusion."

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 13:48:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20404;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:42:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:42:29 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b58be3c0f316 [12.21.209.94]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:43:47 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"cgNCa1.0.k-4.r2aPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36100
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:46 AM 7/7/0, Stephen Lajoie wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> Are you saying no amount of experimental proof can change your position?
>
>It seems you haven't read much of his writings.:-)
>
>> This group is for serious scientific discussion.
>
>How do you know this?

I know this because I have been here since nearly the time the list was
formed - primarily for serious scientific discussion of the Potopov device
(a vortex device), cold fusion, conferences, free energy etc.  I have read
Bill Beaty's posts on his intent for the group, which has changed some with
time and with membership.   At one time the freenrg list was for amateur
and above discussion of specific experiments, vortex was for serious
scientific discussion.  However, Bill Beaty's emphasis has always been on
tolerance of ideas.  Vortex has been a place for sharing information and
ideas without hassles of protracted and heated arguments like those found
on sci.physics.fusion.  The emphasis has been on SHARING and CONTRIBUTING,
as opposed to arguing and debate.  This has been a useful place to find out
where to order scientific supplies, how to build instruments, etc.  It has
been and still is one of the best places to be to hear news of anything new
in the energy field.  The dull times seem to get filled with schlock, but
occasionally something exciting happens here and gets a good going over.
Unfortunately much of the discussion of experiments has dried up, in some
cases due to loss of interest in the list, and in some cases due to
movement towards commercialization, protection of investors, etc.  Also
there are new lists attracting attention.



>I sware, there is NO WAY to tell. It looks to me the
>more off the wall you are, the more welcome the post.


While it is true that all ideas are welcome (see rules below), the nature
of discussion has changed here of late.  At one time it was proposed by
Scott Little and others to have a list dedicated only to serious discussion
of specific energy related experiments, either in the planning stage, in
execution, or recently completed.  Some members of the list would prefer no
posts in their in basket, to a steady stream of debate without reference to
specific recent experiments.  There is in fact a vortex list with this
nature, vortexA, but no one has posted there (unless I got unsubscribed.)




>
>> Discussing physics within
>> your framework is like discussing evolution within a creationist framework.
>
>Funny. I said the exact same thing once.


Sorry for the repetition.  I didn't see that!  I usually don't read long
posts if they are debate oriented.


Here are the rules for further consideration:
**************************************************************************
Vortex-L Rules:

1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
   making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses.  If you
   cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway.  If you
   would like to give more, please do!  Direct your check to the
   moderator, address above.  Any help you can give is sincerely
   appreciated.

2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and
   namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden.  The tone
   should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
   Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having
   some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave
   in disgust.  But if your mind is open, hop on board!  Help us test
   "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away.
   (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND
   THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.)

3. Small email files please.  The limit is set to 40K right now, those
   exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty.  If you wish to
   start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange
   initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL
   IMMEDIATELY.  Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for
   received email.  Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John
   Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing.

4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the
   ENTIRE message in your reply.  Always edit it a bit and delete
   something.  The more you delete, the less traffic overload.  The entire
   message should really only be included if: (A) you are replying to a
   message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point
   reply to many parts of a message.  Many vortex users must pay by the
   kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant
   messages are irritating and expensive.  So, when including a quoted
   message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better.

5. Please do not include any other email list in the TO line or the CC
   line of your messages to vortex-L.  In the past this has caused
   thread leakage between different list and redundant messages as
   replies from subscribers go to both lists.  It's OK to manually forward
   mail from other lists to vortex-L, as long as the TO line and CC line
   has only vortex-L and no other list.

6. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated.  While not illegal
   yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the
   Unwritten Rules of the Internet.  Anyone who spams vortex-L with junkmail
   will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team.  ;)
   Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L users is acceptable.

   - Bill B.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 13:52:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA23155;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:51:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:51:24 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.41]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:50:50 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F79526tr5XsCj1d4vJF000014d6 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2000 20:50:50.0702 (UTC) FILETIME=[08CA8EE0:01BFE855]
Resent-Message-ID: <"fc2OR3.0.jf5.CBaPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36101
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Oh Yeah, a big shot can say anything.

I think there is cold fusion, but under the cosmological constant all energy 
of motion comes from gravity.  All the flat space teams say the cosmological 
constant is in, the thermodynamic paradigm is out.

Really, all energy is ZPE!  Hot or cold it is the action of the bubbles, not 
the action of heat.  Heat is static, gravity is dynamic.

Spinning water is about gravity too.  Like Lens and Thirring said when they 
proposed frame dragging back in 1918, "like a spinning charge make a 
secondary force (the magnetic), spinning mass makes a secondary 
gravitational force."  (Quote, The Washington Post)

David





>From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, David Dennard wrote:
>
> > Stephen writes:
> >
> > >It looks to me the more off the wall you are, the more welcome the 
>post.
> >
> > :)  That means my posts must be right on!!!
> >
> > But really this list is run by a click, much like high school, the cold
> > fusion click, anything else is pretty much run out of town.  I think it 
>is
> > sad too, many new folks have come and gone over the past couple years
> > because they thought this list was about the vortex, but quickly found 
>out
> > it is about cold fusion.
> >
> > I stay on because cold fusinon is about bubbles and bubbles are about 
>the
> > vortex.
> >
> > David
>
>I came because I heard there were cold fusionist here. I don't see much
>discussion. I wasn't really interested in spinning water. Cold fusion,
>tho', is the greatest find since fire.
>
>I left sci.physics.fusion because it is full of name calling
>conventionalist. I was told that name calling was quite acceptable. Now
>some guy named Cagle is going around attacking everyone. Seems it is not
>so acceptable when it is done to "respectable scientist (tm)".
>
>I like to her RATIONAL criticism of cold fusion. It helps to know what the
>objections are. It's the silly objections I can't stand. Like:
>
>Skeptic "The data is in error."
>
>Me  "Why?"
>
>Skeptic "because if it was correct, there would be cold fusion."
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 13:59:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA24800;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:56:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:56:06 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Advanced EM Theory Working Group
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000707123551.4621A-100000 eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000707133849.6353B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7dZD.0.D36.ZFaPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36102
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


R. Todd found this site on doe.gov

  Office of Transportation Technologies Advanced EM theory WOrking Group
  http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/

It appears that this AIAS group and Tom Bearden are working on some
interesting things.  Is this old news?  Also see:

   Electromagnetic History
   http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/history.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  Fri Jul  7 14:02:07 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26304;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:00:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:00:09 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.41]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:59:35 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F106XJB7oDaSeXnbnCn00000b54 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2000 20:59:35.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[418797E0:01BFE856]
Resent-Message-ID: <"DeXxf1.0.uQ6.OJaPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36103
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Interesting how I can announce over and over again we have built the first 
whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded history and, no comment on 
that.

Something strange about the whirlpool, no data, no tests; lots of tornado 
type vorticies everywhere you look, but no whirlpool.  I'm going to figure 
it out even if I don't get any help.

David


>From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:43:47 -0800
>
>At 11:46 AM 7/7/0, Stephen Lajoie wrote:
> >On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >> Are you saying no amount of experimental proof can change your 
>position?
> >
> >It seems you haven't read much of his writings.:-)
> >
> >> This group is for serious scientific discussion.
> >
> >How do you know this?
>
>I know this because I have been here since nearly the time the list was
>formed - primarily for serious scientific discussion of the Potopov device
>(a vortex device), cold fusion, conferences, free energy etc.  I have read
>Bill Beaty's posts on his intent for the group, which has changed some with
>time and with membership.   At one time the freenrg list was for amateur
>and above discussion of specific experiments, vortex was for serious
>scientific discussion.  However, Bill Beaty's emphasis has always been on
>tolerance of ideas.  Vortex has been a place for sharing information and
>ideas without hassles of protracted and heated arguments like those found
>on sci.physics.fusion.  The emphasis has been on SHARING and CONTRIBUTING,
>as opposed to arguing and debate.  This has been a useful place to find out
>where to order scientific supplies, how to build instruments, etc.  It has
>been and still is one of the best places to be to hear news of anything new
>in the energy field.  The dull times seem to get filled with schlock, but
>occasionally something exciting happens here and gets a good going over.
>Unfortunately much of the discussion of experiments has dried up, in some
>cases due to loss of interest in the list, and in some cases due to
>movement towards commercialization, protection of investors, etc.  Also
>there are new lists attracting attention.
>
>
>
> >I sware, there is NO WAY to tell. It looks to me the
> >more off the wall you are, the more welcome the post.
>
>
>While it is true that all ideas are welcome (see rules below), the nature
>of discussion has changed here of late.  At one time it was proposed by
>Scott Little and others to have a list dedicated only to serious discussion
>of specific energy related experiments, either in the planning stage, in
>execution, or recently completed.  Some members of the list would prefer no
>posts in their in basket, to a steady stream of debate without reference to
>specific recent experiments.  There is in fact a vortex list with this
>nature, vortexA, but no one has posted there (unless I got unsubscribed.)
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Discussing physics within
> >> your framework is like discussing evolution within a creationist 
>framework.
> >
> >Funny. I said the exact same thing once.
>
>
>Sorry for the repetition.  I didn't see that!  I usually don't read long
>posts if they are debate oriented.
>
>
>Here are the rules for further consideration:
>**************************************************************************
>Vortex-L Rules:
>
>1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
>    making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses.  If you
>    cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway.  If you
>    would like to give more, please do!  Direct your check to the
>    moderator, address above.  Any help you can give is sincerely
>    appreciated.
>
>2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and
>    namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden.  The tone
>    should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
>    Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having
>    some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave
>    in disgust.  But if your mind is open, hop on board!  Help us test
>    "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away.
>    (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND
>    THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.)
>
>3. Small email files please.  The limit is set to 40K right now, those
>    exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty.  If you wish to
>    start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange
>    initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL
>    IMMEDIATELY.  Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for
>    received email.  Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John
>    Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing.
>
>4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the
>    ENTIRE message in your reply.  Always edit it a bit and delete
>    something.  The more you delete, the less traffic overload.  The entire
>    message should really only be included if: (A) you are replying to a
>    message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point
>    reply to many parts of a message.  Many vortex users must pay by the
>    kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant
>    messages are irritating and expensive.  So, when including a quoted
>    message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better.
>
>5. Please do not include any other email list in the TO line or the CC
>    line of your messages to vortex-L.  In the past this has caused
>    thread leakage between different list and redundant messages as
>    replies from subscribers go to both lists.  It's OK to manually forward
>    mail from other lists to vortex-L, as long as the TO line and CC line
>    has only vortex-L and no other list.
>
>6. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated.  While not illegal
>    yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the
>    Unwritten Rules of the Internet.  Anyone who spams vortex-L with 
>junkmail
>    will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team.  ;)
>    Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L users is 
>acceptable.
>
>    - Bill B.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul  7 18:14:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA06546;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:14:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:14:02 -0700
Message-ID: <396679EF.BA7B4A43 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:46:39 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jul 07, 2000]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"phYvy1.0.7c1.P1ePv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36104
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 Jul 07, 2000
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org>
To: aki ix.netcom.com

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 7 Jul 00   Washington, DC

1. NMD I: PENTAGON LOWERS THE BAR FOR TONIGHT'S TEST.  The test
has been trumpeted as make-or-break for President Clinton's NMD
deployment decision (WN 23 Jun 00).  At a press conference
yesterday, however, the American Physical Society joined the
Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned
Scientists in urging the President not to deploy a missile
defense system, regardless of the outcome of this latest test. 
The APS spokesperson explained: "There's not enough evidence to
show the system will work, and Friday's test won't change that." 
The countermeasure, or more accurately the beacon, will consist
of a single large Mylar balloon decoy designed to appear 10 times
brighter than the mock warhead.  The kill vehicle will be
programmed to home on the dimmer of the two targets.

2. NMD II: CRITICS CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION. 
In an op-ed in the New York Times this morning, Ted Postol and
George Lewis of MIT call for a commission of scientists who have
no links to the Pentagon to look into the claims the Pentagon is
making for the missile defense system.  Postol has charged the
Pentagon with rigged tests and covered-up failures (WN 9 Jun 00). 

3. SCIENCE INDICATORS: JOURNALISTS SAY, "IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS." 
We are always seeking ways to interest the public in science. 
The solution may be to have more disasters.  Indeed, the most
closely followed science-related news stories of the past 15
years are all disasters.  According to "Science and Engineering
Indicators 2000," recently released by NSF, the top story was the
Challenger explosion, followed by earthquakes, floods, blizzards,
droughts, heat waves, epidemics and Chernobyl.  No wonder "The
Perfect Storm" is number one at the box office and on the best
seller lists.  After disasters came space exploration, led by the
Hubble Space Telescope (tied with breast implants) and the
Pathfinder mission to Mars.  Interest in space exploration is
consistent with the finding (also in "Indicators") that 70% of
Americans now know the Earth goes around the Sun.

4. MORE BUDGET BLUES: WILL NASA AND NSF REALLY GET SLASHED? 
House appropriators, operating under the constraints of this
year's Congressional Budget Resolution, cut the proposed NSF and
NASA budgets for 2001 by $508M and $322M respectively.  Math and
science education programs at NSF are threatened, along with the
second terascale computer facility and NASA's space launch
initiative.  HUD was also cut, and a Clinton veto is a virtual
certainty if the Senate fails to restore the HUD funds.  But the
Senate too is bound by the budget resolution.  Concerned by the
severe cuts in R&D, some Republican lawmakers are privately
urging the scientific community to call for a Presidential veto.

(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 Jul  7 20:47:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA16194;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:46:19 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:46:19 -0700
Message-ID: <3966A538.39015F5B ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:51:31 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000707123551.4621A-100000 eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OtzSY2.0.yy3.BGgPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36105
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Stephen,

I always like to see people interested in cold fusion.  If you want to learn
what is being discovered, you need to read Infinite Energy or attend the
various conferences where the subject is discussed.  The issue is no longer
whether the effect is real.  This question has been debated and answered many
times.  Additional discussion will not change the minds of people who have a
mind set against the idea.  The issues at the present time involve just which
data to believe, how the data should be interpreted, and which theory offers
more insight -- very much like many other normal subjects in science.  These
discussions go on all the time between people who are actively studying the
effect. To be part of such discussion, you would need sufficient background to
offer unique insights - again just like the situation in other fields of
science.  If you have particular questions, I would be happy to answer them.
However, I expect very little discussion will occur here until some public
claims are made, thereby providing something the skeptics can try to take
apart.

Ed Storms

Stephen Lajoie wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, David Dennard wrote:
>
> > Stephen writes:
> >
> > >It looks to me the more off the wall you are, the more welcome the post.
> >
> > :)  That means my posts must be right on!!!
> >
> > But really this list is run by a click, much like high school, the cold
> > fusion click, anything else is pretty much run out of town.  I think it is
> > sad too, many new folks have come and gone over the past couple years
> > because they thought this list was about the vortex, but quickly found out
> > it is about cold fusion.
> >
> > I stay on because cold fusinon is about bubbles and bubbles are about the
> > vortex.
> >
> > David
>
> I came because I heard there were cold fusionist here. I don't see much
> discussion. I wasn't really interested in spinning water. Cold fusion,
> tho', is the greatest find since fire.
>
> I left sci.physics.fusion because it is full of name calling
> conventionalist. I was told that name calling was quite acceptable. Now
> some guy named Cagle is going around attacking everyone. Seems it is not
> so acceptable when it is done to "respectable scientist (tm)".
>
> I like to her RATIONAL criticism of cold fusion. It helps to know what the
> objections are. It's the silly objections I can't stand. Like:
>
> Skeptic "The data is in error."
>
> Me  "Why?"
>
> Skeptic "because if it was correct, there would be cold fusion."

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  8 16:42:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14276;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:40:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:40:41 -0700
X-Sender: josephnewman mail.earthlink.net
Message-Id: <v02130510b58d41d3029e [63.178.74.81]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:43:18 -0600
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Part B: DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING WORK
Resent-Message-ID: <"qBSfc2.0.-U3.vlxPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36107
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Part B: DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING WORK
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (7/7/2000)

PAUL GOMORY AFFIDAVIT, continued from Part A ---

        The questions and doubts and disbeliefs raised by the Examiner are
understandable because of his prior teachings and experiences.  However,
his persistent negativism in spite of the facts, exemplifies that
Applicant's invention is New and Novel.  Not a change of mere degree, but a
distinct change in kind.

        Applicant, himself, has objectively pointed out important facts and
points of human nature which are pertinent to this very case in his
Declaration shown in Exhibit 11 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman], understandably, is quite put out that
his Affidavits have been refused effectiveness to remove a 112 rejection.
As a result and the necessity of this Appeal, the costs to him in legal
fees alone are greater than $20,000, as of this date.

        There is no basis to distinguish between such a set of Affidavits
and those submitted under Rule 132.  These are, at best, also prima facie
or rebuttable presumptions in litigation.

        The Patent and Trademark Office or government does not guarantee
the validity of the patent.  The invalidity of the patent can be reckoned
by the experts judging the file history of prosecution, etc.

        I suggest that the cost to Applicants to argue the usual 112
rejection is way out of line with the benefit to the Country.  Let us put
that time, energy, and money into more patent applications, more
inventions, more research, etc.  Our great, but ailing Country, will
benefit.

        This Revolutionary Pioneering Invention of Applicant's [Joseph
Newman] is a prime example.  Let the experts in the art be the judge.  Let
us not deny them the chance to be such.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] started work on this Invention more than
seventeen years ago in March, 1965.  The extensive teachings and
disclosures of his Patent Application and its Disclosure Document are
testament to his achievements.  A life's work in itself.  His work and
teachings will be challenging even for the experts in the field, because of
the newness and vastness of discussion, which covers overlapping scientific
fields.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] has proven to me through demonstration
that his teachings and instructions of his specifications are true and
factual and that he has most definitely met the requirements of 112.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] has indeed produced and disclosed a
Pioneering Invention which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the
world.  We should do all we can to assist him in getting the broad patent
protection of which he is surely deserving for his efforts of years of
labor and genius.

        Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] proposed claim changes (Appendix I of
Appeal Brief before the Board) should be allowed and the patent should
issue at the earliest possible date because of its extreme importance and
benefit to the people, and so that others in the field may immediately
begin to build, or attempt to design and build on this invention, of which
the entire world is in dire need.

        I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief
are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with
the knowledge that willful false statements, and the like so made, are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18
of the United States Code, and that such willful false statements may
jeopardize the validity of the Application or any patent issued thereon.


[Sent by]

PAUL L. GOMORY


The above Affidavit was sent to Joseph Newman in 1982.  Joseph Newman's
then-attorney, Emmett Pugh chose not to submit the impressive Affidavit
from Paul Gomory by giving the flimsy excuse that it was too long in light
of all the many other Affidavits that had previously been submitted to the
Patent Office.  Attorney Emmett Pugh was later dismissed by Joseph Newman
after Pugh was found to be participating in the conspiracy against Joseph
Newman and humanity.  See the A & E Network Special entitled "Conspiracies"
for details regarding the conspiracy against the Pioneering Energy
Invention technology of Joseph Newman.
______________________________________________________

I believe you will agree that the above Affidavit is impressive.

The following one-page letter also verifies the scientific importance of
the astronomical concepts that are disclosed in my Chapter on Astronomy
[from my book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN] and underscores the
increasingly destructive weather patterns now occurring throughout the
world - all of which is endorsed by Dr. Robert Smith, Chief of Space and
Environment, NASA, Huntsville, Alabama as presented in my fundamental book.


December 18, 1999

Joseph Newman Publishing Company
11445 East Via Linda, No. 416
Scottsdale, AZ 85259

To Whom It May Concern;

I was pleasantly surprised to find THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
available.  I had the opportunity to skim over the 7th Edition, which was
brought to my attention by a coworker about a year ago, and was immediately
drawn to the section on electromagnetic energy and weather.  I recognized
the content as factual, with some uncommon and surprising aspects.

I believe a major scientific upheaval is imminent, with far-reaching
implications (an imperative for intellectual honesty in astronomy, for
example, is long overdue), and my brief encounter with Mr. Newman's work
substantiated that belief.  Unfortunately, contact with the coworker was
lost shortly thereafter, and I was unable to recall the title, let alone
examine Mr. Newman's theories and applications in depth; that is, until
now.

I have enclosed a check in the amount of $79.95 to order THE ENERGY MACHINE
OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, 8th Edition.  If possible, please confirm the order via
email.  Thank you very much.

Sincerely,  Steven R. Strickling

P.S. You may find this interesting -

"Beware when great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.  It is as when
a conflagration has broken out in a great city, and no man knows when it
will end.  There is not a piece of science but its flank may be turned
tomorrow, there is not any literary reputation, not the so-called eternal
names of fame, that may not be revised and condemned.  The very hopes of
man, the thoughts in his heart, the religion of nations, the manners and
morals of mankind are all at the mercy of a new generalization." - Emerson

__________________________________________________

People of the world -

For nearly 20 years I have screamed repeatedly to you that the conspiracy
against my Pioneering technology is actually against YOU the people!  I
could have sold you out to the power brokers for hundreds of millions of
dollars.  I did not.  Will you the people now stand up with me to fight for
a better life for your children and grandchildren?  I have always seen the
Light and may God give your mind the magnitude of the Truth of which I
speak and the courage and vigor to join me in my life's service to your
children and all humanity.  Together, WE WILL WIN, BY THE WILL OF GOD!

Love to all Humanity,

[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman


P.S.
I am still looking for a brave and honest attorney!  Remember the specific
words of technical expert in electrical engineering and Special Master
William Schuyler (former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark
Office) - Quote from his Report:  "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark
Office and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a
prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external
input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."

Those words of the Special Master speak for themselves.

____________________________________

For complete text and Exhibits of above information, visit:

URL:

www.josephnewman.com

or, specific webpage:

http://www.josephnewman.com/test_results.html


Joseph Newman
(480) 657-3722


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  8 16:42:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA14103;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:40:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:40:17 -0700
X-Sender: josephnewman mail.earthlink.net
Message-Id: <v0213050cb58d3ef55759 [63.178.74.81]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:42:44 -0600
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Part A: DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING WORK
Resent-Message-ID: <"oANod.0.HS3.XlxPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36106
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Part A: DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING WORK
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (7/7/2000)

        In light of recent public admissions by the U.S. Navy, Litton
Industries, and other companies that my life's work is TRUE (reference:
Mechanical Engineering Magazine of April, 2000) and, at the same time, they
"claim" (plunder) that they have invented a "SUPER-MOTOR," I submit the
following:

Note:  The power brokers employ a two-edged sword in the deception strategy -

        In May and June 2000, the power brokers published in Forbes
Magazine, The New York Times, and in Discover Magazine references to the
same book - "Voodoo Science and Energy" by Bob Park - who attempts to
attack my work.  Bob Park has successfully demonstrated his bias as well as
his inability to ascertain the FACTS prior to publishing his book.
Concerning an understanding of my work, the accuracy of his book is limited
to the correct spelling of my name.  Beyond that, he has factually
demonstrated repeated comission and omission of the REAL FACTS concerning
my revolutionary technology.
        At the same time that the above media-controlled outlets publish
the Park articles, the Mechanical Engineering Magazine claims that the Navy
(also controlled by the power brokers via their lucrative multi-billion
dollar defense contracts with multi-national corporations) has invented a
"SUPER MOTOR" that is actually one application plundered from Joseph
Newman's technology.
        I was informed by news anchor Garland Robinette (with the
CBS-affiliate TV station in New Orleans) that he was personally invited to
a large reception and dinner held by a consortium of oil company magnates.
Those individuals told Garland Robinette to explicitly tell Joseph Newman
that, "If he did not sell his Pioneering Energy Invention to them, that
they would see that I never got it produced and they would steal it."
        "There is a God," since I have just discovered - in my extensive
files dating back thirty years - a very special Affidavit by Paul L.
Gomory, who was at the time he prepared it the Expert Advisor to the
Judiciary Committee on Patent Law in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Gomory was
introduced to me by representatives of Senator Stennis.  My subsequent
meeting with Paul Gomory resulted in the following Affidavit that
exemplifies the truth I have told you:

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Applicant:  Joseph W. Newman     Art Group:  212
Serial No.:  179,474            Examiner: Duggan
Filing Date:  August 18, 1980   Date:  September 1982

For:  "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT"

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL L. GOMORY
***************************

STATE OF MARYLAND

        The undersigned, being duly deposed, swears and states that:

        My name is Paul L. Gomory, I live at 5609 Ogden Road in Bethesda,
Maryland.  I was born in Newark, New Jersey and attended schools in
Hungary, Austria, France, and England.  Studied chemistry and engineering
at the University of London, England and at Polytechnic Institute in New
York City.  I have an Inter-Science degree, University of London, England
and that subsequent to the studies leading to that degree I studied
Advanced Physics at King's College, University of London, England.  I hold
a law degree from Temple University School of Law and am a member of the
Bar of the United States Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and a number of lower state courts and
federal courts.

        The recently enacted patent law revision bill is one of several on
which I have worked assiduously having testified on it and others on behalf
of the Association for the Advancement of Invention and Innovation (A^2I^2)
and on my own behalf.  I was a Director and Advisor contact on the Hill and
Public Relations person.  I drafted a number of bills which have been
introduced in the U.S. Senate as well as in the House of Representatives,
and have secured the introduction of the American Patent Law Association
bill presented to the 94th Congress.  I am an ex-officio member of the
National Council on Patent Law Associations.

        I have chaired a number of committees in the American Bar
Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and in the American
Patent Law Association.  These committees have been related to various
legislation activities including public relations and public information.
I have acted as liaison between the D.C. Bar Association, Patent, Trademark
and Copyright Section of the District of Columbia Bar Association and was
for many years a member of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Committee of
the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and its Subcommittee on
Divestiture which I conceived and formation of which I instigated.  I have
worked with a large number of other associations including NAM, CMA, PMA,
MAPI, ATA, etc.

        I have been involved intimately in chairing committees, including
patent law committees, in drafting bills introduced in the Congress and
responsible for drafting several patent law revision bills including
S.4259, 93rd Congress; S.214 Fong, 94th Congress Fong; HR14632 Wiggins,
94th Congress; HR 5075 Butler, 96th Congress - the patent reexamination
procedure now in effect in the PTO first appeared in Fong S.4259.

        I have authored a number of legal briefs for the United States
Supreme Court, as well as articles on political and legal subjects,
including Trade Secret Law, Freedom of Information Act, Intellectual
Property Law, and Government Patent Policy.

        I have reviewed the specification of the above identified
Application [by Joseph Westley Newman] with particular reference to the
related embodiments of Figures 5 and 6 and the disclosures on pages 24-35
concerning inter-alia the "working prototypes" built and to be built in the
form of those figures.

        In the interest of not being repetitious and lengthy, let me simply
state I also found the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 6 simple to understand
and that I also believe that from Applicant's [Joseph Newman's]
instructions given in his specification, I would build a device similar to
the one I viewed at the Hospitality House, across from the U.S. Patent
Office, the same one which the Board will see and inspect.  My conclusions
on reading the specification is basically as already described in point 3
of page one through point 5 of page three of attorney Pugh's Declaration
listed as Exhibit 2 in the Appeal Brief before the Board as well as the
description given in second paragraph of page two through fourth paragraph
of page four of attorney Renneker's Affidavit listed as Exhibit 1 in the
Appeal Brief before the Board.

        The major question being:  Does the teaching and instructions of
Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification become verified or disproven
with factual demonstrations given relative to his teachings and
instructions?

        It is apparent that the teachings of Applicant [Joseph Newman] are
either true or false.  The Examiner has taken the position that Applicant's
teachings were false, therefore, the invention would not function as
claimed and therefore one could not build the invention, and [he] quoted
rejection under 35 USC 112 (first paragraph).

        The Examiner in his final action of page 2 stated, Quote: "that
rotor 300, allegedly weighing approximately four hundred pounds, is driven
EXCLUSIVELY by motor coil 305, allegedly energized by a mere 126  volts and
99 milliamperes."  Unquote.  It is obvious the Examiner chose to disbelieve
that such a massive rotor could be driven by such low wattage, if indeed
such even existed.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches the more larger [the]
diameter and longer the coil 205 or 305, the greater the magnetic field and
less current used, and coupled with a stronger magnetic field of magnet 200
or 300, the greater would be the energy output relative to energy input.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches and instructs in the
specification the correctness of his invention and that the teachings of
the prior art are not correct.

        Again, it is obvious to the Examiner, on page 3 of his final
rejection, chose to disbelieve Applicant's teachings and instructions,
Quote:  "While applicant may certainly propound his own theories of
operation of his invention, more proof of operativeness than has been
presented here is required if the device is alleged more than 100%
efficient."  Unquote.

        It is a well known fact that the prior art teaches the electrical
energy produced by a battery or generator is used up in the system which it
operates, whether being lights, motors, heating elements and etc. and/or
causing a release of energy of any type.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] in his specification clearly teaches
against such prior art (see pages 16 thru 21 of his specification,
especially see pages 19 thru 21).

        On this day Applicant [Joseph Newman] showed and demonstrated to me
a simple demonstration that his teachings are correct and that the
electrical energy produced from a generator or battery is not used up in
the system it operates.  At first this goes against common sense because of
what we have been taught!

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] used a permanent magnet D.C. motor as a
generator.  He demonstrated that the resistance of the copper windings of
the generator was only 3 ohms.  Therefore, he demonstrated the so-called
work load would be nil if the two leads from the generator were connected,
and the generator shaft were then rotated by hand (pulling a cord wrapped
around a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of generator).  I was
asked to then pull the cord lightly once and then briskly.  I immediately
experienced noticeable resistive force the harder I pulled the cord,
although there was no conventional work load hooked in the system.
Applicant mechanically explained these results by his teachings of
gyroscopic particles; that when the atoms of the rotating coils of the
generator hit the gyroscopic particles (at some degree of a right angle)
which were being emitted from the atoms of the permanent magnets in the
generator, that the gyroscopic particles then went down the length of
copper wire coils (but that their gyroscopic spin would then be at some
degree of a right angle to the balance of the spin of the gyroscopic
particles still moving in the magnetic field from the permanent magnets),
therefore when the leads were hooked together this then allowed the
gyroscopic particles to then try to re-enter the influences of said
gyroscopic particles of said permanent magnets, but that their spin would
be at some degree of a right angle to one another, therefore they try to
push away from each other, resulting in the coils of [the] generator then
having resistance to rotation.  And that this effect was multiplied the
faster you turned the coils, because then the more gyro-particles you would
cause to be released from said permanent magnetic field, resulting in an
ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT of gyro-particles in the closed system (coils), then
trying to re-enter the influence of gyro-particles moving in said magnetic
field of said permanent magnets and therefore would always more vigorously
resist your acceleration of the coil and its shaft of the generator,
although there was no conventional work load placed in the system.

        Then Applicant [Joseph Newman] attached work load of six small
miniature motors in series to the two leads of the generator (the
resistance or conventional work load placed in the system was then
considerably greater).  Applicant now asked me to again pull the cord as I
had previously done.  I must say I was amazed to find that the resistance
to me rotating the shaft of the generator was dramatically reduced;
although all six motors run when I pulled the cord and was producing
obvious work.

        If, as the prior art so persistently teaches, the Electrical Energy
produced by a generator or battery is used up in the work load which the
system operates, then why should I observe these results?  As Applicant
[Joseph Newman] pointed out, the conventional words "Shorted Out" does not
mechanically explain the results.  However, his teachings and instructions
do mechanically explain the results.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] explained that when the work load of six
motors in series was placed in the system, the same number of
gyro-particles were released from the field of the permanent magnet by the
coils of the generator (relative to equal speeds of rotation of shaft) but
that now, because of the work load (resistance), they could not easily
re-enter into the gyro-particles of said magnetic field of said permanent
magnets, and therefore resulted in hydraulic effect back to their source
and throughout the work load of the motors, resulting in the motors
rotating and producing obvious work and yet causing me less energy input,
and Applicant [Joseph Newman] pointed out, that once the gyro-particles
managed to get through the work load of the motors, then they would still
go back into the generator and cause me to experience a resistive force,
(as result of prior explanation).  Therefore, based off Applicant's
teachings, one does not want the electric current to get back to the source
of its beginnings, whether battery or generator.  And that, contrary to
prior art teachings, the electrical current is NOT used up in the work
load!  But that the input of a work load causes LESS destruction of a
battery or LESS energy input into a generator.  Exactly as Applicant
teaches in his specification.  Applicant also points out that the prior art
teaches [that] copper is "nonmagnetic," and, contrary to this, Applicant
teaches throughout the specification concerning Figs. 5 and 6 that copper
is extremely magnetic.  So much so that an individual is easily fooled into
thinking copper is nonmagnetic, simply because the magnetic field will
disappear so quickly when the current is turned off.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] also vigorously teaches that the Energy
in the field of force of any type magnet is the Energy which makes up the
atoms of the material from which it comes.  It is literally Einstein's
Equation of E=mc^2.  (See lines 19 thru 26 of page 29 of Applicant's
specification.]

        It is obvious throughout Applicant's specification that he teaches
and instructs in how to achieve a startling difference in kind rather than
one of mere degree!  And that his teachings are impressively reinforced by
the extensive teachings of the Disclosure Document which is part of his
patent application.

        The total proof, however, is easily seen in his demonstrations, in
that they do EXACTLY as he teaches and instructs in his specification!
Example:  As described above in the generator and miniature motor
demonstration given me.  And then Applicant showed me the inner workings of
his 700-pound motor coil 305 and 90-pound magnet 300 (which is covered and
secured together with fiberglass) and its associated generator coil 306 of
approximately 200 pounds.  Then demonstrations were given as to its
operability as follows:

        1.  Applicant [Joseph Newman] again pointed out to me his statement
made in lines 4 thru line 15 of page 29 of his specification.  On seeing
this above prototype, I agreed it was indeed a "Rube Goldberg" built
device, no precision.  Both ends of the coil are open allowing magnet 300
to have weak magnetic interaction across the open ends of the coil 305, the
magnet 300 is mounted in a 2 by 6 inch wood frame, the entire unit was
built by hand in the backwoods of Mississippi, and looks as if it were.
The magnet 300 looks massive as does motor coil 305 and the noticeable open
space between magnet 300 and motor coil 305 adds to the inefficient-looking
design.  Compared to any other prior art, efficiently-designed motor of
close tolerances and conventional sizes, the Newman motor looked as though
it should be highly inefficient and that, because of a lack of precision in
design, coupled with its massive size, you immediately feel this device
should consume high wattage, just to run.

        So much so, that once can easily see why the Examiner, in his final
rejection, chose to believe that the even larger embodiment would not run
off such low-claimed amperage and voltage.

        2.  Applicant [Joseph Newman] then stated we will now see, if as
Applicant stated in lines 11 thru 15 of page 29 of specification, will this
"Rube Goldberg" built device give results superior to those taught in the
prior art.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] then displayed a very small precision
(Distinctive Miniature) D.C. Permanent Magnet Motor built by Aristo-Craft
claiming Lo-Drain and Hi-R.P.M. and HIGH OUTPUT; and designed to meet the
needs of engineers, designers, hobbyists, and experimenters.  Stock No.
RE260 showing Nominal Voltage of 3 Volts and current draw of only 250 M.A.
(with no load) and R.P.M. of 11,600 (with no load).  Copy of the literature
on their display box is attached as Exhibit A.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] then states, "You will agree this
precision designed (Distinctive Miniature) conventional motor should draw
less amperage and wattage than this 'Rube Goldberg' built device you see
here, and that there should be no way his device should run on LESS wattage
and amperage than this Miniature Precision Conventional Motor AND perform
noticeable more work."  I eagerly agreed that should be true.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] then hooked the precision miniature motor
and his "Rube Goldberg"-looking device in series and hooked them both to
one 6-volt D.C. battery.  To my amazement, the miniature motor momentarily
attempted to run and THEN STOPPED, while the large massive rotary of magnet
300 of Newman's "Rube-Goldberg"-built device ran and on the Simpson 260
meter showed only 30 MILLIAMPERES being drawn!  Applicant pointed out that
amounts to only .18 watts, less than 1/5 of one watt, while the precision
miniature motor at 250 M.A. times 3 volts draws .75 watts or 3/4 of one
watt, and yet the difference in torque is phenomenal!

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] then asked, "You will admit that these
results are as I predicted and described and taught in the specification,
relative to improvement over the prior art?"  I stated a strong, "Yes!"

        The fact of the matter is, both experiments of 1 and 2 above proved
the truth of the teachings of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification.

        A.  He demonstrated the energy released from a battery or generator
is not used up in the work load as is taught in prior art, but to the
contrary, the work load REDUCES the amount of needed input into a
generator, when the circuit is completed.  And also reduces the destruction
of a battery.  Amazing, but true, and in accordance with Applicant's
teachings and instructions of his specification.

        B.  He added MORE ATOMS to coil 305 and MORE ATOMS to magnet 300
and demonstrated amazing results, in that he uses LESS energy input and
INCREASES energy output.  Again, amazing, but true, and in accordance with
Applicant's teachings and instructions in his specification.

        3.  Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a conventional, larger
12-volt precision D.C. permanent magnet motor, still a fractional
horsepower, but 3 inches in diameter, made by Tenna Corporation, and which
its literature states that Tenna was the leader in fractional horsepower
motors and claims the permanent magnet motor to be designed for giving
maximum service, dependability, and EFFICIENCY.  Applicant was advised by
several electrical engineers that said motor would be in the 80% efficiency
range.  (Applicant, on calling the Company, was advised it had gone out of
business because of economic conditions.)  Copy of Tenna's brochure is
attached as Exhibit B.

        Said conventional precision motor draws 1.2 amps just to run, with
no load times 12 volts equals over 14 watts and no load.

        Tests on said conventional precision 12-volt motor and compared to
tests on Applicant's prototype that is exhibited here at the Hospitality
House, is detailed in Dr. Hastings' Declaration of April 26, 1982 and is
shown as Exhibit 4 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

        Using a "V"-belt as a slip clutch over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley
attached to shaft of said conventional precision 12-volt motor and attached
to a spring scale, Applicant demonstrated to me the same type remarkable
results as is described by Dr. Hastings in said Exhibit 4, when the
"V"-belt slip clutch and spring scale were hooked to Applicant's prototype
over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley.

        And contrary to the understandable conclusion drawn by the Examiner
in lines 12 and 13 of page 8 of Examiner's Answer Before the Board, this
remarkable result is not "rotor moment of inertia".  The braking mechanism
can be MAINTAINED and the results will be CONSTANT so long as the battery
voltage is CONSTANT.

        Again, those results are remarkable in view of prior art teachings.
However, in view of the teachings  and instructions of Applicant's [Joseph
Newman's] specification, they are predictable, as he has done so, and
because the facts of operation are as he predicted, proof is given of the
correctness of the teaching's of Applicant's specification.

        Also, as to the understandable conclusion question posed by the
Examiner in the third paragraph of page 3 of the Examiner's Answer Before
the Board, that there should be no complicated wave form from Applicant's
Invention when viewing D.C. Input.  There MOST DEFINITELY is a VERY
unexpected wave form seen on a B & K Precision Oscilloscope, Model #1476
(copy of cover page of manual of said oscilloscope is attached as Exhibit
C) when viewing the input current from a D.C. source into Applicant's
invention.  As the Examiner expected, there is not a complicated wave form
on the oscilloscope when viewing the input from a D.C. source into said
CONVENTIONAL precision 12-volt permanent magnet motor.

        It is appreciated that the Examiner would naturally attempt to
judge Applicant's specification and stated results off his prior beliefs,
as result of his prior teachings, but the facts consistently show that the
doubts and assumptions made by the Examiner are NOT as he anticipated and
that the statements made by Applicant [Joseph Newman] and other competent
individuals are TRUE and FACTUAL.

        The facts show the statements made by Dr. Hastings in Exhibit 4 of
the Appeal Brief are as stated.

        The difference in the performance of other conventional precision
motors, which draw low wattage (15 watts or less) and Applicant's
"Rube-Goldberg"-built motor as so extreme in favor of Applicant's Motor
Invention as to be SHOCKING to those not skilled in the teachings of
Applicant's specification.

        4.  Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a Black & Decker 1/5
horsepower, torque geared precision hand drill that ran at 1200 R.P.M.
(with no load) and Applicant demonstrated that it drew 1.5 amps and 115
volts, or over 160 watts just to run, with no load.

        Applicant, then using same "V"-belt as a slip clutch and spring
scale and hooked over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to the shaft of
said 1/5 horsepower precision drill, applied a constant 2-pound pull, the
amperage draw went up 250 M.A. or wattage draw increased by 28.75 watts,
and R.P.M. decreased to 1050 R.P.M., and produced in the vicinity of 18
watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings.

        It is easily seen, the above shows a percentage of wattage output
relative to increased energy input over NO LOAD ENERGY USE, of
approximately 63%.

        However, the No Load Energy consumption was already more than 160
watts, which, when load of 18 watts was applied, the total wattage
consumption on said precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker motor then rose
to 178 watts.

        Applicant then stated, "Let's compare the results of this precision
1/5 horsepower Black & Decker, torque geared motor to my invention."

        Applicant proceeded to demonstrate that with same "V"-belt and
spring scale slip clutch hooked to 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to
shaft of the "Rube Goldberg" prototype of his invention, the invention with
same 2-pound pull rotated in the vicinity of 400 R.P.M. and only drew 100
MILLIAMPERES TIMES 81 VOLTS OR ONLY 8.1 WATTS on Simpson 260 meter and was
under a load of torque brake of 6 watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings and,
in addition, was lighting a fluorescent light bulb hooked to generator coil
306, but not to full brightness, and which drew 28 watts when hooked to
house current of 115 volts.  This torque load of 6 watts plus the vicinity
of 3 watts in fluorescent bulb, gives output of 9 watts, and added to this
must be the energy loss dissipated in vibrating the entire 1000 pound
system, which is easily felt by hand touch, and also the watts being
dissipated away from the system, which is easily picked up by a transistor
radio placed across the room.

        It should be noted the invention (with no load) was only pulling 60
M.A. and 81 Volts or 4.86 WATTS reading on Simpson 260 meter.  Therefore,
the invention only increased in wattage draw by 3.24 WATTS when under load
of producing over 9 WATTS OF ENERGY OUTPUT!  And the total wattage input
EVEN UNDER LOAD is only 8 watts or less!

        Example:  When input current is observed on said oscilloscope, it
can be observed that the true input current into the Newman invention is
even LESS than shown on the Simpson 260 meter; which attempts to take an
AVERAGE reading, but which weighted mass of its pointer cannot possibly
pick up high spikes of current back E.M.F. that occur at tremendous speeds.

        Example:  Applicant [Joseph Newman] demonstrated that when the
volts per centimeter of said oscilloscope were dialed to 20 volts per
centimeter, and the input current then attempted to be read, the input
current is so small that at 20 volts per centimeter, no input current can
be seen.  However, with sweep times set at 20 M.S. or higher, there is a
high amount of thin spikes occurring, that go completely off the scale.

        This, Applicant points out, is the result of action and re-action
effect of atoms within the copper coil and back E.M.F., and is also seen in
oscillographs taken by Dr. Weber shown on page D of Exhibit 6 in the Appeal
Brief before the Board.

        As attorney Pugh has already pointed out in his Reply Brief (bottom
of page 5), "The originals previously filed in the record are clear and
intelligible."

        It should be noted that the Newman Invention even under load in
demonstration of 4 above, was STILL drawing LESS amperage than said
precision miniature motor (which drew 250 M.A. with no load) in experiment
of 2 above.  And the Newman Invention was still drawing LESS wattage than
said precision Tenna 12-volt permanent magnet D.C. motor in 3 above, which
drew 14 watts with no load.

        In summation, it is easily established from the facts of actual
observation of said working prototype of Applicant's Invention, that his
invention works as he has instructed and taught in his specification of his
Application.  And that said prototype clearly matches the instructions of
Applicant's specification and can be easily built from said instructions.
And that said prototype has produced an energy output greater than the
External Energy Input Into the system.  That the amazing predictions
Applicant [Joseph Newman] stated and taught would occur, when following the
instructions and teachings of his specification, had indeed occurred and
been astoundingly demonstrated in a "Rube Goldberg" prototype of
Applicant's invention.  That the statements made by Applicant and other
competent individuals in Affidavit form are proven true by the facts of
said demonstration of the smaller 1000-pound prototype demonstrated here.
It is obvious from the facts presented, that the larger prototype with
600-pound atom Magnet Rotary 300 and 4200-pound atom Copper Coil 305 and
300-pound atom Generator Coil 305 will give even more amazing results and
is the prototype that most of the Affidavits have been addressed to.  The
unit weighing in the vicinity of 5000 pounds was too large for Applicant to
bring to the Washington, D.C. area.  Even said one-half ton unit
demonstrated has been a burden and high expense for Applicant to bring to
this area.

Continued --- Part B


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  8 16:52:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21620;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:51:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:51:25 -0700
X-Sender: josephnewman mail.earthlink.net
Message-Id: <v02130501b58d7d6b3676 [63.178.74.106]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:53:59 -0600
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: Part B: DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING WORK
Resent-Message-ID: <"ubCZd1.0.gH5.yvxPv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36108
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Part B: DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING WORK
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (7/7/2000)

PAUL GOMORY AFFIDAVIT, continued from Part A ---

        The questions and doubts and disbeliefs raised by the Examiner are
understandable because of his prior teachings and experiences.  However,
his persistent negativism in spite of the facts, exemplifies that
Applicant's invention is New and Novel.  Not a change of mere degree, but a
distinct change in kind.

        Applicant, himself, has objectively pointed out important facts and
points of human nature which are pertinent to this very case in his
Declaration shown in Exhibit 11 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman], understandably, is quite put out that
his Affidavits have been refused effectiveness to remove a 112 rejection.
As a result and the necessity of this Appeal, the costs to him in legal
fees alone are greater than $20,000, as of this date.

        There is no basis to distinguish between such a set of Affidavits
and those submitted under Rule 132.  These are, at best, also prima facie
or rebuttable presumptions in litigation.

        The Patent and Trademark Office or government does not guarantee
the validity of the patent.  The invalidity of the patent can be reckoned
by the experts judging the file history of prosecution, etc.

        I suggest that the cost to Applicants to argue the usual 112
rejection is way out of line with the benefit to the Country.  Let us put
that time, energy, and money into more patent applications, more
inventions, more research, etc.  Our great, but ailing Country, will
benefit.

        This Revolutionary Pioneering Invention of Applicant's [Joseph
Newman] is a prime example.  Let the experts in the art be the judge.  Let
us not deny them the chance to be such.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] started work on this Invention more than
seventeen years ago in March, 1965.  The extensive teachings and
disclosures of his Patent Application and its Disclosure Document are
testament to his achievements.  A life's work in itself.  His work and
teachings will be challenging even for the experts in the field, because of
the newness and vastness of discussion, which covers overlapping scientific
fields.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] has proven to me through demonstration
that his teachings and instructions of his specifications are true and
factual and that he has most definitely met the requirements of 112.

        Applicant [Joseph Newman] has indeed produced and disclosed a
Pioneering Invention which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the
world.  We should do all we can to assist him in getting the broad patent
protection of which he is surely deserving for his efforts of years of
labor and genius.

        Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] proposed claim changes (Appendix I of
Appeal Brief before the Board) should be allowed and the patent should
issue at the earliest possible date because of its extreme importance and
benefit to the people, and so that others in the field may immediately
begin to build, or attempt to design and build on this invention, of which
the entire world is in dire need.

        I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief
are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with
the knowledge that willful false statements, and the like so made, are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18
of the United States Code, and that such willful false statements may
jeopardize the validity of the Application or any patent issued thereon.


[Sent by]

PAUL L. GOMORY


The above Affidavit was sent to Joseph Newman in 1982.  Joseph Newman's
then-attorney, Emmett Pugh chose not to submit the impressive Affidavit
from Paul Gomory by giving the flimsy excuse that it was too long in light
of all the many other Affidavits that had previously been submitted to the
Patent Office.  Attorney Emmett Pugh was later dismissed by Joseph Newman
after Pugh was found to be participating in the conspiracy against Joseph
Newman and humanity.  See the A & E Network Special entitled "Conspiracies"
for details regarding the conspiracy against the Pioneering Energy
Invention technology of Joseph Newman.
______________________________________________________

I believe you will agree that the above Affidavit is impressive.

The following one-page letter also verifies the scientific importance of
the astronomical concepts that are disclosed in my Chapter on Astronomy
[from my book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN] and underscores the
increasingly destructive weather patterns now occurring throughout the
world - all of which is endorsed by Dr. Robert Smith, Chief of Space and
Environment, NASA, Huntsville, Alabama as presented in my fundamental book.


December 18, 1999

Joseph Newman Publishing Company
11445 East Via Linda, No. 416
Scottsdale, AZ 85259

To Whom It May Concern;

I was pleasantly surprised to find THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
available.  I had the opportunity to skim over the 7th Edition, which was
brought to my attention by a coworker about a year ago, and was immediately
drawn to the section on electromagnetic energy and weather.  I recognized
the content as factual, with some uncommon and surprising aspects.

I believe a major scientific upheaval is imminent, with far-reaching
implications (an imperative for intellectual honesty in astronomy, for
example, is long overdue), and my brief encounter with Mr. Newman's work
substantiated that belief.  Unfortunately, contact with the coworker was
lost shortly thereafter, and I was unable to recall the title, let alone
examine Mr. Newman's theories and applications in depth; that is, until
now.

I have enclosed a check in the amount of $79.95 to order THE ENERGY MACHINE
OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, 8th Edition.  If possible, please confirm the order via
email.  Thank you very much.

Sincerely,  Steven R. Strickling

P.S. You may find this interesting -

"Beware when great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.  It is as when
a conflagration has broken out in a great city, and no man knows when it
will end.  There is not a piece of science but its flank may be turned
tomorrow, there is not any literary reputation, not the so-called eternal
names of fame, that may not be revised and condemned.  The very hopes of
man, the thoughts in his heart, the religion of nations, the manners and
morals of mankind are all at the mercy of a new generalization." - Emerson

__________________________________________________

People of the world -

For nearly 20 years I have screamed repeatedly to you that the conspiracy
against my Pioneering technology is actually against YOU the people!  I
could have sold you out to the power brokers for hundreds of millions of
dollars.  I did not.  Will you the people now stand up with me to fight for
a better life for your children and grandchildren?  I have always seen the
Light and may God give your mind the magnitude of the Truth of which I
speak and the courage and vigor to join me in my life's service to your
children and all humanity.  Together, WE WILL WIN, BY THE WILL OF GOD!

Love to all Humanity,

[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman


P.S.
I am still looking for a brave and honest attorney!  Remember the specific
words of technical expert in electrical engineering and Special Master
William Schuyler (former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark
Office) - Quote from his Report:  "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark
Office and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a
prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external
input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."

Those words of the Special Master speak for themselves.

____________________________________

For complete text and Exhibits of above information, visit:

URL:

www.josephnewman.com

or, specific webpage:

http://www.josephnewman.com/test_results.html


Joseph Newman
(480) 657-3722


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  8 21:49:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA25701;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:48:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:48:44 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b58d841590e0 [207.8.127.139]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000708214755.16452C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nn65I1.0.VH6.hG0Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36109
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{Since this post apparently didn't make it through on the first try,
> here it is again. --MJ}***

Oops, message size = 42K, bounced by the list server


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Jul  8 23:49:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA21043;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:48:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:48:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b58dceb51c55 [207.8.127.148]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000708214755.16452C-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <v04011700b58d841590e0 [207.8.127.139]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:43:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"8_Gs32.0.j85.E12Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36110
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> ***{Since this post apparently didn't make it through on the first try,
>> here it is again. --MJ}***
>
>Oops, message size = 42K, bounced by the list server

***{I don't understand this. My e-mail program only gives me a page count,
not a message size in kilobytes. But, with everything formatted the same
way, kilobytes per page ought to be pretty consistent from message to
message. Therefore, since the server was accepting 26 page messages from me
a week or so ago, why is it rejecting 20 page measages now? Has the maximum
size been reduced? Also, if the message was bounced, how did you manage to
read it? --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  Sat Jul  8 23:50:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA21072;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:48:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:48:57 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1248997245==_ma============"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b58dcf93509a [207.8.127.148]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:46:50 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"qYnBO3.0.895.N12Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36111
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--============_-1248997245==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

***{Since Bill says this message was bounced because it was too big, I am
breaking it into two parts. --MJ}***

>At 7:43 AM 7/7/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>At 5:51 AM 7/6/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>>>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:
>>>>>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad
>>>>>infinitum. --MJ}***
>>>
>>>
>>>Mitchell,
>>>
>>>After the achivement of what experimental or practical results will you
>>>admit this view of the universe as a continuum is wrong?
>>
>>***{Hi Horace. As you are probably aware by now, I am not an empiricist.
>
>
>Are you saying no amount of experimental proof can change your position?

***{I'm saying the validity of the principle of continuity is one of the
philosophical presuppositions of science. If it is incorrect, or even if it
*may* be incorrect, then scientific knowledge is impossible. Since the
possibility of experimental proof rests on the presumed validity of the
principle of continuity, no amount of experimentation is capable of
overturning it. --MJ}***

>Then your postings belong in a philosphy list, or maybe a religion list

***{Nope. Philosophy of science belongs on a science list. Religion is
based on the denial of continuity--on the notion that things can leap into
existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. (For example, God
supposedly created the universe out of nothing.) Thus it is the musings of
those who *deny* continuity--such as yourself--that belong on a religion
list. Note, however, that I am far too polite to suggest that you take them
there. :-) --MJ}***

>This group is for serious scientific discussion.

***{Yup. --MJ}***

Discussing physics within
>your framework is like discussing evolution within a creationist framework.

***{Wrong again. My framework merely makes explicit the implied assumptions
of classical mechanics, which surely qualifies as physics. On the other
hand, discussing physics within the framework of "quantum mechanics," where
electrons "jump" from one orbit to another by simply vanishing from their
position in one orbit and reappearing in the other, is in my view a return
to the mindset of primordial savages. Nevertheless, in spite of holding
that view, I politely refrain from suggesting that believers in "quantum
mechanics" should post on the religion lists. --MJ}***

>
>
>At the risk of being off topic, I'll continue briefly.

***{My, my, aren't we condescending today.  ;-)

If the expression of disbelief in the prevailing framework is "off topic,"
then I suppose that the opinions of Erwin Schroedinger, who considered his
famous thought experiment about the cat to be a refutation of "quantum
mechanics," and who in the last days of his life repeatedly expressed
disgust and regret that his name had come to be associated with it, would
be "off topic" here as well? And what about Michelson, who believed that
the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the entrained ether theory, and
despised the philosophy of science underlying the so called "theory of
relativity" until his death? Would his opinions be off topic here as well?
And what about Newton? After all, he had the following to say about "action
at a distance," which is a central tenet of QM:

"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]

Would Isaac Newton's opinions be "off topic" here as well?

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>[snip often repeated epistemological position]
>>
>>>
>>>  (1) Instant prime number factoring
>>>
>>>  (2) Instant communications over a long distance
>>>
>>>  (3) Instant telportation of matter
>>>
>>>  (4) Other?
>>
>>***{You used the word "instant" in each of the three cases where you chose
>>to be specific. Thus I assume you think it would be possible to
>>scientifically demonstrate instantaneous motion, if it were to exist. If
>>so, that is incorrect. Science is, at any given point in time, constrained
>>by the accuracy of existing measuring instruments. At present, there is a
>>smallest interval of time that we can measure with our best instruments,
>>and in the future that will continue to be the case, however much our
>>instruments improve. Thus when we measure the time interval between
>>correlated changes at two points separated by a distance D, we will never
>>be able to flatly say that the time interval is exactly equal to zero.
>>There will always be a finite minimum time interval t' that we can measure,
>>and, thus, the possibility will exist that the value of t is such that 0 <
>>t < t'. Thus it will always be possible that the velocity, D/t, is finite.
>
>
>The evidence that the quantum machine looks at all possible soutions
>simultaneously, i.e. looks at each solution in zero time, lies in the fact
>that the solution speed remains constant, even despite the number of
>possible solutions increasing to a number greater than the number of
>particles in the universe.

***{That's a purely theoretical claim. "Quantum computers" do not exist.
Moreover, if "entanglement" is really due to photons affecting one another
by means of superluminal shock waves, then FTL computers are, in fact,
possible, but when they do, in fact, exist, they will not be manifestations
of "quantum mechanics" at all. --MJ}***

The unusual nature is the ability to solve
>problems in O(0) time. If not precisely zero time, then such machines
>(assuming they work as planned) certainly demonstrate a new paradigm of
>existence, where solution sets (knowledge) can spring out of nothing.

***{The principle of continuity only applies to the physical world, not to
the world of the mind. It is only real entities having mass and occupying
space which must transit from A to B by following continuous spatial
pathways. Thus it does not violate continuity when we *imagine* a teakettle
vanishing from its position on the kitchen stove and reappearing in the
front yard; but it *would* violate continuity if an actual, physical
teapot--or even one electron--were to do so.

As for problems being solved in zero time, well, that violates continuity.
Any problem solving apparatus, whether a computer or a human brain, is a
real, physical entity, and, hence, is strictly governed by the logical
impossibility of discontinuous motion. Such a state of affaris, however,
does not preclude the building of faster-than-light computers, only
instantaneous ones.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>What this means is that the question of instantaneous travel is one that
>>science cannot answer. Instead, it falls within the province of
>>philosophy--specifically: in the realm of metaphysics. To answer it, we can
>>only apply axiomatic constraints such as the principle of continuity, and
>>see if the notion of instantaneous travel violates those constraints. Since
>>it clearly does, we have no choice but to toss it out: if the principle of
>>continuity is wrong, then all knowledge is impossible,
>
>
>The above statement contains a false conclusion. It only follows that we
>can not be certain about everything at every moment, not that we can not
>rely on most things most of the time, and not that knowledge as we know it
>in the practical sense, can not exist.The universe can easily be a matter
>of probabilities, which summed on a macro scale are most reliable -
>sufficently so to support life.

***{Let's examine that position a bit more closely.

Suppose that you have a die that you suspect is loaded, and you decide to
test it out. To that end, you roll it 1000 times, and record the outcomes.
Result: you obtain a "1" 600 times, and you obtain other values 400 times.
Thus you conclude that the probability that you will roll a 1 is 600/1000 =
.6--which means: if you roll the die in the future, you expect it to yield
a "1" roughly 60% of the time. The question is: why do you expect the
results of your 1000 rolls to apply to the future? That is, what grounds to
you have for expecting things to behave in the future as they behaved in
the past? (This is the principle of induction.) Maybe if you roll the die
1000 times tomorrow, you won't get any 1's at all! Maybe there is no value
around which, in the long run, the results of the rolls will tend to
cluster. Maybe the past tells you nothing whatsoever about the future!

If you respond that it works to assume the past is an indicator of the
future, that leads nowhere, because in truth all you know is that it worked
*in the past*. Thus when you expect something that worked in the past to
work in the future, you *assume* that things will behave in the future as
they behaved in the past. My question to you is: what is the basis of that
assumption?

The answer: induction is based on the presumed validity of the principle of
continuity. We expect that things will retain, in the future, the
properties which they exhibited in the past, or that if they give up some
of the old properties or gain some new ones, they will do so in a manner
which we can detect--i.e., by processes that involve continuous motions
only. How, for example,  could you detect an incursion by foreign
substances or the departure of key ingredients, if things could get into
and out of your experiment without passing through the surrounding space?
If such things could happen, there would be no way for you to know what the
actual experiment was, and, thus, it would be impossible to make
generalizations about the future based on the results of experiments that
occurred in the past.

The question, therefore, is this: what condition must reality exhibit, in
order for probability theory to apply to it? The answer: things must behave
as they behaved in the past, so that inductive reasoning will work. And, in
order for induction to work, the principle of continuity must apply. That
means the ingredients that have been painstakingly assembled into an
experimental apparatus must exhibit continuous motion: if they leave the
apparatus, they must follow continuous pathways--e.g., punch a hole in the
sides of a dewar--so that the experimenter has the capability, at least in
principle, of detecting their exit from the situation. Likewise, if new and
unintended ingredients make their way into the apparatus, they too must
follow continuous pathways, so that the experimenter has a chance to detect
their entrance into the situation.

Bottom line: if the principle of continuity is invalid, then we lose our
only basis for knowing what happened in the past, and thus we also lose our
basis for expecting things to behave in the future as they have behaved in
the past. And if we lose that, we lose probability theory, and we lose
science as well.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[To be continued.]
--============_-1248997245==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"

***{Since Bill says this message was bounced because it was too big, I
am breaking it into two parts. --MJ}***


>At 7:43 AM 7/7/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>>>At 5:51 AM 7/6/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>>>>>Mitchell Jones wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>***{In my opinion, matter is infinitely subdivisible:

>>>>>all particles are composed of lesser particles, ad

>>>>>infinitum. --MJ}***

>>>

>>>

>>>Mitchell,

>>>

>>>After the achivement of what experimental or practical results will
you

>>>admit this view of the universe as a continuum is wrong?

>>

>>***{Hi Horace. As you are probably aware by now, I am not an
empiricist.

>

>

>Are you saying no amount of experimental proof can change your
position?


***{I'm saying the validity of the principle of continuity is one of
the philosophical presuppositions of science. If it is incorrect, or
even if it *may* be incorrect, then scientific knowledge is impossible.
Since the possibility of experimental proof rests on the presumed
validity of the principle of continuity, no amount of experimentation
is capable of overturning it. --MJ}***


>Then your postings belong in a philosphy list, or maybe a religion
list


***{Nope. Philosophy of science belongs on a science list. Religion is
based on the denial of continuity--on the notion that things can leap
into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. (For example,
God supposedly created the universe out of nothing.) Thus it is the
musings of those who *deny* continuity--such as yourself--that belong
on a religion list. Note, however, that I am far too polite to suggest
that you take them there. :-) --MJ}***


>This group is for serious scientific discussion.


***{Yup. --MJ}***


Discussing physics within

>your framework is like discussing evolution within a creationist
framework.


***{Wrong again. My framework merely makes explicit the implied
assumptions of classical mechanics, which surely qualifies as physics.
On the other hand, discussing physics within the framework of "quantum
mechanics," where electrons "jump" from one orbit to another by simply
vanishing from their position in one orbit and reappearing in the
other, is in my view a return to the mindset of primordial savages.
Nevertheless, in spite of holding that view, I politely refrain from
suggesting that believers in "quantum mechanics" should post on the
religion lists. --MJ}***

   

>

>

>At the risk of being off topic, I'll continue briefly.


***{My, my, aren't we condescending today.  ;-) 


If the expression of disbelief in the prevailing framework is "off
topic," then I suppose that the opinions of Erwin Schroedinger, who
considered his famous thought experiment about the cat to be a
refutation of "quantum mechanics," and who in the last days of his life
repeatedly expressed disgust and regret that his name had come to be
associated with it, would be "off topic" here as well? And what about
Michelson, who believed that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed
the entrained ether theory, and despised the philosophy of science
underlying the so called "theory of relativity" until his death? Would
his opinions be off topic here as well? And what about Newton? After
all, he had the following to say about "action at a distance," which is
a central tenet of QM: 


"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,
<italic>Third Letter to Bentley  </italic>(Feb. 25, 1692), R. and J.
Dodsley, London, 1756]


Would Isaac Newton's opinions be "off topic" here as well? 


--Mitchell Jones}***  


>

>[snip often repeated epistemological position]

>>

>>>

>>>  (1) Instant prime number factoring

>>>

>>>  (2) Instant communications over a long distance

>>>

>>>  (3) Instant telportation of matter

>>>

>>>  (4) Other?

>>

>>***{You used the word "instant" in each of the three cases where you
chose

>>to be specific. Thus I assume you think it would be possible to

>>scientifically demonstrate instantaneous motion, if it were to exist.
If

>>so, that is incorrect. Science is, at any given point in time,
constrained

>>by the accuracy of existing measuring instruments. At present, there
is a

>>smallest interval of time that we can measure with our best
instruments,

>>and in the future that will continue to be the case, however much
our

>>instruments improve. Thus when we measure the time interval between

>>correlated changes at two points separated by a distance D, we will
never

>>be able to flatly say that the time interval is exactly equal to
zero.

>>There will always be a finite minimum time interval t' that we can
measure,

>>and, thus, the possibility will exist that the value of t is such
that 0 <<

>>t << t'. Thus it will always be possible that the velocity, D/t, is
finite.

>

>

>The evidence that the quantum machine looks at all possible soutions

>simultaneously, i.e. looks at each solution in zero time, lies in the
fact

>that the solution speed remains constant, even despite the number of

>possible solutions increasing to a number greater than the number of

>particles in the universe.


***{That's a purely theoretical claim. "Quantum computers" do not
exist. Moreover, if "entanglement" is really due to photons affecting
one another by means of superluminal shock waves, then FTL computers
are, in fact, possible, but when they do, in fact, exist, they will not
be manifestations of "quantum mechanics" at all. --MJ}***


The unusual nature is the ability to solve

>problems in O(0) time. If not precisely zero time, then such machines

>(assuming they work as planned) certainly demonstrate a new paradigm
of

>existence, where solution sets (knowledge) can spring out of nothing.


***{The principle of continuity only applies to the physical world, not
to the world of the mind. It is only real entities having mass and
occupying space which must transit from A to B by following continuous
spatial pathways. Thus it does not violate continuity when we *imagine*
a teakettle vanishing from its position on the kitchen stove and
reappearing in the front yard; but it *would* violate continuity if an
actual, physical teapot--or even one electron--were to do so. 


As for problems being solved in zero time, well, that violates
continuity. Any problem solving apparatus, whether a computer or a
human brain, is a real, physical entity, and, hence, is strictly
governed by the logical impossibility of discontinuous motion. Such a
state of affaris, however, does not preclude the building of
faster-than-light computers, only instantaneous ones. 


--Mitchell Jones}***


>

>>What this means is that the question of instantaneous travel is one
that

>>science cannot answer. Instead, it falls within the province of

>>philosophy--specifically: in the realm of metaphysics. To answer it,
we can

>>only apply axiomatic constraints such as the principle of continuity,
and

>>see if the notion of instantaneous travel violates those constraints.
Since

>>it clearly does, we have no choice but to toss it out: if the
principle of

>>continuity is wrong, then all knowledge is impossible,

>

>

>The above statement contains a false conclusion. It only follows that
we

>can not be certain about everything at every moment, not that we can
not

>rely on most things most of the time, and not that knowledge as we
know it

>in the practical sense, can not exist.The universe can easily be a
matter

>of probabilities, which summed on a macro scale are most reliable -

>sufficently so to support life.


***{Let's examine that position a bit more closely. 


Suppose that you have a die that you suspect is loaded, and you decide
to test it out. To that end, you roll it 1000 times, and record the
outcomes. Result: you obtain a "1" 600 times, and you obtain other
values 400 times. Thus you conclude that the probability that you will
roll a 1 is 600/1000 = .6--which means: if you roll the die in the
future, you expect it to yield a "1" roughly 60% of the time. The
question is: why do you expect the results of your 1000 rolls to apply
to the future? That is, what grounds to you have for expecting things
to behave in the future as they behaved in the past? (This is the
principle of induction.) Maybe if you roll the die 1000 times tomorrow,
you won't get any 1's at all! Maybe there is no value around which, in
the long run, the results of the rolls will tend to cluster. Maybe the
past tells you nothing whatsoever about the future! 


If you respond that it works to assume the past is an indicator of the
future, that leads nowhere, because in truth all you know is that it
worked *in the past*. Thus when you expect something that worked in the
past to work in the future, you *assume* that things will behave in the
future as they behaved in the past. My question to you is: what is the
basis of that assumption?


The answer: induction is based on the presumed validity of the
principle of continuity. We expect that things will retain, in the
future, the properties which they exhibited in the past, or that if
they give up some of the old properties or gain some new ones, they
will do so in a manner which we can detect--i.e., by processes that
involve continuous motions only. How, for example,  could you detect an
incursion by foreign substances or the departure of key ingredients, if
things could get into and out of your experiment without passing
through the surrounding space? If such things could happen, there would
be no way for you to know what the actual experiment was, and, thus, it
would be impossible to make generalizations about the future based on
the results of experiments that occurred in the past.


The question, therefore, is this: what condition must reality exhibit,
in order for probability theory to apply to it? The answer: things must
behave as they behaved in the past, so that inductive reasoning will
work. And, in order for induction to work, the principle of continuity
must apply. That means the ingredients that have been painstakingly
assembled into an experimental apparatus must exhibit continuous
motion: if they leave the apparatus, they must follow continuous
pathways--e.g., punch a hole in the sides of a dewar--so that the
experimenter has the capability, at least in principle, of detecting
their exit from the situation. Likewise, if new and unintended
ingredients make their way into the apparatus, they too must follow
continuous pathways, so that the experimenter has a chance to detect
their entrance into the situation. 


Bottom line: if the principle of continuity is invalid, then we lose
our only basis for knowing what happened in the past, and thus we also
lose our basis for expecting things to behave in the future as they
have behaved in the past. And if we lose that, we lose probability
theory, and we lose science as well. 


--Mitchell Jones}***


[To be continued.]

--============_-1248997245==_ma============--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul  8 23:53:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA01827;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011704b58dcfeb6562 [207.8.127.148]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:49:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q-GbG3.0.TS.G32Qv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36112
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[Continuation of previous message.]

The computer from which you read this text
>can not be counted on to be accurate.  There is a finite probability that
>the text is changed by a cosmic ray glitch in a way that changes its
>meaning - yet does so in a away the error can not be detected.  So, all
>communitication is hopeless?

***{No. The cosmic ray glitch *can* be detected, because the cosmic ray has
to follow a continuous spatial pathway from the far reaches of the cosmos
to the computer. That affords the scientist the opportunity to erect
massive shielding, and see whether the number of supposed cosmic ray
glitches is affected thereby. Result: it becomes possible to measure the
probability of such glitches, and  to have reasoned expectations about the
likelihood that they will happen in the future. We could not do that,
however, if cosmic rays were capable of getting from the deep cosmos to the
computer without following a continuous pathway through the intervening
space. --MJ}***

I can assure you, from experience, there is a
>much larger probability I have made a typo that completely changes my
>meaning, and even a larger probability that I have not fully communicated
>what is in my brain, and T think there is an even larger probability of
>erroneous and incomplete communication if we were talking face to face
>instead of by text.

***{As noted above, if the principle of continuity is invalid, then
induction collapses, taking probability theory down with it. Result: no
event can be deemed more likely than any other. Result: your recollection
that roast beef tasted better than dirt in the past provides you with no
basis whatever for thinking it will taste better today, or that it is even
*likely* to taste better. --MJ}***

None of this precludes my exisitence, your existence,
>or the knowledge we think we have, or are exchanging. It only points out
>our imperfections and the fact we can not be absolutely sure about
>anything.

***{Except the truth of that statement, right? :-) In fact, we can be
absolutely certain that the principle of continuity is true, because to
deny it is to claim knowledge, which means: when you deny it, you commit an
act of self-contradiction, as you did above. --MJ}***

There is a colossal difference between absolutely sure and
>sufficiently sure to survive.

***{"Sufficiently sure to survive" implies that probability theory remains
valid in a universe where the principle of induction has collapsed, as it
must if the principle of continuity is invalid. But how do you validate
probability theory without induction? Or, if you agree that you cannot,
then how do you validate induction if the principle of continuity is false?
(Inquiring minds want to know! :-) --MJ}***

  It is not all knowledge that is impossible,
>it is only all CERTAIN knowledge that is impossible.

***{Let's begin by assigning #1 to the above statement. Next, I ask you if
the probability that statement #1 is true is greater than .5 but less than
1.0. If you say yes, as you must, then I assign #2 to that statement, and I
ask if the probability is greater than .5 but less than 1.0 that #2 is
true. If you say yes, as you must, then I assign #3 to that statement, and
ask you if the probability is greater than .5 but less than 1.0 that #3 is
true.  If you say yes, as you must, then I assign #4 to that statement and
ask if the probability that #4 is correct is greater than .5 but less than
1.0. And so on, ad infinitum.

That means when you claim that certain knowledge is impossible, you create
what is known as a vicious infinite regress. In a vicious infinite regress,
you have an unlimited number of uncertain statements, *all* of which must
be true to sustain your position. But you have explicitly affirmed that
each and every one of those statements has a probability of being true that
is less than 1.0. Result: the probability that they are all true is zero!
(If P = (p1)(p2)(p3)...(pn), and each of p1, p2, etc. is a number between
.5 and 1.0, then P approaches zero as n increases without limit.)

Conclusion: we can prove mathematically, using probability theory, the
falsehood of the statement that certainty is impossible.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>
>>including knowledge
>>of instantaneous travel; and if the principle of continuity is correct,
>>then instantaneous travel is impossible. Thus if reason-based belief--i.e.,
>>knowledge--is possible, then instantaneous travel is impossible. --MJ}***
>
>
>So again, no amount of proof will convince you otherwise?

***{Proof is what has convinced me of the position I have taken, Horace,
and over the years I have stated the nature of that proof to you a dozen
different ways. Have you pointed out a single flaw in the reasoning? Of
course not! All you can do is ask me whether any amount of proof will
convince me otherwise, as if it is I, not you, who is ignoring a
flat-out-proof while it is staring him in the face! --MJ}***

>
>It sounds like discussion of this matter is a waste of time because your
>mind is already made up.

***{My mind is in the state it is in because of a proof that I have
explained to you over and over again. To change the state of my mind, all
you have to do is overturn that proof. Overturning a true proof, of course,
is not easy. (You might as well try to prove that vertical angles are
unequal!) --MJ}***

  However, I guess that approach fits well with
>your model of the universe, because for you all is predetermined and
>therefore you have no free will.

***{Incorrect. There is no contradiction between free will and determinism.
A person has free will if his expectations determine his choices, and he
does not have free will if they do not. For example, suppose you are in the
African veldt, unarmed, and a lion charges you. Looking about, you see a
tree that will enable you to quickly climb out of reach of the lion. Thus
you have two expectations:

(1) You can do something other than climbing the tree--such as running or
standing where you are--and you will be killed and eaten by the lion, not
necessarily in that order.

(2) You can climb the tree and live.

It is hard-wired into the human brain that you will follow the expectation
which has the highest satisfaction total--to wit: the expectation that
involves the largest sum  of positive pleasure and negative pain. The
mechanism of the human brain which forms such sums and controls action on
the basis of them is what we call free will, and it dictates that, when you
compare the pain of being attacked, eaten, and killed by the lion to the
minor discomfort and exertion associated with climbing the tree, you will
opt to do the latter. Result: when you see the lion charging, assuming you
have the expectations described above, you will choose, as an act of free
will, to climb the tree.

Moreover, if despite the fact that the satisfaction total associated with
climbing the tree is much higher than that of being devoured, you opt in
favor of expectation number (1), above, then you do *not* have free will.
For, in that case, you will stand there frozen, or you will run, despite
the fact that the expectation with the highest satisfaction total involves
climbing the tree! Imagine that, Horace! You want to make the best of the
situation, by climbing the tree, but some alien force intervenes, causing
you to do the wrong thing! You stand there horrified, or you run, despite
your sure knowledge that you will die. I say that the ability to do
that--the ability to do anything other than following the course of action
which seems best to you--represents an utter denial of free will. That
means a person has free will if and only if it is hard-wired into his
brain--deterministically--that he *must* follow the expectation which has
the highest satisfaction total.

Bottom line: free will is only possible in a universe where all phenomena,
including human thoughts and choices, are driven by an iron determinism.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Thankfully, I am not confined by such
>constraints.  I create, therefore I have free will.     8^)

***{Wrong again. You have free will because your thoughts and choices are
controlled by a mechanism of the type described above, and take place in a
clockwork universe of inexorable necesssity, rather than in the
indeterministic slush of "quantum mechanics."

By the way: you shouldn't feel bad about having misunderstood the
relationship between free will and determinism, since you are in very good
company. Even Ayn Rand, who was one of the most extraordinary philosophical
geniuses in human history, blew this one. She was, of course, unduly
influenced by the conclusions of her lover at the time, Nathaniel Branden.
(You know what they say: "A woman with a hard on doesn't have a lick of
sense." :-) Nevertheless, this is an extremely difficult issue to clarify,
however simple it may seem after the needed concepts have been pointed out.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 02:17:37 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA05500;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 02:15:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 02:15:41 -0700
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 05:15:36 -0400
Message-Id: <200007090915.FAA19020 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: freenrg-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Telsa's Birthday
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hxl1p2.0.nL1.zA4Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36113
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ahoy!

Today is the birthday of Nikola Tesla, and I just happened to run across
this page of collected bio's while researching something else.  The entire
site is pretty interesting actually, but for those who don't know much about
Tesla's life, there is quite a lot here in a small space.

http://www.cinemedia.com.au/SFCV-RMIT-Annex/rnaughton/TESLA_BIO.html

The URL is longer than my page set-up, so you may have to copy and paste it
in two parts.

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 Jul  9 03:41:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA16150;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 03:40:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 03:40:45 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b58e027e0698 [12.21.208.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 02:42:22 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"k9LV11.0.Fy3.jQ5Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36114
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

No amount of argument or ranting can prove or disprove an axiomatic
assumption, which the principle of continuity is.

If you will not change your view of reality no matter how much experimental
evicence is presented, even hypothetically, then you are not practicing
science.  To the extent that Newton, Einstein, or any other scientist takes
that stance, he is not practicing science either, but rather a religion, a
matter of faith, and writing of that nature belongs on a non-science list,
or at least should not be continually repeated on a science list in my
opinion, because it is not science.

At the risk of being repetitious, I still prefer my assumption, that
nothing can be known with complete certainty, i.e. that indeterministic
randomness does occur in nature, and I think that is compatible with the
scientific method while intractability, even with a hypothetical, is not.
I also take it as a nearly self evident tautology that if your choices are
locked in by deterministic physical law, that you are not free to choose.
If your decisions are locked-in in advance then you are not making them,
they are already made for you.  I prefer to retain the option.

Of course, I can not be absolutely certain of any of the above statements,
and it is time to stop pushing my philosophical point of view.  8^)

BTW, I do enjoy your many analytical and often quantitatively oriented
posts, but this continuitarianism stuff is just not my religion.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 04:44:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA23118;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 04:44:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 04:44:26 -0700
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 07:44:21 -0400
Message-Id: <200007091144.HAA05347 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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"F5G1p1.0.8f5.QM6Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36115
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>Mitchell,
>
>No amount of argument or ranting can prove or disprove an axiomatic
>assumption, which the principle of continuity is.
snip
>BTW, I do enjoy your many analytical and often quantitatively oriented
>posts, but this continuitarianism stuff is just not my religion.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          

I don't know if you noticed this, but he repeated himself, word for word, in
the first posting over a fairly large body of text.  I think those Ayn Rand
books really did his brain a number, and not necessarily a whole one 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 Jul  9 06:09:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA00771;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 06:08:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 06:08:23 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.46]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 06:07:51 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1020Job0YlvvWnu0PF0000422e hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2000 13:07:51.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFE35F20:01BFE9A6]
Resent-Message-ID: <"q4a853.0.zB.7b7Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36116
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

No graven image will ever be made of God or infinity but unless finite space 
is proven, which is impossible, the proof of infinity is evident.

David


>From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
>Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 07:44:21 -0400
>
> >Mitchell,
> >
> >No amount of argument or ranting can prove or disprove an axiomatic
> >assumption, which the principle of continuity is.
>snip
> >BTW, I do enjoy your many analytical and often quantitatively oriented
> >posts, but this continuitarianism stuff is just not my religion.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Horace Heffner
>
>I don't know if you noticed this, but he repeated himself, word for word, 
>in
>the first posting over a fairly large body of text.  I think those Ayn Rand
>books really did his brain a number, and not necessarily a whole one 
>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
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 07:36:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21012;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 07:35:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 07:35:21 -0700
Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net
Message-ID: <39688DBF.4DA18CCD centurytel.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:35:43 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
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: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615173044.9374A-100000 eskimo.com>			
	 <v04011700b570335680ef [207.8.127.188]>		
	 <v04011700b5722759b5a4 [207.8.127.226]>	
	 <v04011700b572c178bab6 [207.8.127.166]>
	 <v04011700b589915c7bbe [207.8.127.235]> <v04011700b58bb44b49cc@[207.8.127.136]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xm"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_BT9E1.0.E85.fs8Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36117
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jack Smith wrote:

It is quite possible that our sensations are leaping into
existence out of nothing, but that is irrelevant to what
we believe.  If we believe the wrong thing, we will die,
or become sick or severely injured.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{...if sensations can leap into existence
out of nothing, your memories of what "works"
may not have existed a femtosecond ago ...
How ...  can you decide what works; and how
can you reasonably expect the future to behave
like the past, since what you think is the past may be
utterly unreal? --MJ}***

Jack writes:

I'm genetically programed to believe my experiences, mental
or otherwise, provide the basis for what works, if only I can
figure them out.  I concede that I, and the entire universe, could
have popped into existence a femtosecond ago.  In fact, I have used
a similar argument with my creationist students who maintain that the
universe popped into existence about six thousand years ago, including
fossils provided by the Devil to mislead us.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{...  things must behave as they behaved in the past,
so that inductive reasoning will work. And, in order for
induction to work, the principle of continuity must apply ... --MJ}***

Jack writes:

If I popped into existence a femtosecond ago, so did my memories of
the past.  I doubt that there is "nothing new under the sun;" but,
for practical purposes, I depend on things generally behaving now
as they behaved in the past.  Inductive reasoning works for me
(anyway, at least a lot better than deductive reasoning) regardless
of whether or not I popped into existence a femtosecond ago.

Compelled by biology, I believe the past is what I think it is; but
my memories of the past also lead me to believe that my knowledge
of the past, whether or not I popped into existence a femtosecond ago,
is certainly incomplete and often totally wrong and, in the
extreme, "utterly unreal."

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{ It's all subjective, right?  Any opinion is as good as
any other, right? So why affirm any opinion in preference
to any other ...? --MJ}***

Jack Smith wrote:

Any opinion is NOT as good as any other -- for example,
an opinion which leads to a wrong move in high-speed
automobile traffic.

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{You said:

"Our structure of knowledge would not collapse if action
at a distance were true, because "belief", like "truth",
is completely subjective -- an emotion or a sensation."

I took that to mean any opinion is as good as any other.

Since you now deny that is what you meant, I
suppose I have to guess again, regarding what you *did* mean.

Let's see, do you mean that people are irrational,
and, thus, will continue to maintain their belief systems
even if they rest on nothing?  ... }***

Hi Nitchell,

The study of belief systems is as fascinating as the
study of theories.  Opinions can be be evaluated, for example,
based on how clearly they can be deduced from the principle
of continuity.  They can also be evaluated by how closely
they conform to some sacred text.  Opinions generated in
either way are equally rational.

I prefer to evaluate a set of opinions on the basis of how
they affect the Darwinian fitness of those who have such opinions.
There is now a branch of science, Mimetics, which makes this
its specialty.  A set of opinions, or memes, can affect the
ability of an organsim (or group of organisms) to survive and
procreate just as much its set of genes.

An important factor in the demise of the Shakers was their
low opinion of the activities which lead to procreation.
In their eyes, I guess, hootin' and rockin' like maenads
in the meeting house was a lot more fun.

On the other hand, some of the fastest growing religious
groups in the United States are doing it by procreation,
not by conversion.

Mimetics hypothesizes that just as there are predator - prey
population cycles (lynx - snowshoe rabbit) there are such
things as the gay population cycle:  When gays are numerous,
they have the political and economic clout to come out of
the closet.  But such freedom to do what they please leads
to a decline in their population, and they then decide that
they are safer back in the closet where they are often forced
to maintain heterosexual relationships as cover.  As a result,
their population increases.

This discussion  about what constitutes "knolwledge" is not
trivial; and it passes the time until Scott gets some data.
It is just a small stretch from this thread (but tying it
to energy) to wonder how the opinions of the members of Vortex
affect their ability to extract energy from each other
as per the sixth insight of "The Celestine Prophecy."

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 08:29:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30580;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 08:29:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 08:29:18 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.53]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:28:47 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F96zNbrDYsnU1UOJqXU0000127b hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2000 15:28:47.0929 (UTC) FILETIME=[6058E290:01BFE9BA]
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y4OJm1.0.gT7.Ef9Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36118
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>It is just a small stretch from this thread (but tying it to energy) to 
>wonder how the opinions of the members of Vortex affect their ability to 
>extract energy from each other as per the sixth insight of "The Celestine 
>Prophecy."
Jack Smith

"one man will intuit the exact way to connect to the God energy of the 
Universe"
Redfield

"One day man will connect his machinery to the very Wheelwork of Nature"
Tesla

"Whirlpower is the Wheelwork of Nature"
Dennard

The dual radial arm pattern is the energy spiral, seen in hurricanes, spiral 
galaxies, and in our whirlpool models; the first whirlpools ever built by 
man.

James says promote the idea, don't try to see the negative, everyone try to 
see the positive and see what happens.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 09:28:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11803;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:28:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:28:18 -0700
Message-Id: <2.2.32.20000709162850.008d85f8 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, 09 Jul 2000 12:28:50 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Vinny Pinto <vinny mindspring.com>
Subject: A Goodbye for Now!
Resent-Message-ID: <"bAX383.0.Lu2.YWAQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36119
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


Hi Folks:

Sometime in the next 2 days I will be unsubscribing from this list and
another to which I belong.  The sheer volume of e-mail is simply too
overwhelming -- too much of a good thing -- and is interfering with my
research and experiments.  I may , however, come "back to the well" and
re-join briefly from time to time, as my time allows, in order to "hear" new
ideas, share information, ask questions and be exposed to new persepectives.
However, right now, much as I value the information and stimulus of the
list, I am going crazy because I am getting so little time in my labs to
tinker and build experiments and devices.

I want to thank you all very much for your roles in this list and for
conservations we have had.  I appreciate this list and the inhabitants very
much!  I hope to return some day when I have more time, or at least for a
bit now and then to swim the waters briefly!

I will continue to be available via e-mail at my home e-mail address.  I
wish you all the best and offer my thanks!

in grace and peace,
--Vinny
vinny mindspring.com
Vinny Pinto
vinny mindspring.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 10:29:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28566;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:28:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:28:21 -0700
Message-ID: <003001bfe9cb$01481f80$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v04011703b58dcf93509a [207.8.127.148]>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:27:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BFE990.53673B60"
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: <"LkpDn2.0.G-6.qOBQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36120
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.

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BFE990.53673B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Mitchell Jones=20
  To: vortex-l eskimo.com=20
  Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 11:46 PM
  Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical =
Determinism



  [snip]

  >This group is for serious scientific discussion.

  ***{Yup. --MJ}***

  It would seem to be important to understand what a well accepted=20
  theory says before you rag on it.=20


  ***{Wrong again. My framework merely makes explicit the implied =
assumptions of classical mechanics, which surely qualifies as physics. =
On the other hand, discussing physics within the framework of "quantum =
mechanics," where electrons "jump" from one orbit to another by simply =
vanishing from their position in one orbit and reappearing in the other, =
is in my view a return to the mindset of primordial savages.=20

  Well, that's interesting. Please feel free to show us how quantum =
mechanics
  predicts electrons do this jumping.=20

  I don't think QM says that. I think you've confused the uncertainty =
principle
  and the probability function with the particle, as is usual for pop =
science
  magazines.  Please explain.

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BFE990.53673B60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A href=3D"mailto:mjones jump.net" title=3Dmjones@jump.net>Mitchell =
Jones</A>=20
  </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
href=3D"mailto:vortex-l eskimo.com"=20
  title=3Dvortex-l eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, July 08, 2000 =
11:46=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: "Quantum =
Mechanical=20
  Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[snip]</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><BR>&gt;This group is for serious scientific =
discussion.<BR><BR>***{Yup.=20
  --MJ}***</DIV>
  <DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It would seem to be important to =
understand=20
  what a well accepted </FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>theory says before you rag on it. =
</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><BR><BR>***{Wrong again. My framework merely makes explicit the =
implied=20
  assumptions of classical mechanics, which surely qualifies as physics. =
On the=20
  other hand, discussing physics within the framework of "quantum =
mechanics,"=20
  where electrons "jump" from one orbit to another by simply vanishing =
from=20
  their position in one orbit and reappearing in the other, is in my =
view a=20
  return to the mindset of primordial savages. </DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Well, that's interesting. Please feel =
free to=20
  show us how quantum mechanics</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>predicts electrons do this jumping. =
</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't think QM says that. I think =
you've=20
  confused the uncertainty principle</FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and the probability&nbsp;function =
with the=20
  particle, as is usual for pop science</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>magazines. &nbsp;Please=20
explain.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BFE990.53673B60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 13:00:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA00510;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:59:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:59:12 -0700
Message-ID: <3968DA00.9CBFFBC2 easynet.be>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:01:04 +0200
From: Robert Hoffmann <robert.hoffmann easynet.be>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Dolphins and Vortex....
References: <v04011703b58dcf93509a [207.8.127.148]> <003001bfe9cb$01481f80$0601a8c0@federation>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"d00v02.0.u7.GcDQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36121
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Any scientific explanations ??

http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
http://www.sciam.com/0896issue/0896dolphins.html
http://earthtrust.org/delphis.html#anchor1583154

Robert Hoffmann

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 15:27:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA04492;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:26:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:26:16 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.45]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:25:39 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F173XnbnCndg5oQJgAG000007b9 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2000 22:25:39.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C9CD880:01BFE9F4]
Resent-Message-ID: <"ygtCR.0.-51.5mFQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36122
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The way the ring does not rise and stays suspended reminds me of smoke 
rings.  It also reminds me of the torus donut in Whirlpower.  Not to be 
confused with toroid flow of the vortex, Chaos Theory, Schauberger, Russle, 
ect, way, ect.

Whales do neat things with bubbles too to catch fish, I'm sure most know.  
All about gravity pulling the more dense water beneath the less dense 
bubble.  Same thing in evaporation.  Same thing in hot air balloons.  Even 
the fire ball on a rocket is a bubble.

That's why all the flat space teams from Princeton to Berkeley are saying 
the cosmological constant is back.  Curved space was all about void finite 
space.  Flat space is all about fluid infinite space.

The bubble ring is flying upside down underwater!!!  It is not being pulled 
up by gravity.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc


>From: Robert Hoffmann <robert.hoffmann easynet.be>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Dolphins and Vortex....
>Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:01:04 +0200
>
>Any scientific explanations ??
>
>http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
>http://www.sciam.com/0896issue/0896dolphins.html
>http://earthtrust.org/delphis.html#anchor1583154
>
>Robert Hoffmann
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 15:37:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA07140;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:34:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:34:23 -0700
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: David Dennard <daviddennard hotmail.com>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
In-Reply-To: <F85ZfEAkqBiBsbrL1SC000008a9 hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000709183831.1660C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ouIRY3.0.Ul1.ktFQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36123
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

n

	What is the Cosmological constant?  What type [s] of unit [s] are
used ?  What are the definition [s] of the unit [s]?

			Please.




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul  9 23:33:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA26579;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:33:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <39696E8D.C93CD369 easynet.be>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:34:53 +0200
From: Robert Hoffmann <robert.hoffmann easynet.be>
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Aalist <robert.hoffmann@easynet.be>
Subject: Dolphins and Vortex....
References: <v04011703b58dcf93509a [207.8.127.148]> <003001bfe9cb$01481f80$0601a8c0@federation>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xom4U2.0.9V6.UuMQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36124
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Les dauphins font des bulles....


http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
http://www.sciam.com/0896issue/0896dolphins.html
http://earthtrust.org/delphis.html#anchor1583154

Robert Hoffmann

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 05:31:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA20705;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:29:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:29:39 -0700
Message-ID: <3969C2E2.8BFBCE7A bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:34:42 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
References: <v04011703b58dcf93509a [207.8.127.148]> <003001bfe9cb$01481f80$0601a8c0@federation> <3968DA00.9CBFFBC2@easynet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GXnbS.0.R35.o6SQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36125
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> Any scientific explanations ??
> 
> http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
> http://www.sciam.com/0896issue/0896dolphins.html
> http://earthtrust.org/delphis.html#anchor1583154

Dolphins like to play.

There's a great IMAX film on dolphins making the rounds now.  One
man, who has befriended a particularly anti-social dolphin,
learned to make the bubble rings himself.  His dolphin friend
seems to find the man's bubble rings particularly curious.  See:

http://www.fernbank.edu/museum/films.html

for a brief description of the film.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 06:59:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA15075;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:58:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:58:29 -0700
Message-ID: <3969D7AA.9CAF531F bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:03:22 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000709183831.1660C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dn2fF1.0.Sh3.4QTQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36126
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
> n
> 
>         What is the Cosmological constant?  What type [s] of unit [s] are
> used ?  What are the definition [s] of the unit [s]?

You will find a good discussion at:

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/lambda.html

Einstein believed in a steady state universe.  The cosmological
constant was his fudge factor to keep the universe from
collapsing under the force of gravity.  Then Hubble came along
and showed that the universe is expanding.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 08:06:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08768;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:05:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:05:13 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000710110507.007a7860 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:05:07 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: "Longitude" dramatization on A&E
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tvdz-2.0.w82.eOUQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36127
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The A&E cable network broadcast an 3-hour dramatization of the book
"Longitude" by Dava Sobel (Walker, 1995). I reviewed this book in I.E. some
time ago, and I recommend it highly. Many of the incidents in the history
of chronometers is similar to what happened with cold fusion. The broadcast
will be repeated several times this month. See:

http://aande.com/perl/tv/tvlistings.pl?search=longitude&channel=aetv&get=sea
rch&srchby=27

The dramatization seems fairly accurate, although it goes overboard in
places, adding in dramatic touches. In my opinion, here are some of the
major historically inaccuracies:

The lunar method worked better than it is portrayed.

The Navy captains were more supportive of Harrison. They wrote testimonials
that sustained him and led to additional government grants.

I feel that Harrison himself was largely responsible for the delay awarding
the prize, because of his paranoid secrecy.

Having said that, I must admit the movie was quite accurate in places, such
as the portrayal of George III's role, and the testimony before the Board,
which sounds like it came from actual transcripts. It also sounds like it
could have been recorded at that APS last month. After two definitive tests
of the original H-4 chronometer, a copy was made by another clockmaker. It
was also tested at sea, and it kept the proper time to within a second
after weeks. The opposing establishment scientists dismisses this as mere
"anecdotal evidence" and "a fluke." If the skeptics at the APS, the DoE or
Scientific American could be confronted with the data from the recent test
at McMasters University, which revealed a thousand times more tritium than
that instrument had ever measured before, I expect they would also dismiss
it as "anecdotal evidence."

A fact that was barely touched upon in the movie is that scientific
establishment never admitted it was wrong, and it never officially awarded
the prize. It's final response to Harrison and the other clockmakers was to
establish a set tests so outrageously difficult and expensive, with so many
caveats, that no clockmaker ever even attempted to fulfill the
requirements. They ignored the Board sold directly to the Navy and to
merchant marine. If CF ever succeeds, I expect it will take a similar end-run.

The government sponsored lunar table preparation continued for roughly 90
years after the method was obsolete. In 1922 it was estimated that more
human computation had been expended determining the position of the moon
than in any other problem of astronomy or physics. By the same token, I
expect the DoE will still be in business, consuming tax dollars, 90 years
after CF (or something like it) solves all technical problems and reduces
energy an insignificant role in the U.S. economy.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 10:07:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA30608;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:06:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:06:15 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b58eb6747b3b [207.8.127.148]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530503b58e027e0698 [12.21.208.233]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:04:46 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"WgCrJ1.0.6U7.7AWQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36128
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell,
>
>No amount of argument or ranting can prove or disprove an axiomatic
>assumption, which the principle of continuity is.
>
>If you will not change your view of reality no matter how much experimental
>evicence is presented, even hypothetically, then you are not practicing
>science.

***{You are becoming tiresome, Horace. I repeat: science is based on
induction, which in turn is based on continuity. Since induction and
continuity both lie outside of science, they are no more capable of being
verified or falsified by experiment than you are capable of lifting
yourself with your own bootstraps. If you really cannot comprehend this
point, then you have my condolences, because I have made it as clear to you
as I can. --MJ}***

   To the extent that Newton, Einstein, or any other scientist takes
>that stance, he is not practicing science either, but rather a religion

***{Incorrect. Science, done properly, yields up reason-based
beliefs--i.e., knowledge. However, reason can be applied outside of science
as well--e.g., in philosophy of science, which examines the principles of
knowledge upon which science is based. That is why discussions of the
epistemological validity of the principle of induction and the principle of
continuity, properly, lie outside of science, in the area of a priori
categorical reasoning. Religion, on the other hand, is not a reason-based
system of belief, but instead is based on the denial of reason and the
embracing of faith. Result: when philosophy of science is done properly, it
is *not* an instance of religion. --MJ}***


, indeed, a
>matter of faith, and writing of that nature belongs on a non-science list,
>or at least should not be continually repeated on a science list in my
>opinion, because it is not science.

***{Science and philosophy of science are inextricably intertwined.
Classical mechanics was based on the presumed epistemological validity of
the principle of continuity, whereas "quantum mechanics" is based on the
denial of continuity. As a result, any dispute between knowledgeable
proponents of the two approaches leads quickly into the area where the real
conflict lies: philosophy of science, or what Newton referred to as
"natural philosophy." To say that such discussions are off-topic here is
ludicrous, since it would imply that disputes between proponents of
classical mechanics and proponents of "quantum mechanics" ought to be
banned from the list.

As for your notion that the epistemology underlying the classical view is
"a matter of faith," I say that a person who accepts the validity of the
principle of induction while denying the principle of continuity is the one
making a leap of faith, because there is no reasoned basis for induction,
if continuity is denied.

Of course, if you think your belief in induction is *not* based on faith,
then prove it: tell us what possible shred of a basis there can be for
expecting things to behave as they behaved in the past, in a world where
things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. Come
on, Horace: put up or shut up! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>At the risk of being repetitious, I still prefer my assumption, that
>nothing can be known with complete certainty

***{Do you know that you exist, Horace? If so, do you know it with complete
certainty, or is it a matter about which you have doubts? In my view, if
you know you exist, then you also know that every premise which would clash
with that knowledge is false. Result: since the invalidity of the principle
of continuity would clash with that knowledge, it follows that the
principle of continuity must be true. --MJ}***

, i.e. that indeterministic
>randomness does occur in nature, and I think that is compatible with the
>scientific method while intractability, even with a hypothetical, is not.

***{I never claimed to be tractable, Horace. If you want to change my mind,
you will have to give reasons, rather than faith-based utterances.
Unfortunately, thus far you have failed to even make the attempt. --MJ}***

>I also take it as a nearly self evident tautology that if your choices are
>locked in by deterministic physical law, that you are not free to choose.

***{I don't know about you, but I want the actions of my body to be
controled by my view of what is best for me. That means I want my brain to
contain a deterministic physical mechanism which ensures that such a
connection is maintained between what I think and what I do. I call that
mechanism the mechanism of choice. Because of it, we have free will. If it
did not exist, then the actions of our bodies would *not* be controlled by
our views of what is best, and, obviously, we would not have free will.
--MJ}***


>If your decisions are locked-in in advance then you are not making them,
>they are already made for you.

***{My response to a situation I did not predict will be dictated by my
expectations about what will happen if I do various things. If, for
example, I wake up at night with the electricity out, and smell gas, I will
anticipate that if I light a match, there will be an explosion, and so I
will not do that. Instead, I will wake my wife, and we will leave the house
without closing the door, and I will shut off the gas from the valve
outside the house. Why will I follow the latter course of action rather
than the former one? Because being in a gas explosion involves lots of
pain, and lots of subsequent unpleasantness (months in the hospital,
reconstructive surgery, horrible disfigurement, etc.), while avoiding that
outcome by leaving the house and turning off the gas does not. Thus I am
quite pleased that my brain contains a mechanism which ensures that my
actions are in accordance with the expectation that has the highest
satisfaction total (i.e., the largest sum of positive pleasure and negative
pain). I see no benefit in doing anything else, and would not consider it
an enhancement of my freedom if it were possible that I might do so.
--MJ}***

   I prefer to retain the option.

***{What option? Either your body does what you think best, or it ignores
that, and does something else. I want my body to do what I think best, and
I consider the possiblity that it might do something else to be a violation
of my free will. That means we *need* a brain mechanism that links our
bodily movements to the pleasure-pain totals of our expectations. Without
such a mechanism, we are prisoners trapped in a body that we cannot
control, and, as such, we are not free. --MJ}***

>
>Of course, I can not be absolutely certain of any of the above statements,
>and it is time to stop pushing my philosophical point of view.  8^)
>
>BTW, I do enjoy your many analytical and often quantitatively oriented
>posts

***{And I enjoy yours. --MJ}***

, but this continuitarianism stuff is just not my religion.

***{Without the principle of continuity, what basis do you have for
accepting induction? Or do you admit that your acceptance of induction, and
hence science, is based on faith? --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 10:16:38 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01478;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:14:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:14:47 -0700
Message-Id: <200007101727.MAA24735 cablecom.pearlriver.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:19:53 CST
From: John N <jrneer freewwweb.com>
Reply-to: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3)
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Resent-Message-ID: <"fySIt.0.yM.7IWQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36129
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 7:47 PM 7/2/0, John N wrote:

>>>Horace Heffner
>>>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
>>
>>   Notice how interestingly this description achieves the same result as two
>>positive particles where one should be.


>Hopefully it will be clear that this is not what I was saying.  All that is
>achieved is that the separation between the positive particles is
>momentarily reduced to less than 1/2 the minimum deBroglie wavelength of
>the impinging (3 keV) electron.   The impinging electron provides both
>sheilding and momentum to the positive particles, provided they are aligned
>in the path of the impinging 3 keV electron.  This increases the tunneling
>probablity.

    Yes, it was clear.
    But your thoughts expressed a need for an extra attractive force to
overcome 
the natural repulsion, in order to generate an adequate action. There is a need
for
an abnormal force to explain any CF (type) result. Your mechanism provided such,
albeit without cause. All explanations need a nonexistent (according to present
charge rules and understandings) force to do that.

    The impinging 3 kev electron will be repulsed by the away side electron, not
to mention the sea of electrons long before it reaches a negative site
moderated by
a shielded positive charged. If it gets close to the surface electrons, it will
destroy the area's nature, rather than gently assist tunnelling.

>>The postulate

  
>Uh... what posulate?

   The one where you have a 3 kev electron achieve success without destroying
the local site 
in the process.

>>  is for a special
>>positive attraction from a location near the positive charge (here without
>>cause). It suggests an attraction to + surrounded by -. Such strange logic
>>is needed to explain CF.


>I am suggesting (speculating) the net attraction between the nucleii is due
>to the imposition of the waveform of the impinging electron, as it wraps
>itself around the first nucleus (the primary nucleus) thus adding net
>charge between the two nucleii IN ADDITION to the multiple partial charges
>already between the two positive nucleii due the wavefunctions (or partial
>wavefunctions) of the lattice electrons and conduction band electrons in
>the vicinity of the two involved nucleii.  I imply no STABLE orbital
>(chemical) bond, only a momentary electrostatic bond between the impinging
>electron and the first nucleus.  This bond transfers momentum from the
>impinging electron to the first nucleus, driving it toward the second
>nucleus.    Further, the  enveloping wavefunction of the impinging
>electron, which is superpositioned over the waveform of the existing low
>energy electrons and the first nucleus, would, even in the absence of the
>neighborhood electrons, would be sufficient to provide a shielding effect
>of the first nucleus.  However, the presence of neighborhood electrons,
>which already maintained the nuclear separation in equilibrium, makes the
>total charge between the two nucleii strongly to the negative of the prior
>equlibrium value, thus attracting the two nucleii closer together.  This
>process is continued as the impinging electron, which has far more energy
>than the ionizing energy, continues on its path toward the secondary
>nucleus, thus extending the shielding time and further decreasing the
>minimum nuclear distance.  The prospect of electron tunneling into one of
>the nucleii is much increased, as is the prospect of a three  body (two
>nucleii, one lepton) interaction, which may explain unusual branching
>ratios, and the possibility of the exchange of energy  with the lattice in
>small increments.  Simultaneous mutli-body tunneling is not an unusual
>phenomenon.  About 50% of pairs which tunnel across a Josephson Junction do
>so as pairs.  I suggest the possibilty that similar effects are possible
>between hadron-lepton pairs.

  Tunnelling is acausal and ad hoc, wherever it exists in math. It also
arbitrarily
overrides coulomb forces. Further, the equations used are static, that is they
compute based on stationary conditions. For example, p - e - p. If one computes
based on that, the protons will come closer. One can then compute tunnelling.
But that is dynamic and the protons continue to approach before 'they tunnel'
so 
the first calculation is pointless. One then recalculates and they are even
closer 
with better tunnelling possibilities. But wait. They are still approaching,
etc., 
until they find an unscreened line of force repulsion and poof, the calculation 
was worthless. The repel before they have time to tunnel. 
   To misquote Tom Hanks, 'There's no tunnelling in Coulomb's world.'
   Charges adjust, move, go, leave.

  I defer comment other than to say there are far too many dynamic electrons
there
to have that happen. BUT ... I wonder if you've ever done that calculation for
an
H attracting a high energy proton, briefly, offsite. (That's a backdoor into
the bubble
chamber.)

  If however, there is an abnormal positive charge on the site, the approximate
size of a Pd electron, thus preventing itself from being screened, a 3 KeV
electron
would just zoom right on over and wreck all sorts of havoc.

>>
>>   Nota bene.
>>
>>   In the Pd-D bond, the D+ nucleus has an electron on the away side, in
>>addition to the Pd electron sea. The D+ nucleus is indeed surrounded
>>by negative charge


>Yes, and there is insufficient room for an H2 atom to form without a highly
>distorted bond - i.e. in the "face anvil", but the expansion of the Pd
>lattice by only a few percent will accomodate H2.  The nature of the
>electron cloud about the D+ in low loading conditions is likely dynamic,
>changeable by phonons, and thus comprized of "partial orbitals".  In the
>low loading state the D+ ion distorts the lattice in its neighborhood
>somewhat, by about 0.1 angstrom.  However, in the higher loading states,
>hydrogen distribution is more uniform, and thus the lattice mut expand to
>accomodate the extra electrons in the conduction bands, which I suggest
>occasionally are freed to form H2 and expand the face holes.  High loading
>may be a necessary condition for clean alignment shots of the impinging
>electrons down the face holes of the lattice.  Further, since diffusion of
>the D+ through the lattice is in part due to tunneling of the D+ ions, the
>reduction of the required tunneling distance greatly increases an already
>significant probablity of tunneling to the seconday nucleus location
>(provided the other nucleus is not there).  The overlap of the secondary
>nucleus by a small electron wavefunction, then opens the possibility of
>that electron momentarily tunneling into the secondary nulceus and thus
>providing the primary nucleus a vastly larger probability of tunneling in
>due to the increased the cross section, i.e. the increased volume where
>tunneling is feasible due to the tunneling energy being less than or equal
>to zero.  Thus the three-body interaction may have a higher proabability
>than appears superficially.

      Distortions will never account for the attraction cause, fusion, or the
absence of high energy needs. Tunnelling is a QM artifice that describes the
unexplained, arbitrarily overrides Coulomb's law, and never produces a cause.
 
     There is an abnormal cause for cold fusion which tunnelling avoids. Let's
look for the cause; experimentalists need a local cause to produce an experiment
which achieves reliability; you can always fit tunnelling later.
     Does tunnelling account for the Mills abnormal bond?

>>
>>   Therefore, that away electron cannot be an electron with negative charge
>>... because then there can be no abnormal reactions at all, either CF or
Mills.


>This does not follow.  The more negative charge you place between two
>positive charges the closer they can get to each other.  The closer they
>get, the higher the tunneling probability.

  The sizes are different. Doesn't work like that. Also, the protons keep
moving until they
'see each other', at which point the tunnel construction workers just went on
strike.
Now if you would like to tunnel through an electron, you've got an
epistemological 
construction permit and something pertinent to CF. Good luck.

  Everybody stop right here. As this goes, so goes CF reliability in the P&F
CF type community.

  "Therefore, that away electron cannot be an electron with negative charge ..."

          electrons
 electrons - Pd - electrons - D(nucleus) - electron(this one)
         electrons

   Any nuclear level energy release from a Pd system requires that the above
electron
(this one) be discontinuously abnormal. If it is not, then only normal
reactions will occur, 
none of which is a cold fusing of nuclei or an emission of nuclear level
energies. Ever.
Normalcy produces normal reactions, none of which is cold fusion, which is why
institutional
physics was so brutal. The rejection is intrinsic to charge. No change in
charge, no
possibility for cold fusion to be real. That's the origin of skeptical
pathology. Now ..
what cause is there for a charge to change?
 
   Cold fusion is theoretically impossible and will remain epistemologically
impossible
long after thousands of tunnelling models are published.

   That's why institutional physics condemned the idea. Nothing as abnormal as
the
idea of cold fusion can come from a normal system, regardless of impurities,
etc.
If the particles in there are normal, then the actions and reactions will all
be normal. 

   Cold fusion is not normal. It cannot occur in any normal system. Nuclei
cannot get
together with low energy uncaused. CF is not within the set of reactions
allowed by 
normal particles. If it were it would have been in the texts 50 years ago. If
it were
some anti CF physicist would have laughed and published it 10 years ago.

  Either CF is false or charge epistemology has been exposed as inadequate.
  Everyone already knew it was incomplete. That's part of freshman physics and
part
of the missing unified field theory problem.

   That's why CF is theoretically impossible. That's why CF gets spit on,
cursed, laughed
at, ignored, denigrated, not to mentioned being underfunded. Normal samples
will never produce
fusion, hot, cold, luke warm, or frozen. Normal samples will never produce
nuclear level energy 
releases.

   It is forbidden by charge relationships.

   Therefore, there must be a physics epistemological discontinuity else CF can
never be caused
or explained.

   Yes, it does exactly follow and that's exactly the problem.

   All known continuous abnormalities are inadequate to achieve nuclear
distances,
and even so, would still leave unexplained the cause of a successful cold
approach.
The atom does not do that. The ion does not do that. The nucleus does not do
that.
The particle does not do that. It is theoretically impossible without
epistemological
modification period. If you want to describe such an impossibility with a
tunnel 
methodology, ok. But it remains unexplained and uncaused.

   Look at Pd-D + D. Assume all normal.

   (Look how many Pd-D2 sites exist due to loading. If anything normal could
trigger
that, the cell would melt. The building would melt. The sky would melt. It
cannot be
triggered by anything normal. Normalcy exists all through that sample. Normalcy
does
not trigger CF.)

   Assuming the D gets in to the onsite D, which is a bad assumption (other
than through D2
approach, and a near miss which adjusts), then you have Pd-D-D. The point is
that D2 never 
spontaneously fuses no matter where it is. If the D made it in to the onsite D,
then, on approach, 
it would cause a readjustment such that the relationship would be much more
normal D2 (head to 
toe) than a linear p-e-p-e condition. The nucleus would go to the away e, the
approaching e 
would go to the nucleus. Not going to come close to fusing. It's just a
slightly distorted D2, 
but still head to toe, not p-e-p-e. There's no fusion there. There's no
abnormal energy release
there.   (p should be p-n for D nucleus)

   Any significant force squeeze will discombobulate the site long before
fusion. The D-D atomic
bond will break long before a force produces nuclear approach. The Pd-D atomic
bond will break
long before a force produces a squeeze into nuclear distances. All the
tunnelling and hydrino models
depend on 'squeezing'. Charges will not accomodate that. They will move.
There's no fusion in
tunnelling. The charge moved when the line of force to the other charge was
opened. There's
no tunnelling in the 'free to adjust' charge world. It's just a mathematical
artifice to describe
the unexplained and uncaused.

Given Pd-D ...

   An approaching D needs an abnormal force merely to find the right site.
   If the negative is incoming first, it sees negative charge everywhere and is
repulsed.
   If the positive is incoming first, it sees all the other stronger negatives
and heads
toward anywhere but the weakest negative around (the D site).
   They never meet. Normal D's never meet with an approach to a normal Pd-D
site.
   An approaching D needs an abnormal force merely to find the right site.

   If it found the right site, it would do nothing abnormal if the site were
normal, because
there are no abnormal reactions in the normal charge world. They approach, the
repel,
they bond (?), they do this and that but they never release nuclear energies in
a normal
environment.

   If there is no potential abnormality, if the away electron is normally
negative,
then there is no approach which will yield abnormal energy, much less nuclear
level energies, and certainly not fusion. Nor even find the right site.

   It is theoretically forbidden by charge repulsion just like the HF folk say.
There are 
no normal processes using normal charge understanding which will release nuclear
level energies at room temperature. If you causally check the tunnelling charge
logic
or the squeezed orbit logic, the site is profoundly unstable. It will adjust
right out
of the line of fire.

>>
>>   As an electron, it will attract the D nucleus. There will be no fusion from
>>a normal electron attraction of a nucleus. Fusion is merely prevented in a
>>normal manner. There will be no abnormal energy release. There is no
>>abnormal source. CF is impossible if the D electron is a normal electron.


>The thing that is difficult to understand is why there is no high energy
>radiation from the low energy nuclear reactions.  The nuclear reaction
>byproducts are found, thus the reactions occur.  The problem is how the
>reaction energy gets distributed.  I think a stagewise energy exchange
>process must exist between the lattice and the excited fused nucleus.

   Initially, it's just a spherically distributed positron - electron
annihilation,
slight energy release directional preference for the D-D line of approach. Just
run a spectral check for Mills abnormal bond before it triggers. That's also a 
part of MuCF, which has a CF (Mills abnormal bond) attraction trigger (>=.511mev
/event) and a hot approach fusion event. Probably similar albeit more
directional 
energy release in Isobe.

   Someone should notice that tunnelling logic is arbitrarily overriding coulomb
logic and the causes come from Coulomb.

>>
>>   As an electron, in the Mills reaction K - H + I, the I will take either the
>>electron (shell completion logic), or the proton (normal attraction), or both.
>>The forces from I are too unequal to the forces from K for stability over a
>>normal hydrogen atom. Even K - H - K would be unastable even though
>>the average forces could be equal. Any normal attempt at a bond there
>>will be unstable.


>It sounds like you are talking chemistry, which CF is not.  Yoiu have to
>account for the nuclear products of the reactions.

    YES! I am! Physics has no CF answers. Surely the obscene condemnation from
the HF physics world mentioned that. (Actually in physics it would be an
awareness of
charge epistemology and its unexplained ultimate nature, which the skeptics
report
does not mention. Nor do they mention that they know no cause for hot fusion
branching
ratio. Physics typically doesn't go that far because it exposes the empty
foundation on
which QM and hep, etc. are built. CF has exposed all that. That's why you get no
causal answers. Physics has none within present epistemogical rules. 

    It seems clear that CF (total) is at least a two event process (at the same
location
within particle dimension distances), but its standard energy release does not
arise as 
a 4He production, which does not always follow. Therefore, there exists a
process which 
is not fusion but which nevertheless releases nuclear or near nuclear level
energies. 
(Experiments exist with excess energy but not nuclear products.)

     Mills' chemistry experiments do have answers obtainable from experiment,
not hydrino 
theory. The K - H(abnormal) bond is applicable.

 Mills knows how to make the abnormal bond straight up the one column (and
similar, atoms
that 'singly bond' = Pd) in the periodic chart. 

>>
>>   The 'away side' electron on Pd-D or K - H cannot be normal else both CF
>>and the Mills effect (abnormal bond) do not exist. The impossible exists ...
>>therefore ...


>There are errors in some assumptions.

    
    It is a conclusion that the away side electron on Pd-D or K - H cannot be
normal.
The only assumption is to the effect that physics correctly rejected cold
fusion as
theoretically impossible. Actually that's a conclusion too. It's logic that
leads from that
to the 'away side electron'. It's a correct conclusion which can be
demonstrated from
other sources.

    Do you assume or conclude that ignoring Mills chemistry wrt CF is valid? 

    Just extract the pattern from the Mills K - H type experiments.
    (K - H(abnormal) reacts; K - H(abnormal) - I is complete)

   If the institutional folk produce modified CF reliability first (in causal
understanding form)
that's going to ruin the whole revolution.

   Gotta go. You may have the last word.

   Unless I made a mistake which needs to be corrected, this will be my last
post. One
should choose to ignore or reject Mills from an informed position, or from that
opportunity.
My limited exposure is that physics has profound ignorance of the Mills
abnormal bond
*experiments*, about as much exposure as the spectra world in physics in 1915.
Many
valid comparisons exist. There is now a direct line of approach from the Mills
abnormal
bond inter alia to major universities and major funding. CF is a subset of the
Mills
abnormal bond experiments, some very pertinent (I suspect) unpublished for now.

   CF is still one epistemological step beyond Mills theory.

   The abnormal bond has an extra positive where it is impossible that one
should be. Check
the PdCF spectra. Or hit a true Pd-D surface with a gentle D(atom). 

    Best wishes,

   John N.
   erev4 yahoo.com is more or less permanent

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 12:19:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA19842;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:15:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:15:38 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b58fc7263873 [12.21.211.13]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:17:00 -0800
To: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Resent-Message-ID: <"vkYoL2.0.yr4.Q3YQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36130
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:19 PM 7/10/0, John N wrote:

>    But your thoughts expressed a need for an extra attractive force to
>overcome
>the natural repulsion, in order to generate an adequate action. There is a need
>for
>an abnormal force to explain any CF (type) result.
[snip arguments based on false assumption]


Try a simple Coulombic force calculation.  Suppose you have three charges,
two D2 nucleii (+) and and electron (-), all in a line in the x axis
separated by (an initial) distance of 10^-11 m:


                d1                   d2
       (+)                (-)                 (+)

       v1->               v2->


What is the initial net force on each particle?


Further assume the electron has a sufficient velocity that its deBroglie
wavelength is unimportant, i.e. that it is a point charge for the sake of
this discussion.  Further the leftmost deuteron has a velocity v1 relative
to d2 which is directed toward d2, and the electron has velocity

   v2 = v1/2

What happens next?  What direction is the initial acceleration provided by
the net force on the rightmost deuteron?  What direction is the initial
acceleration provided by the net force on the leftmost deuteron?



>      Distortions will never account for the attraction cause, fusion, or the
>absence of high energy needs. Tunnelling is a QM artifice that describes the
>unexplained, arbitrarily overrides Coulomb's law, and never produces a cause.
[snip]


Tunneling is necessary to account for the hot fusion rate at a given
temperature.  It also accounts for the operation of the Josephson Junction
and the tunnel diode.  Regardless of the "true" nature or explanation for
the effect, it exists and is strongly tied to the fusion process.

You have to keep in mind that the coulomb barrier can be jumped, and that
the distance (d1 + d2 above) at which it is likely to be jumped is
comparatively large, i.e. is a separation that can be provided a mere ~20
keV initial deturon energy.  The question of how CF overcome the Coulomb
barrier might be answered by the fact the illustrated process, i.e.
electron screening, as proposed early on by Peter Hagelstein and others, I
believe.

One of the significant problems of maintaining a screen at low energies is
the fact that an electron is not a point charge, but is wave-like.  I am
suggesting that high energies reduce the electron wavelength and at some
electron energy, i.e. at around 2-3 keV, the suggested shielding effect
comes into play.  Pre-alignment of the deuterons all in a row in the
lattice may assist in greatly raising the probability of the effect from a
single electron, and even help align the electron velocity with the
lattice, and even help start a kind of e-fusion-e-fusion chain reaction.
There is a source of seed electrons in the form of secondary electrons from
cosmic rays.

I think there are plenty of arguments against all this, but in my opinion
you have not provided them.  Most significant is the problem of the
(mostly) missing high energy fusion signature.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 13:30:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15969;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:29:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:29:10 -0700
Message-ID: <396A30A3.566D skylink.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:22:59 -0700
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
References: <F173XnbnCndg5oQJgAG000007b9 hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"djQOW3.0.Rv3.M8ZQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36131
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

David Dennard wrote:
> The way the ring does not rise and stays suspended reminds me of smoke
> rings.  It also reminds me of the torus donut in Whirlpower.  Not to be
> confused with toroid flow of the vortex, Chaos Theory, Schauberger, Russle,
> ect, way, ect.

There are a whole lot of things that seem to demonstrate inertial or
gravitational effects when there exists an angular momentum vector 
parallel to a velocity vector -- that is: angular velocity fluid flow 
or electrical field flow around a forward momentum flow. 

> The bubble ring is flying upside down underwater!!!  It is not being pulled
> up by gravity.

Helicity in EM waves, or fluid flows is a scalar with handedness -- 
also know as: a pseudo-scalar, tri-vector, or dydadic. The dimensions 
of scalar helicity are kg-meters/cubic meter, or angular momentum
density per linear velocity. The dimensions (kg-m) suggest at
least some kind of embedded mass moment, and possibly a mass dipole
moment. The dimensions of this scalar, along with seeming gravitational
effects in variety of diverse situations, suggest to me that the 
connection between field/flow helicity and gravitation warrants 
analytical study and experimentation. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 13:52:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26716;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.59]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:48:59 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F166HMwVN7miR9Oduto00000053 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2000 20:48:59.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[45EFA460:01BFEAB0]
Resent-Message-ID: <"hVTdM1.0.HX6.ZRZQv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36132
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Then somebody build a whirlpool!!!!!

John, you keep saying you are, do it man.

A whirlpool is unknown to science, unrecognized, no data, no tests, no 
nothin'.  Back up independently now at;

http://www.the-strange.com/maelstom.html

WE have built the first whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded 
history!!  Ignored.

The Emperor Wears NO Clothes

We got get that guy dresssed.  We are the laughing stock of the galaxy.  
"Look at that, they are using nuclear reactors to boil water".  Ignorange 
unseen in all galactic history.

David


>From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
>Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:22:59 -0700
>
>David Dennard wrote:
> > The way the ring does not rise and stays suspended reminds me of smoke
> > rings.  It also reminds me of the torus donut in Whirlpower.  Not to be
> > confused with toroid flow of the vortex, Chaos Theory, Schauberger, 
>Russle,
> > ect, way, ect.
>
>There are a whole lot of things that seem to demonstrate inertial or
>gravitational effects when there exists an angular momentum vector
>parallel to a velocity vector -- that is: angular velocity fluid flow
>or electrical field flow around a forward momentum flow.
>
> > The bubble ring is flying upside down underwater!!!  It is not being 
>pulled
> > up by gravity.
>
>Helicity in EM waves, or fluid flows is a scalar with handedness --
>also know as: a pseudo-scalar, tri-vector, or dydadic. The dimensions
>of scalar helicity are kg-meters/cubic meter, or angular momentum
>density per linear velocity. The dimensions (kg-m) suggest at
>least some kind of embedded mass moment, and possibly a mass dipole
>moment. The dimensions of this scalar, along with seeming gravitational
>effects in variety of diverse situations, suggest to me that the
>connection between field/flow helicity and gravitation warrants
>analytical study and experimentation.
>
>Regards,
>Robert Stirniman
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 15:49:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA04834;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:48:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:48:43 -0700
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: David Dennard <daviddennard hotmail.com>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
In-Reply-To: <F166HMwVN7miR9Oduto00000053 hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000710185017.7264J-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lNRvu3.0.SB1.BBbQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36133
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Folks,

	I used a tank with flat bottom and 1 inch drain.  This was 4 foot
in diameter and filled to depth of 10 inches, the water was set in motion
by a paddle.   
	If left along the water slowed its rotation.
	If a "propeller" or paddle wheel was used it slowed down a little
quicker if the paddle was un loaded, and loaded is slowed down REALLY
quick.

	SO:  Flat sides ... meaning perpendicular ... 10 inches by 4 feet.
	1" drain closed off.

	What changes do you want? 

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, David Dennard wrote:

> Then somebody build a whirlpool!!!!!
> 
> John, you keep saying you are, do it man.
> 
> A whirlpool is unknown to science, unrecognized, no data, no tests, no 
> nothin'.  Back up independently now at;
> 
> http://www.the-strange.com/maelstom.html
> 
> WE have built the first whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded 
> history!!  Ignored.
> 
> The Emperor Wears NO Clothes
> 
> We got get that guy dresssed.  We are the laughing stock of the galaxy.  
> "Look at that, they are using nuclear reactors to boil water".  Ignorange 
> unseen in all galactic history.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> >From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
> >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> >To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> >Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
> >Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:22:59 -0700
> >
> >David Dennard wrote:
> > > The way the ring does not rise and stays suspended reminds me of smoke
> > > rings.  It also reminds me of the torus donut in Whirlpower.  Not to be
> > > confused with toroid flow of the vortex, Chaos Theory, Schauberger, 
> >Russle,
> > > ect, way, ect.
> >
> >There are a whole lot of things that seem to demonstrate inertial or
> >gravitational effects when there exists an angular momentum vector
> >parallel to a velocity vector -- that is: angular velocity fluid flow
> >or electrical field flow around a forward momentum flow.
> >
> > > The bubble ring is flying upside down underwater!!!  It is not being 
> >pulled
> > > up by gravity.
> >
> >Helicity in EM waves, or fluid flows is a scalar with handedness --
> >also know as: a pseudo-scalar, tri-vector, or dydadic. The dimensions
> >of scalar helicity are kg-meters/cubic meter, or angular momentum
> >density per linear velocity. The dimensions (kg-m) suggest at
> >least some kind of embedded mass moment, and possibly a mass dipole
> >moment. The dimensions of this scalar, along with seeming gravitational
> >effects in variety of diverse situations, suggest to me that the
> >connection between field/flow helicity and gravitation warrants
> >analytical study and experimentation.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Robert Stirniman
> >
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 17:03:28 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01170;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:01:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:01:54 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.78]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: whirlpower egroups.com
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Anatomy of a Whirlpool
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:01:21 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1735X00lfepHjon60T0000154d hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2000 00:01:21.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[253A4660:01BFEACB]
Resent-Message-ID: <"GN6qo1.0.8I.nFcQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36134
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is the anatomy of a whirlpool compared to a tornado type vortex.  This 
gives a clue to why some can't see the difference.

The toroid flow (') extends into the water surrounding the vortex opening.
The torus donut (") is tiney is a tornado type vortex just under the upper 
lip.

        __      __
         "\    /"
        <' \  / '>
            \/


The torus donut (") only appears large in the whirlpool and has a slight 
inward spin.



____________E______________     ________________E_____________
            >              \   /               <
                         <' \ / '>
     ^      "      v         \          v      "      ^

            <                                   >

The energy spiral (E) is the dual radial arm pattern of the whirlpool due to 
the frame dragging wobble effect.

A gapping, high speed, tornado type vortex can have a similar appearance.


       ____                                         ____
        "  ---                                   ---  "
              ''''''....              ....''''''
                        ''''\    /''''
                   <'        \  /        '>
                              \/
                               \
                               /

This torroid flow (') has a very similar appearance and donut shape to the 
torus donut (") in a whirlpool but in a gapping high speed tornado type 
vortex the torus donut is still very small just under the upper lip of the 
vortex.  The torus donut is about the dual radial arm pattern on the 
horizontal and only apppears large in a whirlpool.

The above gapping tornado type vortex is like the toilet flusher, multiplied 
input, corkscrew, Russell, Schaugerger, and a host of others.  A toilet 
flusher is not a whirlpool.

This is the difference in Whirlpower and all previous vortex
science.  And in a whirlpool the tornado central vortex does not even have 
to open for the whirlpool to be dragging a good size torus donut.  Many 
large river eddies form without opening the central tornado type vortex.  Of 
course the bigger the better the more powerful.  But tornado type vortex 
science is not Whirlpower science.  The big debate has been an attempt to 
say a tornado is the same thing as a hurricane, that Whirlpower science is 
the same thing as Schauberger, Russell, ect. science.  I have always said no 
it is not, very different.

THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES!!!

The had all been hip-mo-tized.

David Dennard
The Phoenix
"in sackcloth and ashes"
http://www.whirlpower.cc
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 17:08:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23695;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501b58fd58999bd [12.21.208.217]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:07:55 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"YGGvz1.0.6o5.BKcQv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36135
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

Logic supplies no truth.  Argumentation only permits checking of the
consistancy of the assumed propositions.  Science is based first and
foremost on the principle that experiment establishes the ultimate truth of
propositions about nature.  This rule supercedes the rules of logic,
because the truth of propositions is outside the realm of logic.  If there
is, a priori, no experiment that can possibly change any your specific
premises regarding the function of nature, including the premise of
continuity, despite its origins dating back at least to Eudoxus, then
clearly you are not practicing science.  It matters not how much
argumentation you supply.  Logic is merely a tool of science that permits
the indirect testing of fundamental princples and checking for consistency
of results.   Logic does not produce truth.  Inductively, it is only an aid
to the process of creating a description of nature.  It does not and can
not provide THE description of nature, it can at best help provide
hypotheses.  Experimentation determines truth, to the extent we can know
it.

If it is experimentally shown that nature functions by things springing
into and out of existence, then a scientist must accept this, or use logic
and creativity to derive an experiment that clarifies the situation
further.  Science is an unending process, without the finality that
deductive logic provides in checking validity.

If things do spring into and out of existence at the micro level, it is
clear that they do not do so willy nilly, with no rhyme or reason.  The
rules at the micro level of existence may be probability based,
nondeterministic, but are rules none the less, rules sufficient to create
the illusion of uniform motion as we perceive it, for example.  If nature
enforces the rules about how things spring into and out of existence, then
those ARE the rules.  You can not simply say that knowledge ceases to
exist, becuse it is clear that the rules have a consitency to them
suffcient to allow knowlege as we know it to exist.

At the macro level, where we function and contemplate nature, these rules
of nature, have the combined effect of producing enough reliability that we
can "exist" with the certainty with which we do, and with sufficient
certainty that our brains can create logic itself.  The egg necessarily
came before the chicken.  The chichen can therefore not validly claim there
was no egg.  If it is true that we who created logic itself were created
and sustained by processes involving the continual leaping of things into
and out of existence according to nature's rules, then we can not claim
that because things leap into and out of existence at the micro level that
we at the macro level can be expected to do so, and that nothing in nature
can be counted upon.  It is at most only true that nothing can be counted
upon with complete certainty.

The principle of continuity is a proposition regarding nature.  Logic can
neither prove it true or false.  If you say you will cling to the truth of
it regardless the results of any possible future experiment then you have
accepted it as a matter of faith, and thus it is a religion to you, a
religion not part of science.  Such is the tenacity of the true believer.
On the same basis, it could be said that science itself is a religion, and
I have no argument in that regard, but the main question at hand is as to
whether we were involved in doing science if constrained by the principle
of continuity.  If we are going to merely accept premises on an arbitrary
basis, without experimental proof, the most fundamental choice of all is
the freedom to choose, so I have assumed the right to choose.  If I have
the ability to choose, then, by definition of the word choose, it can not
be predicted what my choices will be, thus they are not the outcome of a
wholly deterministic process.  None of my choices can then be predicted
with certainty, as opposed to the way I would operate in a universe where
all is predetermined, and the true probability of every event is exactly
one.   Without free will, I am doomed to a simplistic automoton-like
repetition, limited in scope merely to self-serving action.   If I can
freely choose, then I can create that which did not exist before, including
logic itself, or even this correspondence.  I can make combinations of
things that surprise or move the spirit.  Further, if there exists action
at a distance, if there exists non-local zero time action, then it seems to
me more likely that there may be more to me than merely the molecules of my
body.  There is a connection between me and the universe.  The word spirit
may have more meaning than just a localized emotional response comprized of
chemical reactions and currents.

I am very comfortable and happy in these things, so am happy with these
choices.  I create, therefore I have free will.  This feels good to me.
How is it for you?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 17:24:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA10808;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:21:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:21:58 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.78]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:21:22 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F17GwEUJlWZO8x96PnP00000245 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2000 00:21:22.0343 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1134370:01BFEACD]
Resent-Message-ID: <"pyCrO3.0.oe2.bYcQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36136
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John,

School children understand how to build a whirlpool better than you in 3 
minutes.  You have had years.  If you can't use your common sense to build a 
whirlpool then you need to stop trying.  Which I doubt you are doing anyway. 
  Build a whirlpool, take a picture, put it up.

A whirlpool is made by the perimeter input not he fins on the Big Wheel.

Can anyone build a whirlpool?  Doesn't anyone see the importance?  The fact 
a whirlpool has never been built before in all recorded history has to be 
the largest gap in scientific exploration of all time.  Yet you folks laugh 
and call me names.  History will see you all as baffoons.

The Troll


>From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: David Dennard <daviddennard hotmail.com>
>CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
>Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>	Dear Folks,
>
>	I used a tank with flat bottom and 1 inch drain.  This was 4 foot
>in diameter and filled to depth of 10 inches, the water was set in motion
>by a paddle.
>	If left along the water slowed its rotation.
>	If a "propeller" or paddle wheel was used it slowed down a little
>quicker if the paddle was un loaded, and loaded is slowed down REALLY
>quick.
>
>	SO:  Flat sides ... meaning perpendicular ... 10 inches by 4 feet.
>	1" drain closed off.
>
>	What changes do you want?
>
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, David Dennard wrote:
>
> > Then somebody build a whirlpool!!!!!
> >
> > John, you keep saying you are, do it man.
> >
> > A whirlpool is unknown to science, unrecognized, no data, no tests, no
> > nothin'.  Back up independently now at;
> >
> > http://www.the-strange.com/maelstom.html
> >
> > WE have built the first whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded
> > history!!  Ignored.
> >
> > The Emperor Wears NO Clothes
> >
> > We got get that guy dresssed.  We are the laughing stock of the galaxy.
> > "Look at that, they are using nuclear reactors to boil water".  
>Ignorange
> > unseen in all galactic history.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > >From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
> > >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> > >To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> > >Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
> > >Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:22:59 -0700
> > >
> > >David Dennard wrote:
> > > > The way the ring does not rise and stays suspended reminds me of 
>smoke
> > > > rings.  It also reminds me of the torus donut in Whirlpower.  Not to 
>be
> > > > confused with toroid flow of the vortex, Chaos Theory, Schauberger,
> > >Russle,
> > > > ect, way, ect.
> > >
> > >There are a whole lot of things that seem to demonstrate inertial or
> > >gravitational effects when there exists an angular momentum vector
> > >parallel to a velocity vector -- that is: angular velocity fluid flow
> > >or electrical field flow around a forward momentum flow.
> > >
> > > > The bubble ring is flying upside down underwater!!!  It is not being
> > >pulled
> > > > up by gravity.
> > >
> > >Helicity in EM waves, or fluid flows is a scalar with handedness --
> > >also know as: a pseudo-scalar, tri-vector, or dydadic. The dimensions
> > >of scalar helicity are kg-meters/cubic meter, or angular momentum
> > >density per linear velocity. The dimensions (kg-m) suggest at
> > >least some kind of embedded mass moment, and possibly a mass dipole
> > >moment. The dimensions of this scalar, along with seeming gravitational
> > >effects in variety of diverse situations, suggest to me that the
> > >connection between field/flow helicity and gravitation warrants
> > >analytical study and experimentation.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Robert Stirniman
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 19:25:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29031;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:23:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:23:52 -0700
Message-ID: <396AA2D9.EE4 bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:30:17 -0700
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000710185017.7264J-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"KuPnc2.0.N57.tKeQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36137
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
>         Dear Folks,
> 
>         I used a tank with flat bottom and 1 inch drain.  This was 4 foot
> in diameter and filled to depth of 10 inches, the water was set in motion
> by a paddle.
>         If left along the water slowed its rotation.
>         If a "propeller" or paddle wheel was used it slowed down a little
> quicker if the paddle was un loaded, and loaded is slowed down REALLY
> quick.
> 
>         SO:  Flat sides ... meaning perpendicular ... 10 inches by 4 feet.
>         1" drain closed off.
> 
>         What changes do you want?


If I understand David correctly, you can't create the whirlpool with
paddles.  You would have to use directed jets or some type of actuator
which will not create drag on the whirlpool.

You would then create a generator which used the vertical "rocking" of
the whirlpool as the motivation source . . . like using the precession
of a gyroscope for energy.

Regards,

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 19:53:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA07545;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:50:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:50:07 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.51]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:49:34 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F66jQxzmWecm9t0CI7600000088 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2000 02:49:34.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[A53A40B0:01BFEAE2]
Resent-Message-ID: <"x8TeE.0.lr1.UjeQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36138
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Terry writes:

>If I understand David correctly, you can't create the whirlpool with
>paddles.  You would have to use directed jets or some type of actuator 
>which will not create drag on the whirlpool.
>
>You would then create a generator which used the vertical "rocking" of the 
>whirlpool as the motivation source . . . like using the precession of a 
>gyroscope for energy.

Yes, John has been playing this little game for a long time of trying to say 
what I say any other way than I say it that he can possibly think of.

It is clear in my drawings, http://www.whirlpower.cc

The "rocking" in a whirlpool appears as the dual radial arm pattern seens in 
hurricanes, spiral galaxies, and whirlpool.  More wave than rock and comes 
not from slow precession but the wobble, which is the off dead center that 
happens in every revolution.  There are actually three notes to precession.

Precession can't be tapped directly, this was the failure of tornado type 
vortex attempts which were all the rage earlier this century and a few have 
revived it lately.  But a tornado type vortex has no tappable energy, IMO.  
The whirlpool, that is the ticket.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 10 21:16:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA03454;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:44 -0700
Message-ID: <20000711041541.20408.qmail web2105.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"ohXhm1.0.ur.mzfQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36139
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Robert Hoffmann wrote:
> Any scientific explanations ??
> 
> http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
> http://www.sciam.com/0896issue/0896dolphins.html
> http://earthtrust.org/delphis.html#anchor1583154

The second of these sites aludes to a scientific explanation, but it reads as
if most of the science has been excised. It's probalby worth looking up the
full Scientific American article.

Terry Blanton wrote:
> There's a great IMAX film on dolphins making the rounds now.  One
> man, who has befriended a particularly anti-social dolphin,
> learned to make the bubble rings himself.  His dolphin friend
> seems to find the man's bubble rings particularly curious.

I saw this IMAX, too, and I remember thinking about all us vortex folks when
I saw it. The diver made the rings just with his mouth, much like people make
smoke rings in air, and it was pretty clear watching the movie that it was
just an ordinary toroidal vortex. 

In fact, mathematically an ideal fluid vortex can exist in only two
topological forms: 1) a "line," terminating on a rigid boundary at each end,
and 2) a "toroid." Note the adjective "topological." This means that a "line"
does not have to be straight or have any other special form; it is just a
continuous single connection between two points. A "torus" is any solid that
can be generated by deforming a circular torus without cutting; this includes
helical tori and all other wiere shapes, so long as they can be derived by
continuous deformation of a circular torus. The cross section is free to
vary; it does not have to remain constant. Fluid vortices are common. You
make them whenever you move, for example. They aren't pretty, nearly circular
vortices, and since air is so nearly transparent, you don't see them.

The toroidal (smoke-ring-like) vortices are classical. No mystery. The reason
the vortex moves so slowly and does not rise rapidly is that most of the
vortex mass is in its circulating water, not in its air. Therefore, the
average mass density of the whole vortex is only slightly less than that of
water, while its cross section is several times larger than that of the
visible ring of air. The combined effects of small density differential and
substantial drag can account for the small observed boyancy. The reported
downward drift of some vortices is not described in detail. I suspect that
these are vortices that were generated in a downward moving current of water
that the dophins themselves made.

The web site mentions both mouth-formed vortices and tail fluke vortices that
are subsequently inflated. However, there are no pictures or further
information to give me any clues about the latter, so I will refrain from
making hypotheses about them.





=====
Michael J. Schaffer



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 05:13:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA20277;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:52 -0700
Message-ID: <003801bfeb39$037dc2e0$02441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Engines
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:07:38 -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: <"zw8SF1.0.ly4.FwmQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36140
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Is your car a vegetarian, Jed?     :-)

According to US Patents 4,558,664 and 5,163,385 www.patents.ibm.com  if they
will run on a coal-water slurry CWS, they will run on a slurry of pureed turnips,
potatoes, leaves, grass, straw, corn stover,or sawdust. Or at the "end" of the food chain
cow poop. 

Might not be "infinite energy", but as long as the Sun shines.....    :-)

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 09:19:37 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA11449;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:18:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:18:15 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b590edbfc29d [12.21.211.92]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:19:36 -0800
To: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Resent-Message-ID: <"2zWh2.0.po2.6ZqQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36141
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry for all my typos in stating the problem illustrating the possibility
of electron shielding at least partially overcoming the Coulomb barrier.
Here are some corrections along with the solution, which hopefully I have
right.

Suppose you have three charges, two deutrium nucleii (+) and and electron
(-), all in a line in the x axis separated by (an initial) distance of
10^-11 m:


                d1                   d2
       (+)                (-)                 (+)

       v1->               v2->


What is the initial net force on each particle?  The force between the left
deuterium nucleus and the electron and is given by

   F1 = q^2/(4 Pi e0 r^2) = 8.98 N

and is to the right towards the electron. The force the two deuterium
nucleii is repulsive and is 1/4 the magnitude of the force between the
deuterium and the electron because the distance is doubled, i.e. d1 + d2 =
2 d1.  So the net force on the left deuteron is 3/4 * 8.98 N = 6.74 N and
is to the right.  Similarly, the net force on the right deuteron is 6.74 N
and is to the left.  The net force on the electron balances out to zero.

Further assume the electron has a sufficient velocity that its deBroglie
wavelength is unimportant, i.e. that it is a point charge for the sake of
this discussion.  Further the leftmost deuteron has a velocity v1 relative
to the rightmost deuteron and which is directed toward it, and the electron
has velocity:

   v2 = v1/2

What happens next?  What direction is the initial acceleration provided by
the net force on the rightmost deuteron?  What direction is the initial
acceleration provided by the net force on the leftmost deuteron?

If we look at the problem in the reference frame of the electron then the
outcome is straightforward.  The two deuterons are attracted to the
electron equally thus accelerate toward it at the same velocity at every
instant.  The force is maintained until the wavelengths of the particles
overlap and the force diminishes.

In the scenario I suggested earlier, the two atoms were maintained at a
constant distance by the presence of the electon waveforms already present.
The potential of the bond between these electrons and the nucleii is
small, less than 30 eV.  The impinging 3 keV electron simply blows them
TOWARD the deuteron pair, thus INCREASING the NET CHARGE between the two
deuterons, and thereby even further increasing the attraction between the
two deuterons.

A hydrogen atom in D2 has a radius of about 0.32 A, so for this reason it
is anticipated the impinging electron's de Broglie wavelength must be less
than .32 A.  At a larger wavelength, i.e. less energy, dipole moment
shielding would occur, preventing a close approach to the nucleus by the
electron.  At .32 A, and in absence of a magnetic field, the hypothesized
effects would begin to be noticed, but a smaller wavelength, e.g. half that
size, should produce more significant effects.

Now: p=h/L, where p=mv so: mv=h/L, v*(9.11E-31kg)=(6.626E-34 joule*sec)/
(0.32E-10 m), v=2.273E7m/sec.  Looking at energy, E= .5mv^2=
(.5)(9.11E-31kg)(2.27E7)^2, E=2.353E-16joule/ (1.602 E-19 joule/eV)=1470
eV.  So a minimal energy electron to initiate the process should be about
1470 eV, quite a bit to get inside a lattice!  This can not be accomplished
by temperature alone because 1eV=1.15E4 deg K, so the temperature would be
1470*1.16E4=17,000,000 deg K.  Further, making the suggested  process
likely requires limiting the degrees of freedom.  It is only likely to
happen in a lattice where the nucleii are all aligned neatly in a row and
the impinging electrons are alread channelled or directed by the aligment
of the lattice face holes.  It is not as likely to happen in a plasma.
Alsom due to the comaparatively large wavelength of the electron, the
process can not proceed to completion, i.e. to a completely fused nuclear
pair, but it can proceed to bring the nuclei to sufficiently less than
10^-11 m to permit tunneling.  The electron's initial wavelength is reduced
as it approaches the first deuteron, due to falling into its Coulomb well.


The intersting thing about this mechanism is that an electron might end up
in new nucleus at a low energy yet not bound into the nucleus by a weak
reaction.  Perhaps this sets up a radiation process, due to the electron's
radiation, whereby the bond kinetic energy of the excited nucleus is
transferred to the lattice over a (relatively) long time by low energy
radiation.  Ultimately, however, the electron should be involved in a weak
force reaction.  Since the electron did not gain substantial kinetic energy
in the suggested fusion process, perhaps the characteristic electron
capture gamma is not seen.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 13:12:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04161;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:09:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:09:05 -0700
Message-ID: <396B7ECB.93017D39 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:08:43 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530501b58fd58999bd [12.21.208.217]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RQYRF2.0.s01.XxtQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36142
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Horace,

Excellent posting. Could I add something short to it?

Logic is about assumptions. Truth should not be dependent to assumptions.(but understanding is)
  
Correctness of understanding the nature or of evaluating an experiment is inversely 
proportional to the number of assumptions we need. :)

Regards,

hamdi ucar


Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> Mitchell,
> 
> Logic supplies no truth.  Argumentation only permits checking of the
> consistancy of the assumed propositions.  Science is based first and
> foremost on the principle that experiment establishes the ultimate truth of
> propositions about nature.  This rule supercedes the rules of logic,
> because the truth of propositions is outside the realm of logic.  If there
> is, a priori, no experiment that can possibly change any your specific
> premises regarding the function of nature, including the premise of
> continuity, despite its origins dating back at least to Eudoxus, then
> clearly you are not practicing science.  It matters not how much
> argumentation you supply.  Logic is merely a tool of science that permits
> the indirect testing of fundamental princples and checking for consistency
> of results.   Logic does not produce truth.  Inductively, it is only an aid
> to the process of creating a description of nature.  It does not and can
> not provide THE description of nature, it can at best help provide
> hypotheses.  Experimentation determines truth, to the extent we can know
> it.
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 14:26:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01730;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:24:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:24:03 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b59139979462 [12.21.208.207]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:25:50 -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: <"mS5lu3.0.wQ.p1vQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36143
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If the electron sheilded deuteron reaction occurs, it may be of the form:

    D+ + D+ + e-  ->  4He++ + e-*

or

    D+ + D+ + e-  ->  T+ + H+* + e-*

or maybe

    D+ + D+ + e-  ->  4H+  ->  3H+ + n

Most of the kinetic energy of the reaction may go temporarily to the
electron e-*, which requires about 1 MeV to escape the Coulomb well, and
which may dump excess energy into the lattice before escaping the Coulomb
well or forming a neutron?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 14:37:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA07366;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:35:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:35:32 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b59143c2f816 [12.21.209.92]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:37:11 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"zIbJI2.0.xo1.ZCvQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36144
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:08 PM 7/11/0, hamdi ucar wrote:
>Hi Horace,
>
>Excellent posting. Could I add something short to it?
>
>Logic is about assumptions. Truth should not be dependent to
>assumptions.(but understanding is)
>
>Correctness of understanding the nature or of evaluating an experiment is
>inversely
>proportional to the number of assumptions we need. :)


I suspect William of Occam would agree.   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 17:02:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA04087;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:01:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:01:37 -0700
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
In-Reply-To: <396AA2D9.EE4 bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000711200416.18452E-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"b2ern3.0.j_.XLxQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36145
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Terry,

	I have tried jets, paddles, rocking, swirling, sloshing....  and
the motion slows down.... If I put ANYTHING in it the motion slows more
quickly.
	The 7 dollar test is to do to K mart and get a plastic round
wading pool and an old scrap piece of plywood... put this on a partially
inflated innertube from a truck tire... and then you can play all you
want.			J

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Terry Blanton wrote:

> John Schnurer wrote:
> > 
> >         Dear Folks,
> > 
> >         I used a tank with flat bottom and 1 inch drain.  This was 4 foot
> > in diameter and filled to depth of 10 inches, the water was set in motion
> > by a paddle.
> >         If left along the water slowed its rotation.
> >         If a "propeller" or paddle wheel was used it slowed down a little
> > quicker if the paddle was un loaded, and loaded is slowed down REALLY
> > quick.
> > 
> >         SO:  Flat sides ... meaning perpendicular ... 10 inches by 4 feet.
> >         1" drain closed off.
> > 
> >         What changes do you want?
> 
> 
> If I understand David correctly, you can't create the whirlpool with
> paddles.  You would have to use directed jets or some type of actuator
> which will not create drag on the whirlpool.
> 
> You would then create a generator which used the vertical "rocking" of
> the whirlpool as the motivation source . . . like using the precession
> of a gyroscope for energy.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Terry
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 17:33:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA14740;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:32:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:32:56 -0700
Message-ID: <396BBC87.653B7D6D cwnet.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:32:28 -0700
From: Jones Beene <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Reply-To: jonesb9 cwnet.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Sheilded Deuteron Reaction ...was Production of Light Lepton Pairs ...
References: <v01530502b59139979462 [12.21.208.207]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"tmWIT2.0.Ec3.toxQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36146
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

> If the electron sheilded deuteron reaction occurs, it may be of the form:
>     D+ + D+ + e-  ->  4He++ + e-*   or
>     D+ + D+ + e-  ->  T+ + H+* + e-*  or maybe
>     D+ + D+ + e-  ->  4H+  ->  3H+ + n
>
> Most of the kinetic energy of the reaction may go temporarily to the
> electron e-*, which requires about 1 MeV to escape the Coulomb well, and
> which may dump excess energy into the lattice before escaping the Coulomb
> well or forming a neutron?

Hi Horace,

One question: In the last two reactions, what is the mechanism for shifting
the multi-mev energy from the fused nuclei to the electron ? and also,
wouldn't an expelled electron with ~1 mev of excess energy leave an
unmistakable gamma signature?

This second part of this post goes a bit further than your hypothetical
basis for LENR reactions into an issue that probably has crossed through the
back of a few minds on this forum, even if they are not ordinarily
conspiracy theorists.

In a nutshell it goes something like this: If you assume that CF is a real
electrochemical phenomenon, albeit a low probability one, then what would be
the limiting mechanism that would keep it from being exploited in a more
energetic situation? simply its low probability?

Some time ago, in response to a question about the various possible
rationales for what appears to be the "official" snubbing of CF at the
highest levels, I suggested that some of the problem goes back to issues
involving "nonproliferation," and more specifically the possibility of a
"pure fusion" weapon (no fission trigger). This suggestion didn't generate
much response at the time.

More recently a little more has been seeping out on the internet about a
class of "ballotechnic" materials under investigation by nuclear weapons
experts in the US - which under certain
conditions can produce "quasi-chemical" energy many times greater than high
explosives. "Ballotechnics" describes materials and devices that produce
anomalous heat following exposure to shock. Usually the materials are
"micro-porous." Shades of sonofusion. Also an aside, is there any structure
on earth more microporous than the Pd lattice is to D?

Below are a few available references gleaned from a quick web search for
"ballotechnic."  I have collected many more. Among the clues here - about
what might be going on in regards to the big picture, notice that the
research involves computer modeling done at Lawrence/ Sandia soon after
scientists began taking advantage of the capabilities of the Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) program for advanced modeling. Also,
most of the freely obtainable material stops in the mid 90's when presumably
the computer models were then put to the test.

Did they fail? Not likely.

Y. Horie. "Modeling of Ballotechnic Materials Response," Vol. 2, Study of
Special Materials, Prepared for Sandia National Labs, March 1994.

M. Hwang, Y. Horie, and S. You. "Modeling of Shock-Induced Chemical
Reactions in Powder Mixtures I: The VIR Model." Shock Compression of
Condensed Matter-1991, eds. S. Schmidt, R. D. Dick, J. W. Forbes, and D. G.
Tasker, Elsevier, p. 597, 1992.

S. You, Y. Horie, and M. Hwang. "Modeling of Shock-Induced Chemical
Reactions in Powder Mixtures II: Continuum Mixture Theory." ibid., p. 601.

L. S. Bennett, K. R. Iyer, F. Y. Sorrell, and Y. Horie. "Shock Induced
Exothermic Reactions in Powder Mixtures." ibid., p. 605.

There are many more from the mid 90's but only a few recent cites (on the
internet).

Modeling of the deformation of highly porous solids under rapid impulse
loading is essential  for the understanding of chemical transformations in
porous ballotechnic energetic materials. Unfortunately, the scientific
knowledge gained following this modeling has apparently been classified -
but one outcome was obvious - it did result in some misgivings at the
political level, on our side, no less.

Among the CTBT (comprehensive test ban) limits on fusion research have which
been proposed following this "modeling" are the Kidder Proposal: which would
ban tritium use in systems driven directly or indirectly by high explosives.
The rationale, of course is that high-explosive-driven components will most
likely be an essential component of the
miniaturization of pure fusion devices.

This proposal has not been implemented to date.

Wonder what would happen if you took a bb sized sphere of Pd, fully loaded
with D and then "deformed this highly porous solid under rapid impulse
loading" (maybe in a special punch press that also triggered a big cap to
charge the pellet prior to impact)? Just another cheap way to get your cupa
T ? What if you then added some of the T to the D in the bb? Don't let your
kid try this at home...expecially if he has a bb gun.

As an aside, rather significant and persistent tritium leaks have been
reported recently around the Lawrence rad lab in Berkeley, even though they
don't officially make the stuff here or design the weapons here.

Probably just coincidence. BTW I have seen a denial by the DoD that
"ballotechnics" is even an officially funded field of research. Apparently
that spokesman doesn't have access to the internet. Or else he's the same
guy that absolutely denies that the Groom Lake, area 51 exists.

Have you run across it before?

Regards,

Jones

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 18:01:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA23979;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:57:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:57:51 -0700
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:57:45 -0400
Message-Id: <200007120057.UAA24406 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="iso-8859-1"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Some More Recent Vortex Stuff
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id RAA23945
Resent-Message-ID: <"-Amgu3.0.Zs5.FAyQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36147
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts!

Stefan Hartmann just posted this report from the Free Energy Conference in
Berlin that was just held.  There is some good stuff on vortices a bit
farther down.

Knuke

> 
>  Berliner Tagung zu neuen Energietechnologien
> Freie Energie, Raumenergie, Zweiter Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik
> 
> Samstag, 8. Juli 2000
> UFA-Fabrik, Berlin-Tempelhof
> 
> Programm:
> 
> 10.00 Uhr       Begrüßung
>         Andreas Manthey (Veranstalter), Achmed Khammas (ID22)
> 
>         Themenschwerpunkt: Praktische Ansätze
> 10.15 Uhr       Die Zukunft der "Raum-Energie-Technik"
>         Konferenzergebnisse und Berichte zur internationalen Forschung
>         Prof. Dr.Dr.Dr.h.c. Josef Gruber, FernUniversität Hagen/Deutschland,
>         Präsident der Deutschen Vereinigung für Raum-Energie e.V. (DVR)
> 
> 11.15 Uhr       Synergetisches Modell für einen freien Energiemarkt
>         Optimale Nutzung von Energieressourcen am Beispiel der
> "Messiasmaschine"
>         A. Khammas, Organisator ID22, Berlin



I did not see these upper lectures, cause I was a bit late this day and 
I also was more interested
in the other more technical lectures.

> 
> 12.15  Uhr   Prof. Konstantin Meyl:
>Neutrino power with Scalar Waves
>


Now this was the most interesting lecture of the day in my eyes:
Prof K. Meyl has done a very good new theroretical and pratical work
on Scalar energy and has produced a kit, which he now sells.

He has shown in the conference on free energy on the 8th of July 2000 in
Berlin, Germany,
how his transmitter and receiver works exactly.
He used electrostatic longitudinal scalar waves to transmit
through a faraday cage and it did work !
It is all based on the work of Tesla, but Prof. Meyl has also worked out
the
theory and can explain it with wave equatations.

The basic transmitter and receiver is pretty simple,
it consists of a sine wave generator running in the 6 Mhz range and a
special
LC component antenna, where a "tesla ball sphere" is transmitting this
sine electrostatic "pressure" wave field. The air is the dielectricum.
Now the receiver is the same LC circuit also with a ball sphere as the
electrostatic
capacitor plate receiver.

The other pole is the ground line.
Instead of using the ground he used a single wire.

At the receiver output transformer (aircore coil tranformer) he puts 2
LEDs
in antiparallel and if the 2 LC circuits are tuned for resonance
(transmiter and
receiver LC circuits) there is 10x times the output power at the
receiver LEDS,
than at the transmitter LEDs. !
This was confirmed by measurements at the Technical University of
Clausthal, Germany.

Prof. Meyl claims this is due to the receiver also collecting "free
neutrinos"
or also using the background noise and rectifying this also in his
circuit.

It is pretty simular to what already Mr. Dollard in the USA has done.
(See Naudin´s website on longitudional waves for reference !)

I believe after this excellent speech by Prof. Meyl, I have now
understood
how one can practically use scalar waves for long range communication
purposes.
It really opens a whole new door in communication industries !
No more MegaWatts Transmitters needed for any broadcast !
Just stick your handy antenna into the ground and receive calls
from milliwatts transmitters around the world !


Have a look here:

http://www.k-meyl.de



 
>         Themenschwerpunkt: Theoretischer Hintergrund
> 13.30  Uhr      Der Schlüssel zur Freien Energie
>         Technologien zur Auskoppelung nutzbarer Energie aus dem Quantenfeld
>         Dr.Dr. habil. Otto Oesterle, Dipl.-Ing., Berlin


Prof Oesterle is well known in the German speaking free energy world.
He has written a book on using vortices for free energy generation and
also lectured from his book. He also can explain, why the earth has
grown
in its diameter with it and why the continents have drifted etc...
pretty
interesting theories.

> 
> 14.15  Uhr      Overunity aus der Sicht der Theoretischen Physik
>         Evaluierungen von O/U-Behauptungen, Grundlagen und konkrete Beispiele
>         Wolf-Dieter Bauer, Dipl.-Phys., Berlin


Dipl.-Phys. Dieter Bauer has lectured a very interesting compilation of
free energyy and overunity systems in NON-uniform fields, where he
compared
all the systems in electric. magnetic and gravity fields, where
Overunity could be got due to interaction with non-uniform fields and
the implications for moving masses,
electrons or magnets along those fields which lead to positive clockwise
workareas
in energy diagrams.(ou-output)
Very good and basic theory to describe and compare ou-systems.
Read more on:
http://www.overunity.com/theory.htm


> 
> 15.00 Uhr       Kaffeepause
> 
>         Themenschwerpunkt: Freie Nutzung der Umgebungsenergie
> 15.45  Uhr      Gültigkeitsgrenzen für den zweiten Hauptsatz der
> Thermodynamik
>         Alternative Wege zur Transformation von Umgebungswärme in andere
> Energieformen
>         Kai Schaeffer, Dipl.-Phys., Berlin


Dipl.-Phys. Kai Schaeffer, the son of Bernhard Schaeffer showed how the
second law could
be violated by using a 2 phase gas mixture as a working gas medium in a
thermodynamic
engine and their positive measurement results. The only difficulties
they still have is
to sucessfully repeat the measurements. The problem is in the gas
mixture or some
parameters with it. They find it hard to reproduce the same measuremnet
results with new
gas fillings of the cylinder. With one measurement set they already have
disproven Carnot´s
equatation.
The have already put about 1 Million Deutschmarks in the last 20 years
into their research
on thermodynamic cycles which defy the second law and have a pretty good
knowledge
about it, how to achieve it now.

Their company website:

http://www.schaeffer-apparatebau.de




> 
> 16.45  Uhr      Wirbelphänomene in Natur und Technik
>         Praktische Beispiele für selbststabilisierende Systeme und ihr
Bezug zu
> Äthertheorien
>         Bernhard Schaeffer, Werkstatt für Dezentrale Energieforschung, Berlin
> 

Bernhard Schaeffer, longtime leader of the workshop for decentral energy
research in Berlin,
showed a very realistic example, how vortices use the "negative
viscosity"(cooling down the air to generate mechanical power) to propell
a vortex acrosss the conference room.

He pushed hard onto his smoke vortex generator barrel drum and a smoke
vortex went across
the conference room and after 25 meters of travel had the energy to put
out a candle light.
This was a very eyes opening demonstration !
He said, even after 50  or more meters in the right temperature still
air environment
this vortex even gets more mechanical power !
When you calculate with the viscosity of air it is clear, that the
vortex must have already
become to a still stand after a few meters, but it does not, cause it
clearly
violated the second "law" of thermodynamic by colling down the air to
generate mechanical energy
(motion).
He told the audience, this is, how hurricanes and tornados and windhoses
are getting their
energy. They cool down the surrounding air to extract mechanical and
kinetic energy which propells
these devastating wind storms !

He then also showed a Ranque-Hilsch pipe, where he blowed high
pressurized air into this
special vortex pipe and then showed with thermometers the temperature
difference.
Then he calculated, that these extreme temperatures are already out of
the Carnot´s
equatation range.


> 18.00 Uhr       Pause
> 
> 18.30  Uhr      Podiumsdiskussion zu neuen Energietechnologien

The last discussion was also pretty interesting , cause there was a
consens, that the
breakthrough in free energy systems is pretty near and it was voted for
more
information also into the politics side of this technolgy to push the
technology
doors open also in conventional physics and university labs to be
researched
more openly.
It was requested to form a German clearing institute for free energy
research
and use this as a central institute for knowledge and information
exchange and
also for research grants to give to independant inventors or research
groups
and to which also the media can rely on with test results.

Also on display was Olaf Berens "James-German-Generator", some sort of
magnetic flux switch generator.
He could show the effect, that when he shorted out his
output coil, the rotor gained speed and he had an incremental
OU effect. If this was due to better impedance matching we will see
in the future, when he will build a better and bigger unit with less
hysteresis losses in his iron cores.

All in all it was a very intersting conference and I was glad to have
attended it.


> 
> 19.30  Uhr      Schlußwort
> 
> Veranstaltungort:                       Tagungsgebühren:
> UFA-Fabrik Berlin e.V.                  Teilnahmegebühr incl.
Kongreßunterlagen DM 95,-
> Viktoriastraße 10-18, 12105 Berlin      Ermäßigt mit Nachweis
DM 70,-
> 
> Veranstalter/Anmeldung:
> Andreas Manthey, Bleibtreustraße 4, D-10623 Berlin
> Tel.: 030 / 312 31 19               Fax: 030 / 312 66 92
> email: andreas.manthey berlin.de
> 
> J. Gruber
> 03.07.00
> 
> Berliner Erklärung zur "Freien Energy"
> 
> Die unterzeichnenden Wissenschaftler erklären:
> Über die Solar-, Wind- und Wasserkraft hinaus gibt es in der Natur eine
> erneuerbare Energiequelle, die bisher noch wenig erforscht ist und
> technisch i.d.R. noch nicht in größerem Umfang genutzt werden kann.
> Diese regenerative Energie wird mit Begriffen wie z.B. Raumenergie,
> Vakuumfeldenergie, Quantenenergie oder Freie Energie beschrieben. Sie
> wird auch mit Kalter Fusion und Sonolumineszenz in Verbindung gebracht.
> Immer mehr Wissenschaftler widmen sich diesem Forschungsgebiet. Es gibt
> neuere physikalische Theorien (auch in anerkannten Physikzeitschriften
> veröffentlicht), die die Existenz und die prinzipielle Nutzbarkeit
> dieser Energiequelle begründen. Es gibt experimentell nachweisbare und
> reproduzierbare Effekte, die sich mit den herkömmlichen Theorien nicht
> erklären lassen.
> Hier besteht akuter Bedarf für wissenschaftliche Forschung und
> ingenieurmäßige Entwicklung. Es gilt, auch in Deutschland den Anschluß
> an die internationale Entwicklung zu fördern.
> Die unterzeichnenden Wissenschaftler fordern daher die rasche
> Einrichtung eines staatlich finanzierten Instituts für
> Raumenergie-Technik (RET), das vor allem als Clearingstelle für
> Information zu diesem Thema arbeitet.
> 
> --


-- 

Best regards, Stefan Hartmann.
--
Hartmann Multimedia Service, 
Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann, Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 345 00 497, FAX: +49 30 345 00 498
email: harti harti.com  info@ccard.net
http://ccard.net fuer Ihren Verkauf im WEB !

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 Jul 11 18:06:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA26979;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:04:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:04:49 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.86]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:04:15 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F140gxapzhad2VqKwRP0000101a hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2000 01:04:15.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[190C42D0:01BFEB9D]
Resent-Message-ID: <"b26Yu.0.Mb6.mGyQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36148
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I strongly suggest this is an untrue statement.  Never has he reported doing 
a feeback loop test or even explained to any extent he understands 
Whirlpower.  He has constantly misrepresentled everything I have ever 
written and unless he posts a photograph of such a test, good or bad, I 
would hold it highly suspect.

David


>From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
>Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>
>	Dear Terry,
>
>	I have tried jets, paddles, rocking, swirling, sloshing....  and
>the motion slows down.... If I put ANYTHING in it the motion slows more
>quickly.
>	The 7 dollar test is to do to K mart and get a plastic round
>wading pool and an old scrap piece of plywood... put this on a partially
>inflated innertube from a truck tire... and then you can play all you
>want.			J
>
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> > John Schnurer wrote:
> > >
> > >         Dear Folks,
> > >
> > >         I used a tank with flat bottom and 1 inch drain.  This was 4 
>foot
> > > in diameter and filled to depth of 10 inches, the water was set in 
>motion
> > > by a paddle.
> > >         If left along the water slowed its rotation.
> > >         If a "propeller" or paddle wheel was used it slowed down a 
>little
> > > quicker if the paddle was un loaded, and loaded is slowed down REALLY
> > > quick.
> > >
> > >         SO:  Flat sides ... meaning perpendicular ... 10 inches by 4 
>feet.
> > >         1" drain closed off.
> > >
> > >         What changes do you want?
> >
> >
> > If I understand David correctly, you can't create the whirlpool with
> > paddles.  You would have to use directed jets or some type of actuator
> > which will not create drag on the whirlpool.
> >
> > You would then create a generator which used the vertical "rocking" of
> > the whirlpool as the motivation source . . . like using the precession
> > of a gyroscope for energy.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Terry
> >
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 19:12:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA19011;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:11:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:11:06 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.22]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some More Recent Vortex Stuff
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:10:34 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F99Dp7mvjkO22ZhCl8a000005dd hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2000 02:10:35.0210 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D4D2AA0:01BFEBA6]
Resent-Message-ID: <"k6Dmn.0.ze4.wEzQv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36149
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Interesting.  But, science seems fixated on the vortex.  The vortex is not 
what Whirlpower is about.  Not the vortex, tornado type, Schauberger type, 
drain type, flusher type, ect.

Whirlpower is about the whirlpool.  A whirlpool is not even recognixed yet 
by science.  Backed up at;

http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html

THAT is the issue.  Not the vortex.

The dolphin makes a torus donut with the lever action of his snout, making a 
whirlpool, then filling the donut with air.  We have the data on this 
stirring action from the Max Plank Institute on my list.  It does make a 
torus donut, not to be confused with the donut shaped toroid flow of a 
tornado type vortex as shown in The Anatomy of a Whirlpool.


>From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Some More Recent Vortex Stuff
>Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:57:45 -0400
>
>Gnorts!
>
>Stefan Hartmann just posted this report from the Free Energy Conference in
>Berlin that was just held.  There is some good stuff on vortices a bit
>farther down.
>
>Knuke
>
> >
> >  Berliner Tagung zu neuen Energietechnologien
> > Freie Energie, Raumenergie, Zweiter Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik
> >
> > Samstag, 8. Juli 2000
> > UFA-Fabrik, Berlin-Tempelhof
> >
> > Programm:
> >
> > 10.00 Uhr       Begrüßung
> >         Andreas Manthey (Veranstalter), Achmed Khammas (ID22)
> >
> >         Themenschwerpunkt: Praktische Ansätze
> > 10.15 Uhr       Die Zukunft der "Raum-Energie-Technik"
> >         Konferenzergebnisse und Berichte zur internationalen Forschung
> >         Prof. Dr.Dr.Dr.h.c. Josef Gruber, FernUniversität 
>Hagen/Deutschland,
> >         Präsident der Deutschen Vereinigung für Raum-Energie e.V. (DVR)
> >
> > 11.15 Uhr       Synergetisches Modell für einen freien Energiemarkt
> >         Optimale Nutzung von Energieressourcen am Beispiel der
> > "Messiasmaschine"
> >         A. Khammas, Organisator ID22, Berlin
>
>
>
>I did not see these upper lectures, cause I was a bit late this day and
>I also was more interested
>in the other more technical lectures.
>
> >
> > 12.15  Uhr   Prof. Konstantin Meyl:
> >Neutrino power with Scalar Waves
> >
>
>
>Now this was the most interesting lecture of the day in my eyes:
>Prof K. Meyl has done a very good new theroretical and pratical work
>on Scalar energy and has produced a kit, which he now sells.
>
>He has shown in the conference on free energy on the 8th of July 2000 in
>Berlin, Germany,
>how his transmitter and receiver works exactly.
>He used electrostatic longitudinal scalar waves to transmit
>through a faraday cage and it did work !
>It is all based on the work of Tesla, but Prof. Meyl has also worked out
>the
>theory and can explain it with wave equatations.
>
>The basic transmitter and receiver is pretty simple,
>it consists of a sine wave generator running in the 6 Mhz range and a
>special
>LC component antenna, where a "tesla ball sphere" is transmitting this
>sine electrostatic "pressure" wave field. The air is the dielectricum.
>Now the receiver is the same LC circuit also with a ball sphere as the
>electrostatic
>capacitor plate receiver.
>
>The other pole is the ground line.
>Instead of using the ground he used a single wire.
>
>At the receiver output transformer (aircore coil tranformer) he puts 2
>LEDs
>in antiparallel and if the 2 LC circuits are tuned for resonance
>(transmiter and
>receiver LC circuits) there is 10x times the output power at the
>receiver LEDS,
>than at the transmitter LEDs. !
>This was confirmed by measurements at the Technical University of
>Clausthal, Germany.
>
>Prof. Meyl claims this is due to the receiver also collecting "free
>neutrinos"
>or also using the background noise and rectifying this also in his
>circuit.
>
>It is pretty simular to what already Mr. Dollard in the USA has done.
>(See Naudin´s website on longitudional waves for reference !)
>
>I believe after this excellent speech by Prof. Meyl, I have now
>understood
>how one can practically use scalar waves for long range communication
>purposes.
>It really opens a whole new door in communication industries !
>No more MegaWatts Transmitters needed for any broadcast !
>Just stick your handy antenna into the ground and receive calls
>from milliwatts transmitters around the world !
>
>
>Have a look here:
>
>http://www.k-meyl.de
>
>
>
>
> >         Themenschwerpunkt: Theoretischer Hintergrund
> > 13.30  Uhr      Der Schlüssel zur Freien Energie
> >         Technologien zur Auskoppelung nutzbarer Energie aus dem 
>Quantenfeld
> >         Dr.Dr. habil. Otto Oesterle, Dipl.-Ing., Berlin
>
>
>Prof Oesterle is well known in the German speaking free energy world.
>He has written a book on using vortices for free energy generation and
>also lectured from his book. He also can explain, why the earth has
>grown
>in its diameter with it and why the continents have drifted etc...
>pretty
>interesting theories.
>
> >
> > 14.15  Uhr      Overunity aus der Sicht der Theoretischen Physik
> >         Evaluierungen von O/U-Behauptungen, Grundlagen und konkrete 
>Beispiele
> >         Wolf-Dieter Bauer, Dipl.-Phys., Berlin
>
>
>Dipl.-Phys. Dieter Bauer has lectured a very interesting compilation of
>free energyy and overunity systems in NON-uniform fields, where he
>compared
>all the systems in electric. magnetic and gravity fields, where
>Overunity could be got due to interaction with non-uniform fields and
>the implications for moving masses,
>electrons or magnets along those fields which lead to positive clockwise
>workareas
>in energy diagrams.(ou-output)
>Very good and basic theory to describe and compare ou-systems.
>Read more on:
>http://www.overunity.com/theory.htm
>
>
> >
> > 15.00 Uhr       Kaffeepause
> >
> >         Themenschwerpunkt: Freie Nutzung der Umgebungsenergie
> > 15.45  Uhr      Gültigkeitsgrenzen für den zweiten Hauptsatz der
> > Thermodynamik
> >         Alternative Wege zur Transformation von Umgebungswärme in andere
> > Energieformen
> >         Kai Schaeffer, Dipl.-Phys., Berlin
>
>
>Dipl.-Phys. Kai Schaeffer, the son of Bernhard Schaeffer showed how the
>second law could
>be violated by using a 2 phase gas mixture as a working gas medium in a
>thermodynamic
>engine and their positive measurement results. The only difficulties
>they still have is
>to sucessfully repeat the measurements. The problem is in the gas
>mixture or some
>parameters with it. They find it hard to reproduce the same measuremnet
>results with new
>gas fillings of the cylinder. With one measurement set they already have
>disproven Carnot´s
>equatation.
>The have already put about 1 Million Deutschmarks in the last 20 years
>into their research
>on thermodynamic cycles which defy the second law and have a pretty good
>knowledge
>about it, how to achieve it now.
>
>Their company website:
>
>http://www.schaeffer-apparatebau.de
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 16.45  Uhr      Wirbelphänomene in Natur und Technik
> >         Praktische Beispiele für selbststabilisierende Systeme und ihr
>Bezug zu
> > Äthertheorien
> >         Bernhard Schaeffer, Werkstatt für Dezentrale Energieforschung, 
>Berlin
> >
>
>Bernhard Schaeffer, longtime leader of the workshop for decentral energy
>research in Berlin,
>showed a very realistic example, how vortices use the "negative
>viscosity"(cooling down the air to generate mechanical power) to propell
>a vortex acrosss the conference room.
>
>He pushed hard onto his smoke vortex generator barrel drum and a smoke
>vortex went across
>the conference room and after 25 meters of travel had the energy to put
>out a candle light.
>This was a very eyes opening demonstration !
>He said, even after 50  or more meters in the right temperature still
>air environment
>this vortex even gets more mechanical power !
>When you calculate with the viscosity of air it is clear, that the
>vortex must have already
>become to a still stand after a few meters, but it does not, cause it
>clearly
>violated the second "law" of thermodynamic by colling down the air to
>generate mechanical energy
>(motion).
>He told the audience, this is, how hurricanes and tornados and windhoses
>are getting their
>energy. They cool down the surrounding air to extract mechanical and
>kinetic energy which propells
>these devastating wind storms !
>
>He then also showed a Ranque-Hilsch pipe, where he blowed high
>pressurized air into this
>special vortex pipe and then showed with thermometers the temperature
>difference.
>Then he calculated, that these extreme temperatures are already out of
>the Carnot´s
>equatation range.
>
>
> > 18.00 Uhr       Pause
> >
> > 18.30  Uhr      Podiumsdiskussion zu neuen Energietechnologien
>
>The last discussion was also pretty interesting , cause there was a
>consens, that the
>breakthrough in free energy systems is pretty near and it was voted for
>more
>information also into the politics side of this technolgy to push the
>technology
>doors open also in conventional physics and university labs to be
>researched
>more openly.
>It was requested to form a German clearing institute for free energy
>research
>and use this as a central institute for knowledge and information
>exchange and
>also for research grants to give to independant inventors or research
>groups
>and to which also the media can rely on with test results.
>
>Also on display was Olaf Berens "James-German-Generator", some sort of
>magnetic flux switch generator.
>He could show the effect, that when he shorted out his
>output coil, the rotor gained speed and he had an incremental
>OU effect. If this was due to better impedance matching we will see
>in the future, when he will build a better and bigger unit with less
>hysteresis losses in his iron cores.
>
>All in all it was a very intersting conference and I was glad to have
>attended it.
>
>
> >
> > 19.30  Uhr      Schlußwort
> >
> > Veranstaltungort:                       Tagungsgebühren:
> > UFA-Fabrik Berlin e.V.                  Teilnahmegebühr incl.
>Kongreßunterlagen DM 95,-
> > Viktoriastraße 10-18, 12105 Berlin      Ermäßigt mit Nachweis
>DM 70,-
> >
> > Veranstalter/Anmeldung:
> > Andreas Manthey, Bleibtreustraße 4, D-10623 Berlin
> > Tel.: 030 / 312 31 19               Fax: 030 / 312 66 92
> > email: andreas.manthey berlin.de
> >
> > J. Gruber
> > 03.07.00
> >
> > Berliner Erklärung zur "Freien Energy"
> >
> > Die unterzeichnenden Wissenschaftler erklären:
> > Über die Solar-, Wind- und Wasserkraft hinaus gibt es in der Natur eine
> > erneuerbare Energiequelle, die bisher noch wenig erforscht ist und
> > technisch i.d.R. noch nicht in größerem Umfang genutzt werden kann.
> > Diese regenerative Energie wird mit Begriffen wie z.B. Raumenergie,
> > Vakuumfeldenergie, Quantenenergie oder Freie Energie beschrieben. Sie
> > wird auch mit Kalter Fusion und Sonolumineszenz in Verbindung gebracht.
> > Immer mehr Wissenschaftler widmen sich diesem Forschungsgebiet. Es gibt
> > neuere physikalische Theorien (auch in anerkannten Physikzeitschriften
> > veröffentlicht), die die Existenz und die prinzipielle Nutzbarkeit
> > dieser Energiequelle begründen. Es gibt experimentell nachweisbare und
> > reproduzierbare Effekte, die sich mit den herkömmlichen Theorien nicht
> > erklären lassen.
> > Hier besteht akuter Bedarf für wissenschaftliche Forschung und
> > ingenieurmäßige Entwicklung. Es gilt, auch in Deutschland den Anschluß
> > an die internationale Entwicklung zu fördern.
> > Die unterzeichnenden Wissenschaftler fordern daher die rasche
> > Einrichtung eines staatlich finanzierten Instituts für
> > Raumenergie-Technik (RET), das vor allem als Clearingstelle für
> > Information zu diesem Thema arbeitet.
> >
> > --
>
>
>--
>
>Best regards, Stefan Hartmann.
>--
>Hartmann Multimedia Service,
>Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann, Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany
>Tel: +49 30 345 00 497, FAX: +49 30 345 00 498
>email: harti harti.com  info@ccard.net
>http://ccard.net fuer Ihren Verkauf im WEB !
>
>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
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 11 20:50:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA18931;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:48:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:48:27 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.31]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:47:54 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F104KVApwOLZCHusMjQ000000e9 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2000 03:47:54.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5C7F960:01BFEBB3]
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vmp4K2.0.jd4.Bg-Qv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36150
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Stirin' Stirniman wrote:
>The dimensions of this scalar, along with seeming gravitational
>effects in variety of diverse situations, suggest to me that the
>connection between field/flow helicity and gravitation warrants
>analytical study and experimentation.

Robert,

I sure wish you would join my list and talk with Dr. Mannu.  He has the 
stirring data from Max Planck, you seem to have the "physics speak" down.  I 
showed him your math stuff.

Put is all together, the anatomy of a whirlpool, the stirring data, your 
scalar stuff; that is what explains the %90 unaccounted for energy of motion 
in spiral galaxies.  The missing dark matter is fluid space, the energy is 
Whirlpower, the whirlpool nature of the universe.

Redfield did not say one man would intuit and build all by himself a device 
that would connect to the God energy of the universe.  Just that one man 
would intuit.  We need teamwork to make it happen, and given freely to all.  
That's the way it came to me in my dream.

If it works I have more advanced stuff we can make some money on to make 
flying saucers, but this world does not need flying saucers, what the world 
needs now is clean energy.

David

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 12 01:36:38 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA27086;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:35:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:35:56 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 40KB limit exceeded
In-Reply-To: <v04011702b58dceb51c55 [207.8.127.148]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000712012623.4061P-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pjf3b3.0.8d6.ht2Rv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36151
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> >> ***{Since this post apparently didn't make it through on the first try,
> >> here it is again. --MJ}***
> >
> >Oops, message size = 42K, bounced by the list server
> 
> ***{I don't understand this. My e-mail program only gives me a page count,
> not a message size in kilobytes.

Then that's a problem.  All eskimo listservers have a 40K limit, and this
has not changed in years.  Check the rules for vortex-l (and freenrg-l,
webhead-l, and the rest) for details.

> But, with everything formatted the same
> way, kilobytes per page ought to be pretty consistent from message to
> message. Therefore, since the server was accepting 26 page messages from me
> a week or so ago, why is it rejecting 20 page measages now?

The answer is simple: try saving your 26 page message and your 20 page
message as separate files so you can see how large they actually are. 
Also, email programs typically add 1.5K to 2K of headers, which is
included in the listserver limitation, so a 39K message might not make it
through. 

> Has the maximum size been reduced?

Nope.

> Also, if the message was bounced, how did you manage to read it? --MJ}***

I am the Moderator, I see *all.*   Well, actually I see too much, and the
constant stream of error messages, bounces, new subscribes, 40Kb
rejections, etc., is too much to handle.  I make a special effort to keep
tabs on Vortex-L though, so I try to send personal responses along with
the automated messages which accompany a bounce.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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  Wed Jul 12 02:02:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA32112;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:01:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:01:18 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex....
In-Reply-To: <20000711041541.20408.qmail web2105.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000712015636.4061T-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ieCAj.0.br7.TF3Rv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36152
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Michael Schaffer wrote:

> The toroidal (smoke-ring-like) vortices are classical. No mystery. The reason
> the vortex moves so slowly and does not rise rapidly is that most of the
> vortex mass is in its circulating water, not in its air. Therefore, the
> average mass density of the whole vortex is only slightly less than that of
> water, while its cross section is several times larger than that of the
> visible ring of air.

>From playing with simple vortex-launchers I conclude that the distribution
of vorticity in the circulating fluid controls the speed of linear motion
of the global pattern. In other words, if the "outer surface" of the donut
is relatively motionless while the inner layers move fast, the whole
vortex will sit in one place and spin... while if the reverse is true,
then the whole vortex will go racing across the room.  By controlling the
speed of the fluid moment by moment as the ring-vortex is created, we can
"program" different behaviors into the vortex.

  http://www.amasci.com/amateur/vortgen.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  Wed Jul 12 02:41:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA06832;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:40:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:40:36 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b591bebb368c [12.21.209.184]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:42:25 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Advanced EM Theory Working Group
Resent-Message-ID: <"6Wb7V3.0.gg1.Kq3Rv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36153
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 1:55 PM 7/7/0, William Beaty wrote:
>R. Todd found this site on doe.gov
>
>  Office of Transportation Technologies Advanced EM theory WOrking Group
>  http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/
>
>It appears that this AIAS group and Tom Bearden are working on some
>interesting things.  Is this old news?


This is really stunning news to me.  I am surprised at the lack of comment
about it here on vortex.  It is incredible that a free energy fringe
science type person is heading a DOE funded working group.   This is a sea
change if I read it correctly.  Some senator or congressman behind this, or
maybe Bearden put one over on them?  The work published so far looks more
serious than fringe, however, and it looks like the group is well staffed.

Any bets on how long it will take for a pack of jackals to attack the group?

It is unfortunate that their newslist is password protected, even to just
read it.  However, the articles published by the group so far are available
in pdf form at

   <http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/papersbooks.html>

The web page says that they have expressed Maxwells original theory as a
Yang Mills theory of guage symmetry, which it apparently was already due to
being expressed in quaternion theory?   At any rate it goes on to say that
"Beardens concepts are far in advance even of the O(3) electrodynamics
presented here, and if proven, have astonishing consequences in many areas,
especially energy acquisition."  And I say well of course it is, he's the
boss!  8^)

I would love to hear the story behind this anomalous government funded DOE
group.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 12 06:24:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26238;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 06:23:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 06:23:42 -0700
Message-Id: <200007121336.IAA04629 cablecom.pearlriver.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:29:11 CST
From: John N <jrneer freewwweb.com>
Reply-to: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailer: J Street Mailer (build 98.6.3)
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Resent-Message-ID: <"vWwjQ3.0.pP6.U57Rv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36154
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

   Hi Dr. Heffner,   

   Tempting posts, part causal, part acausal, but I've retired.

   It's over. Positron stuff is falling from the sky.

   From an ('THE') anti Mills pro QM specialist in spf ... ('refuting' a Mills
statement). The poster is anti causal to the core. The background was 
Dirac and continuation related. 

   " ...  *fact* that positrons are seen   *and* that you can "spark the
vacuum" to produce e+ e- pairs due to the presence of high Z."

   He thinks positrons come from the vacuum spark instead of the catalyst high
Z.  Spooky logic. Descriptive without cause. (Of course. Acausal philosophies
- epistemologically unconnected logic sets - are like that.)

   Let's see. If positrons come from (are caused by) the catalyst high Z (same
as bubble chamber, low Z + 1 Mev, or a medium Z without annihilation, just fade
in, fade out, why is that?), instead of popping up from nothingness ('spark the
vacuum'), then the Mills effect is real and there's a CF positron at Pd-D. 
    The catalyst causes the electron to 'change sizes'. This change, in the
presence of its nucleus, reverses the charge, linking charge to an equilibrium
size, rather than an intrinsic nature. Nothing serious. The theoretical atom
doesn't collapse. Yet.

   The experimentalists just need a sequencing cause to achieve reliability.

   Thanks. I enjoyed reading your posts. 

   John N.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 12 10:23:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA13358;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000712131534.007a3db0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:15:34 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Engines
In-Reply-To: <003801bfeb39$037dc2e0$02441d26 fjsparber>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"z_VGm1.0.ZG3.KVARv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36155
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frederick Sparber wrote:

>Is your car a vegetarian, Jed?     :-)
>
>According to US Patents 4,558,664 and 5,163,385 www.patents.ibm.com  if they
>will run on a coal-water slurry CWS, they will run on a slurry of pureed
turnips,
>potatoes, leaves, grass, straw, corn stover,or sawdust. Or at the "end" of
the food chain
>cow poop.

I never understood how there can be significant energy left in cow poop.
Metabolism must not work very well.

Biomass and waste-to-energy systems have been around for a long time. Trash
incinerators are a terrible idea, but two other systems can be very good:
specialized incinerators, like the ones in Georgia which burn a mixture of
peanut shells with coal; and biomass gassification systems.

In Italy they have recently developed systems to burn leftover pits and
skins from olive oil presses.

"Gasohol" has not been economical, and with all the hungry people in the
world, it seems like a terrible shame to use a high-quality food source to
drive a car.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 12 11:19:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32740;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:18:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:18:25 -0700
Message-ID: <000601bfec35$a85185c0$ad8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000712131534.007a3db0 pop.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Engines
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:16:11 -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: <"Nwgft3.0.U_7.mPBRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36156
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Engines

Jed wrote:


> Frederick Sparber wrote:
> 
> >Is your car a vegetarian, Jed?     :-)
> >
> >According to US Patents 4,558,664 and 5,163,385 www.patents.ibm.com  if they
> >will run on a coal-water slurry CWS, they will run on a slurry of pureed
> turnips,
> >potatoes, leaves, grass, straw, corn stover,or sawdust. Or at the "end" of
> the food chain
> >cow poop.
> 
> I never understood how there can be significant energy left in cow poop.
> Metabolism must not work very well.

Ruminants cannot get all of the carbohydrates out of the cellulosic materials 
in plants, because they are encrusted with lignins and waxes etc. This is
why some feeders run the manure back through the livestock Yeck!

However, "rotted" manures that have been biodegraded to methane etc.,
can run up to 7,000 btu/lb, because the high energy lignin has been concentrated.
> 
> Biomass and waste-to-energy systems have been around for a long time. Trash
> incinerators are a terrible idea, but two other systems can be very good:
> specialized incinerators, like the ones in Georgia which burn a mixture of
> peanut shells with coal; and biomass gassification systems.

Yep, but direct combustion in an engine is/could be much more attractive.
> 
> In Italy they have recently developed systems to burn leftover pits and
> skins from olive oil presses.

Certainly. Grape pomace is disposed of this way. Should make a good motor fuel
to run a genset without having to burn it in a fluidized bed combustor to make low grade heat.
> 
> "Gasohol" has not been economical, and with all the hungry people in the
> world, it seems like a terrible shame to use a high-quality food source to
> drive a car.

I agree, the synthesis gas (H2 and CO) from biomass (or coal) gasification
can be turned to "Gasohol" ie., ethanol by turning a few valves.

Or the ethylene C2H4 in refinery streams can be Hydrated to ethanol by the
kilotons per day, merely by adding a water molecule to the ethylene over
a phosphoric acid catalyst , hence the name ethanol. 

Gasohol is political "Pork" for the farm lobby. :-)

Regards,    Frederick
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 12 12:23:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA19120;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:13:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:13:34 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b592653a0865 [12.21.211.83]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:14:42 -0800
To: jonesb9 cwnet.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Sheilded Deuteron Reaction ...was Production of Light Lepton Pairs ...
Resent-Message-ID: <"-Um1j.0.ag4.TDCRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36157
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

First let me say that I think "electron catlysed fusion" may be a better
term for the process I outlined.  The process is different from electron
shielding and muon catalysed fusion to the extent that a medium energy
electron is required, having energy an order of magnitude above chemical
bond energes.



At 5:32 PM 7/11/0, Jones Beene wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> If the electron sheilded deuteron reaction occurs, it may be of the form:
>>     D+ + D+ + e-  ->  4He++ + e-*   or
>>     D+ + D+ + e-  ->  T+ + H+* + e-*  or maybe
>>     D+ + D+ + e-  ->  4H+  ->  3H+ + n
>>
>> Most of the kinetic energy of the reaction may go temporarily to the
>> electron e-*, which requires about 1 MeV to escape the Coulomb well, and
>> which may dump excess energy into the lattice before escaping the Coulomb
>> well or forming a neutron?
>
>Hi Horace,
>
>One question: In the last two reactions, what is the mechanism for shifting
>the multi-mev energy from the fused nuclei to the electron ? and also,
>wouldn't an expelled electron with ~1 mev of excess energy leave an
>unmistakable gamma signature?


The expelling of an electron from a doubly charged nucleus REMOVES an extra
1 MeV.  That's a pretty good start.  My speculation is that an unbound
electron in the nucleus represents an oscillating dipole, and thus
radiates.  Perhaps the nature of the radiation is such that it couples with
adjacent nuclei and thereby dumps the energy very slowly (compared to a MeV
magnitude gamma release).  In the example, the electron has no initial
kinetic energy with respect to the formed nucleus.  Kinetic energy transfer
would come from oscillating or circular motion around the nucleus after a
close range miss, thus transferring energy from the nucleus to the
electron, in "slingshot" fashion.  In the case of electron capture to make
for a 4H+ nulceus, the electron did not "fall into the well" as it does in
a K shell capture, so perhaps the electron capture radiation would be less
and different in nature.  I would think the neutron emission would be
detected, however, so this may be a very low brobability reaction?


>
>This second part of this post goes a bit further than your hypothetical
>basis for LENR reactions into an issue that probably has crossed through the
>back of a few minds on this forum, even if they are not ordinarily
>conspiracy theorists.
>
>In a nutshell it goes something like this: If you assume that CF is a real
>electrochemical phenomenon, albeit a low probability one, then what would be
>the limiting mechanism that would keep it from being exploited in a more
>energetic situation? simply its low probability?
>
>Some time ago, in response to a question about the various possible
>rationales for what appears to be the "official" snubbing of CF at the
>highest levels, I suggested that some of the problem goes back to issues
>involving "nonproliferation," and more specifically the possibility of a
>"pure fusion" weapon (no fission trigger). This suggestion didn't generate
>much response at the time.



What a refreshing problem, TOO MUCH concern about CF!  I think to those who
have actually tried to obtain the effect, who are "in the know" somewhat
technically, it is hard to fathom concern about obtaining explosive rates
of reaction.  On the other hand, personification of the DOE as if it were a
single mind or of a single mindset is flawed.  DOE is comprised of a large
number of people that therefore represent a large number of points of view,
so I suppose group culture clearly can not suppress all of that.  I would
argue that explosive fusion is hot fusion, and hot fusion is an area of
open publication.  An explosion destroys the very special environment that
makes cold fusion possible, and thereby makes it a hot fusion problem from
then on.  I see publication of CF research as far less of a threat than
publication of hot fusion research.



>
>More recently a little more has been seeping out on the internet about a
>class of "ballotechnic" materials under investigation by nuclear weapons
>experts in the US - which under certain
>conditions can produce "quasi-chemical" energy many times greater than high
>explosives. "Ballotechnics" describes materials and devices that produce
>anomalous heat following exposure to shock. Usually the materials are
>"micro-porous." Shades of sonofusion. Also an aside, is there any structure
>on earth more microporous than the Pd lattice is to D?


Yes, there are various circumstances where electron catalysed fusion might
be occuring.  Pinch devices especially come to mind, or materials in which
high energy discharges occur and which can produce electrons of the
required kinetic energy, whether by pinching or direct acceleration.
Discharges in water and powdered aluminum produces anomalous energy, as do
discharges in water laden ceramics.  However, the anomalous energy is
small, not a high multiple of the supplied energy.  Superficially, this
does not appear to be nuclear bomb threat, or even a technique with
immediate promise of practical energy production.

I think the greatest promise of electon catalysed fusion is in the
production of aneutronic reactors, like p + B reactors.  Since the Coulomb
barrier is overcome, heavier reactions involving equal mass particles, like
Li + Li reactions might be possible.

I also think inirtial confinement reactions might be better inirtially
confined by medium energy neutral charge beams than by laser beams.  This
would require developing the technology to build fast neutral beam pulsers,
but that seems like more of an engineering problem.  I would not see such a
device, as expensive and bulky as it would be, as a bomb threat.  I could
be wrong about all this and have actualy not given it much thought.  I
think pinch devices may deserve more attention that they have been given.



>
>Below are a few available references gleaned from a quick web search for
>"ballotechnic."  I have collected many more. Among the clues here - about
>what might be going on in regards to the big picture, notice that the
>research involves computer modeling done at Lawrence/ Sandia soon after
>scientists began taking advantage of the capabilities of the Accelerated
>Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) program for advanced modeling. Also,
>most of the freely obtainable material stops in the mid 90's when presumably
>the computer models were then put to the test.
>
>Did they fail? Not likely.
>
>Y. Horie. "Modeling of Ballotechnic Materials Response," Vol. 2, Study of
>Special Materials, Prepared for Sandia National Labs, March 1994.
>
>M. Hwang, Y. Horie, and S. You. "Modeling of Shock-Induced Chemical
>Reactions in Powder Mixtures I: The VIR Model." Shock Compression of
>Condensed Matter-1991, eds. S. Schmidt, R. D. Dick, J. W. Forbes, and D. G.
>Tasker, Elsevier, p. 597, 1992.
>
>S. You, Y. Horie, and M. Hwang. "Modeling of Shock-Induced Chemical
>Reactions in Powder Mixtures II: Continuum Mixture Theory." ibid., p. 601.
>
>L. S. Bennett, K. R. Iyer, F. Y. Sorrell, and Y. Horie. "Shock Induced
>Exothermic Reactions in Powder Mixtures." ibid., p. 605.
>
>There are many more from the mid 90's but only a few recent cites (on the
>internet).
>
>Modeling of the deformation of highly porous solids under rapid impulse
>loading is essential  for the understanding of chemical transformations in
>porous ballotechnic energetic materials. Unfortunately, the scientific
>knowledge gained following this modeling has apparently been classified -
>but one outcome was obvious - it did result in some misgivings at the
>political level, on our side, no less.
>
>Among the CTBT (comprehensive test ban) limits on fusion research have which
>been proposed following this "modeling" are the Kidder Proposal: which would
>ban tritium use in systems driven directly or indirectly by high explosives.
>The rationale, of course is that high-explosive-driven components will most
>likely be an essential component of the
>miniaturization of pure fusion devices.
>
>This proposal has not been implemented to date.
>
>Wonder what would happen if you took a bb sized sphere of Pd, fully loaded
>with D and then "deformed this highly porous solid under rapid impulse
>loading" (maybe in a special punch press that also triggered a big cap to
>charge the pellet prior to impact)? Just another cheap way to get your cupa
>T ? What if you then added some of the T to the D in the bb? Don't let your
>kid try this at home...expecially if he has a bb gun.
>
>As an aside, rather significant and persistent tritium leaks have been
>reported recently around the Lawrence rad lab in Berkeley, even though they
>don't officially make the stuff here or design the weapons here.


Must be venting from CF cells?    8^)


>
>Probably just coincidence. BTW I have seen a denial by the DoD that
>"ballotechnics" is even an officially funded field of research. Apparently
>that spokesman doesn't have access to the internet. Or else he's the same
>guy that absolutely denies that the Groom Lake, area 51 exists.
>
>Have you run across it before?


No, this is all news to me.  It's interesting.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 12 12:39:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27861;
	Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:36:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:36:47 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5927519c319 [12.21.209.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:38:18 -0800
To: John N <jrneer frewwweb.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Resent-Message-ID: <"9Mnst1.0.Ap6.FZCRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36158
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:29 AM 7/12/0, John N wrote:
>   Hi Dr. Heffner,


No "Dr." here.  My only college education in physics is a single course in
mechanics taken in 1962.


[snip]
>   Let's see. If positrons come from (are caused by) the catalyst high Z (same
>as bubble chamber, low Z + 1 Mev, or a medium Z without annihilation, just fade
>in, fade out, why is that?), instead of popping up from nothingness ('spark the
>vacuum'), then the Mills effect is real and there's a CF positron at Pd-D.
>    The catalyst causes the electron to 'change sizes'. This change, in the
>presence of its nucleus, reverses the charge, linking charge to an equilibrium
>size, rather than an intrinsic nature. Nothing serious. The theoretical atom
>doesn't collapse. Yet.


I do not understand how an electron can change charge except mayb by some
kind of time reversing superluminal event.  Relativistic effects, for
example, can change "apparent charge" but not reverse charge.  How can an
electron reverse charge?



Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 00:11:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04725;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:09:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:09:27 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b5931aee6c45 [207.8.127.168]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:07:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Stalking the "Dalmatian Dunes" of Mars
Resent-Message-ID: <"d53A92.0.l91.diMRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36159
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{Here is my latest post to the "dalmatian dunes" thread on
sci.bio.botany. --MJ}***

> In article <01bfebdf$bbd38860$96508490 366.vic.bigpond.net.au>, "Nick
> Hoffman" <nhoffman bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > A couple of points:-
> >
> > The image in question is taken with reasonably low sun angle, therefore
> > shadow lengths are misleading. The dunes are likely only tens of metres
> > high
>
> ***{The shadow lengths allow a pretty-good calculation of the dune
> heights, and so they aren't misleading at all. The photo is at 60.7 deg.
> S, 5.1 deg. W. Since the polar axis of Mars is inclined at an angle of 24
> deg. to the plane of its orbit and the photo was taken roughly in
> mid-summer, it follows that if the tallest dune were replaced by a
> flagpole of equal height pointing straight up, that flagpole would make
> roughly an angle of 60.7 -24 = 36.7 degrees with the plane of Mars' orbit
> at solar noon, and so the horizon would make an angle of 90 -36.7 = 53.3
> degrees with the incoming sunlight at noon. If the photo were taken at
> solar noon--which it wasn't--the shadow of the flagpole would fall due
> south. Call that shadow Sn (for "shadow at noon"), let X denote the
> vertical height of the flagpole (which, remember, is the same height as
> the tallest dune), and denote the hypotenuse of that vertically oriented
> triangle by H1. Since the angle between H1 and Sn is 53.3 degrees, it
> follows that tan (53.3) = X/Sn, and so we obtain:
>
> X = Sn[tan (53.3)]          (1
>
> Unfortunately, we do not know the value of Sn, since the photo was not
> taken at solar noon, and the shadows do not fall due south. Instead, the
> shadows are pointing at roughly an angle of 20 deg. south of east. Thus we
> have a second right triangle, this time lying in the horizontal plane. One
> side is Sn, while the hypotenuse (call it H2) is the length of the dune
> shadow we see on the photo, and the angle between H2 and Sn is equal to
> about 90 - 20 = 70 degrees. Thus cos 70 = Sn/H2, and we obtain:
>
>  Sn = H2[cos 70]          (2
>
>  Substituting (2 into (1, we obtain:
>
>  X = H2[cos 70][tan (53.3)]          (3
>
> Since the horizontal extension of the largest of the round dune spots is
> about 130 meters, and since the horizontal extension of the longest dune
> shadows is about 6 times that, or 780 meters, it follows that H2 = 780
> meters. Thus X = 780(cos 70)(tan 53.3) = 357.9 meters, or 1174.2 feet.
>
> Bottom line: since X represents the height of the "dunes," it follows that
> the "dunes" are *not* "only tens of meters high." They are in fact, as I
> said the other day, more than a thousand feet high. That means any
> "boulders" peeking through their crests would have to rest on spires
> connected to bed rock that are taller than the tallest skyscrapers on
> Earth--which ain't very damn likely, to put it mildly.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> , the spots have no consistent down-sun lineation, so are not shadows
> > of tall objects.
>
> ***{The lack of consistency is not surprising, assuming that we are
> talking about stands of living things akin to redwoods rather than about
> uniform objects such as giant bowling pins. An isolated stand of redwoods
> (a "spot") will contain individual trees of varying height, width, and
> placement, and no two individual stands will be the same. What is *very*
> surprising, however, is the powerful tendency of the spots to have their
> greatest extension in the down-sun direction when they are in direct
> sunlight. In that regard, they look just like isolated stands of very
> large trees would look on Earth, if viewed from the same height through
> the same sort of CCD camera technology as was used here.
>
> Concerning the vertical height of the spots: as noted above, I read on a
> website that the largest of the spots is about 130 meters in diameter, so
> the radius would be 65 meters, and the height would be 65(cos 70)(tan
> 53.3) = 29.8 meters = 98 feet.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >
> > There IS a preferred alignment of multiple spots, but varies from area to
> > are, so it isn't shadow.
>
> ***{That doesn't follow, as noted above. You need to ask yourself what
> sort of patterns of shadows would be cast by irregular stands of *living
> things* in areas of sunlight. If you think in such terms, it quickly
> becomes apparent that the resulting shadows will not be consistent from
> clump to clump in terms of length. What *will* be consistent, however, is
> this: when the clumps are in direct sunlight, they will very strongly tend
> to show their greatest extension in the direction away from the sun, due
> to the effect of shadowing; and when they are in areas of shadow, no such
> tendency will be apparent. That is, in fact, exactly what we see here.
> --MJ}***
>
> >
> > I happen to think that Mars was never hospitable for life, so nothing would
> > have had the chance to evolve
>
> ***{I totally disagree. 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 merely
> 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, they
> will evolve first into single celled organisms, and 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: 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 data 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}***
>
> , but let's assume it did. What atmospheric
> > chemistry would result from active metabolisms? On Earth, the atmosphere is
> > 21% O2, due to organic life. Mars has only 0.7% the atmosphere of Earth so
> > should show contamination/organic activity quite easily. Can you suggest
> > how these "trees" would work?
>
> ***{I take the dry river beds, dry lakes, and dry oceans as evidence that,
> billions of years ago, Mars was an Earth-type planet with an abundance of
> plant and animal life, and I am open to the possibility that, if the
> progress of desertification was gradual enough, life found a way to adapt.
> In my view, the survival of plants as large as these "spots" would
> virtually necessitate the survival of large animals as well. But, as you
> say, the thin atmosphere of Mars, at first glance, seems to argue against
> that possibility. However, let's be very careful here. If the spots are
> stands of some sort of gigantic plant that remains dormant, covered with
> snow, until the Martian spring, then it is likely that they burn carbon
> dioxide and release oxygen, that they are mostly composed of water, and
> that they sustain a large community of animals, which burn the oxygen and
> supply the plants with CO2 and fertilizer, just as here on Earth. However,
> the present Martian atmosphere is very thin, consists almost entirely of
> CO2, and contains very little oxygen. Thus if we focus on the present
> situation there, the survival of large plants and animals seems
> impossible.
>
> On the other hand, if we think of the desertification as a gradual
> process, and focus our thoughts on the way it affected the direction of
> natural selection way back when it began, things begin to look quite a bit
> different. We know that, on Earth, arid conditions give an advantage to
> cacti--plants that conserve water, reducing their surface area per unit of
> volume, and eliminating leaves. Logically, therefore, as the
> desertification of Mars got under way, natural selection would have begun
> to favor cacti. And since the surface area of a thing increases as the
> square of the radius, while its volume increases as the cube of the
> radius, it follows that large cacti would have a decided advantage over
> smaller ones, where water conservation is concerned. Result: over the
> eons, we would expect Martian cacti to get larger and larger--an effect
> which, by the way, would be facilitated by the low gravity.
>
> On Earth, there exists a diverse community of insects, birds, rodents,
> etc., that spend part or all of their time in cacti. Birds build nests in
> them; beetles burrow into them to lay their eggs; rodents live in them
> part time; snakes enter them in pursuit of rodents; etc. Thus on Mars, as
> cacti became gigantic and the atmosphere thinned, it is reasonable to
> suppose that the associated communities of life forms would spend larger
> and larger potrions of their time within the cacti, and that, by the time
> conditions became really bad, they might spend *all* of their time there.
> Thus I can imagine barrel cacti becoming 10 feet across, then 20, then 50,
> then 100, then 500, then 1000, etc. And as they became larger, they would
> provide more and more open space inside, for animals to live. And as the
> atmosphere thinned, they would release more and more oxygen internally,
> and less and less into the open atmosphere. And as the atmosphere thinned
> still more, I can imagine such cacti forming airtight seals to hold a
> breathable atmosphere within themselves, to sustain the symbiotic
> communities of animals and plants upon which they would depend for their
> survival.
>
> Result: one of the possibilities I am considering is that the "dunes" are,
> in fact, a gigantic cactus, that the "spots" are leaf-like solar arrays
> that the cactus, or a symbiotic plant species that lives within it, puts
> up in the spring to capture  incoming solar energy. If so, this would
> explain why the margins of the "dunes" lack the sawtooth pattern
> characteristic of dune fields on rock: they aren't dunes at all. And, if
> this hypothesis is correct, then within the mind-bogglingly gigantic
> cactus that we see here, there undoubtedly lives a diverse community of
> plants and animals, in an Earth-type atmosphere, quite possibly at
> pressures close to the Earth norm of 1013 mbar.
>
> You asked: "What atmospheric chemistry would result from active
> metabolisms?" The answer, therefore, is this: if life found a way, the
> atmosphere used by the surviving life forms is sequestered from the open
> atmosphere, and thus may be vastly different in its characteristics from
> that open atmosphere. Result: we cannot judge the prospects for life on
> the basis of the characteristics of the open atmosphere.
>
> Of course, the above is merely a hypothesis, and I offer it merely to
> supply food for thought. I have, at present, 5 other hypotheses based on
> the same premise: that life found a way. None of them is a sure thing, but
> all seem possible to me, and are worthy of discussion. Ultimately, the
> only way we will settle such issues will be to go to Mars and check out
> these "dunes" for ourselves. In the meanwhile, I urge strong skepticism
> regarding all speculations about their nature, whether from conventional
> sources or from divergent thinkers such as myself. Caveat emptor.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >
> > -Nick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 03:00:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA00826;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:59:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:59:24 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b593439afa18 [12.21.211.43]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:01:15 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Bailing out
Resent-Message-ID: <"93hdY3.0.qC.xBPRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36160
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I've had fun for a while, but I have to get back to work so I am bailing
out for a while.  Bye!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 06:12:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA14843;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:11:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:11:32 -0700
Message-ID: <20000713131056.94401.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240]
From: "Adam Cox" <merlyn_x hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: FTL signals do not violate physics 
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:10:56 CDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"4wAHi1.0.nd3.20SRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36161
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Been out of touch for awhile, still worjing through backlog...


This occured to me last night, an excercise in math and logic...

Please, correct me if I err in the calculations, its been awhile since I 
read this stuff.

Relativity is based on all the physical laws being the same in any reference 
frame moving at constant velocity.  The speed of light is considered to be 
constant, which means that certain time and spacial distortions must occur, 
but these distortions are only apparent to an outside observer.  This is the 
problem I concieved...

A vehicle moving at 50% c (1/2 light speed).  Inside is an apparatus 
consisting of a 1 meter tube with a single photon source on one end and a 
detector at the other.  the photon will actually travel twice as far to get 
from one end of the tube to the other, which means that time must be slowed 
for an observer in the vehicle...
  But that is only true if the photon is launched in the direction of 
travel... what if we turn the tube around?  the photon travels 2/3 the 
distance from one end to the other, but that would mean time must be faster 
in the vehicle... cant have it both ways

I know that I ignored the spacial distortions, but it doesn't matter.  Any 
transformation which would make the second photon correct will make the 
first one take too much time, just as getting the first one right makes the 
second take too little.

At least, thats the way I reason it

Merlyn
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 07:43:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA11180;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:39:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:39:51 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000713103945.007a0cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:39:45 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: D. Morrison reviews ICCF-8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_3oas.0.Xk2.tITRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36162
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

D. Morrison (ret. CERN) puplished a review of ICCF-8 on s.p.f. and
elsewhere. It is rehash of everything he has said all along. He has learned
nothing, and forgotten nothing.

He does not describe a single experimental results in this review, despite
the fact that cold fusion is based upon experiment, not theory or opinion.
At ICCF-8, McKubre and others presented definitive evidence excess heat,
helium and tritium. Not only does Morrison ignore that, and he had the gall
to "demand" that same nuclear evidence which he pretends does not exist!

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 10:41:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA05357;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: D. Morrison reviews ICCF-8
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000713103945.007a0cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000713102423.16430B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"OSIez2.0.XJ1.AtVRv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36163
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> D. Morrison (ret. CERN) puplished a review of ICCF-8 on s.p.f. and
> elsewhere. It is rehash of everything he has said all along. He has learned
> nothing, and forgotten nothing.
> 
> He does not describe a single experimental results in this review, despite
> the fact that cold fusion is based upon experiment, not theory or opinion.
> At ICCF-8, McKubre and others presented definitive evidence excess heat,
> helium and tritium. Not only does Morrison ignore that, and he had the gall
> to "demand" that same nuclear evidence which he pretends does not exist!
> 
> - Jed

I have found that the "skeptic's" argument consist  of ignoring the data,
fabricating fantastic alternative explanations, and calling the data
"error" simply because the data indicates cold fusion. 

This is not science, and one has to wonder about the Universities that
gave
these people degrees in the hard sciences. A liberal arts, Theology,
English (they love to correct spelling and grammar), or Home Economics
degree would better fit their education. 

You are never going to convince them until cold fusion is so obvious that
they are embarrassed to deny it's existence. At that time, their talent for
playing fast and lose with facts and logic will enable them to rewrite
history and they, in retrospect, will become major contributors and not
bone headed ignorant detractors. 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 11:09:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00399;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:07:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:07:57 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000713140748.007ab8a0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:07:48 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: D. Morrison reviews ICCF-8
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000713102423.16430B-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000713103945.007a0cc0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"0RZwh2.0.36.zLWRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36164
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Stephen Lajoie wrote:

>I have found that the "skeptic's" argument consist  of ignoring the data,
>fabricating fantastic alternative explanations, and calling the data
>"error" simply because the data indicates cold fusion.

Morrison does not touch the data. He offers no alternatives and he does not
call it an "error" -- it simply does not exist as far as he is concerned.
However, to his credit, he does allude to a few results in his summaries of
other people's evaluations. For example:

	FRANCESCO SCARAMUZZI said;
	  The conference had been rich in results, some of which were;
	  Evidence of strong correlations of excess heat and 4He by  
	McKubre, Arata and Takahashi who under certain conditions found both.  
	This showed the nuclear origin of cold fusion.
	  Evidence of transmutations was growing steadily and indicated the
	 nuclear nature of the effect.

So, a person reading the Morrison review might realize that excess heat and
helium correlations were reported. But he would have no idea how strong
these correlations were, how much heat was observed, how many different
methods were used, and no clue of any other salient details which a
scientist would need in order to judge the issue. He would no idea, for
example, that the people at McMasters University used one of the best
specialized mass spectrometers in the world, and they inadvertently
measured a thousand times more tritium from a CF experiment than from any
other test they have performed with that instrument. This kind of detail is
convincing, which is why there is not one word of it in Morrison's paper.

There are people who convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I imagine
one of them attending an AIDS conference and then writing a report which
does not mention the correlation between reduced HIV levels and improved
health and longevity. Morrison is just as bad.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 14:46:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14989;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:43:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:43:37 -0700
Message-ID: <396E391B.ADAA5ECD ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:48:44 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Energy K System
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>,
        "Morrison, Douglas" <morrison cern.ch>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
CC: Tom Valone <iri erols.com>, Marc Whitford <marc@whitford.com>,
        Art B Rosenblum <artr juno.com>, Jeff Melcher <melcher@farkaslaw.com>,
        Scott Chubb <chubb ccsalpha3.nrl.navy.mil>,
        Charles Platt <cp panix.com>, Tom Van Flandern <tvf@mindspring.com>,
        Hal Plotkin <hplotkin plotkin.com>, Erik Baard <erikbaard@aol.com>,
        "Dr. George Miley" <g-miley uiuc.edu>,
        Lewis Larsen <73763.14 compuserve.com>,
        Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>,
        "Dr. Mike McKubre" <Mike_McKubre qm.sri.com>,
        Mel Miles <melmiles ridgecrest.ca.us>, Brian Ahearn <BrianS@qetc.com>,
        "Dr. Marcello Truzzi" <soc_truzzi ONLINE.EMICH.EDU>,
        Bob Bass <donquixote radix.net>, Henry Bauer <hhbauer@vt.edu>,
        Charles Beaudette <CGBeaudett aol.com>
Subject: Re: Morrison of CERN blasts BlackLight, cold fusion, Mallove, Valone, 
 etc.
References: <200007130318.XAA09405 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PzfhH3.0.7g3.9WZRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36165
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Dear Douglas,
>
> I read your Report on Eighth International Cold Fusion Conference and would
> like to correct some of the factual errors you included.  While I
> appreciate the need for different ways of interpreting data, I can not
> understand how a fair and objective scientist can publish so many factual
> errors which appear to be made for the sole purpose of discrediting work
> supporting the “Cold Fusion” effect.   We all know you reject the effect
> based on reasons you have given in the past.  Nevertheless, a competent
> scientist should give a fair and accurate description of available
> information so that a reader of his evaluation can come fairly to his own
> conclusions.  Instead, you distort the facts and give a completely false
> impression.  Your report is particularly damaging because much of what you
> write is correct and completely reasonable, thereby making the distortions
> less obvious.
>
> Because you made your report public, I am also making this letter to you
> public in an attempt to undo part of the damage.
>
> In the ABSTRACT you make the bold statement about “the overwhelming
> evidence against cold fusion”. The only “evidence” against cold fusion is
> the conflict with theory, which is not evidence, and the difficulty many
> people have had in reproducing the effect.  No one in science believes that
> difficulty in reproducing an effect is evidence against the effect.  While
> such difficulty hinders the study and causes people to avoid the effort, it
> is not evidence.   Surely, you know this simple fact.
>
> In your summary of my comments, you attribute to me the statement that Pt,
> Au, Ni, or Ti absorb a large amount of hydrogen.  I did not make this
> statement. Indeed, I said just the opposite.  These metals do not absorb
> large amounts of hydrogen, yet they are claimed to make excess energy.  The
> point being that theories that focus on palladium, which does absorb
> hydrogen, are perhaps barking up the wrong tree.  In addition, you
> incorrectly noted the website of www. altenergy.org where a comprehensive
> review of the conference papers can be found.
>
> You make the statement that the extensive study at Harwell found no excess
> heat.  While it is true they reported no excess heat, subsequent
> evaluations of their work revealed the presence of overlooked excess
> energy.  Why did you omit this important point? In the same vain, you noted
> that the NHE laboratory in Japan also reported no excess energy, yet Dr.
> Melvin Miles reported at the very conference you attended that excess
> energy was actually obtained but ignored.  You later dismiss Miles’ claims
> by quoting errors attributed to using the Pons-Fleischmann method of
> calorimetry.  You completely ignored the independent work of Miles done at
> NHE showing excess heat which has been published in a peer reviewed
> journal.
>
> In your list of countries doing work in cold fusion, you omitted Russia, a
> very important contributor.  In addition, considerable work was done in
> India in the past.
>
> On several occasions, you note my concern about using a heater to calibrate
> the calorimeter and use my comments to criticize the method employed by
> Pons-Fleischmann.  You completely ignore the comments I made when you
> raised this issue during the conference.  I made clear that my comments
> were of a generic nature and did not apply to the method used by Pons and
> Fleischmann.  They used a tall, narrow cell and applied the heater pulse
> while bubble stirring by electrolysis was operating. Both factors will
> reduce the expected temperature errors to insignificant values, as
> Fleischmann measured and so stated.  Considerable study by many people has
> shown that this criticism of the Pons-Fleischmann is completely invalid. So
> why do you continue to raise this issue?
>
> You once again raise the issue of using a null method when doing
> calorimetry in the form of a Wheatstone bridge.  Surely you are aware of
> the more modern methods of data collection which are as accurate and
> certainly more convenient then this method.  The problem is not in the data
> acquisition method. Properly designed calorimeters are sufficiently stable
> and accurate to detect the claimed amounts of excess energy, as a number of
> us have demonstrated.  Why do you not note and evaluate such claims rather
> than suggest a useless method?
>
> In your repeated efforts to discredit the Pons-Fleischmann work, you raise
> the issue of uncertain recombination in the cells by noting the study made
> by Jones et al.  The Jones work has been completely discredited and shown
> not to apply to the Pons-Fleishmann conditions.  I suggest you read the
> literature rather than beating this dead horse once again.  Also, you
> describe a meeting a CERN in 1989 where Fleischmann was asked about using a
> control cell containing H2O, noting that Fleischmann looked uncertain which
> suggested evasion. In fact, Pons-Fleischmann did many control cells using
> H2O with Pt and Pd cathodes and detected no excess energy.  However, other
> people have found excess energy when the cathode was nickel rather than
> palladium.  The nuclear reactions producing the excess energy under these
> conditions was shown not to be simple fusion, but an interaction between
> hydrogen nuclei and the alkali metal used in the electrolyte.  Although,
> this reaction is difficult to explain, on going studies continue to show
> the anomalous effects.  While you are correct in stating that many people,
> even in the cold fusion field, do not believe the claims, you should at
> least represent the controversy honestly.
>
> Your description of the Kasagi experiment, which measured the D(d,p)T
> reaction is completely confusing.  They demonstrated an enhanced
> cross-section for this one branch of the fusion reaction in certain metals,
> including Pd.  Because the conditions were not even remotely similar to
> those required to produce the cold fusion effect, the work can only suggest
> the existence of a mechanism which, if enhanced, could produce the
> anomalous tritium.  This work has no direct relationship, at this point, to
> heat production resulting from the He producing branch. At this point, the
> observations only show a conflict with accepted theory. In other words, the
> theory you and others use to discredit cold fusion is not so perfect after
> all.
>
> In describing the work of Prof. Bockris in his attempt to do alchemy, you
> note that Champion was his student.  This is completely false. Champion
> hired Prof. Bockris to duplicate certain claims being made by Champion,
> which Prof. Bockris was able to do on several occasions.  Because the
> results were so controversial, the studies only resulted in considerable
> grief for Dr. Bockris rather than any change of attitude, as you
> demonstrated in your comments.
>
> Claims by Prof. Arata in Japan and Dr. Case in the US have been duplicated
> at SRI in the US.  In your effects to discredit the claimed helium
> production, you mistakenly say that activated carbon was used in both
> studies.  This is false.  The Arata studies used pure palladium while only
> the Case work is based on a hydrogen catalyst containing carbon and
> palladium.  Both studies produced excess energy along with He4 in amounts
> consistent with a fusion reaction. While it is true that carbon can absorb
> He at low temperatures, as you stated, during the duplication of the Case
> claims at SRI, desorption of He from the carbon was looked for and not
> detected.  Does not good experimental evidence have any effect on your
> opinions?

> While I appreciate your continued interest in cold fusion and the
> opportunity to discussion our different attitudes at the various
> conferences, I would find your efforts much more useful if you would be
> more accurate in your assessment.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Edmund Storms
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 23:36:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA12650;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:35:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:35:28 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011700b590cf865cf1 [207.8.127.60]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b58fd58999bd [12.21.208.217]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:30:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Cc: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bKZa33.0.a53.jIhRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36166
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

>Mitchell,
>
>Logic supplies no truth.

***{Incorrect. Reason is a truth-finding procedure that uses logic. Here is
the way it works:

(1) State clearly the question to be answered.

(2) State clearly all of the possible answers to that question.

(3) Apply logic to relevant facts, until contradictions have been found
refuting all answers except one.

(4) When the impossible has been eliminated, that which remains, however
implausible, will be the truth.

Bottom line: all reason-based belief--i.e., all knowledge--is based on
logic. Hence logic is involved in the supplying of all truth.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Argumentation only permits checking of the
>consistancy of the assumed propositions.

***{And, when they are deemed inconsistent with the facts, logic leads to
their being tossed out--which means logic is the driving force behind the
winnowing process that, at the end, reveals the truth. Bottom line: logic
is the engine of reason, and, thus, is absolutely essential to the
discovery of truth. --MJ}***

Science is based first and
>foremost on the principle that experiment establishes the ultimate truth of
>propositions about nature.

***{Results of actual experiments take precedence over the predictions of
thought experiments--i.e., theory--but only because the actual results
represent what really happened in the past, while the results of thought
experiments may not do so. Note, however, that we would not care how things
behaved in the past, if we could not expect them to behave that way in the
future. That means science is based first and foremost on the presumed
validity of the principle of induction, and *not* on the derived principle
that experiment establishes the ultimate truth of propositions about
nature. After all, propositions about nature are useless if they only apply
to the past. The very concept of "nature," in fact, is that of a coherent
thing which retains its properties over time. --MJ}***

This rule supercedes the rules of logic,
>because the truth of propositions is outside the realm of logic.

***{Incorrect. As noted above, logic is the driving force of reason itself.
Without it, false explanations cannot be culled out; and, if they are not
culled out, there is no way, regardless of how many experiments are done,
to identify the truth. --MJ}***

If there
>is, a priori, no experiment that can possibly change any your specific
>premises regarding the function of nature, including the premise of
>continuity, despite its origins dating back at least to Eudoxus, then
>clearly you are not practicing science.

***{It  is possible to practice science while understanding the
epistemological underpinnings of science, and it is possible to practice it
while comprehending virtually nothing about those underpinnings. I do the
former, and you do the latter. --MJ}***

It matters not how much
>argumentation you supply.

***{Not if you never focus on it. Here is a suggestion: cease your practice
of deleting the entire context of my responses to your posts, and instead
try inserting point-by-point rebuttals of my comments. If you will follow
that procedure, it will force you to actually confront my arguments, and we
will then see whether or not argumentation matters. --MJ}***

Logic is merely a tool of science that permits
>the indirect testing of fundamental princples and checking for consistency
>of results. Logic does not produce truth.

***{Truth is out there in the world. Without logic, however, we can never
find it. --MJ}***

Inductively, it is only an aid
>to the process of creating a description of nature.  It does not and can
>not provide THE description of nature, it can at best help provide
>hypotheses.  Experimentation determines truth, to the extent we can know
>it.

***{I repeat: experimental results would be useless, if we could not apply
logic to them, find contradictions, and cull out false hypotheses. The
bottom line is that you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Worse, you will never learn, unless you cease your practice of engaging in
monologue, and try engaging in dialogue instead. I repeat, therefore, my
earlier suggestion: stop deleting my remarks, and respond directly to them
instead. Your present practice is merely a pretense at dialogue, and
results in us essentially talking past one another. It is a waste of both
our time. --MJ}***

>
>If it is experimentally shown that nature functions by things springing
>into and out of existence, then a scientist must accept this

***{If things can leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing, then the past--including experimental results--is meaningless as a
guide to the future, because there is no way to know what actually
happened. Indeed, you can't even know there *was* a past, since your
"memories" may be leaping into existence out of nothing an instant before
you "recall" them!

Of course, I have previously given you multiple examples of why the
possibility of discontinuous phenomena destroys our knowledge of the past,
and you have simply deleted those examples without comment and have
continued to spout the same silliness as before. Your error is what Ayn
Rand once described as "the fallacy of the stolen concept"--to wit: the
practice of continuing to use a premise while denying the conditions on
which the premise depends. In this case, you want to continue to
mechanically intone the platitude that experiment trumps theory, when the
theory you are attempting to "trump" is the one upon which the significance
of experimentation depends.

--Mitchell Jones}***

, or use logic
>and creativity to derive an experiment that clarifies the situation
>further.  Science is an unending process, without the finality that
>deductive logic provides in checking validity.

***{Science is based on the presumed validity of the principle of
induction--that things will behave as they behaved in the past. (Nobody
would give a hoot about the results of past experiments, if they didn't
expect those results to apply in the future.) And the principle of
induction--using past results as a guide to future results--assumes that we
can know what the past results were. But how can we do that, if things are
capable of leaping into existence out of nothing and vanishing into
nothing? When, for example, Russ George sealed up his deuterium-containing
dewar prior to doing his experiment, how could he know that it still
contained deuterium a minute later? (Maybe the deuterium simply disappeared
into nothing!) Surely you can see that he assumed that if deuterium exited
the dewar, it would have to do so through a continuous spatial
pathway--e.g., by popping a seal or punching a hole in the dewar--and that
without that premise, the experiment would have been utterly pointless!

Your answer, of course, is that you are going with the odds: it is highly
improbable, in the macrocosm, that the deuterium will exit the dewar
without following a continuous spatial pathway. You know that because, in
the past, things have tended to remain where you left them, except in cases
where a known force was applied to disturb their location; and, since you
expect the future to follow the pattern of the past, you feel you can rely
on such probability calculations.

But what makes you think the future will follow the pattern of the past,
Horace? How can you use past results to calculate the probability of future
events, without the premise that the future will be like the past? And on
what basis can you accept that premise, while denying continuity? After
all, isn't it transparently obvious that, if things can simply vanish into
nothing, then the "nature" we knew in the past could do so, and be replaced
by something that behaved completely differently?

Bottom line: there is an obvious, flat-out contradiction between your
belief that things will continue to behave as they have behaved in the
past, and your belief that it is possible for things to leap into existence
out of nothing and vanish into nothing.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>If things do spring into and out of existence at the micro level, it is
>clear that they do not do so willy nilly, with no rhyme or reason.

***{What makes it clear, Horace? The fact that you see such patterns in the
past does not imply that you will see them in the future, unless you claim
that the future will behave like the past. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU EXPECT THE
FUTURE TO BEHAVE LIKE THE PAST? --MJ}***

The
>rules at the micro level of existence may be probability based,
>nondeterministic, but are rules none the less, rules sufficient to create
>the illusion of uniform motion as we perceive it, for example.  If nature
>enforces the rules about how things spring into and out of existence, then
>those ARE the rules.

***{The fact that you perceive such patterns in the past only implies, at
best, that they WERE the rules. It does not imply that they ARE the rules,
or that they will be the rules in the future. There is no way you can apply
past results to the future, if you do not employ induction--which is the
premise that the future will be like the past. The question is: on what
basis do you accept induction, given that you deny continuity? --MJ}***

You can not simply say that knowledge ceases to
>exist, becuse it is clear that the rules have a consitency to them
>suffcient to allow knowlege as we know it to exist.

***{Utterly false. A pattern of apparent consistency in the past is not
knowledge unless we have solid grounds for believing that pattern will
continue to hold in the future. However, if the principle of continuity may
be false, then we have no basis for expecting any past pattern to apply to
the future. Result: knowledge becomes impossible. --MJ}***

>
>At the macro level, where we function and contemplate nature, these rules
>of nature, have the combined effect of producing enough reliability that we
>can "exist" with the certainty with which we do, and with sufficient
>certainty that our brains can create logic itself.

***{Your assertions about "reliability" of rules clearly imply that the
rules observed in the past will apply in the future. But how do you know
that? What basis do you have for expecting the future to be like the past,
in a world where the principle of continuity does not apply? --MJ}***

[To be continued.]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 13 23:39:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA13164;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:36:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:36:37 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b594635fc6ce [207.8.127.151]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:35:08 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Cc: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DRPEt.0.cD3.rJhRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36167
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{This is the second part of my reply to Horace Heffner. --MJ}***

The egg necessarily
>came before the chicken.  The chicken can therefore not validly claim there
>was no egg.  If it is true that we who created logic itself were created
>and sustained by processes involving the continual leaping of things into
>and out of existence according to nature's rules, then we can not claim
>that because things leap into and out of existence at the micro level that
>we at the macro level can be expected to do so, and that nothing in nature
>can be counted upon.

***{What we *can* claim, however, is this: if, in any area, you accept the
notion of *magic*--i.e., of entities leaping into and out of existence at
strategic times and places--as a substitute for causal determinism, then
you give up all hope of understanding what is actually going on in that
area.

If, for example, you had accepted such a notion as an infant, you would
have simply postulated that the sensations associated with "Mother,"
"Daddy," "Fido," your arms, legs, etc., were merely leaping into and out of
existence at strategic times and places, and would never have actually
comprehended that those sensations had their sources in entities that exist
in the world. Result: you would never have learned to walk or talk or
reason, and would have spent a short and miserable life as a human
vegetable, being cared for by others.

And if we assume that you got past your initial hurdle by assuming that
your sensations did *not* leap into and out of existence, you would find
that you faced similar decisions over and over again, throughout your life,
each with the same consequences: you could assume that the entities
involved did not leap into and out of existence, and on that basis hold out
for real explanations and real understanding, or you could embrace *magic*
and give up all hope of real explanations and real knowledge.

Suppose, for example, that you place your coin collection in your safe,
lock it, lock the room that it is in, lock your house, and then go on
vacation. Suppose further that, when you return and check your safe, your
coins are missing. If you tell yourself that the coins must have simply
vanished into nothing, then there will be no reason to check for scratches
on the locking mechanism of the safe, or on the lock to the room or the
house, or to look for fingerprints, or to ask the neighbors if they saw
anything suspicious. That means the existing evidence that an intruder
followed a continuous spatial pathway into your house, into that room, and
into the safe will not be found. Result: you will never understand what
happened, and you will have no hope of ever recovering your coins.

Likewise, if the light over your kitchen sink stops working, you can assume
that photons are simply vanishing into nothing, or that the electrons in
the wire are vanishing and reappearing in a pattern that mimics an open
circuit. If you do that, you will never look for a break in the light bulb
filament, or the wire, or for corroded contacts on the relevant circuit
breaker. Result: you will never understand what happened, or how to fix it.

And if one morning you turn the key to start your car and nothing happens,
you can assume that the engine has vanished. And if you open the hood and
see it there, then close the hood and try to start the car again, and fail,
you can simply assume the engine reappeared again when you looked, and
vanished again when you closed the hood. And if you leave the hood open and
look at the engine while you turn the key, that will be useless as well:
all you will be able to see will be a small portion of the surface of the
engine, and so you will have no way to be sure that the unseen part was
still present when you turned the key.

The implication is straightforward: if you want to be incompetent in any
area, then simply assume that the principle of continuity does not apply
there, so you can create magical "explanations" without effort, and impress
the ignorant with your "knowledge." On the other hand, if you want to be
competent in an area, then assume continuity does apply there, and do the
work that is required to create real explanations and acquire real
knowledge.

Bottom line: the denial of continuity doesn't turn an individual into an
incompetent in all areas; it merely turns him into an incompetent in every
area to which it is applied.

--Mitchell Jones}***

It is at most only true that nothing can be counted
>upon with complete certainty.

***{Amazing. I responded to that point before, in vast detail. You snipped
that reasoning out and ignored it, and now you are repeating the same
nonsense again. --MJ}***

>
>The principle of continuity is a proposition regarding nature.  Logic can
>neither prove it true or false.

***{Incorrect. I know that I exist. Result: I know that any premise which
is incompatible with that knowledge is false. Since the denial of
continuity is obviously incompatible with that knowledge, it follows that
continuity must be true. If you respond that my certainty of my own
existence is a matter of faith, and is therefore a matter that I ought to
doubt, my reply is simple: if I can doubt, then I must exist. --MJ}***

If you say you will cling to the truth of
>it regardless the results of any possible future experiment then you have
>accepted it as a matter of faith, and thus it is a religion to you, a
>religion not part of science.

***{Only a moron doubts his own existence, Horace. (As noted above, if you
can doubt, then you must exist.) Result: a person's certainty of his own
existence is not, and cannot, be a matter of faith. Thus any chain of
reasoning which rests on that foundation rests on bedrock, not faith.
Result: I can say with utter certainty that any premise which is
incompatible with certainty in my own existence is false. Since the denial
of continuity is such a premise, it follows that the principle of
continuity must be true. And since the validity of continuity implies that
things will behave as they behaved in the past, the principle of induction
must also be true. And, since science is based on induction, it follows
that science must be a valid method of acquiring knowledge. And, since
probability theory is based on induction, it is valid also. Etc.

Bottom line: my science isn't based on faith, Horace--but yours is.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Such is the tenacity of the true believer.

***{That would be you, right? --MJ}***

>On the same basis, it could be said that science itself is a religion, and
>I have no argument in that regard

***{How could you? Your belief in induction rests on thin air, as it must
so long as you deny continuity. Result: your belief in science rests on
nothing as well. --MJ}***

, but the main question at hand is as to
>whether we were involved in doing science if constrained by the principle
>of continuity.  If we are going to merely accept premises on an arbitrary
>basis, without experimental proof

***{This is a false identity: the fact that a premise was not proven
experimentally does *not* means it was accepted arbitrarily, because there
are methods of proof that lie outside of science. There is, for example, no
way to prove experimentally that things will behave in the future like they
behaved in the past. The reason is that once an experiment is done it is in
the past, and as such tells us nothing about the future, unless we first
accept the premise that the future will be like the past. But, of course,
that was the very thing the experiment set out to prove, now wasn't it?
Conclusion: science rests on premises that cannot be demonstrated
experimentally. They can, however, be demonstrated by means of a priori
philosophical reasoning, as noted above. --MJ}***

the most fundamental choice of all is
>the freedom to choose

***{You either have freedom of choice, or you don't. To decide which, you
need to identify exactly what a free choice *is*, and what distinguishes it
from an unfree choice. I explained the difference the other day: a free
choice is one in which the movements of one's body are controlled by one's
view of what is best, and an unfree choice is one in which the movements of
one's body are not controlled by one's view of what is best. (See the
charging lion example in an earlier post.) --MJ}***

, so I have assumed the right to choose.

***{Nope. Your brain contains a hard-wired mechanism which supplies you
with free will by ensuring that your view of what is best will control the
movements of your body. You did not create that mechanism. It was a gift of
nature, hard-wired into your brain by millions of years of evolution. You
did not "assume the right to choose," because you were born able to choose.
--MJ}***

If I have
>the ability to choose, then, by definition of the word choose, it can not
>be predicted what my choices will be, thus they are not the outcome of a
>wholly deterministic process.

***{To the extent that your beliefs, values, and the details confronting
you are known, many predictions can be made, and with high accuracy. Of
course, 100% accuracy can never be possible, because perfect knowledge of
your beliefs, values, abilities, etc., is not available to an external
observer--or even to you, for that matter. But the lack of perfect
predictibility is not the same thing as indeterminism. Perfect
predictibility requires perfect knowledge of the existing facts, as well as
the capability to process an infinitude of detail, both of which are
obviously impossible. Determinism, however, only requires that the facts
exist, not that they be known. --MJ}***

None of my choices can then be predicted
>with certainty, as opposed to the way I would operate in a universe where
>all is predetermined, and the true probability of every event is exactly
>one.

***{Probability numbers are a measure of the degree of predictability that
is afforded to us by a given set of information. If, for example, we are
informed that a two-sided coin was flipped and did not come up heads, then
the probability that it came up tails is 1.0. However, different
information about the same event leads to a different probability number.
If, for example, we are merely told that a two-sided coin was flipped, then
we are constrained to conclude that the probability that it came up tails
is .5, not 1.0.

Bottom line: since probability numbers are not a measure of the world, but
of the predictibility of our information about the world, it follows that
in a deterministic universe the probabilities of events are determined in
the usual way, and thus it is nonsense to say that "the true probability of
every event is exactly one."

--Mitchell Jones}***

Without free will, I am doomed to a simplistic automoton-like
>repetition

***{Unless you are a mouse, a lizard, or some other primitive life form,
you are spouting nonsense. The complexity of behavior that can be generated
by a being who always does what seems best to him is a function of his
intelligence, knowledge, physical abilities, and the external circumstances
in which he is immersed. As such, it can vary from the simple life of a
mouse or a lizard, to the complex choices of an intelligent human, to even
the superhuman complexities associated with the lives of advanced alien
beings. --MJ}***

limited in scope merely to self-serving action.

***{Incorrect. If your beliefs and values are sufficiently screwed up so
that you look favorably upon dousing yourself with gasoline and setting
yourself afire--as some Buddhist monks were wont to do to protest the Viet
Nam War--then you can freely choose to do so, despite the self-sacrifice
which that entails. --MJ}***

If I can
>freely choose, then I can create that which did not exist before, including
>logic itself, or even this correspondence.

***{I never denied that you can freely choose, Horace. What I said was that
there is no contradiction between free will and determinism--and there
isn't. --MJ}***

I can make combinations of
>things that surprise or move the spirit.

***{Yup. Any being whose bodily movements are controlled by the expectation
with the highest sum of positive pleasure and negative pain can do that,
and the greater the intelligence, the more the capacity he has in that
direction, even in a deterministic universe such as this one. --MJ}***

Further, if there exists action
>at a distance, if there exists non-local zero time action, then it seems to
>me more likely that there may be more to me than merely the molecules of my
>body.

***{There is aether between the molecules, but my guess is that's not what
you have in mind. You are talking about the "ghost in the machine," aren't
you, Horace? --MJ}***

There is a connection between me and the universe.  The word spirit
>may have more meaning than just a localized emotional response comprized of
>chemical reactions and currents.

***{In a clockwork universe of iron determinism, there is no room for God
(who, remember, supposedly created everything that exists out of nothing in
violation of continuity). In response to that state of affairs, you seem to
be arguing that since God *must* exist, we have to make room for him by
denying the principle of continuity, even if in the process we have to rip
the guts out of the structure of human knowledge. And, despite that obvious
lapse into purely religious wishful thinking, you have the gall to accuse
me, an atheist, of basing my belief system on faith! --MJ}***

>
>I am very comfortable and happy in these things, so am happy with these
>choices.  I create, therefore I have free will.  This feels good to me.
>How is it for you?

***{I require a more coherent view of existence in order to be happy; but I
have it, and so I am. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 00:33:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA25130;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:32:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:32:02 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:33:32 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"iV3yk3.0.W86.n7iRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36168
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

If you believe that logic can do anything but check the consistancy of
propositions about the real world then you are not practicing science but
are accepting one or more propositions about the real world as a matter of
faith alone.  No amount of argumentation can change that.  It is a
fundamental tenant of science that experiment determines the truth of
fundamental propostions regarding nature.  If we can not get agreement on
this simple proposition, then the rest of the discussion is meaningless.
We have nothing further that we can reasonably discuss on the matter.  That
logic is used in science or that any conclusions might be "deemed" false is
immaterial to the principle that experiment, not opinion, determines the
truth of fundamantal propositions in science.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 01:37:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA02682;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:36:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bfed76$aa4d9c00$cf8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Heated Electrode Electrolysis Cell Experiments?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:33:26 -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: <"ZAhKj3.0.qf.x3jRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36169
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex:

Since a Hot Wire of Palladium or Nickel (or a Pd or Ni plated cartridge heater) could
be used for an electrolysis cell cathode, and the various boiling modes can be initiated by
varying the power/heat flux, it might prove interesting to see if this could be a means for
promoting the "Active Sites" that Ed Storms finds necessary for OU/CF effects.

What say you, Ed?

Regards,   Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 06:32:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26201;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 06:27:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 06:27:10 -0700
Message-ID: <396F1660.20E29921 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 06:32:19 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: Heated Electrode Electrolysis Cell Experiments?
References: <000d01bfed76$aa4d9c00$cf8e1d26 fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rFkBK3.0.JP6.kKnRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36170
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Fred,
Hundreds of variations exist which need to be tried.  This particular variation would add to
the problem of calorimetry without giving any obvious advantage. We first have to get just one
method to give predictable excess energy before exploring parameter space..  My approach is to
use conditions which have produced some indication of reproducibility in the past.  I leave it
to others to explore the less well understood parameter space.

Ed

Frederick Sparber wrote:

> To Vortex:
>
> Since a Hot Wire of Palladium or Nickel (or a Pd or Ni plated cartridge heater) could
> be used for an electrolysis cell cathode, and the various boiling modes can be initiated by
> varying the power/heat flux, it might prove interesting to see if this could be a means for
> promoting the "Active Sites" that Ed Storms finds necessary for OU/CF effects.
>
> What say you, Ed?
>
> Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 07:32:31 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA16396;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:27:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:27:20 -0700
Message-ID: <396F247E.2368B165 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:32:37 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UxcsB3.0.604.8DoRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36171
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace,
Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity for even
a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the data on
which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in, garbage
out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and arrives
at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
assumptions.  This problem happens so often one would think it would be the
subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to identify the
defect.  Alas, instead scientists seem to be particularly blinded by this
effect, particularly physicists.

Ed Storms


Horace Heffner wrote:

> Mitchell,
>
> If you believe that logic can do anything but check the consistancy of
> propositions about the real world then you are not practicing science but
> are accepting one or more propositions about the real world as a matter of
> faith alone.  No amount of argumentation can change that.  It is a
> fundamental tenant of science that experiment determines the truth of
> fundamental propostions regarding nature.  If we can not get agreement on
> this simple proposition, then the rest of the discussion is meaningless.
> We have nothing further that we can reasonably discuss on the matter.  That
> logic is used in science or that any conclusions might be "deemed" false is
> immaterial to the principle that experiment, not opinion, determines the
> truth of fundamantal propositions in science.
>
> Regards,
>
> Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 10:42:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA31846;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:41:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:41:08 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b594fcb4d79d [207.8.127.191]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:39:32 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"b2TCX3.0.Rn7.q2rRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36172
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell,
>
>If you believe that logic can do anything but check the consistancy of
>propositions about the real world then you are not practicing science but
>are accepting one or more propositions about the real world as a matter of
>faith alone.  No amount of argumentation can change that.  It is a
>fundamental tenant of science that experiment determines the truth of
>fundamental propostions regarding nature.  If we can not get agreement on
>this simple proposition, then the rest of the discussion is meaningless.

***{The discussion is clearly pointless, if not meaningless, because you
are engaging in monologue rather than dialogue. Once again, you have
snipped out the entirety of my detailed point-by-point response to your
remarks, and have ignored the specific questions and arguments contained
therein. In particular, you have ignored the fact, which at this point
ought to be obvious  even to the mentally retarded, that experiment can't
teach us anything about the world, unless we can expect the experimental
results to apply in the future as they did in the past. Thus it ought at
this point to be obvious that your dictum about experiment trumping theory
presupposes the validity of the principle of induction. It also ought to be
apparent at this point that no experimental result can demonstrate that
things will behave in the future as they behaved in the past, because the
experimental results are *in the past*, and, as such, can only be used to
predict the future if we first accept the premise that the future will
behave like the past. The obvious conclusion, which at this point ought to
be apparent even to a brain-dead fool, is that your dictum about experiment
trumping theory does *not* apply to the principle of induction. That means
if we want to have a basis for induction, we must seek that basis outside
of science--specifically: in philosophy. --Mitchell Jones}***

>We have nothing further that we can reasonably discuss on the matter.

***{Rubbish. We have lots of things that we can reasonably discuss.
Unfortunately, you refuse to participate in a process of reasonable
discussion, preferring instead to ignore my comments and engage in
monologue. --MJ}***

That
>logic is used in science or that any conclusions might be "deemed" false is
>immaterial to the principle that experiment, not opinion, determines the
>truth of fundamantal propositions in science.

***{Duh! --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 11:11:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA11196;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:09:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:09:42 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>
In-Reply-To: <396F247E.2368B165 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:08:09 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"iAQVZ1.0.sk2.cTrRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36173
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Horace,
>Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity for even
>a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
>While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
>not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the data on
>which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in, garbage
>out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
>others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and arrives
>at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
>one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
>assumptions.

***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
certainty must be false? That the denial of continuity is incompatible with
it?

Assuming the latter--which seems like the only hope--I can only point out
that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning. And,
if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible* that
all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing. And, if
we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our bodies, our
brains, and our memories may not exist. And if we do that, then we are
forced to concede that it is possible that we do not exist.

But such a concession is in direct contradiction with our absolute
certainty of our own existence, and with the fact that if we so much as
doubt our existence, we must exist! We cannot simultaneously say that the
probability that we exist is 1.0, and that it is less than 1.0. Thus the
denial of continuity stands flatly in contradiction to our absolute
certainty of our own existence, and hence it follows that the principle of
continuity must be true.

Q.E.D.

--Mitchell Jones}***

 This problem happens so often one would think it would be the
>subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to identify the
>defect.

***{And the defect is? --MJ}***

 Alas, instead scientists seem to be particularly blinded by this
>effect, particularly physicists.
>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 11:26:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA18083;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:25:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:25:24 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b594e6a192d6 [12.21.209.181]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:27:12 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"hM5_11.0.LQ4.KirRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36174
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:32 AM 7/14/0, Edmund Storms wrote:
>Horace,
>Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity for even
>a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
>While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
>not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the data on
>which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in, garbage
>out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
>others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and arrives
>at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
>one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
>assumptions.  This problem happens so often one would think it would be the
>subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to identify the
>defect.  Alas, instead scientists seem to be particularly blinded by this
>effect, particularly physicists.
>
>Ed Storms


Yes, it does seem that the subject deserves much more attention.  I guess I
did not realize how much so, and we also have Mitchell to thank for
highlighting this fundamental issue.

I suspect one of the mental traps is the overconfidence that science is so
powerful as to be able to tell us all there is to know about reality.
Science only applies to that part of experience which is due to effects
which are repeatable, or at least repeatable in a statistical sense.
There is much in the way of anecdotal evidence regarding events or
perceptions which can not be reliably repeated, and thus the reality of the
events can not be determined with any degree of certainty.  There are
therefore things in nature outside any given system of scientific
principles, just as there are undecidable propositions in any logical
system that is sufficiently complex to encompass number theory.

Pehaps we have hit upon a major shortcoming of our public educational
system in more than just a scientific sense.  Logic should be taught in a
rigorous manner, because without an understanding of logic neither
mathematics nor science can make much sense.  Further, though the study of
religion is banned from schools, but there is no such constitutional ban on
the study of ethics, and the study of ethics and logic go hand in hand.  It
is no surprise the kinds of unbounded behavior we have in society today, as
we bring our chilren into adulthood without the boundaries of religion,
ethics, or physical discipline.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 12:42:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18769;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:41:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:41:17 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5950e96f63d [12.21.211.213]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:43:07 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"dOOak.0.Ab4.SpsRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36175
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:08 PM 7/14/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>Horace,
>>Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity for even
>>a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
>>While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
>>not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the data on
>>which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in, garbage
>>out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
>>others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and arrives
>>at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
>>one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
>>assumptions.
>
>***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
>certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
>certainty must be false? That the denial of continuity is incompatible with
>it?
>
>Assuming the latter--which seems like the only hope--I can only point out
>that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
>nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
>forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning. And,
>if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible* that
>all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing. And, if
>we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our bodies, our
>brains, and our memories may not exist. And if we do that, then we are
>forced to concede that it is possible that we do not exist.
>
>But such a concession is in direct contradiction with our absolute
>certainty of our own existence, and with the fact that if we so much as
>doubt our existence, we must exist! We cannot simultaneously say that the
>probability that we exist is 1.0, and that it is less than 1.0. Thus the
>denial of continuity stands flatly in contradiction to our absolute
>certainty of our own existence, and hence it follows that the principle of
>continuity must be true.
>
>Q.E.D.
>
>--Mitchell Jones}***


Mitchell,

Since your comments above were brief I will quote them just to make you
happy,  even if it is against the rules of the forum.

A sound argument requires a valid argument, i.e. one which follows the
rules of deductive logic, PLUS is based on true premises.  The truth of the
premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.

Inductive logic only supplies probable conclusions, not necessary
conclusions.  It leads but does not determine.  Inductive logic supplies no
guarantees.

Science provides us with no iron clad guarantee that we exist now, or
existed prior, or will continue to exist, or that things can or can not pop
into and out of existence.  Our existence can only be determined to be
highly probable.  For example, it is possible we are merely elements in a
giant computer simulation.  If so, it is likely we can not experimentally
determine that fact, thus it is outside the realm of science.  Science is
simply a methodology that works well, but it is not a methodology we are
forced to accept, nor does it apply to all things.  We can all be mystics
if we so choose, or we can believe in the principle of continuity, or we
can believe that nature sufficiently enforces the rules about how things
pop into and out of existence that we can exist.  We do not have to deny
our existence, or even the probability of our existence, to deny the
principle of continuity.  If nature sufficiently supports our existence
with her rules, whatever they may be, and at whatever level on which we
exist, that we can invent and apply logic itself, then that is good enough,
a sufficient existence to indulge in science.  Neither does the practice of
science even require the continued existence of any individual, because
science is a social phenomenon, requiring confirmation of experiments, and
dissemination of results.  We know with certainty that our communications,
an absolutely vital component of science, can not be relied upon to be
flawless, yet science proceeds anyway.

Further, there is in fact no guarantee that even fundamental physical
constants are not changing with time.  In fact there may be evidence to the
contrary.  This does not prevent us from attempting to apply induction to
determine the probable rules.  However, nothing is absolutely certain.
Science is an unending process.

If you assume the principle of continuity, and that does not work well for
you, then it seems to me that it is not a good working assumption.  It
denies the soundness of quantum memchanics, for example, which is a very
functional system of premises, despite its remaining mysteries.  Materials
scientists daily make great and practical progress using QM as an accepted
tool, similar to the manner in which mechanical engineers use mechanics.
If it works so well, and denies the applicability of the principle of
continuity to all levels of reality, then I say the principle of continuity
is suspect too, not just quantum mechanics.  In any event, neither is a
scientific certainty.  The principle of continuity is merely
philosophically palitable.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 12:50:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA21494;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:47:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:47:17 -0700
Message-ID: <396F6F74.18827094 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:52:25 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]> <v04011701b595039676c7@[207.8.127.51]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"lq9jj2.0.mF5.4vsRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36176
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> >Horace,
> >Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity for even
> >a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
> >While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
> >not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the data on
> >which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in, garbage
> >out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
> >others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and arrives
> >at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
> >one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
> >assumptions.
>
> ***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
> certainty must be false?

These are truths I accept as well.

> That the denial of continuity is incompatible with
> it?

Here is where we part company.  This is an assumption unique to your world.

>
> Assuming the latter--which seems like the only hope--I can only point out
> that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.

No, this is an assumption.  As Horace pointed out, particles on a quantum scale
can leap into existence out of nothing without this phenomenon affecting our world
and our experience in it.  Your leap of logic from the particular to the general
hides an assumption.  The assumption is that the behavior of an individual
particle can change our perceptions, which are based on the behavior of many
particles, most of which are not leaping into existence out of nothing.

> And,
> if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible* that
> all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.

It is possible but not very likely.  Nevertheless, I do not discount the
possibility that some of my and your sensations do just that.  The question is, so
what?  We work around these distractions which sometime provide unexpected
insight.  The world is a chaotic place in which logical relationships break down.
Most of us just note the fact and move on.

> And, if
> we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our bodies, our
> brains, and our memories may not exist. And if we do that, then we are
> forced to concede that it is possible that we do not exist.

This is forced logic which has no useful purpose. We both admit we exist on some
level, which is an obvious fact.

>
> But such a concession is in direct contradiction with our absolute
> certainty of our own existence, and with the fact that if we so much as
> doubt our existence, we must exist! We cannot simultaneously say that the
> probability that we exist is 1.0, and that it is less than 1.0. Thus the
> denial of continuity stands flatly in contradiction to our absolute
> certainty of our own existence, and hence it follows that the principle of
> continuity must be true.

Again this is forced logic based on the assumptions you chose above.  As I noted,
we can live perfectly happy and productive lives in the absence of the principle
of continuity on some level.  Naturally, if too many things seem to pop into
existence out of nothing, a person might want to see a shrink.



This problem happens so often one would think it would be the

> >subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to identify the
> >defect.
>
> ***{And the defect is? --MJ}***

The defect is ignoring the assumptions while concentrating on the logic.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 13:25:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05184;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:23:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:23:59 -0700
Message-ID: <001101bfedd9$816aa7c0$93441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Ron.Brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Cathode Electrolysis Cell
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:20:30 -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: <"FxCOn3.0.uG1.URtRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36177
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex:

Since Ed Storms is swamped with "Hundreds of Experiments" that will
Never get done:  :-)

An Ultraviolet Cathode Electrolysis Cell made by running a small diameter
Mercury Discharge in a small diameter Quartz Tube (off the shelf) with a Nickel or Palladium
mesh (gauze) wrapped around it, might show some interesting OU/CF effects.

IF the UV in the 185 to 300 nanometer range  is creating Light Lepton Pairs in
the surrounding Electrolyte, the LL- particle should couple to a Proton
or Deuteron in the vicinity of the mesh cathode, and the Neutral  P* or D* entity
should be formed allowing the CF Reaction:

P* + D ---->   T or He3 + LL- + ~ 4.0 Mev

Or:

D* + D ---->  He4 + LL- +  ~ 24.0 Mev

Since the lion's share of the energy is carried off by the Relativistic LL- with
a radius, kq^2/Energy  ~ = 3.0 angstroms   4.53 ev,  the LL- will thermalize
sans gamma/bremmstrahlung radiation and in so doing, merely show up as heat in the Electrolyte.

IOW, the size of the Relativistic (~24.0 Mev)LL- is comparable to that of a water molecule the
electron-molecule collision cross section is enormous, and it should thermalize rapidly,
possibly
creating more Light Lepton Pairs, or "Recycling" to form more P* or D* entities until
it eventually annihilates with a LL+.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 13:30:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA07397;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:28:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:28:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20000714202809.60459.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [64.6.128.240]
From: "Adam Cox" <merlyn_x hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: deformation
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:28:09 CDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Resent-Message-ID: <"pDvzP3.0.Up1.-VtRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36178
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just want to point out one fallacy in the infinite subdivision argument.

Mr. Jones does proposed that at the point where no further deformation was 
possible, there would exist infinite pressure at the point of contact, based 
on his steel and rubber analogy...

the problem is that the two steel balls (nondeformable particle cores) never 
actually touch... the rubber still surrounds each one and its deformation 
over the contact area (which is greater than zero) resists further 
deformation, and spreads the pressure experienced by the particle...

no singular point of contact, no infinite pressure.

Merlyn

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 14:20:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA28893;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:18:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:18:30 -0700
Message-ID: <396F7D58.50F18D0C ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:51:36 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jul 14, 2000]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JZ1W51.0.M37.bEuRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36179
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 Jul 14, 2000
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org>
To: aki ix.netcom.com

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 14 Jul 00   Washington, DC

FLASH!!! ENERGY APPROPRIATIONS UPDATE.  Unless money is added in
conference, House and Senate will likely split Energy Research
differences, producing cuts across the board. After yesterday's
Senate subcommittee markup, DOE has these physics ledger entries
(FY 00, FY 01 Request, FY 01 House, FY 01 Senate): HEP (693, 704,
704, 677), Nuclear (348, 364, 364, 350), Fusion (246, 244, 247,
227) and BES (772, 1008, 791, 915), all in $ millions.  Act Now!

1. MISSILE TEST: "ANOMALIES" REIGN ON THE PENTAGON'S PARADE.  In
spite of what the Pentagon describes as "anomalies" in Friday's
flubbed test, one spokesperson explained that several subsystems
had worked perfectly and implied the test could be scored as a
success.  An impressive job of spinning to be sure, but in a bold
bid to clinch the first "Golden Spinning Wheel Award" of the new
millennium, General Kadish, the BMDO spokesgeneral, showed why
he's in charge.  Failure of the sole decoy balloon to inflate, he
pointed out, is a plus, because it demonstrates that decoys are
not as easy to deploy as critics of NMD have suggested.  Awesome!

2. DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: STEALTH BILL MOVES FORWARD.  The 1994
Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act tied the hands of the
FDA in regulating supplements, leading several states to impose
their own safety warnings and labeling requirements. Now the
Senate Agriculture Committee, without hearings or debate, has
approved the "National Uniformity in Food Act" (S.1155), which
has the effect of knocking down the state restrictions.  And to
further limit exposure and insure passage, the bill will probably
be attached as a rider to some piece of unrelated legislation. 
Ironically, the committee action coincides with the release of an
independent study showing that 8 of 22 brands of ginseng sold in
the US were seriously contaminated with pesticide residues.

3. THE LABS: WHAT ARE THEY READING IN LOS ALAMOS AND LIVERMORE? 
Well, of course they're reading Harry Potter books like everybody
else.  But what about books that are selling well in Los Alamos
and Livermore relative to the rest of the country?  On that
basis, Amazon.com lists "Sharing the Vineyard Table," about a
local winery as numero uno in Livermore.  Number two, however, is
David Lykken's superb "A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of
the Lie Detector."  It's even gloomier in Los Alamos: number one
is "A Spy Within," about the search for a WWII Los Alamos spy,
code named Perseus, and number two is "Man Without a Face,"
recollections of the former head of East German Intelligence. 
And there, in fourth place, is "Tremor in the Blood," reflecting
the preoccupation of scientists at both Labs with the impending
polygraph screening. In fifth place, gulp!, is "Fire in the East:
The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age." 

(Maria Cranor contributed to this issue of What's New.)

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 Jul 14 15:51:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03162;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:49:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:49:32 -0700
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:54:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Employment contract examples needed
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000714185346.14280O-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"eGD5g3.0.Gn.xZvRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36180
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	Does anyone know of a site that has examples of employment
contracts?

		Thank,

			John

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 15:52:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03433;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:50:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:50:42 -0700
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:56:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Please
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000714185528.14280Q-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"vxeu21.0.Zr.2bvRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36181
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	Addendum to the Employment contract request;

	Please

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 17:49:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA16138;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:43:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:43:22 -0700
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Got one... ThanksRe: Employment contract examples needed
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000714185346.14280O-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000714204748.18091A-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"n0Chs.0.px3.dExRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36182
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Folks,


	I found one ... happy to entertain another, but not required

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 18:37:42 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01733;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:37:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:37:06 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <61.560270f.26a11a1d aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:36:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Advanced EM Theory Working Group
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: <"k1i263.0.xQ.11yRv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36183
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


In a message dated 07/12/2000 2:41:28 AM, Horace Heffner quoted Bill Beaty's 
post:

<< At 1:55 PM 7/7/0, William Beaty wrote:
>R. Todd found this site on doe.gov
>
>  Office of Transportation Technologies Advanced EM theory WOrking Group
>  http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/
>
>It appears that this AIAS group and Tom Bearden are working on some
>interesting things.  Is this old news?>>

and then commented:

<<This is really stunning news to me.  I am surprised at the lack of comment
about it here on vortex.  It is incredible that a free energy fringe
science type person is heading a DOE funded working group....

I would love to hear the story behind this anomalous government funded DOE
group. >>

I'm astonished, too.  Maybe we'll get more information about this in a future 
issue of INFINITE ENERGY.

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 22:29:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA04506;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:28:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:28:28 -0700
Message-ID: <005f01bfee1c$35519fe0$d52f9fca xplornote>
From: "xplorer" <xplorer indo.net.id>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]> <396F247E.2368B165@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:19:05 +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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VBOpE1.0.H61.yP_Rv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36184
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


People caught up in justifying their own judgments
 have ceased to learn.

----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: 2000 July 14, Friday 21:32
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism


| Horace,
| Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity for
even
| a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
| While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic
are
| not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the data
on
| which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in,
garbage
| out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more
than
| others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and
arrives
| at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and
elegant,
| one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
| assumptions.  This problem happens so often one would think it would be
the
| subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to identify
the
| defect.  Alas, instead scientists seem to be particularly blinded by this
| effect, particularly physicists.
|
| Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 23:12:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA17371;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:11:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:11:33 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b595ada0bdb6 [12.21.211.213]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:13:26 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tyhfy3.0.GF4.J20Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36185
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I believe I read somewhere that the human body exchanges about 90 percent
of its atoms with the environment every 3 years.  If that is true then we
really are not even the same physical person from day to day, minute to
minute.  What is "us" is really an informational thing, not strictly and
totally a physical thing.  In a sense we reside at a higher level of being
than the purely physical.  That considered, there must be at least some
doubt about the consistency of information retention any any individual,
and it is a good thing science is a social phenomenon, beyond the control
of any one individual, even though the majority often forms wrong opinions,
a wrong consensus.  It is also a wonderful thing that the ideas of a single
individual can turn much of science upside down and inside out in a brief
time.

There are information losses at the individual internal level, at the
communication level, at the gathering level, at the analysis level, and at
the storage and group or universal level.  It is really amazing that the
method of science is so effective and has had such a dramatic impact upon
us all and upon the earth itself, be it good or bad.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 23:20:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA19160;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:19:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:19:21 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b595b2eafbfa [12.21.208.6]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:21:19 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"yvFRk1.0.Ih4.f90Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36186
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 492  July 6, 2000   by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

A SUPERCONDUCTING "SCHRODINGER'S CAT" has been
demonstrated in the lab by a group at Stony Brook.  Quantum
phenomena can be big things; examples include supercurrents,
consisting of billions of electron pairs, moving around a
macroscopically sized superconductor, or ensembles of billions of
photons making up a pulse of laser light, all residing in a single
quantum state.  By contrast, quantum superposition, in which the
system exists in two states (such as having two different values of
angular momentum or being in two different places) at the same
time, has mostly been a small thing, or a thing of few parts.
Examples: a single ion simultaneously in two places (several nm
apart) within an atom trap (David Wineland, NIST); or wavelike
manifestations of C-60 molecules split and sent along separate paths
of an atom interferometer (Anton Zeilinger, Univ Vienna).  In the
Stony Brook experiment (Jonathan Friedman, 631-632-8079,
jonathan.friedman sunysb.edu) the superposition of quantum states
is both big in size and in the number of parts.  The quantum system
in question is a supercurrent (containing billions of electron pairs)
flowing around a 140-micron-sized superconducting quantum
interference device (SQUID) circuit.  As for the superposition of
states in this case, it consists of the fact (improbably enough) that
the supercurrent can flow in both directions at the same time (note:
the current is in a superposition of clockwise or anticlockwise; it is
never zero).  Normally the two supercurrent quantum states
(clockwise and counterclockwise flow) sit in two separate potential
wells (in the abstract space of quantum states).  But the Stony Brook
researchers (James Lukens heads the team) apply a gentle blast of
microwaves that nudges the quantum current states part of the way
out of their valleys, high enough to make quantum tunneling
between the states possible (facilitating  currents flowing in both
directions at the same time) but not so high as to break up the
electron pairs which are the heart of the superconducting condition.
One hope is that this type of large coherent quantum state, well
isolated from the outside (nonquantum) environment, could be put
to service in quantum computing.  (Friedman et al., Nature, 6 July
2000.)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 14 23:31:28 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA21359;
	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:41 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>
In-Reply-To: <396F6F74.18827094 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:28:13 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"S-E_J3.0.fD5.FK0Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36187
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> >Horace,
>> >Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity
>>for even
>> >a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
>> >While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
>> >not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the
>>data on
>> >which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in,
>>garbage
>> >out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
>> >others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and
>>arrives
>> >at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
>> >one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
>> >assumptions.
>>
>> ***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
>> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
>> certainty must be false?
>
>These are truths I accept as well.
>
>> That the denial of continuity is incompatible with
>> it?
>
>Here is where we part company.  This is an assumption unique to your world.
>
>>
>> Assuming the latter--which seems like the only hope--I can only point out
>> that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
>> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
>> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
>
>No, this is an assumption.  As Horace pointed out, particles on a quantum
>scale
>can leap into existence out of nothing without this phenomenon affecting
>our world
>and our experience in it.  Your leap of logic from the particular to the
>general
>hides an assumption.  The assumption is that the behavior of an individual
>particle can change our perceptions, which are based on the behavior of many
>particles, most of which are not leaping into existence out of nothing.

***{Not true. I didn't say: "We are forced to change our perceptions." I
said: "We are forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of
reasoning." To see the difference, let's get concrete: if you believe that
the proposition "There are no unicorns" is true, then whenever you hear
someone say "I have a pet unicorn," or "I was gored by a unicorn," or "A
unicorn ate the tops off of all the carrots in my garden," you can say:
"You are nutty as a fruitcake. There are no unicorns." However, once you
decide that you have seen your first unicorn, you can no longer use the
statement "There are no unicorns" as a tool in your reasoning. After that
seminal event, if your neighbor says "Two unicorn stags kept me awake until
2 a.m. last night fighting in my back  yard," you will have to say: "It is
possible that what you are saying is true."

By the same token, as soon as you accept continuity violations as real *in
any realm*--whether in the microcosm or elsewhere--the proposition "There
are no continuity violations" is refuted. After that seminal moment, when
someone says "After my 16th beer last night, a pink elephant suddenly
appeared in front of me, out of nothing," you have to concede that "The
probability is greater than zero that what you are saying is true."
Likewise, if someone says "As we were leaving the Picasso exhibit last
night, my wife's lips suddenly disappeared from their usual location, and
reappeared on her forehead," you will be required to reply: "The
probability is greater than zero that it was just as you say." And,
similarly, if the thought occurs to you that your sensations are all
leaping into existence out of nothing, you will have to say: "The
probability is greater than zero that this is true."

And, of course, at that point you are in the soup, because if the
probability is greater than zero that your sensations are leaping into
existence out of nothing, then the probability is less than 1.0 that you
exist. Result: a flat-out contradiction is established between your certain
knowledge that you exist, and the implications of the denial of continuity.
Result: you are constrained to conclude that the denial of continuity is
false, and, as a consequence, that the principle of continuity must be true.

It's real sad! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>> And,
>> if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible* that
>> all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.
>
>It is possible but not very likely.  Nevertheless, I do not discount the
>possibility that some of my and your sensations do just that.  The
>question is, so
>what?

***{So what? The "what," of course, is that my indirect proof of the
principle of continuity then follows. (Note: to construct an indirect proof
of a proposition, you assume it is false, and then show a contradiction.
Thus to prove the principle of continuity indirectly, you demonstrate that
the denial of continuity leads to a contradiction.)

Remember your response to what I said earlier:

>>>That I know with utter and absolute
>>> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
>>> certainty must be false?
>>
>>These are truths I accept as well.

Since you have now accepted every premise of my argument, you are firmly
enmeshed in its coils, and are now constrained to accept the conclusion. To
refresh your memory, therefore, here is the proof again (between the lines
of asterisks), broken down into numbered steps:

********************************************
(1) Every reasoning person knows with utter and absolute certainty that he
exists, because you can't doubt your existence, if you do not exist. That
means the probability of the existence of any person who considers the
issue (call it Pe) is such that Pe = 1.0.

(2) Every premise which is incompatible with that certainty must be false.

(3) If we assume the principle of continuity is false, the following
reasoning applies:

(a) If things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or elsewhere--then we are
forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.

(b) If we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible*
that all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.

(c) If we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our
bodies, our brains, and our memories may not exist.

(d) If we do that, then we are forced to concede that it is possible that
we do not exist--which means: Pe < 1.0.

(4) Since the conclusion of (3)(d) is in direct contradiction with the
conclusion of (1), above--we cannot simultaneously say that Pe = 1.0, and
that Pe < 1.0--it is clear that the denial of continuity stands flatly in
contradiction to our absolute certainty of our own existence. Thus by (2),
above, it follows that the principle of continuity must be true. Q.E.D.
********************************************

While you quibbled with the wording of (3)(a), you nevertheless conceded
that (3)(b) is implied. Therefore the chain of logic was unbroken, and the
conclusion inexorably follows: the principle of continuity must be true.

--Mitchell Jones}***

We work around these distractions which sometime provide unexpected
>insight.  The world is a chaotic place in which logical relationships
>break down.
>Most of us just note the fact and move on.

***{If the above proof is correct, then the world is *not* "a chaotic place
in which logical relationships break down." Thus before you can safely
"note the fact and move on," you need to find a hole in the proof. Thus
far, despite some quibbling, you have not denied any link in the chain of
reasoning. --MJ}***

>
>> And, if
>> we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our bodies, our
>> brains, and our memories may not exist. And if we do that, then we are
>> forced to concede that it is possible that we do not exist.
>
>This is forced logic which has no useful purpose. We both admit we exist
>on some
>level, which is an obvious fact.

***{The "useful purpose" is to establish that Pe = 1.0. Since we can't very
well doubt our existence if we do not exist, it seems crystal clear--and
you have agreed--that Pe = 1.0. --MJ}***

>
>>
>> But such a concession is in direct contradiction with our absolute
>> certainty of our own existence, and with the fact that if we so much as
>> doubt our existence, we must exist! We cannot simultaneously say that the
>> probability that we exist is 1.0, and that it is less than 1.0. Thus the
>> denial of continuity stands flatly in contradiction to our absolute
>> certainty of our own existence, and hence it follows that the principle of
>> continuity must be true.
>
>Again this is forced logic based on the assumptions you chose above.

***{The "assumptions" define the issue we are discussing. The logic is
"forced" in the sense of being *inexorable*, but it is not "forced" in the
sense of being contrived, which is what I think you intend to imply. But
what is the point of introducing such an implication, if you cannot back up
that judgment by showing that the denial of continuity does *not* imply
that Pe < 1.0? After all, it either implies it or it doesn't, right? And if
it does, we have a flat-out contradiction between that implication and the
premise that Pe = 1.0. And if we have such a contradiction, then by the
method of indirect proof, the denial of continuity must be false--which
means: the principle of continuity must be true.

Bottom line: if you want to make any headway here, it is not going to be
sufficient to merely imply that my logic is contrived. Instead, you are
going to have to demonstrate precisely *how* it is contrived--which means:
you are going to have to identify the fallacy in my reasoning and reveal it
to the group. The question is, can you do it? ("What you have to ask
yourself, punk, is this: did he fire six shots, or only five?" :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

As I noted,
>we can live perfectly happy and productive lives in the absence of the
>principle
>of continuity on some level.

***{There is no way for you to know that, Ed, since by my proof, above, you
are living in a clockwork universe of inexorable necessity, rather than in
the magical realm of "quantum mechanics." You think otherwise, of course,
but my proof stands until shot down, and you can't do that by merely
hinting that the logic is contrived. --MJ}***

Naturally, if too many things seem to pop into
>existence out of nothing, a person might want to see a shrink.

***{There is no danger of anything popping into or out of existence, if my
proof is correct. Thus I would think shrinks would better spend their time
giving counsel to persons who believe they can make a proof go away by
merely hinting that the logic is contrived. :-) --MJ}***

>
>
>
>> >This problem happens so often one would think it would be the
>> >subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to
>>identify the
>> >defect.
>>
>> ***{And the defect is? --MJ}***
>
>The defect is ignoring the assumptions while concentrating on the logic.

***{Assuming you have any cartridges left in your bandolier other than
those to which I responded above, would you care to be specific? Which
assumption is wrong, and why is it wrong? --MJ}***

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 03:10:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA28576;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:09:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:09:36 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:08:59 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <90e0nsglhvq364acd3t7he8d8v94tdv4da 4ax.com>
References: <v01530501b5927519c319 [12.21.209.36]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b5927519c319 [12.21.209.36]>
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 DAA28554
Resent-Message-ID: <"T-ohK1.0.M-6.VX3Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36188
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:38:18 -0800:
[snip]
>I do not understand how an electron can change charge except mayb by some
>kind of time reversing superluminal event.  Relativistic effects, for
>example, can change "apparent charge" but not reverse charge.  How can an
>electron reverse charge?
[snip]
Turn it inside out a la Mills ;)?

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 Jul 15 03:48:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA02472;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:46:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:46:45 -0700
Message-ID: <005301bfee52$0ca78f60$93441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530501b5927519c319 [12.21.209.36]> <90e0nsglhvq364acd3t7he8d8v94tdv4da@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 04:44:22 -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: <"MbYLd2.0.Yc.L44Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36189
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 <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment

Robin wrote:


> In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:38:18 -0800:
> [snip]
> >I do not understand how an electron can change charge except mayb by some
> >kind of time reversing superluminal event.  Relativistic effects, for
> >example, can change "apparent charge" but not reverse charge.  How can an
> >electron reverse charge?
> [snip]
> Turn it inside out a la Mills ;)?

It can't. The charge is invariant, ie., q = CV where Capacitance C = 2(pi)r*eo where r
for the electron is 2.81E-15 meters, eo the permittivity of space is 8.85E-12 farad/meter.

The potential V = (0.511E6*1.6E-19/0.5*C)^1/2 = 1.02E6 volts

Thus q = CV= +/-  1.6E-19 coulombs, a universal constant.

The sign (+/-) of the charge is actually the phase of the CV oscillation ie., as C decreases
V increases. IOW the smaller the particle the smaller C gets and the greater the potential V
gets.

Thus since the particle energy E = 0.5 * C* V^2 when the particle approaches a singularity
state it's energy/mass approaches infinity.

Simply put, r = kq^2/energy.

I think those Northern Lights from recent Solar Flares, are affecting Horace, in an adverse
manner.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
> 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 Jul 15 07:29:05 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA22257;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:28:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:28:23 -0700
Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net
Message-ID: <3970751A.302B8751 centurytel.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:28:42 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
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: <v01530500b595ada0bdb6 [12.21.211.213]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"r2D3u2.0.hR5.6K7Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36190
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Horace Heffner wrote:

I believe I read somewhere that the human body exchanges
about 90 percent of its atoms with the environment every
3 years.  If that is true then we really are not even the
same physical person from day to day, minute to minute.
What is "us" is really an informational thing, not strictly
and totally a physical thing.

In a sense we reside at a higher
level of being than the purely physical.  That
considered, there must be at least some doubt about the
consistency of information retention any any individual,...

There are information losses at the individual internal
level,

[e. g., possibly due to the production of "relatively undifferentiated"
cells by a chain of events initiated by the metabolic activities
of streptococcus bacteria.  See "Microbial Origin of the Gummy
Substance of Fujita and Ging" by George H. Chapman, Transactions
of the New York Academy of Science -- Division of Microbiology,
11-62, pp. 66 and ff.]

at the communication level, at the gathering level,
at the analysis level, and at the storage and group or
universal level ...

Hi Horace,

Very well put.  How do those who object to things just popping
into existence explain a big-bang popping into existence of the
universe about 20 billion (+ or - a lot) years ago?

Personally, I find Hoyle's continuous creation of matter more
satisfying, with ?illions of particles popping into existence
every second throughout the universe, perhaps produced from
zero point energy.

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 08:29:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02853;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:28:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:28:59 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5962f337be8 [12.21.208.6]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:30:43 -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: <"g9WMH.0.Vi.xC8Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36191
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:44 AM 7/15/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:

>I think those Northern Lights from recent Solar Flares, are affecting
>Horace, in an adverse
>manner.   :-)


Actually, there was an X class flare on the 14th that could create some
havoc here today.


>Thus since the particle energy E = 0.5 * C* V^2 when the particle
>approaches a singularity
>state it's energy/mass approaches infinity.
>
>Simply put, r = kq^2/energy.


Well, I don't think it is quite that simple.  8^)

I think there are subtle but meaningful relativistic effects even at low
velocities that can be interpreted as change in "apparent charge".  In
fact, these effects might possibly account for the magnetic field entirely
- but that is another subject for which I do not have time.  I digress.

Anyway, it is possible for apparent charge to change and even for net
charge of an atom to change, due to the fact it contains multiple particles
at varying velocities.  I don't right off see how AN INDIVIDUAL CHARGE can
obtain a charge reversal, but I do perhaps see how an atom, or multiple
interacting charges, might obtain a net apparent charge.  Perhaps an
interpretation of the magnetic field as the only field and the
electrostatice field being a relativistic consequence would work for that.

I got a book (for $10 plus shipping coincidentally) through ABE books,
called *The Electromagnetic Field* by Albert Shadowitz.  It has a pretty
good write-up about relativity, and pages of fancy formulas and things.

On p.492 Shadowitz provides the equation for relativistic (Coulombic) field
pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

which can be interpreted to mean apparent charge is reduced to observers in
line with the charge velocity and increased when viewed (felt) from the
side.

NOTE - it is not standard physics to interpret pancaking as a change in
apparent charge (standard relativity assumes charge is invariant with
velocity) but rather a change in observered field strength, but I think it
is clear we are free to interpret the above equations either way.

Consider an atom where the electrons whiz around a nucleus. They present
some degree of pancaking from any angle viewed.  Some directions apparent
charge is increased and some directions decreased.  The polar orientation
of atom orbitals is mixed in a uniform way due to the orientation of atoms
being mixed in a uniform way.

The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
integrating:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi. If that value is non-zero then it seems to me
(erroneously?) the net apparent charge of an atom makes sense.

It appears to me, fiddling with my calculator, with b small, this intergal
K is equivalent to

   K =  (1 - b)  b^(1/2) integral [1/(3(cos^2 theta) + 1/b^2)^(1/2)]

   K =  (1 - b)  b^(1/2) integral [1/(1/b)]

   K =  (1 - b)  b^(1/2) b

   K =  b^3/2

     = (v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

   K = v^3/c^3

which indicates that neutral matter has a very small net charge available
to expand the universe via electrostatic repulsion.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 08:34:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04282;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:34:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:34:14 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b59634d5ceba [12.21.208.141]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:36:00 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Aurora Alert
Resent-Message-ID: <"HLqND1.0.m21.sH8Sv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36192
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>From the elfrad group:

SUBJ: IPS AURORA ALERT
ISSUED AT 1519 UT on 15 Jul 2000 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN SPACE FORECAST CENTRE


SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORM IN PROGRESS. AURORA MAY BE OBSERVED
DURING LOCAL NIGHT TIME HOURS IN GOOD OBSERVING CONDITIONS
AT REGIONS AS FAR EQUATORWARD AS MIDDLE LATITUDES.


This alert is not subject to forecaster validation. It is
automatically issued from autoscaled data which may produce
a false alarm on rare occasions.

IPS would appreciate any feedback from people observing an
aurora giving details of location and time. Please email to
asfc ips.gov.au

More information about IPS Aurora Alerts can be found on
Web page www.ips.gov.au/mail-lists/aurora_alerts.html



IPS Radio and Space Services      | email: asfc ips.gov.au
PO Box 1386                       | WWW: http://www.ips.gov.au/asfc
Haymarket NSW 1240  AUSTRALIA     | FTP: ftp://ftp.ips.gov.au/users/asfc/
tel: +61 2 9213 8010              | fax: +61 2 9213 8060


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 11:33:04 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA21013;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 11:30:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 11:30:59 -0700
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:36:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Frederick Sparber <fjsparber earthlink.net>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: electron reverse charge...
In-Reply-To: <005301bfee52$0ca78f60$93441d26 fjsparber>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000715143502.593C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oRKuV3.0.F85.ZtASv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36193
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	I thought there were cloud chamber photos of nucleons which had,
as a result of some interaction at high energies... and "electron" with a
positive charge....  some call as positron.



On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Frederick Sparber wrote:

> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 3:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Production of Light Lepton Pairs by Electron Bombardment
> 
> Robin wrote:
> 
> 
> > In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:38:18 -0800:
> > [snip]
> > >I do not understand how an electron can change charge except mayb by some
> > >kind of time reversing superluminal event.  Relativistic effects, for
> > >example, can change "apparent charge" but not reverse charge.  How can an
> > >electron reverse charge?
> > [snip]
> > Turn it inside out a la Mills ;)?
> 
> It can't. The charge is invariant, ie., q = CV where Capacitance C = 2(pi)r*eo where r
> for the electron is 2.81E-15 meters, eo the permittivity of space is 8.85E-12 farad/meter.
> 
> The potential V = (0.511E6*1.6E-19/0.5*C)^1/2 = 1.02E6 volts
> 
> Thus q = CV= +/-  1.6E-19 coulombs, a universal constant.
> 
> The sign (+/-) of the charge is actually the phase of the CV oscillation ie., as C decreases
> V increases. IOW the smaller the particle the smaller C gets and the greater the potential V
> gets.
> 
> Thus since the particle energy E = 0.5 * C* V^2 when the particle approaches a singularity
> state it's energy/mass approaches infinity.
> 
> Simply put, r = kq^2/energy.
> 
> I think those Northern Lights from recent Solar Flares, are affecting Horace, in an adverse
> manner.   :-)
> 
> Regards,    Frederick
> >
> > 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 Jul 15 12:10:53 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA32224;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:09:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:09:51 -0700
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Gauge (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000715151456.593G-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"sTJLv.0.Dt7.-RBSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36194
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Gauge


	Thanks to DOT....

	The term Gauge and change there to is a MATHMATICAL operation,
devised by theorists in an attempt to explain some observations, taken out
of context, and is, in general used to make numbers fit.
	This does not result in any type of real world change in
observation, in experimental results or practical change in the real
world.

	A loose analogy might to say we measure a foot ball in feet,
inches and tenths of inches... and then we measure the football in microns
if this makes mathmatics fit a given theory.

	NOTE:

	NOW:  If anyone know of a way to write numbers differently, or
change gauge, that causes a real world change in the magnitude of, say,
an electric field, please let us all know.
	It would be GREAT to cause a change in our experimental set ups by
re-naming the units.
	
	Gauge

	The term "gauge change" was introduced originally by Weyl and
meant "change in length". The
               original concept was criticized by Einstein and abandoned
by Weyl. However, the term remained
               in use in classical electrodynamics because with arbitrary
potentials, Maxwell's equations have a
               built-in symmetry, and such arbitrary potentials become a
useful calculating device. The
               Maxwell-Heaviside equations are said to be gauge invariant
by accident, under what is known as a
               U(1) gauge transformation, where U(1) is a group symmetry.
In the traditional view the potential
               in classical electromagnetism has no physical meaning. 

               This has been refuted recently by AIAS in many ways, as the
papers on this Web site show. For
               example this type of gauge invariance cannot describe
interferometry, or Snell's Law. In AIAS we
               have decided to use a gauge principle based on an internal
O(3) symmetry group as the papers
               show, and have come up with many advantages. The five
papers which develop the work of
               Edmund Whittaker show that there is actually no gauge
freedom, or arbitrariness, in the potentials
               in the U(1) theory, the Maxwell-Heaviside theory, which we
have decided to abandon in favor of a
               Yang-Mills type theory based on a physical internal space
O(3). The new theory is gauge
               covariant, i.e. the potentials are physical. A physical
gauge transformation produces the Sagnac
               effect as described in the papers. 

               Gauge theory is highly successful in modern physics in the
field of elementary particles. It has
               successfully predicted the existence of quarks. The
elementary particle gauge theory is technically
               known as non-Abelian, and the new electrodynamics developed
by AIAS is also non-Abelian,
               leading to a new duality principle with consequences
throughout unified field theory. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 14:29:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02825;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:28:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:28:34 -0700
Message-ID: <03cf01bfeea3$a21db8c0$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]><v04011701b595039676c7@[207.8.127.51]> <v04011700b59594454b8e@[207.8.127.51]>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:28:31 -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 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Resent-Message-ID: <"2Q95T3.0.3i.2UDSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36195
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Making assumptions unique to your world - exactly how are you defining
existance, non-existance, and nothingness?  In the past when rocks would
fall on peoples heads - assumed to be coming from nothing as space beyond
the sky was unknown and meteors were not understood - some would say magic
wizards or gods were creating these rocks from nothing - zeus would create a
lightning bolt from nothing and strike the poor subjects below - your
quantum theories about something coming from nothing puts a lot of faith in
what nothing actually is - I thought you believed in science - not religion?
Until you can more clearly define nothing - I do not buy your arguement.  If
you are unable to define nothing - what have you proved?

> >> >others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and
> >>arrives
> >> >at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and
elegant,
> >> >one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
> >> >assumptions.
> >>
> >> ***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
> >> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with
that
> >> certainty must be false?
> >


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 17:10:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA09505;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:09:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:09:33 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: A combination approach
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:08:54 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 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 RAA09481
Resent-Message-ID: <"RTUqw3.0.RK2.zqFSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36196
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Suppose that the hydrogen electron is a small marble racing around inside a
hoola hoop, which itself is rotating about an axis in the plain of the hoop.
Such an accelerating charge should radiate. Suppose it does, but because of
the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave, with which the electron
continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?


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 Jul 15 19:29:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA13407;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:28:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:28:18 -0700
Message-ID: <39711EEA.DBCCD698 csrlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:33:14 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A combination approach
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"h16sI.0.PH3.2tHSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36197
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin!
   I think this is the first time I've ever seen you actually advance a
seemingly original idea of your own. You usually just point/counterpoint others
( no offense meant,it has been helpful to me).
   Additional responses below;

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> Suppose that the hydrogen electron is a small marble

Of Matter? Energy? Both? Is there really a difference between the two?

> racing around inside a
> hoola hoop,

Are we talking "Hula Hoop" as in an imaginary line defining it's orbital path
around the nucleus?

> which itself is rotating about an axis in the plain of the hoop.

The hoop is rotating?

>
> Such an accelerating charge should radiate. Suppose it does, but because of
> the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
> within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave, with which the electron
> continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
> be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?

Hmmmmm, interesting but what exactly is the hoop? I have been thinking more
along the lines of the electron being the expression of the magnetic force. As
such it should be able to take on energy in the form of electrical energy. The
proton would be the physical expression of the electric force and could then
take on additional magnetic energy. These two forces would interact to keep the
electron in it's orbit through mutual attraction/repulsion and yet because the
two are representations of different sides of a coin they would remain in
equilibrium until an outside force upset the balance. This also extends to my
little idea about the macrocosm reflecting the microcosm. The sun radiates
electricity in the form of light and charged particles. It also has a magnetic
field. The earth has a very strong magnetic field in comparison to the energy it
radiates......
MJ

>
>
> 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 Jul 15 19:37:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA17970;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:36:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:36:44 -0700
Message-ID: <397120E7.AE76F448 csrlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:41:44 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Heated Electrode Electrolysis Cell Experiments?
References: <000d01bfed76$aa4d9c00$cf8e1d26 fjsparber> <396F1660.20E29921@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cNNS73.0.eO4.y-HSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36198
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi All,
   I am new here. Some may know me. Did I ever show you my H2 over unity formula? It's a little
chemical thing but it should work and is easy to understand and simple to reproduce.
MJ

Edmund Storms wrote:

> Fred,
> Hundreds of variations exist which need to be tried.  This particular variation would add to
> the problem of calorimetry without giving any obvious advantage. We first have to get just one
> method to give predictable excess energy before exploring parameter space..  My approach is to
> use conditions which have produced some indication of reproducibility in the past.  I leave it
> to others to explore the less well understood parameter space.
>
> Ed
>
> Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> > To Vortex:
> >
> > Since a Hot Wire of Palladium or Nickel (or a Pd or Ni plated cartridge heater) could
> > be used for an electrolysis cell cathode, and the various boiling modes can be initiated by
> > varying the power/heat flux, it might prove interesting to see if this could be a means for
> > promoting the "Active Sites" that Ed Storms finds necessary for OU/CF effects.
> >
> > What say you, Ed?
> >
> > Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 20:47:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA06508;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:46:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:46:41 -0700
Message-ID: <3971314B.AB8C08F7 csrlink.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:51:40 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: energy21 <energy21 listbot.com>
Subject: Danger! "Happy99.exe" on the loose!!!!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"udQZm.0.Tb1.W0JSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36199
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi All,
This past thursday at 12:38 am, Jack Folek aka: enersola worldpath.net
sent an email entitled Re: Request for Tesla Information Assistance to
energy21 listbot.com. It contained no message. Only the Happy99 virus as
an attachment. I would advise all to check your systems as listbot may
have been infected as well. This message is clean.
MJ
I am going to gut it and post as text in a few minutes.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 21:05:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10559;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:59:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:59:51 -0700
Message-ID: <39713468.51954DC1 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:05:09 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>
	 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]> <v04011700b59594454b8e@[207.8.127.51]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"53ovA3.0.va2.tCJSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36200
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:
> >
> >> >Horace,
> >> >Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity
> >>for even
> >> >a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
> >> >While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
> >> >not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the
> >>data on
> >> >which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in,
> >>garbage
> >> >out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
> >> >others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and
> >>arrives
> >> >at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
> >> >one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
> >> >assumptions.
> >>
> >> ***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
> >> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
> >> certainty must be false?
> >
> >These are truths I accept as well.
> >
> >> That the denial of continuity is incompatible with
> >> it?
> >
> >Here is where we part company.  This is an assumption unique to your world.
> >
> >>
> >> Assuming the latter--which seems like the only hope--I can only point out
> >> that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
> >> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
> >> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
> >
> >No, this is an assumption.  As Horace pointed out, particles on a quantum
> >scale
> >can leap into existence out of nothing without this phenomenon affecting
> >our world
> >and our experience in it.  Your leap of logic from the particular to the
> >general
> >hides an assumption.  The assumption is that the behavior of an individual
> >particle can change our perceptions, which are based on the behavior of many
> >particles, most of which are not leaping into existence out of nothing.
>
> ***{Not true. I didn't say: "We are forced to change our perceptions." I
> said: "We are forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of
> reasoning." To see the difference, let's get concrete: if you believe that
> the proposition "There are no unicorns" is true, then whenever you hear
> someone say "I have a pet unicorn," or "I was gored by a unicorn," or "A
> unicorn ate the tops off of all the carrots in my garden," you can say:
> "You are nutty as a fruitcake. There are no unicorns." However, once you
> decide that you have seen your first unicorn, you can no longer use the
> statement "There are no unicorns" as a tool in your reasoning. After that
> seminal event, if your neighbor says "Two unicorn stags kept me awake until
> 2 a.m. last night fighting in my back  yard," you will have to say: "It is
> possible that what you are saying is true."

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree, if a particle is found to
jump into existence out of nothing, the principle of continuity is shot to Hell.
I would then have to ask, "so what"?  If this one particle doing its jump, or even
a few of them, would not change my perception of the world then the principle of
continuity has no use to me.  The logic becomes only a mental game.  I would
better conclude that the principle of continuity seems to act most of the time
and, for all practical purposes, provides me with a useful view of the world, much
like most theories in science.  This is much like seeing a unicorn once but never
again encountering another. The existence of unicorns would have very little
relevance to my life.  In fact, this is also like cold fusion.  If I can't make
heat on a regular basis, having made it once is not very useful.  So, if particles
are jumping into and out of existence below my level of perception, then I don't
care whether the principle of continuity exist or not, just like you do not yet
care whether cold fusion exists or not.

>
>
> snip
>
> And, of course, at that point you are in the soup, because if the
> probability is greater than zero that your sensations are leaping into
> existence out of nothing, then the probability is less than 1.0 that you
> exist. Result: a flat-out contradiction is established between your certain
> knowledge that you exist, and the implications of the denial of continuity.
> Result: you are constrained to conclude that the denial of continuity is
> false, and, as a consequence, that the principle of continuity must be true.

At this point you jump from the particular to the general by making the assumption
that a relationship exists between the two.  Particles making the big jump have
absolutely no relationship to your or my existence.  We can just as well exist
while watching the jump and marvel at the process.  Indeed, we may even discover
that the particles are not coming from "nothing" as we first thought, but from a
realm of existence we heretofore did not believe existed. Then what appeared to be
a proof for the destruction of the principle of continuity no longer would be
true.

>
> It's real sad! :-)
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> >
> >> And,
> >> if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible* that
> >> all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.
> >
> >It is possible but not very likely.  Nevertheless, I do not discount the
> >possibility that some of my and your sensations do just that.  The
> >question is, so
> >what?
>
> ***{So what? The "what," of course, is that my indirect proof of the
> principle of continuity then follows. (Note: to construct an indirect proof
> of a proposition, you assume it is false, and then show a contradiction.
> Thus to prove the principle of continuity indirectly, you demonstrate that
> the denial of continuity leads to a contradiction.)

It leads to a contradiction only because you design the logic to produce the
contradiction.  You make "a particle leaping out of nothing" equal to "our
existence" when, in fact, this equality is only an assumption.

>
>
> Remember your response to what I said earlier:
>
> >>>That I know with utter and absolute
> >>> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
> >>> certainty must be false?
> >>
> >>These are truths I accept as well.
>
> Since you have now accepted every premise of my argument, you are firmly
> enmeshed in its coils, and are now constrained to accept the conclusion. To
> refresh your memory, therefore, here is the proof again (between the lines
> of asterisks), broken down into numbered steps:
>
> ********************************************
> (1) Every reasoning person knows with utter and absolute certainty that he
> exists, because you can't doubt your existence, if you do not exist. That
> means the probability of the existence of any person who considers the
> issue (call it Pe) is such that Pe = 1.0.
>
> (2) Every premise which is incompatible with that certainty must be false.
>
> (3) If we assume the principle of continuity is false, the following
> reasoning applies:
>
> (a) If things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or elsewhere--then we are
> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.

This is a derivation based on your assumptions, not an absolute truth.

>
>
> (b) If we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible*
> that all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.

Possible but not probable.

>
>
> (c) If we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our
> bodies, our brains, and our memories may not exist.

If you assume the extreme, then the extreme conclusion follows.  On the other
hand, it is just as valid to assume the opposite extreme, i.e. particles leaping
into existence out of nothing and vanishing into nothing have no effect whatsoever
on our bodies, brains or memories.  If this assumption is adopted, the principle
of continuity becomes a trivial mental construct, much like the logic used by the
Church many years ago to determine how many angels could dance on the head of a
pin.

>
>
> (d) If we do that, then we are forced to concede that it is possible that
> we do not exist--which means: Pe < 1.0.

Only using your extreme assumption.  My assumption is that we always exist no
matter what the particles are doing.

>
>
> (4) Since the conclusion of (3)(d) is in direct contradiction with the
> conclusion of (1), above--we cannot simultaneously say that Pe = 1.0, and
> that Pe < 1.0--it is clear that the denial of continuity stands flatly in
> contradiction to our absolute certainty of our own existence. Thus by (2),
> above, it follows that the principle of continuity must be true. Q.E.D.
> ********************************************
>
> While you quibbled with the wording of (3)(a), you nevertheless conceded
> that (3)(b) is implied. Therefore the chain of logic was unbroken, and the
> conclusion inexorably follows: the principle of continuity must be true.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> We work around these distractions which sometime provide unexpected
> >insight.  The world is a chaotic place in which logical relationships
> >break down.
> >Most of us just note the fact and move on.
>
> ***{If the above proof is correct, then the world is *not* "a chaotic place
> in which logical relationships break down." Thus before you can safely
> "note the fact and move on," you need to find a hole in the proof. Thus
> far, despite some quibbling, you have not denied any link in the chain of
> reasoning. --MJ}***

Oh, but I think I have, Mitchell.  I have no problem with your logic, which is
flawless.  I just do not agree with your assumptions as already noted.

> >
> >> And, if
> >> we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our bodies, our
> >> brains, and our memories may not exist. And if we do that, then we are
> >> forced to concede that it is possible that we do not exist.
> >
> >This is forced logic which has no useful purpose. We both admit we exist
> >on some
> >level, which is an obvious fact.
>
> ***{The "useful purpose" is to establish that Pe = 1.0. Since we can't very
> well doubt our existence if we do not exist, it seems crystal clear--and
> you have agreed--that Pe = 1.0. --MJ}***

No, I have not agreed because, as I stated above, I do not accept your
assumptions.

>
> >> But such a concession is in direct contradiction with our absolute
> >> certainty of our own existence, and with the fact that if we so much as
> >> doubt our existence, we must exist! We cannot simultaneously say that the
> >> probability that we exist is 1.0, and that it is less than 1.0. Thus the
> >> denial of continuity stands flatly in contradiction to our absolute
> >> certainty of our own existence, and hence it follows that the principle of
> >> continuity must be true.
> >
> >Again this is forced logic based on the assumptions you chose above.
>
> ***{The "assumptions" define the issue we are discussing. The logic is
> "forced" in the sense of being *inexorable*, but it is not "forced" in the
> sense of being contrived, which is what I think you intend to imply. But
> what is the point of introducing such an implication, if you cannot back up
> that judgment by showing that the denial of continuity does *not* imply
> that Pe < 1.0? After all, it either implies it or it doesn't, right? And if
> it does, we have a flat-out contradiction between that implication and the
> premise that Pe = 1.0. And if we have such a contradiction, then by the
> method of indirect proof, the denial of continuity must be false--which
> means: the principle of continuity must be true.

The logic is flawless.  However, it is like saying that all water is gold,
therefore all men are rich.   I then say you are wrong, all water is not gold.
You reply by saying,  well suppose it were gold, would not the logical conclusion
be that all men are rich.  I would have to admit you are correct, but I would say
the logic is forced because it results in a trivial conclusion, both because the
assumption is wrong, and because if water were gold, the gold would therefore have
no more value than does water, hence the distribution of wealth would not
change.   In brief, it does not matter whether the principle of continuity exists
or not -- its existence or nonexistence changes nothing in the real world.  A
person seeing a particle appear or disappear may debate the principle of
continuity with respect to these particles, but this does not impact on his own
everyday reality. But then, perhaps you are an exception.

>
> Bottom line: if you want to make any headway here, it is not going to be
> sufficient to merely imply that my logic is contrived. Instead, you are
> going to have to demonstrate precisely *how* it is contrived--which means:
> you are going to have to identify the fallacy in my reasoning and reveal it
> to the group. The question is, can you do it? ("What you have to ask
> yourself, punk, is this: did he fire six shots, or only five?" :-)
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> As I noted,
> >we can live perfectly happy and productive lives in the absence of the
> >principle
> >of continuity on some level.
>
> ***{There is no way for you to know that, Ed, since by my proof, above, you
> are living in a clockwork universe of inexorable necessity, rather than in
> the magical realm of "quantum mechanics." You think otherwise, of course,
> but my proof stands until shot down, and you can't do that by merely
> hinting that the logic is contrived. --MJ}***

No hint implied.  I state very directly, the assumptions you use are unique to
your world view and are not absolute truths.  Therefore, the conclusion is not an
absolute truth no matter how perfect the logic.

>
> Naturally, if too many things seem to pop into
> >existence out of nothing, a person might want to see a shrink.
>
> ***{There is no danger of anything popping into or out of existence, if my
> proof is correct. Thus I would think shrinks would better spend their time
> giving counsel to persons who believe they can make a proof go away by
> merely hinting that the logic is contrived. :-) --MJ}***

I hope you see the irony in the fact that many people frequently see things
popping into existence all the time.  Rather than considering them to be insane,
maybe we should us their experience as proof of our nonexistence and, therefore,
the absence of the principle of continuity.

>
> >> >This problem happens so often one would think it would be the
> >> >subject of great study and every scientist would be on guard to
> >>identify the
> >> >defect.
> >>
> >> ***{And the defect is? --MJ}***
> >
> >The defect is ignoring the assumptions while concentrating on the logic.
>
> ***{Assuming you have any cartridges left in your bandolier other than
> those to which I responded above, would you care to be specific? Which
> assumption is wrong, and why is it wrong? --MJ}***

Please note my comments above.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 21:06:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA10698;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:00:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:00:30 -0700
Message-ID: <39713483.7419D7ED csrlink.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:05:23 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: energy21 <energy21 listbot.com>
Subject: Here's the GUTTED "Happy99" virus (as text)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gzKkg.0.4d2.TDJSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36201
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

begin 644 Happy99.exe
M35I0``(````$``\`__\``+ `````````0``:````````````````````````



M``````````````````````$``+H0``X?M`G-(; !3,TAD)!4:&ES('!R;V=R
M86T ;75S="!B92!R=6X@=6YD97(@5VEN,S(-"B0W````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````````````````````%!%``!,`00`GR77C ``
M````````X`". 0L!`AD`"@```!8```````````$````!`````@```$`````!
M```"```!``````````,`" `````````%```$`````````@``````$```(```
M```0```0````````$``````````````````#`$`#````````````````````
M``````````````````0`:`$`````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````



M````````````0T]$10``````$``````!```*````! ``````````````````
M(```8$1!5$$``````!``````` ``$````!```````````````````$```,`N
M:61A=&$````0``````,```0```` ``````````````````!```#`+G)E;&]C
M````$``````$```"````)```````````````````0```4```````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````



M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````:`!X``!J0.C6"```A<`/A!T&``!0O^L.0 "K!6!M``"K!<@```"K



M6%!04%^XE````*OHMP ``%Z#QA"M@_@`#X3L!0``OLD-0@!67[F5````K/;0
MJN+Z:, ```#_->\.0@#HC0@``(7`#X2W!0``H_<.0@!HR````/\U\PY"`&H`
MZ%8(``"%P`^$F`4``(LU\PY"``/P ^X%K"3?/$%U"L<%B@]"`/____^^(PY"
M`(L][PY"``,]]PY"`+D)````\Z1J`?\U[PY"`/\U\PY"`.CO!P``O ``0@"+
M/>L.0 "M/45.1"!T%3U:15)/=`7WT*OK[*V+R#/`\ZOKXXO/*PWK#D(`B0W[
M#D(`OAH.0 "+/>\.0@`#/?<.0@"Y"0```/.D,\!0:(````!J`E!0:````$#_
M->\.0 #HNP<``$`/A.L$``!(H_\.0@!J`&C[#D(`_S7[#D(`_S7K#D(`_S7_
M#D(`Z$('``"%P`^$M`0``+X-#D(`BSWO#D(``SWW#D(`N0T```#SI(LU[PY"
M`(L]\PY"`(L-]PY"`(/!"?.DN'-K80"K: '_-?,.0@#_->\.0@#H"@<``#/`
M4&B`````: -04&@```#`_S7O#D(`Z"0'``!`=5(SP/\UZPY"`&@'#T(`4&@_



M`!\`4%!0:"P.0 !H`@``@.@@!P``N`@```!0N",.0@!`4&H!:@!0_S4'#T(`
MZ/T&``#_-0</0 #H_@8``.G[`P``2*->#D(`,\!04%!J!%#_-5X.0@#HI`8`
M`(7`#X3/`P``HV8.0 `SP%!04&H&_S5F#D(`Z*D&``"%P`^$I0,``*-J#D(`
MB_!F 3Y-6@^%DP,``(!^$GH/A(D#``#&1A)Z`W8\9H$^4$4/A7<#``")-7(.
M0 !FBT8&9J-V#D(`,\EFBPUV#D(`9HM&%&:C>`Y"`(O>@\,8,\!F`P5X#D(`
M`]B+`STN=&5X=",]+F5D870//2YD871T68/#*$EUX^M>BT,,*T,4HWH.0 #K
MY/=#)"```&`/A"P#``"!2R0```"`B1V>#D(`BT,0BWL(*\<]R ````^"#`,`
M`(M##(M3%"O"HWX.0 `#UXD5D@Y"`.N9BT,,*T,4HX(.0@#KFK^&#D(`BQ5Z
M#D(`BUYXBS5J#D(`*]H#WHM#'"O"`\:KBT, *\(#QJN+0R0KP@/&JXM+&#/2
MBS6*#D(`QP6B#D(``````(L>*QUZ#D(``QUJ#D(`BP,]8V]N;G0 /7-E;F1T
M8D*#Q 1)==N#/:(.0@`"#X5Q`@``Z9(```"#PP2+`SUE8W0`==M25HL=C@Y"
M`-'B`]HSP&:+`XLUA Y"`,'@`@/PBP:CE@Y"`*&2#D(``P5^#D(`@\``B0;_
M!:(.0 !>6NN>@\,$B@,\`'654E:+'8X.0@#1X@/:,\!FBP.+-88.0@#!X`(#
M\(L&HYH.0 "AD@Y"``,%?@Y"`(/`1XD&_P6B#D(`7EKI5?___XLUG@Y"`(%&
M",H```!HJ Y"`.A0!```A<`/A)H!``"CI@Y"`&BW#D(`_S6F#D(`Z#\$``"%



MP`^$?0$``*/?#D(`:,0.0 #_-:8.0@#H(@0``(7`#X1@`0``H^,.0@!HT`Y"
M`/\UI Y"`.@%!```A<`/A$,!``"CYPY"`(L]D@Y"``,]:@Y"`.C*````G&#H
M`````%^!Q[T```"+7"0LBD,#/!EU"(M$)"BJ1^L*/'=U&T>+1"0HJN (````
M4VMA+F1L;`"X_______0JV&=Z0````"<8. `````7H/&=F:MBUPD*#KC=!`Z
MPW0"ZUOH#P```&UA:6P`Z`4```!N97=S`*U0N/______T(7`=#K_T#P!=#1F
MD^ `````7H/&-%9?,\"`^TYU"D>JK#P`=1E&ZPV`^TUU$:I'1JP\`'4)K5"X
M_______089WI`````````````%ZYR ```/.DH=\.0@")AV____^AYPY"`(E'
MKZ'C#D(`B4?MBQ5^#D(`H9(.0 `#PH/`1BL%E@Y"`/?0B8=Y____H9(.0@`#
MP 7#````*P6:#D(`]]")1_;_-6H.0@#HH@(``/\U9@Y"`.CE`@``_S5>#D(`
MZ-H"``#_->L.0 #HU0(``(,]B@]"``!T!VK_Z(\"``!H``("`&I`Z)4"``"C
MZPY"`&H`Z&4"``"C? ]"`*,;#T(`N.<'00"C#P]"`,<%+P]"`&</0@!H"P]"
M`.BO` ``,\!0_S5^#T(`4%!H``(``&@``0``:F1J9&@```P`:&</0@!H9P]"
M`%#HI0(``*."#T(`: '_-8(/0@#HF0(``/\U@@]"`.B4`@``_S6"#T(`Z&L"
M``"C8P]"`#/`: %04%!H,P]"`.A/`@``A<`/A;,```"A4P]"`(/@#Z-3#T(`
M _@`#X0!`0``N0`0``"+->L.0@!15E^#QQ2+1@BKBT8,JX$&`!```*T!1@2M
M`48$K<'X$(O0K<'X$(O8K8/X`'4% \8(ZTF`;OP!<P3&1OP`@&[]`7,$QD;]
M`(!N_ %S!,9&_@!64%)3_S5C#T(`Z/8!``!>K<'X$(O0K<'X$%9J`%)0_S5C
M#T(`Z-L!``!> \8$64D/A7G_____!5,/0@#I-/___X,]-P]"`!)T%K@S#T(`
M4%#HJ0$``.B&`0``Z17_____-6,/0 #_-8(/0@#H4@$``,<%B@]"`/_____I
M/_[__UBCA ]"`(-\)`0"=0MJ`.@[`0``,\#K!>A*`0``BPV&#T(`4<.A3P]"



M`(/ #Z-/#T(`P>`-BSWK#D(``_BY``$``.AF````P>@(HUL/0@#H60```,'H
M"*-7#T(`Z$P```#!Z` -#P^O`(O8Z#T```#!Z`^)!XE/!-M'!-G^V@_;1P39
M_]H/VQ_;7P2#QPBA5P]"`*NA6P]"`*N+PZN#QPSBR?\%3P]"`.EW_O__N!-`
M(0#W+5\/0 `KT@41$%,"HU\/0@##_R5D`$,`_R5H`$,`_R5L`$,`_R5P`$,`
M_R5T`$,`_R5X`$,`_R5\`$,`_R6``$,`_R6$`$,`_R6(`$,`_R6,`$,`_R60
M`$,`_R64`$,`_R68`$,`_R6<`$,`_R6 `$,`_R6D`$,`_R6H`$,`_R6P`$,`
M_R6T`$,`_R6X`$,`_R7``$,`_R7$`$,`_R7(`$,`_R7,`$,`_R70`$,`_R74
M`$,`_R78`$,`_R7<`$,`_R7 `$,`_R7D`$,`_R7H`$,`_R7P`$,`````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`+*EK__]____^__P_P``__]'_________[__Y?]:15)/"````/_^__]%[__Q
MX$OV,MY'_K,RWF]OJY>6C-^/C9"8C9Z2WY**C(O?G9K?C8J1WXJ1FYJ-WZB6
MD<S-\O7;R%I%4D\B````K[K__[/^^O] VBIQ6D523P(````?_W%>]/[]YO_U
M____]____________O____[____]____O_____[___W___[__________/_U
M__________G___O________]____6D523P(```#__^___^_________O____
M___[_Z________S_D_[__UI%4D\&````___Z_Q/___]:15)/%````+RPN[K_
M_____^_______O__]?____G__UI%4D\#````W___G[N^J[[______^______
M_?___?___^___UI%4D\#````O___/]&6FYZ+GO___^_______/___?___^W_
M_UI%4D\#````O___/]&:FYZ+GO___^______^____?___^O__UI%4D\#````
MO___O]&-FI.0G/___^______^O___?___^G__UI%4D\#````O___KUI%4D_0
M````?(/;]_^+LGR#V_?^B_T4L$'#_[W_J:!&RO___U,)+U4=!9?_W___E;\7
M9_?__WH_BOO,/Q310&;_O?]4^D?T__]4^D?T__]4^A?\__]4?#^;5!3T`,IF
M_[W_%Y+W__]'_O___SWS_Q>4^O__?`:;\'AU____=/S:("` (,*ROK:SBLUT
MO/O:`"` (,+?N:VPBMR9=+SWF=H@`)G"LL6*ZG0,=,)>_[W_=O+__[W_#%L6



M /[__W3\VB`@("#"K;ROJXK(=+S[V@`@(`#"WZNPQ8K7%T_X__]V\OO_O?\7
M(O[__WP'__![MO[__SCZ:O^]_P`````6SO[__Q;*_O__%\'\__]\!__P>MC^
M__]TRF+_O?^94IG"___P>^K^__]\PFK_O?__\'H*____%U#[__]>?O^]_W3B
M9O^]_Q>6^___?`<`\'L/____%T_[__]'^O___T3E_[W_%[/[__]\!P#P>RS_
M__\7!_G__\+-RL_?\'H\____1_G___]$]_^]_Q?;^___?`<`\'M4____%R_Y
M___"S<K/W_!Z9/___U[__[W_=.)>_[W_%P3\__]\!P#P>WW___\76/G__\+-
MRL_?BHETRF+_O?]TZE[_O?]\%<W,-G014[[$#8BBP_^+W\/UB UT/G0B%T/\
M__]\!P"+N!>3^?__PLW*S]^*Q!0M1_G___]$\?^]_Q=E_/__?`<`B]H7M?G_
M_\+,RLO?BN8X^FK_O?______=,)B_[W_S#]41_[___\\1[*RLK(\%VW\__]\
M!IN-EA<,_O__?`?_BJ`7>/S__UY^_[W_=.)F_[W_%[[\__]\!P"+M!=S_/__
M1_K___]$Y?^]_Q?7_/__?`<`B\T7)_K__\+-R\_?BME'^?___T3K_[W_%_?\
M__]\!P"+[1='^O__PLS+S]^*^4?^____/$>QL;&Q/)]T%)6;`,I6_[W_%P[Z
M__]Z/_![F/[__UR"_[W_09G_O?]TPE;_O?_\PH+_O?]&]/___PQ;E?^7?___
M_Y7[E?^5_Y?___\_`,I6_[W_%QKZ__^_\'O9_O__MUR*_[W_E\WK__^5OQ=C
M^O__>C_P>_[^__]<>O^]_Y7_EX;_O?^7_^O__P#*>O^]_P#*BO^]_Q>!^O__
M>C_P>QW___]^PH;_O?__Z___C< `RHK_O?\7=OK__Y7_EW____^5_97_E?^7
M____/P#*5O^]_Q>9^O__O_![6/___[=<BO^]_Q1G=`I\.?=2="=2="]TRGK_
MO?]T,?SRAO^]_U+$/(O]%/=2Q#V+N'P1^WP1_)E2Q`Z,]IG"\O6+';$4#G0!
M=`I\.?=T\OO_O?]\%O>NJ`Q;F4?R]9E4H*:5_Y>&_[W_KJ `RHK_O?\7'OO_
M_Q3B`,IZ_[W_%TG[__\`RHK_O?\7)/O__YY'`````#P`RGK_O?\79OO__P#*
MBO^]_Q=!^___GLP_/)]T#'0!_`9T,'P^F\PMF73AF7X<("!T$9E^!+FMB[ET
M"IE^!*RJBZQT"IE^!+&ZBX]T"IE^!+R\\'MF____=`J9? 2]O/![5O___W0*
MF7X$\O7P>T;___]T"KG$#O!\&____Q16F5)2VB` ``#"L++%WXI4%RK___\4
M;)E24MH ("`@PKVUNKR*85+:(```_\*KQ=__BFX73?___Q:2````F5)2VB`@
M("#"J*RXK8I^4MH ("`@PK"JKZSP>H\```"94IG"Q=_P>IL````7@____Q;(
M````F5)2V ``___"Q=____!ZJP```!>@____%N4```"94E+:(```_\*\Q=__
M\'J[````%[W___\6` $``%+"\O7R]?!ZQ````*]'I]*LCU1'GI&,E%1'GL7?



MIE291YJ,F51\/?&G5+V]=NI^_[W_GLP_/)Y'`````#QT"G3"9O^]__P%4U6]
M? 5Y]/__B/O#]8H./'07E?^OK`#*<O^]_P#J=O^]_WP'`(KJ%Q']___"S-C_
M_XK[=#H4)$<`````/'2CV\MTL]O'/'2CV\]VXG+_O?^GI*RO?#S$=/S\)WP\
M^W;B=O^]_SR7_Z___Y6_%T3]__]Z/_![K_W__UQZ_[W_E9L`RE;_O?\79/W_
M_WH_\'O4_?__7(+_O?]!HO^]_W3"5O^]__S" O^]_T;V____#%N5_Y=_____
ME?R5_Y7_E____W\`RE;_O?\7</W__[_P>Q7^__^W7([_O?^7V/^]_P#*CO^]
M_Q>3_?__O_![/?[__[=<V/^]_Y7_E?^5_Y7]E?\`RH[_O?\7Z_W__WH_\'M 
M_O__7.#_O?^5_Y7_E?^5^P#*X/^]_Q?M_?__>C_P>XO^__]<W/^]_T'#_[W_
M=,)Z_[W_1N;___\,6\PM7MC_O?^OF432_YD(#,PVF70W=O+4_[W_=^K0_[W_
M=,K<_[W_HOP1=.K4_[W_3[)51O#____$"HK[S3\4_E-U'S\7_=O`BOW[O_O?
M574[/Q_[V\]U!\0*BOO-/Q3^4W4?/Q?[V_#U.-O`BOW[O_O?574[/Q_]VP-U
M!\0*BOO-/Q3^4W4?/Q?YV_SU.-O`BOW[O_O?574[V\"*_?N_^]]5MHILF4?R
M]9E4M8I]7]#_O?_#_XO4^]]5S#_,+<PV7]#_O?],_`D,=3=[&XO]F;Y%_O__
M_SGZT/^]__\6J0```$&J_[W_1O?___\,6W0PU/)Z_[W_=O+'_[W_S"W,-E['
M_[W_F407_)D(#)ET-W;RS_^]_W;JR_^]_W3*>O^]_P#ZS_^]_T(7_/__?,+/
M_[W__HKY=-++_[W_=#IT(1=]` ``?`<`B_7\"@#RS_^]_XHK`,K<_[W_%UW_
M__\`RN#_O?\74/___P#*CO^]_Q=;____`,IZ_[W_%Y;___\\E?^5PP#*6O^]
M_P#*<O^]_Q?*____?`<`BQETXEK_O?]T_#R?=,IB_[W_="E^/:OT__]3Q`V,
M[L/_B BQ=`%T#`Q;1_____]4GCP`VL/_O/\`VK__O/\`VK?_O/\`VK/_O/\`
MVJ__O/\`VJO_O/\`VJ?_O/\`VJ/_O/\`VI__O/\`VIO_O/\`VI?_O/\`VI/_
MO/\`VH__O/\`VHO_O/___UI%4D]!````K:RZJ_+UN[ZKOO+UK["LJ_+U\O71
M\O7_6D523P<````-"F)E9VEN(#8T-"!(87!P>3DY+F5X90T*8`T*96YD#0I<
M4VMA+F5X90!<;&ES=&4N<VMA`/___UI%4D]F```` __\_\/__/]:15)/`P``
M`'?__/^W__S_6D523P4```!I__S_8?_\______]/__S_.?_\_R/__/\5__S_
M"?_\__W^_/_M_OS_V_[\_\G^_/^]_OS_K_[\_Z'^_/______J*RPO+3,S=&;
MDY/_M+JML;JSS,W1FY.3_____XV:G(G_____J*R^N)J+LYZ,B[J-C9"-____
MO(V:GHN:N9:3FK*>CX^6D9B^_____[B:BZR&C(N:DKN6C9J<BY"-AK[___^S
MD)R>D[Z3DY"<_____[.0G)Z3N8V:FO___ZV:GINYEI.:_____[*>CZF6FHBP



MF;F6DYK___^LFHNYEI.:KY"6D8N:C?____^JD9*>CZF6FHBPF;F6DYK___^H
MC9:+FKF6DYK___^XFHNYEI.:K):%FO___[R-FIZ+FKF6DYJ^____O).0C)JW
MGI&;DYK_6D523R ```##__O__O____W____]____U__[_\__^__'__O_F/_^
M_[_]_O^Y__O_M/_[_____O^2GIN3D]&[L[/_DIZ6D_^1FHB,_UI%4D]L````
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MQPW'!\<!QUI%4D]&` ``14Y$(`"VC-^6B]^>WXF6C8J,T]^>WXB0C9+3WY[?
MBXV0E9Z1P-^RL*JKTK*PJJO?MX:=C9:;W]><UM^LCYZ1C)2>W\[&QL;1_Z.(
MC)"<E,S-T9N3D_^CK)2>T9N3D_^CK)2>T9J'FO^LD)F+B)Z-FJ.REIR-D(R0
MF8NCJ):1FY"(C*.\BHV-FI&+J9J-C):0D:.MBI&PD9R:_P``````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M``````````````````````````!+15).14PS,BYD;&P`3&]A9$QI8G)A<GE!
M`$9R965,:6)R87)Y`$=E=%!R;V-!9&1R97-S````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````````````````T``````````````````````
M``````````````<`````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````$;NJ_P````!(87!P>2!.97< 665A<B`Q
M.3DY("$A````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M``````````````````#X``,`9``#``````````````````4!`P"P``,`````
M````````````$ $#`,```P`````````````````=`0,`\``#````````````



M````````````````*`$#`#0!`P!&`0,`7 $#`'(!`P!^`0,`D`$#`)X!`P"L
M`0,`P $#`-`!`P#F`0,`]@$#``P"`P`:`@,`*`(#`#0"`P!$`@,``````%`"
M`P!B` ,`=`(#``````""`@,`C@(#`*`"`P"R`@,`P@(#`,H"`P#>`@,`\`(#
M``(#`P`0`P,`(`,#```````T`P,``````$M%4DY%3#,R+F1L;`!!1%9!4$DS
M,BYD;&P`55-%4C,R+F1L;`!'1$DS,BYD;&P`````5W)I=&5&:6QE````56YM
M87!6:65W3V9&:6QE````1V5T5VEN9&]W<T1I<F5C=&]R>4$`````1V5T36]D
M=6QE2&%N9&QE00````!#;W!Y1FEL94$```!'9710<F]C061D<F5S<P````!%
M>&ET4')O8V5S<P```$=E=$9I;&53:7IE````1V5T36]D=6QE1FEL94YA;65!
M`````$QO8V%L06QL;V,`````0W)E871E1FEL94UA<'!I;F=!`````$=E=%9E
M<G-I;VY%>$$```!'9713>7-T96U$:7)E8W1O<GE!````0W)E871E1FEL94$`
M``!#;&]S94AA;F1L90```$QO8V%L1G)E90```$UA<%9I97=/9D9I;&4```!2
M96%D1FEL90````!296=3971686QU945X00````!296=#<F5A=&5+97E%>$$`
M``!296=#;&]S94ME>0```%)E;&5A<V5$0P```%)E9VES=&5R0VQA<W-!````
M`%!O<W11=6ET365S<V%G90```%!E96M-97-S86=E00````!'971$0P```$1I
M<W!A=&-H365S<V%G94$`````1&5F5VEN9&]W4')O8T$`````0W)E871E5VEN
M9&]W17A!````4VAO=U=I;F1O=P````!5<&1A=&57:6YD;W<`````5')A;G-L
M871E365S<V%G90````!39710:7AE;%8`````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M```````````````````````````````````````````````````!`& !```6



M,$8P7C!P,'LPD#"B,*LPL3"W,,8PS##6,-PP`3$',0PQ$C$8,38Q2#%/,54Q
M6S%A,7,Q>3%_,8PQDC&8,:LQL3'-,=TQXC'P,04R$C(=,BTR.S)-,EHR;#*;
M,J4RKC*X,L8R\C(.,RXS-C-#,THS4#-9,X`SAC.2,Y SM3/5,^0S\#/U,_LS
M!C0;-"HT-C0[-$$T3#19-&4T=S1\-((TE#29-)\TL32V-+PTSC34--HTMC7!
M-<DUTC77->(U[S7\-0<V$C8=-B V9#8S-DXV6C9?-FDV;S9S-G@VAC:@-J4V
ML#:X-L,VSC;8-N0V]C;^-A(W;3>(-Y\WJC>R-\DWSS?:-^DW!C -.!4X'C@R
M.#\X=CA\.(LXFSBG.*XXM#BZ.,`XQCC,.-(XV#C>..0XZCCP./8X_# ".0@Y
M#CD4.1HY(#DF.2PY,CDX.3XY1#E*.5`Y5CE<.6(Y:#EN.0``````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````



M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
*````````````````
`
end


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to energy21-unsubscribe listbot.com

Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 21:12:42 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA16996;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:12:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:12:02 -0700
Message-ID: <000901bfeee4$0b917720$b2441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com>
Subject: Re: A combination approach
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:09:30 -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: <"edLCm.0.P94.HOJSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36202
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 <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: A combination approach

Robin wrote:


> Suppose that the hydrogen electron is a small marble racing around inside a
> hoola hoop, which itself is rotating about an axis in the plain of the hoop.
> Such an accelerating charge should radiate. Suppose it does, but because of
> the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
> within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave, with which the electron
> continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
> be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?
>
Suppose that you delve into String-Superstring Theory where the particles are
one dimensional length only strings or string circles that oscillate in length
or diameter respectively, noting that the Capacitance of Space eo is
a length-only quantity, 8.85E-12 Farads per meter, then C is 2(pi)r*eo

Then since the particle energy E is equal to 0.5 CV^2 and the charge q equal CV
equal the constant 1.6E-19 coulombs, then  the oscillation frequency f = E/h,
then (IOW) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CIRCLING CHARGE/ACCELERATION RADIATION,
 IN ATOMS. The proton is made up of 3 of these strings, each with a mass energy of ~ 312 Mev,
two positive
and one negative, with the external negative electron string or hoop balancing the charge.

Since these are one-dimensional with no width (because of a "fold in multi-dimensional space")
you can pack an enormous (infinite?) number of them in a super heavy atom. :-)

The oscillations create a Displacement Current I = C* dV/dt which CREATES the
INDUCTANCE or PERMEABILITY of  SPACE, uo = (4(pi)*1.0E-7 Henry/meter,
again a Length-Only quantuty, and L = 2(pi)r* uo with E = 0.5 L*I^2 indicating
that 1/2 the energy of a string-circle particle is in the capacitance and the other
half is in the manifest inductance the same as in an EM wave.

The "SPIN" is due to the Simple Harmonic Motion (SHM) of these "hoops",
and is equal to; hbar = mvr, and in the electron v = 137*c the PHASE VELOCITY
due to the string oscillation in length or diameter.

Try it out.

Regards,  Frederick

> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 21:42:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA26018;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:42:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:42:17 -0700
Message-ID: <39713E58.9419B381 csrlink.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:47:21 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Heated Electrode Electrolysis Cell Experiments?
References: <000d01bfed76$aa4d9c00$cf8e1d26 fjsparber>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QKnEe2.0.SM6.eqJSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36203
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Fredrick,
Why not shine a UV light source onto the platinum and excite the
electrons further that way? TiO2 loaded with RuO2 and Pt makes an
excellent catalyst for sunlight based separation of water and the UV
component is mostly responsible.
MJ

Frederick Sparber wrote:
> 
> To Vortex:
> 
> Since a Hot Wire of Palladium or Nickel (or a Pd or Ni plated cartridge heater) could
> be used for an electrolysis cell cathode, and the various boiling modes can be initiated by
> varying the power/heat flux, it might prove interesting to see if this could be a means for
> promoting the "Active Sites" that Ed Storms finds necessary for OU/CF effects.
> 
> What say you, Ed?
> 
> Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 22:09:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA02230;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:08:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:08:43 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A combination approach
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:08:02 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <pag2nsg5qi3cvrhv2hd2qo693mobqav0mr 4ax.com>
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com> <39711EEA.DBCCD698@csrlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <39711EEA.DBCCD698 csrlink.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 WAA02200
Resent-Message-ID: <"fWQPM.0.iY.RDKSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36204
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  Michael Johnston's message of Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:33:14 -0400:

>Robin!
>   I think this is the first time I've ever seen you actually advance a
>seemingly original idea of your own. 

Actually, I doubt that it is original. It was sort of an attempt to combine
Mills and Puthoff. Frederick's suggestion of superstrings however might also
fit in.
[snip]
>You usually just point/counterpoint others

You obviously haven't been on this list as long as long as I.
[snip]
>Of Matter? Energy? Both? Is there really a difference between the two?

Yes, no, no, and yes.
>
>> racing around inside a
>> hoola hoop,
>
>Are we talking "Hula Hoop" as in an imaginary line defining it's orbital path
>around the nucleus?

Yes, sorry for the mis-spelling.

>
>> which itself is rotating about an axis in the plain of the hoop.
>
>The hoop is rotating?

yup. Just like you can stand a real hula hoop on edge and make it spin so
that it describes a sphere.

>
>>
>> Such an accelerating charge should radiate. Suppose it does, but because of
>> the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
>> within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave, with which the electron
>> continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
>> be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?
>
>Hmmmmm, interesting but what exactly is the hoop? 

Imaginary. Just useful to help readers picture the intent.
[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 Jul 15 22:53:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA12978;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:52:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:52:56 -0700
Message-ID: <39714EE9.EB88247E csrlink.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:58:01 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A combination approach
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com> <39711EEA.DBCCD698@csrlink.net> <pag2nsg5qi3cvrhv2hd2qo693mobqav0mr@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7P6Wf.0.iA3.usKSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36205
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
And MJ replies;

> Actually, I doubt that it is original. It was sort of an attempt to combine
> Mills and Puthoff. Frederick's suggestion of superstrings however might also
> fit in.

No doubt fredrick thinks so. I still don't think they are a "done deal".
But I don't necessarily belong to that church either.
> [snip]

> You obviously haven't been on this list as long as long as I.

No Robin, I sure haven't. Knowing me I'll get myself kicked for being a
smartass within a week...hehe
I meant no offense by that either.
> [snip]

> Yes, no, no, and yes.

Amazing we are following each other on that little exchange isn't it?

> >Are we talking "Hula Hoop" as in an imaginary line defining it's orbital path
> >around the nucleus?
> 
> Yes, sorry for the mis-spelling.

I didn't even notice. Didn't I tell you? I'm functionally illiterate
(have a real good spell checker though).
> 
> >

> 
> yup. Just like you can stand a real hula hoop on edge and make it spin so
> that it describes a sphere.

Ok, gotcha. I wasn't picturing what you were getting at there.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> Such an accelerating charge should radiate. Suppose it does, but because of
> >> the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
> >> within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave,

Kinda perpetual motion isn't it? You describe the wave and the electron
as two separate entities here. The electron being a speck of matter and
the wave not. Are you saying the field of the electron is holding the
wave into it's pathway (kinda like a black hole bends and swallows
light)? Or maybe the combined field of nucleus/electron(s) acting on the
electron which has it's own field as well. Of course this would be acted
upon by the fields of neighboring atoms which would be acted upon by the
field of the whole object of which they are a part which would be
affected by the field of the planet, which would be affected by the
field of the sun..solar system...galaxy...universe...
Don't you hate when I do that?<grin>

 with which the electron
> >> continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
> >> be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?

Worth thinking about.
> >
> >Hmmmmm, interesting but what exactly is the hoop?
> 
> Imaginary. Just useful to help readers picture the intent.
> [snip]
Ok I see.
MJ
> 
> 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 Jul 15 23:01:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA14140;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:55:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:55:59 -0700
Message-ID: <003301bfeef2$98f8c600$b2441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <000d01bfed76$aa4d9c00$cf8e1d26 fjsparber> <39713E58.9419B381@csrlink.net>
Subject: Re: Heated Electrode Electrolysis Cell Experiments?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:53:38 -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: <"dlquh2.0.nS3.kvKSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36206
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: Heated Electrode Electrolysis Cell Experiments?

Michael Johnston wrote:


> Hi Fredrick,
> Why not shine a UV light source onto the platinum and excite the
> electrons further that way? TiO2 loaded with RuO2 and Pt makes an
> excellent catalyst for sunlight based separation of water and the UV
> component is mostly responsible.
> MJ

Good point. I later posted the use of a low wattage UV (mercury) light source immersed
in the cell electrolyte with a nickel or palladium mesh (gauze) cathode wrapped around it
so that the 185 to 300 nanometer (4.1 ev to 6.7 ev) photons can ionize the potassium
(4.34 ev) and dissociate the H2O (~ 4.53 ev to ~5.17 ev), and possibly
create Light Lepton Pairs +/- 1.6E-19 coulombs, with a rest mass-energy around 2.25 ev each
(about 1/227,000ths the mass of the electron each).

Although the radius of these would be R = kq^2/Energy (about 6.4 angstroms) taken
up by a proton or deuteron would cause them to shrink according to;
R' = kq^2/(Eo + Eb) where Eb is the binding energy determined by V = kq/R.

The LL- can be "absorbed" by a Proton or Deuteron to form P* or D* (P star or D star)
Neutral entities with a radius of about 3 Fermi, and effect Cold Fusion reactions:

P* + D --->   T or He3 + LL- = ~ 4.0 Mev
or

D* + D ---> He4 + LL- + ~ 24.0 Mev

IOW the LL- comes out upon fusion reactions, with a relativistic mass:

Mrel = Mo[(E'/Eo) + 1] = Mo/[1-(v^2/c^2)]^1/2 and if it has it's rest radius
is larger than the water molecules, and is trying to move very close to c, but
losing part of it's relativistic mass at each collision and thermalize rapidly. OTOH an electron
with it's small radius (beta particles) coming off with this much energy
would have orders of magnitude greater range.

These would be Aneutronic-Gammaless reactions producing heat until
the LL- annihilated with the LL+ resulting in two ~2.25 ev photons.

With the electrochemical action at the electrolysis cell cathode this would be a COLD PLASMA.

Regards, Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 15 23:24:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA19833;
	Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:22:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:22:09 -0700
Sender: steve eskimo.com
Message-ID: <39715472.E914B20E eskimo.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:21:38 -0700
From: steve lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A combination approach
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"q-dmW2.0.pr4.GILSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36207
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> 
> Suppose that the hydrogen electron is a small marble racing around inside a
> hoola hoop, which itself is rotating about an axis in the plain of the hoop.
> Such an accelerating charge should radiate.

Should classically radiate? Yes.

But why would this be a model for the electron? 1/r potential
does not confine the path to circular orbits that spin about an
axis...

> Suppose it does, 

Experiment shows it doesn't, but then, I guess that depends on how you
want to define radiate.

> but because of
> the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
> within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave, with which the electron
> continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
> be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?

That the experimental radius of the hydrogen atom is in rough
agreement with the debroglie wavelength this was was shown a
long time ago.
 
> 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 Jul 16 00:03:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA27988;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:01:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:01:56 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A combination approach
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:01:16 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <bpm2nsgft3laj1bu486vujfb8us8j5amtu 4ax.com>
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com> <39711EEA.DBCCD698@csrlink.net> <pag2nsg5qi3cvrhv2hd2qo693mobqav0mr@4ax.com> <39714EE9.EB88247E@csrlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <39714EE9.EB88247E csrlink.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 AAA27966
Resent-Message-ID: <"lEDSy2.0.9r6.ZtLSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36208
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  Michael Johnston's message of Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:58:01 -0400:
[snip]
>Kinda perpetual motion isn't it? You describe the wave and the electron
>as two separate entities here. The electron being a speck of matter and
>the wave not. Are you saying the field of the electron is holding the
>wave into it's pathway (kinda like a black hole bends and swallows
>light)?
What I'm saying is that spacetime is elastic, and that the spherical atom
acts like a little resonant chamber. The electron continually exchanging
energy with the resonance in the chamber, such that none of the energy of
the resonance is lost.
Thus to the outside world, the electron doesn't appear to radiate, but in
fact it is continually doing so, and also continually receiving back again,
that which it radiated.
Sort of analogous to an antenna inside a copper sphere. Outside the sphere,
you don't detect any radiation. Another analogy is the blackbody radiation
in a closed cavity.

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 Jul 16 01:09:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA08771;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:03:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:03:52 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b595213d735a [207.8.127.51]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b5950e96f63d [12.21.211.213]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:01:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"BQDrN.0.v82.bnMSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36209
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 1:08 PM 7/14/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>>Horace,
>>>Well said and absolutely correct.  As anyone who has studied humanity
>>>for even
>>>a short time can testify,. logic can be used to prove absolutely anything.
>>>While logic based on mathematics is pure, the results of applying logic are
>>>not pure and can often lead to opposite conclusions, depending on the
>>>data on
>>>which the logic is based.  As is often said of computers, garbage in,
>>>garbage
>>>out.  Unfortunately, all human beliefs contain some garbage, some more than
>>>others. Mitchell makes assumptions which are unique to his world and arrives
>>>at logical conclusions.  Because the logic is usually flawless and elegant,
>>>one can easily be blinded by the logic and fail to see the flawed
>>>assumptions.
>>
>>***{And those assumptions are what? That I know with utter and absolute
>>certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible with that
>>certainty must be false? That the denial of continuity is incompatible with
>>it?
>>
>>Assuming the latter--which seems like the only hope--I can only point out
>>that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
>>nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
>>forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning. And,
>>if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible* that
>>all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing. And, if
>>we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our bodies, our
>>brains, and our memories may not exist. And if we do that, then we are
>>forced to concede that it is possible that we do not exist.
>>
>>But such a concession is in direct contradiction with our absolute
>>certainty of our own existence, and with the fact that if we so much as
>>doubt our existence, we must exist! We cannot simultaneously say that the
>>probability that we exist is 1.0, and that it is less than 1.0. Thus the
>>denial of continuity stands flatly in contradiction to our absolute
>>certainty of our own existence, and hence it follows that the principle of
>>continuity must be true.
>>
>>Q.E.D.
>>
>>--Mitchell Jones}***
>
>
>Mitchell,
>
>Since your comments above were brief I will quote them just to make you
>happy

***{That's not the point. The point is that you need to insert your
comments into the text of the other person's comments, at a location that
will enable him to know which portion of his argument is being criticized.
This procedure has several benefits: (1) following such a procedure
encourages each respondent to actually confront the reasoning of the person
with whom he is interacting, rather than merely waiting for his turn to
speak; (2) the discussion focuses on alleged weaknesses in the arguments,
and hence is more efficient at yielding up the truth; and (3) by quoting
the relevant portion of the context, participants save themselves the
trouble of using their own words to re-establish it--which means: they are
able to shorten their responses.

Bottom line: the material you quoted above does not "make me happy,"
because you inserted no comments, and, as a consequence, you achieved none
of the three advantages that I listed above. As such, it constitutes a
purely token change in your behavior--which means: in terms of substance,
nothing has changed.

--Mitchell Jones}***

,  even if it is against the rules of the forum.

***{Bill Beaty and I discussed this via private e-mail more than a year
ago, and what he said was that the rules only require the deletion of
material which is not directly germane to the immediate point which is
being made. He even stated that a sufficiently detailed point-by-point
rebuttal might justify deleting nothing. The point of the rules is to
encourage dialogue while discouraging a waste of bandwidth, not to
discourage dialogue. That means it is acceptable to quote the specific
portions of the incoming post to which you are responding. What is
discouraged is responding to, for example, one paragraph of a 20-paragraph
post, and quoting the whole thing. Since I tend to do point-by-point
rebuttals, I frequently quote an entire post. Hell, sometimes I respond to
an individual sentence on a phrase-by-phrase basis (as I am doing now :-).
If I snipped the sentence I was responding to, nobody would know what in
hell I was talking about.

As to why I left all of the material that you quoted, above, in this post,
the reason is straightforward: I am pointing out that you inserted no
comments, and, hence, that it served no purpose for you to quote that
material. Thus I had to leave it all, to make it easy for readers to verify
the point I am making. (Yes, many people probably saved the original post,
and could in theory go back and look at it again; but many did not save it,
and many of those who did will not bother. Hence it needs to be included,
for evidentiary purposes, in my opinion.)

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>A sound argument requires a valid argument, i.e. one which follows the
>rules of deductive logic, PLUS is based on true premises.  The truth of the
>premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.

***{This is usually true, but when we are dealing with axiomatic truths
that lie at the base of the structure of human knowledge, it breaks down.
In the case where a person is contemplating the issue of his own existence,
for example, logic has something to say--to wit: it says that you cannot
contemplate the issue, if you do not exist. Hence if you do so, then the
probability, Pe, that you exist is 1.0. --MJ}***

Hence Inductive logic only supplies probable conclusions, not necessary
>conclusions.  It leads but does not determine.  Inductive logic supplies no
>guarantees.

***{True enough, but as noted above, some premises are so fundamental that,
if we deny them, we engage in an act of self-contradiction. Such premises
deductively self-establish themselves, which means they are what is known
as *self-evident*. Since the epistemological validity of the principle of
continuity is *not* based on induction, but upon the fact that the denial
of continuity stands in contradiction with a premise that is self-evident,
the argument you are attempting does not apply. --MJ}***

>
>Science provides us with no iron clad guarantee that we exist now

***{True, but logic provides an ironclad guarantee that if you are in the
act of contemplating your own existence, or of doubting it, or of denying
it, then you exist--which means, under those circumstances, that Pe = 1.0.
--MJ}***

, or
>existed prior, or will continue to exist, or that things can or can not pop
>into and out of existence.

***{Of course not: science is based on inductive reasoning. The fact that
science cannot produce such guarantees, however, does not mean no such
guarantees can be provided. Scientific knowledge, after all, is only a part
of the structure of human knowledge. The premises on which science is
based, and the techniques for their validation, lie in natural philosophy
(also known as philosophy of science, or metaphysics). And it is in that
area that an ironclad guarantee that things cannot pop into and out of
existence is to be found. --MJ}***

Our existence can only be determined to be
>highly probable.  For example, it is possible we are merely elements in a
>giant computer simulation.

***{Incorrect. I know with utter certainty that I exist, because I am
engaged in an act of contemplation as of this very moment, and, as
Descartes said: "Cogito ergo sum"--"I think, therefore I am."

Of course, I have to concede the possibility that *you* do not exist, since
I may merely be a brain with electrodes attached, hooked up to a giant
computer. But that alters nothing about the reasoning I have been
employing: I remain sure of my own existence, sure of the validity of the
principle of continuity, and sure that all of my sensations have sources.
The fact that there is a very low probability that the picture of the world
which I have inferred from those sensations is substantially in error does
nothing to alter that state of affairs--as I discussed on this group more
than a year ago, in fact.

--Mitchell Jones}***

If so, it is likely we can not experimentally
>determine that fact, thus it is outside the realm of science.

***{Maybe "Mitchell Jones" is merely an enormously sophisticated CPU chip
sitting on an alien being's test stand, in some unknown universe. Maybe
what "Mitchell Jones" takes to be his "memories" are just digital test
inputs, intended to determine whether the "Mitchell Jones" chip is
functioning properly. Perhaps if the "Mitchell Jones" chip gives wrong
answers--e.g., if it fails to recognize that the principle of continuity
must be true--the super-intelligent alien being will merely extract the
"Mitchell Jones" chip from his test stand, toss it onto the scrap heap, and
begin testing the next chip. But even if that is the case, the "Mitchell
Jones" chip is chugging away at the moment. Result: at the moment, it knows
with utter certainty that it exists, and is in a position to *flatly prove*
the epistemological validity of the principle of continuity. Bottom line:
if the "Mitchell Jones" chip winds up on the great scrap heap in the sky,
it won't be because it messed up that particular computation. But the
"Horace Heffner" chip can't say that, now can it? (You better watch out,
Horace! That alien being is not liking what he is getting back from you!
Any second now, he is going to reach for his extraction tool, pluck you out
of his breadboard, and toss you in the trash! :-) --MJ}***

Science is
>simply a methodology that works well, but it is not a methodology we are
>forced to accept

***{True: we have the option of being irrational. If we reject that option,
however, then we must accept our own existence, continuity, induction, and
science. --MJ}***

, nor does it apply to all things.

***{I have been saying that to you for days and days, Horace. And now you
are saying it to me as if you have known it all along and I have been
denying it! --MJ}***

We can all be mystics
>if we so choose

***{Only if we are willing to do without reason-based beliefs about the
world--i.e., without knowledge. --MJ}***

, or we can believe in the principle of continuity

***{We have to accept continuity, if we are to have reason-based beliefs
about the world--i.e., if we are to have knowledge--since all such beliefs
rest upon it. --MJ}***

, or we
>can believe that nature sufficiently enforces the rules about how things
>pop into and out of existence that we can exist.

***{This is just a specific instance of mysticism, a.k.a. magical thinking,
a.k.a. believing what we want to believe. Such a structure of belief is not
reason-based, and, thus, is not knowledge. --MJ}***

We do not have to deny
>our existence, or even the probability of our existence, to deny the
>principle of continuity.

***{True: you can reject a flat-out proof of anything; but if you reject a
flat-out proof of continuity, all of your beliefs about the world
instantaneously cease to be reason-based--which means: they cease to be
knowledge--which means: the entire structure of your knowledge instantly
collapses. --Mitchell Jones}***

If nature sufficiently supports our existence
>with her rules, whatever they may be, and at whatever level on which we
>exist, that we can invent and apply logic itself, then that is good enough,
>a sufficient existence to indulge in science.

***{Science is a system of reason-based beliefs. That means it rests on a
chain of reasoning that connects back, through unbroken logical linkages,
to premises that are self-evident. Here, for review purposes, is that chain
of logic: science rests on induction; induction rests on continuity; the
validity of continuity rests on the fact that its denial clashes with a
contemplating being's utter certainty of his own existence. Break any link
in the chain, and you cease to be doing anything more than the hollow form
of science, because "science" is then based on nothing, and, as such, is
not reason-based--which means: it is not knowledge. --MJ}***

Neither does the practice of
>science even require the continued existence of any individual

***{I never said it did, Horace. --MJ}***

, because
>science is a social phenomenon, requiring confirmation of experiments, and
>dissemination of results.  We know with certainty that our communications,
>an absolutely vital component of science, can not be relied upon to be
>flawless, yet science proceeds anyway.

***{You apparently believe that if things occasionally popped into and out
of existence, especially if limited to the microcosm, we could live with
it, and things could go on pretty much as before. Since we wouldn't notice,
it could be happening right now. Hence, you think, that demonstrates that
continuity violations are possible. But that is totally wrong. Whether we
would notice something, or whether we could live with it if we did notice,
says nothing about whether a phenomenon is possible. Instead, whether an
event of a specific type is possible depends on whether the laws of nature
do or do not permit events of that type. The way we determine that is to
use *reason*--which means: gather facts that seem relevant to that
hypothesis, apply logic to them, and see if we can find a contradiction. If
we do, then we are constrained to conclude that events of that type are not
possible; and if we do not, then we cannot discount that type of event with
finality even if such events have never been observed. Bottom line: I
assumed that the principle of continuity might be false, and found a
contradiction. The implication is that discontinuous events are not
possible, regardless of whether we would be able to live with them or not.
--MJ}***

>
>Further, there is in fact no guarantee that even fundamental physical
>constants are not changing with time.

***{It depends on the constant. The ratio of the circumference of a circle
to its diameter isn't changing. We know that because if we assume it is, we
can demonstrate a contradiction. Other constants, for which we are unable
to produce such demonstrations, may very well be subject to change. In each
case, however, the judgment of reason is what counts, not some vague
speculations about whether we would notice such changes, or about whether
we could live with them if we did. --MJ}***

 In fact there may be evidence to the
>contrary.  This does not prevent us from attempting to apply induction to
>determine the probable rules.  However, nothing is absolutely certain.

***{Except the truth of that statement, right? Well, that's pure manure, to
which I have already responded in vast detail, and which you ignored. In
fact, some statements are absolutely certain. If, for example, you are
contemplating the question of whether you exist, the answer is absolutely
certain: you do. --MJ}***

>Science is an unending process.

***{Yup. --MJ}***

>
>If you assume the principle of continuity, and that does not work well for
>you, then it seems to me that it is not a good working assumption.  It
>denies the soundness of quantum mechanics, for example

***{Yes, but "quantum mechanics" applies only to the Copenhagen
interpretation and its modern variants, not to mathematical statements that
have been deliberately fitted to experimentally measured data points, or to
the higher-order math derived from such statements. The fact that the
proponents of "quantum mechanics" want to claim the mathematics as their
own private property doesn't mean they are justified in doing so. --MJ}***

, which is a very
>functional system of premises, despite its remaining mysteries.

***{No it isn't. The mathematics claimed by QM proponents is functional,
but it is also *theory neutral*, and doesn't give a hoot about the
metaphysical presuppositions of those who use it. (All who plug in the same
numbers and do the same manipulations will get the same answers.) Thus the
metaphysics associated with "quantum mechanics" is all the QM proponents
can rightly claim, and that metaphysics is just the magical thinking of
primordial savages, dressed up in fancy new clothes. As such it is an
utterly pointless and dysfunctional system of premises which differs little
in terms of substance from predecessors that existed in the stone age.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Materials
>scientists daily make great and practical progress using QM as an accepted
>tool

***{No they don't. The progress comes from using the math, not from using
the stone age system of metaphysics. Since QM cannot justifiably claim the
math, they cannot claim the progress that results from using the math.
--MJ}***

, similar to the manner in which mechanical engineers use mechanics.
>If it works so well

***{That which works isn't "quantum mechanics," and that which really is
"quantum mechanics" does not work. --MJ}***

, and denies the applicability of the principle of
>continuity to all levels of reality, then I say the principle of continuity
>is suspect too

***{You can obviously say anything you please. The question is, can you
refute my proof that you are wrong? --MJ}***

, not just quantum mechanics.  In any event, neither is a
>scientific certainty.  The principle of continuity is merely
>philosophically palatable.

***{Not if you cannot refute the proof that says you are wrong. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 01:09:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA09970;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:08:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:08:53 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A combination approach
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:08:13 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <kjn2nss02o5dv2t75phafipgmet38ip5ca 4ax.com>
References: <unu1nso0rk26uckhuu39abbvgt80b0ioav 4ax.com> <39715472.E914B20E@eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <39715472.E914B20E eskimo.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 BAA09953
Resent-Message-ID: <"PbG6x1.0.iR2.JsMSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36210
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 Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:21:38 -0700:
[snip]
>Should classically radiate? Yes.
>
>But why would this be a model for the electron? 1/r potential
>does not confine the path to circular orbits that spin about an
>axis...

I'm trying to preserve as much of Mills as possible, while avoiding what I
perceive as potential problems with his model. I.e. what happens where
spherical and ellipsoidal (?) shells interact in Mills' model?
If Mills thin shells are replaced as described in this thread, such
interaction is not a problem, because electrons will avoid one another at
intersections (they will adjust their relative phase, such as to minimise
the interaction).
I also wonder how Mills can say that his hydrinos can't absorb EM radiation,
yet are subject to the Compton effect?
(I would have put this question to the hydrino study group, but I find it
too restrictive in it's new format).

>
>> Suppose it does, 
>
>Experiment shows it doesn't, but then, I guess that depends on how you
>want to define radiate.

Yes, experiment only shows that it doesn't collapse.
Puthoff et. al propose a model where the electron is in balance with the
ZPE. The difference here is that the exchange takes place entirely within
the atom, rather than with external radiation, and also standing rather than
travelling waves are involved.
Note that it isn't necessary that there only be a single frequency involved,
but possibly a whole slew of frequencies with the restriction that they be
quantised such that they are resonant within the chamber.
I remember reading a paper by the Russian Sapogin, wherein he derives the de
Broglie wavelength from a packet of superimposed waves. Unfortunately I
don't remember the details well enough to know whether or not they were
quantised.

>
>> but because of
>> the shape of its path, the radiation is confined within that path (i.e.
>> within the atom) in the form of a standing EM wave, with which the electron
>> continually exchanges energy. Could the wavelength of such a standing wave
>> be the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?
>
>That the experimental radius of the hydrogen atom is in rough
>agreement with the debroglie wavelength this was was shown a
>long time ago.

I am aware of that. I'm trying to make the model not only self consistent,
but also consistent with all known experiments, and with classical physics.
This model also has the advantage that it describes the de Broglie wave as a
real entity, i.e. the standing EM wave(s), rather than just a mathematical
phantom.
[snip]
The problem is,....I don't know whether or not the math pans out.

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 Jul 16 01:16:37 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA11793;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:15:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:15:55 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5971baeec04 [12.21.208.141]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:17:35 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Relativistic net charge expands universe?  (corrected)
Resent-Message-ID: <"LabL9.0.Bu2.xyMSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36211
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
to differing relativistic effects occuring with repect to multiple
particles at varying velocities.

On p.492 of *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz provides the
equation for relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

which can be interpreted to mean apparent charge is reduced to observers in
line with the charge velocity and increased when viewed (felt) from the
side.

NOTE - it is not standard physics to interpret pancaking as a change in
apparent charge (standard relativity assumes charge is invariant with
velocity) but rather a change in observered field strength, but I think it
is clear we are free to interpret the above equations either way.

Consider an atom where the electrons whiz around a nucleus. They present
some degree of pancaking from any angle viewed.  Some directions apparent
charge is increased and some directions decreased.  The polar orientation
of atom orbitals is mixed in a uniform way due to the orientation of atoms
being mixed in a uniform way.

The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
integrating:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2.  If the integration result is
non-zero then the net charge makes sense.

With b small, this intergal K is equivalent to

   K =  (1 - b)  b^(1/2) integral [1/(3(cos^2 theta) + 1/b^2)^(1/2)] d theta

   K =  (1 - b)  b^(1/2) integral [1/(1/b)] d theta

where the constant of integration is zero, so:

   K =  (1 - b)  b^(1/2) b [2 Pi]

   K =  2 Pi b^3/2

     = 2 Pi (v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

   K = 2 Pi v^3/c^3

which yelds a very small net charge Q_net available to expand the universe:

   Q_net = K Q = 2 Pi v^3/c^3 Q

where v is approxiately equal to the average speed of the electrons, be
they in non-ionized atoms or in plasmas with balanced charges, and Q is the
total coulombs of electrons in the subject matter.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 02:15:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA20507;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:15:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:15:16 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b597225e7e33 [12.21.211.199]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:17:07 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"uLRl_2.0.H05.ZqNSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36212
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:01 AM 7/16/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:

[snip attempt by Mitchel to suck me into an interminable reguritation of
meaningless argument and non-germain argument based upon disputed premises,
and for which I do not have time]

>>A sound argument requires a valid argument, i.e. one which follows the
>>rules of deductive logic, PLUS is based on true premises.  The truth of the
>>premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.
>
>***{This is usually true, but when we are dealing with axiomatic truths
>that lie at the base of the structure of human knowledge, it breaks down.


In other words YOUR axiomatic truths!  If you can not accept the above
statement then even your logic differs from mine.  This is a useless
discussion.  However, I pretty much knew that from the beginning.


>In the case where a person is contemplating the issue of his own existence,
>for example, logic has something to say--to wit: it says that you cannot
>contemplate the issue, if you do not exist. Hence if you do so, then the
>probability, Pe, that you exist is 1.0. --MJ}***


The above is false if it assumes that the "you" doing the contemplating is
the same physical you that was doing the contemplating a second ago or will
be the same physical you that will being continuing the thought in another
second.  The linking of what it is doing the thinking to physical
continuity is false.


>
>Hence Inductive logic only supplies probable conclusions, not necessary
>>conclusions.  It leads but does not determine.  Inductive logic supplies no
>>guarantees.
>
>***{True enough, but as noted above, some premises are so fundamental that,
>if we deny them, we engage in an act of self-contradiction.


The above is not an argument, it is a premise, and false at that.  You can
not be self-contradictory without having premises that self-contradict.
You have to assume both X and not X for example.   Also, I mention as an
aside, you can develop a wonderfully consistent small set of premises that
implies an infinite number of valid conclusions, yet that provides no
guarantee that you are engaged in science if the conclusions do not agree
with experiment.


Such premises
>deductively self-establish themselves, which means they are what is known
>as *self-evident*.


At one time it was self-evident the earth was flat.  If you don't agree
with my definition of a sound argument then we are simply incapable of
reaching any conclusion.


>Since the epistemological validity of the principle of
>continuity is *not* based on induction, but upon the fact that the denial
>of continuity stands in contradiction with a premise that is self-evident,
>the argument you are attempting does not apply. --MJ}***


I say once again, you have supplied no such premise that is acceptable.


>
>>
>>Science provides us with no iron clad guarantee that we exist now
>
>***{True, but logic provides an ironclad guarantee that if you are in the
>act of contemplating your own existence, or of doubting it, or of denying
>it, then you exist--which means, under those circumstances, that Pe = 1.0.
>--MJ}***


But it says nothing about what "you" are physically.


>
>, or
>>existed prior, or will continue to exist, or that things can or can not pop
>>into and out of existence.
>
>***{Of course not: science is based on inductive reasoning.


Science is created by inductive reasoning, but founded upon experimentally
verified premises.  When a premise or set of premises implies a result that
is at any time not obtained experimentally, then the premise is thrown out.
This discussion was started by your refusal a priori to throw out the
principle of continuity if experimentally proven false.  Therefore I said
and continue to say you are not practicing science but some kind of
religion.  All your digression and piling up of words has not changed this
one hair of a camel's nose.



>The fact that
>science cannot produce such guarantees, however, does not mean no such
>guarantees can be provided. Scientific knowledge, after all, is only a part
>of the structure of human knowledge. The premises on which science is
>based, and the techniques for their validation, lie in natural philosophy
>(also known as philosophy of science, or metaphysics). And it is in that
>area that an ironclad guarantee that things cannot pop into and out of
>existence is to be found. --MJ}***

That iron clad guarantee is in your ASSUMED premises that you CALL self
evident. It is therefore part of you belief system, as I said from the
beginning.  You are giving philosophical arguments for something that can
be experimentally detemined, so I consider you to be operating outside the
realm of science.

[Once again snip arguments based on false assumptions]

I we can't even get past a definition of a sound argument then why bother
with all the rest.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 03:16:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA29480;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:15:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:15:28 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>
In-Reply-To: <39713468.51954DC1 ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>	
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>
 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 05:12:56 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"7xJDu3.0.YC7._iOSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36213
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip]

***{The following is in response to Ed Storms. --MJ}***

I can only point out
>> >> that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
>> >> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
>> >> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
>> >
>> >No, this is an assumption.  As Horace pointed out, particles on a quantum
>> >scale
>> >can leap into existence out of nothing without this phenomenon affecting
>> >our world
>> >and our experience in it.  Your leap of logic from the particular to the
>> >general
>> >hides an assumption.  The assumption is that the behavior of an individual
>> >particle can change our perceptions, which are based on the behavior of
>>many
>> >particles, most of which are not leaping into existence out of nothing.
>>
>> ***{Not true. I didn't say: "We are forced to change our perceptions." I
>> said: "We are forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of
>> reasoning." To see the difference, let's get concrete: if you believe that
>> the proposition "There are no unicorns" is true, then whenever you hear
>> someone say "I have a pet unicorn," or "I was gored by a unicorn," or "A
>> unicorn ate the tops off of all the carrots in my garden," you can say:
>> "You are nutty as a fruitcake. There are no unicorns." However, once you
>> decide that you have seen your first unicorn, you can no longer use the
>> statement "There are no unicorns" as a tool in your reasoning. After that
>> seminal event, if your neighbor says "Two unicorn stags kept me awake until
>> 2 a.m. last night fighting in my back  yard," you will have to say: "It is
>> possible that what you are saying is true."
>
>OK, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree, if a particle is found to
>jump into existence out of nothing, the principle of continuity is shot to
>Hell.
>I would then have to ask, "so what"?

***{The "so what" is that we can no longer use the principle of continuity
as a tool of reasoning--which means: step (3)(b) in my proof (see below)
does in fact follow from step (3)(a). --MJ}***

  If this one particle doing its jump, or even
>a few of them, would not change my perception of the world then the
>principle of
>continuity has no use to me.

***{I didn't say it wouldn't change our perception of the world, Ed. Nor
did I say it *would* change our perception of the world. What I said was
this:

>if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
>nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or elsewhere--then we are
>forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.

However, now that you have raised the issue of the effects on our
perceptions, I must say that the restoration of magical thinking has, in
fact, had an enormous effect on the perceptions of most people. Think about
it: in a mere 100 years, people have abandoned the enlightenment view that
we live in a clockwork universe ruled by an inexorable causality, and have
returned to the magical worldview of primordial savages, where anything
goes and things pop randomly into and out of existence. The degree of the
change, to any person with an understanding of history, has been mind
boggling in its extent.

--Mitchell Jones}***

The logic becomes only a mental game.

***{A flat-out proof of the epistemological validity of the principle of
continuity would restore the enlightment worldview--the worldview which,
not coincidentally, led to the industrial revolution, the rise of
capitalism and freedom, rapidly improving standards of living around the
world, and a century (the 19th) that was uncommonly free from war. With
such stakes on the table, such a proof is most assuredly *not* merely a
mental game. --MJ}***

I would
>better conclude that the principle of continuity seems to act most of the time
>and, for all practical purposes, provides me with a useful view of the
>world, much
>like most theories in science.  This is much like seeing a unicorn once
>but never
>again encountering another. The existence of unicorns would have very little
>relevance to my life.  In fact, this is also like cold fusion.  If I can't
>make
>heat on a regular basis, having made it once is not very useful.  So, if
>particles
>are jumping into and out of existence below my level of perception, then I
>don't
>care whether the principle of continuity exist or not, just like you do
>not yet
>care whether cold fusion exists or not.

***{I repeat: a proof of the epistemological validity of the principle of
continuity changes everything about our views of the world and of science.
For example, it puts the "why?" back into physics, by restoring the
supremacy of classical mechanics. No longer would we be content to merely
describe the behavior of things in mathematical terms. Instead, we would
also have to *explain* the behavior by showing how it arose out of the
interactions of lesser entities. (According to the classical worldview, all
of the phenomena of nature are explicable in terms of the interactions of
lesser entities. This was the view known as *reductionism.*) That means the
traditional distinction between mathematical and theoretical physics would
be restored, and physics departments would once again contain thinkers who
spent most of their time attempting to construct models that made sense out
of the mathematics, and who made no apologies for doing so. Bottom line:
the stakes here are huge, and this debate is in no sense merely a game.
--MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> And, of course, at that point you are in the soup, because if the
>> probability is greater than zero that your sensations are leaping into
>> existence out of nothing, then the probability is less than 1.0 that you
>> exist. Result: a flat-out contradiction is established between your certain
>> knowledge that you exist, and the implications of the denial of continuity.
>> Result: you are constrained to conclude that the denial of continuity is
>> false, and, as a consequence, that the principle of continuity must be true.
>
>At this point you jump from the particular to the general by making the
>assumption
>that a relationship exists between the two.  Particles making the big jump
>have
>absolutely no relationship to your or my existence.  We can just as well exist
>while watching the jump and marvel at the process.

***{A truly sophisticated person--a deep thinker--would note that such an
event has very disturbing implications. He would note that if the thing--a
pink elephant that appeared after the 16th beer, say--were deemed real,
then the possibility of other events of that kind would be established.
Result: it would be possible that sensations themselves might be leaping
into existence out of nothing--and thus it would be possible that *all*
sensations were doing that--which means: it would be possible that the
external world, your body, your brain, your memories, and your self, do not
exist. Result: steps (3)(b), (3)(c), and (3)(d) of my proof (see below)
follow. --MJ}***

Indeed, we may even discover
>that the particles are not coming from "nothing" as we first thought, but
>from a
>realm of existence we heretofore did not believe existed. Then what
>appeared to be
>a proof for the destruction of the principle of continuity no longer would be
>true.

***{Indeed, we know for a fact that any apparent instance of a continuity
violation will turn out, in the long run, to have been merely apparent and
not real. (The pink elephant, for example, turns out to have been a
hallucination induced by drinking too much alcohol.) The reason: we can
*flatly prove* the epistemological validity of the principle of continuity.
All we have to do is assume it is false and show a contradiction. (See
below.) --MJ}***

>
>>
>> It's real sad! :-)
>>
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>>
>> >
>> >> And,
>> >> if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible*
>>that
>> >> all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.
>> >
>> >It is possible but not very likely.  Nevertheless, I do not discount the
>> >possibility that some of my and your sensations do just that.  The
>> >question is, so
>> >what?
>>
>> ***{So what? The "what," of course, is that my indirect proof of the
>> principle of continuity then follows. (Note: to construct an indirect proof
>> of a proposition, you assume it is false, and then show a contradiction.
>> Thus to prove the principle of continuity indirectly, you demonstrate that
>> the denial of continuity leads to a contradiction.)
>
>It leads to a contradiction only because you design the logic to produce the
>contradiction.  You make "a particle leaping out of nothing" equal to "our
>existence" when, in fact, this equality is only an assumption.

***{I do nothing of the kind. Your statement is so utterly incoherent, in
fact, that I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. I can
only suppose you made the statement after your 16th beer, just before you
saw the pink elephant. :-) --MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> Remember your response to what I said earlier:
>>
>> >>>That I know with utter and absolute
>> >>> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible
>>with that
>> >>> certainty must be false?
>> >>
>> >>These are truths I accept as well.
>>
>> Since you have now accepted every premise of my argument, you are firmly
>> enmeshed in its coils, and are now constrained to accept the conclusion. To
>> refresh your memory, therefore, here is the proof again (between the lines
>> of asterisks), broken down into numbered steps:
>>
>> ********************************************
>> (1) Every reasoning person knows with utter and absolute certainty that he
>> exists, because you can't doubt your existence, if you do not exist. That
>> means the probability of the existence of any person who considers the
>> issue (call it Pe) is such that Pe = 1.0.
>>
>> (2) Every premise which is incompatible with that certainty must be false.
>>
>> (3) If we assume the principle of continuity is false, the following
>> reasoning applies:
>>
>> (a) If things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
>> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or elsewhere--then we are
>> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
>
>This is a derivation based on your assumptions, not an absolute truth.

***{The sole purpose of step (3)(a) above, is to provide a logical
connection to (3)(b), below. Since you accept the validity of step (3)(b)
when you agree that it is "possible but not probable" (see below), it is
clear that step (3)(a) served its intended purpose. --MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> (b) If we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible*
>> that all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.
>
>Possible but not probable.

***{I didn't say it was probable. All I need to establish is that it is
possible, in order to provide a logical link to the next step, which is
(3)(c), below. Thus you have now accepted the validity of step (3)(b).
--MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> (c) If we do that, then we have to admit that the external world, our
>> bodies, our brains, and our memories may not exist.
>
>If you assume the extreme, then the extreme conclusion follows.

***{I didn't assume it, Ed, I proved it. Once you grant--as you did--that
all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing,  it
follows by inexorable logic that the external world, our bodies, our
brains, and our memories may not exist. --MJ}***

 On the other
>hand, it is just as valid to assume the opposite extreme, i.e. particles
>leaping
>into existence out of nothing and vanishing into nothing have no effect
>whatsoever
>on our bodies, brains or memories.

***{Irrelevant. The nature of the world is not given to us. Each person is
in the position of having to laboriously construct his view of that world,
by a process of inference which uses sensations as input. Thus the fact
that you can imagine a world in which discontinuities are benign in their
physical effects does not mean that such a state of affairs is given to you
as a fact. You still are in the position of attempting to infer what is out
there from the contents of your sensory inputs. And, from the perspective
of a person who is trying to infer what is out there, the possibility that
the sensory inputs are leaping into existence out of nothing leads
inexorably to the conclusion that the external world, his body, his brain,
and his memories may not exist. Result: step (3)(c) in the proof stands.
--MJ}***

If this assumption is adopted, the principle
>of continuity becomes a trivial mental construct, much like the logic used
>by the
>Church many years ago to determine how many angels could dance on the head
>of a
>pin.

***{You are not thinking clearly. It is not an assumption: it is an
unavoidable step in the logical chain of the proof, as explained above.
--MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> (d) If we do that, then we are forced to concede that it is possible that
>> we do not exist--which means: Pe < 1.0.
>
>Only using your extreme assumption.

***{I repeat: it isn't an assumption; it is a derived step in the proof. I
realize this is very unfamiliar territory for most people, and it is easy
to become confused. I can only suggest that you think long and hard about
my comments, above. If you do so, I think you will eventually be able to
grasp the limitations that face a person who is trying to infer the nature
of the world from sense data. Once you do, it will become clear to you
that, since your benign scenario is not given as a fact, such a thinker is
forced to open himself to the less benign scenario *as a possibility*. From
his perspective, the extreme scenario is possible--which means: Pe < 1.0,
and step (3)(d) stands. Result: the contradiction between the denial of
continuity and a thinker's utter certainty of his own existence is
established. Result: the denial of continuity must be false--which means:
the principle of continuity must be true. --MJ}***

 My assumption is that we always exist no
>matter what the particles are doing.
>
>>
>>
>> (4) Since the conclusion of (3)(d) is in direct contradiction with the
>> conclusion of (1), above--we cannot simultaneously say that Pe = 1.0, and
>> that Pe < 1.0--it is clear that the denial of continuity stands flatly in
>> contradiction to our absolute certainty of our own existence. Thus by (2),
>> above, it follows that the principle of continuity must be true. Q.E.D.
>> ********************************************
>>
>> While you quibbled with the wording of (3)(a), you nevertheless conceded
>> that (3)(b) is implied. Therefore the chain of logic was unbroken, and the
>> conclusion inexorably follows: the principle of continuity must be true.
>>
>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>>
>> We work around these distractions which sometime provide unexpected
>> >insight.  The world is a chaotic place in which logical relationships
>> >break down.
>> >Most of us just note the fact and move on.
>>
>> ***{If the above proof is correct, then the world is *not* "a chaotic place
>> in which logical relationships break down." Thus before you can safely
>> "note the fact and move on," you need to find a hole in the proof. Thus
>> far, despite some quibbling, you have not denied any link in the chain of
>> reasoning. --MJ}***
>
>Oh, but I think I have, Mitchell.  I have no problem with your logic, which is
>flawless.  I just do not agree with your assumptions as already noted.

***{After you read my annotations, above, I hope you will think again. --MJ}***

[snip]

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 07:08:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04260;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:07:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:07:02 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b59763e4600f [12.21.211.199]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 06:08:58 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: A combination approach
Resent-Message-ID: <"yNexw1.0.Q21.56SSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36214
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:01 PM 7/16/0, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>In reply to  Michael Johnston's message of Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:58:01 -0400:
>[snip]
>>Kinda perpetual motion isn't it? You describe the wave and the electron
>>as two separate entities here. The electron being a speck of matter and
>>the wave not. Are you saying the field of the electron is holding the
>>wave into it's pathway (kinda like a black hole bends and swallows
>>light)?
>What I'm saying is that spacetime is elastic, and that the spherical atom
>acts like a little resonant chamber. The electron continually exchanging
>energy with the resonance in the chamber, such that none of the energy of
>the resonance is lost.
>Thus to the outside world, the electron doesn't appear to radiate, but in
>fact it is continually doing so, and also continually receiving back again,
>that which it radiated.
>Sort of analogous to an antenna inside a copper sphere. Outside the sphere,
>you don't detect any radiation. Another analogy is the blackbody radiation
>in a closed cavity.


I think there is a problem with this idea.  In the classical model of
radiation, the radiation is tangential to the electron's path.
Experimentally, if you wiggle the path of an electron side to side, photons
are emitted in the direction of electron travel.

I don't know much about QED.  However, I do know things do not work out in
QED if you do not include a small but finite probability of virtal photon
reabsorbtion, which means an electron is capable of re-absorbing a virtual
photon that it emits itself!  The virtual photons become "real photons" in
the case of an accelerating electron only if they are not self-absorbed.
Since this probability is small, a circular or "spherical" path electron
should still radiate because the re-absorbtion probability is small.  You
can make the "electron is everywhere simultaneously" in the orbital
argument, but there exists an outer envelope where the probability of the
electron self-absorbing a photon beyond that radius is very small, thus the
electon must always radiate at least somewhat.

Below I dug out some old derivations I posted on vortex at one time for
consideration of light lepton orbital radii, but it applies to the electron
as well, so gives both a ground state radius and an electron velocity for
use in comparing ground state radius to deBroglie wavelength, which
calculations are appended.


NEWTONIAN LOOK AT THE BOHR TYPE CALCULATION FOR LEPTONS

The kinetic energy of the lepton in orbit radius r is given by:

(1)    K = q^2/((8Pi)(e0)(r)) = (1/2)(m)(v^2)

So velocity:

(2)    v = (q^2/((4pi)(e0)(r)(m))^0.5

Given m1 = mass of light electron, m2 = mass of heavy, v1 velocity of
light, v2 velocity of heavy, at a given r this gives:

(3)    v1/v2 = (m2/m1)^0.5

The lighter the particle the faster the particle at a given r.  Similarly
the rotational frequency is proportional to (1/m)^0.5, while momentum and
angular momentum are proportional to (m)^0.5 at a given r, e.g.:

(4)    p = mv = ((m)(q^2)/(4(pi)e0(r))^0.5

Given that the radius is quantized to:

(5)    r = (n^2) ((h^2)(e0))/((pi)(q^2)(m)),  for n = 1,2,3, ...

For the Bohr radius (n=1) or any specific quantum state (n>1), using r1 for
light, r2 for heavy, the radius ratio is given by:

(6)    r1/r2 = m2/m1

So, the bigger the mass the smaller the radius and vice versa.

However, we can't just chose mass and velocity any old way.  Let's just
consider ground state for a moment. Substitute n=1 and (5) into (2):

(7)    v = (q^2/((4pi)(e0)[(h^2)(e0)/((pi)(q^2)(m))](m))^0.5

Simplifying:

(8)    v^2 = ((q^2)(pi)(m)(q^2))/(4(pi)(e0)(m)(h^2)(e0))

(9)    v^2 = q^4/(4(h^2)(e0^2))

(10)   v = q^2/(2(e0)(h))    (Note that mass cancels)

(11)   q = 1.60x10^-19 coul

(12)   e0 = 8.85x10^-12 coul^2/nt-m^2

(13)   h = 6.63x10^-34 joule-sec

(14)   v = (1.60x10^-19 coul)^2/(2(8.85x10^-12 coul^2/nt-m^2)
            (6.63x10^-34 joule-sec))

(15)   v = 2.18x10^6 m/s

Now to compare electron velocity to the deBroglie wavelength given by:

(16)   lambda = h/(m_e v)

using:

(17)   m_e = 9.11x10^-31 kg

Substituting (10) into (16) we have:

(18)   lambda = h/(m_e q^2/(2(e0)(h)))

(19)   lambda = 2(e0)(h^2)/(m_e q^2)

And looking at r/lambda, we substitute (5) for r to obtain:

(20)   r/lambda = [(n^2) ((h^2)(e0))/((pi)(q^2)(m_e))] /

                     [2(e0)(h^2)/(m_e q^2)],      for n = 1,2,3, ...

(21)   = (n^2)(h^2)(e0)(m_e q^2) / [(pi)(q^2)(m_e)2(e0)(h^2)],

                             for n = 1,2,3, ...

(22)   r/lambda = (n^2) / (2 pi),      for n = 1,2,3, ...

so the radius is too small for n = 1 or 2, and too large for n > 2.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 07:36:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA09747;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:35:32 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:35:32 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b5977707df08 [12.21.209.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 06:37:30 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Perspective and THE INTELLECTUAL CHICKEN
Resent-Message-ID: <"j7DIH.0.DO2.qWSSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36215
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given the philosophical nature of recent digressions, including discussions
of the chicken and the egg problem, perhaps it is good to recall a broader
and more humorous perpective.

THE INTELLECTUAL CHICKEN
                   - Submitted by KTones
         ____________________________________

              For all you philosophers out there.....

Q: WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
A: SEE BELOW

Darwin:
-------
Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally
selected in such a way that they are now genetically
dispositioned to cross roads.

Freud:
-------
The fact that you thought that the chicken crossed the road
reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.

Machiavelli:
-------------
The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who
cares why? The ends of crossing the road justify whatever
motive there was.

Albert Camus:
---------------
It doesn't matter; the chicken's actions
have no meaning except to him.

Oliver Stone:
--------------
The question is not "Why did the chicken cross the
road?" but is rather "Who was crossing the road at the same time whom
we overlooked in our haste to observe the chicken crossing?"

Bill Clinton:
--------------
It wasn't me. I wasn't chasing the chicken. There was no inappropriate
relationship between me and the chicken

Newt Gingrich
--------------
Because the Chicken was kicked out of the coop.

Jerry Seinfeld:
--------------
Why does anyone cross a road? I mean, why doesn't
anyone ever think to ask, "What the heck was this chicken doing
walking around all over the place anyway?"

Martin Luther King, Jr.:
------------------------
I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads
without having their motives called into question.

Immanuel Kant:
--------------
The chicken, being an autonomous being, chose to cross
the road of his own free will.

George Orwell:
-------------
Because the government had fooled him into thinking
that he was crossing the road of his own free will, when he was really
only serving their interests.

Karl Marx:
--------------
It was a historical inevitability.

Nietzsche:
------------
Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road
gazes also across you.

Jean-Paul Sartre:
------------------
In order to act in good faith and be true to itself,
the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.

Albert Einstein:
-----------------
Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road
crossed the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.

Buddha:
-------
If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken nature.

Ralph Waldo Emerson:
---------------------
It didn't cross the road; it transcended it.

Ernest Hemingway:
-----------------
To die. In the rain.

Bill Gates:
-----------
I have just released the new Chicken 2000, which will
both cross roads, balance your checkbook, and solve your Y2K problem

Colonel Sanders of KFC:
------------------------
I missed one?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 09:09:31 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA31770;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:08:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:08:54 -0700
Message-ID: <006901bfef40$2120b400$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>	<v04011701b595039676c7@[207.8.127.51]><v04011700b59594454b8e@[207.8.127.51]> <v04011700b59714f1840c@[207.8.127.70]>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:08:46 -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: <"hHzog1.0.Km7.MuTSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36216
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Again you have proven nothing - for what you ASSUME nothing to actually be
and what it truly is can be very different - your FAITH in what nothing is,
shows you believe in religion - not science.  You are no better than the
scared peasant farmer of 5000 years ago that saw a rock fall on his fields
and assumed it magically came from nothing - or perhaps a god punishing him.
You are no better than a religious zealot living in Greece thinking Zues
created a lightning bolt out of nothing and sent it down to play a chess
game with mankind.  I do not know what this "nothing" is that you claim
particles leap in and out from - but I am sure you do not know what it is
either - so any assumptions you make about nothing - and proofs you try to
base upon it - are worthless.  When you can more accurately define this
"nothing" upon which your proof rests - then there will be "something" to
discuss - haha.

> Result: it would be possible that sensations themselves might be leaping
> into existence out of nothing--and thus it would be possible that *all*
> sensations were doing that--which means: it would be possible that the
> external world, your body, your brain, your memories, and your self, do
not
> exist. Result: steps (3)(b), (3)(c), and (3)(d) of my proof (see below)
> follow. --MJ}***

> ***{I didn't assume it, Ed, I proved it. Once you grant--as you did--that
> all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing,  it
> follows by inexorable logic that the external world, our bodies, our
> brains, and our memories may not exist. --MJ}***
>
>  On the other
> >hand, it is just as valid to assume the opposite extreme, i.e. particles
> >leaping
> >into existence out of nothing and vanishing into nothing have no effect
> >whatsoever
> >on our bodies, brains or memories.
>
> ***{Irrelevant. The nature of the world is not given to us. Each person is
> in the position of having to laboriously construct his view of that world,
> by a process of inference which uses sensations as input. Thus the fact
> that you can imagine a world in which discontinuities are benign in their
> physical effects does not mean that such a state of affairs is given to
you
> as a fact. You still are in the position of attempting to infer what is
out
> there from the contents of your sensory inputs. And, from the perspective
> of a person who is trying to infer what is out there, the possibility that
> the sensory inputs are leaping into existence out of nothing leads
> inexorably to the conclusion that the external world, his body, his brain,
> and his memories may not exist. Result: step (3)(c) in the proof stands.
> --MJ}***


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 10:38:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22442;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:37:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:37:52 -0700
Message-ID: <3971F40D.2CF542EC ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:42:50 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>	
	 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>
	 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]> <v04011700b59714f1840c@[207.8.127.70]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VNrm71.0.aU5.mBVSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36217
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> [snip]
>
> ***{The following is in response to Ed Storms. --MJ}***
>
> I can only point out
> >> >> that if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
> >> >> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or otherwise--then we are
> >> >> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
> >> >
> >> >No, this is an assumption.  As Horace pointed out, particles on a quantum
> >> >scale
> >> >can leap into existence out of nothing without this phenomenon affecting
> >> >our world
> >> >and our experience in it.  Your leap of logic from the particular to the
> >> >general
> >> >hides an assumption.  The assumption is that the behavior of an individual
> >> >particle can change our perceptions, which are based on the behavior of
> >>many
> >> >particles, most of which are not leaping into existence out of nothing.
> >>
> >> ***{Not true. I didn't say: "We are forced to change our perceptions." I
> >> said: "We are forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of
> >> reasoning." To see the difference, let's get concrete: if you believe that
> >> the proposition "There are no unicorns" is true, then whenever you hear
> >> someone say "I have a pet unicorn," or "I was gored by a unicorn," or "A
> >> unicorn ate the tops off of all the carrots in my garden," you can say:
> >> "You are nutty as a fruitcake. There are no unicorns." However, once you
> >> decide that you have seen your first unicorn, you can no longer use the
> >> statement "There are no unicorns" as a tool in your reasoning. After that
> >> seminal event, if your neighbor says "Two unicorn stags kept me awake until
> >> 2 a.m. last night fighting in my back  yard," you will have to say: "It is
> >> possible that what you are saying is true."
> >
> >OK, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree, if a particle is found to
> >jump into existence out of nothing, the principle of continuity is shot to
> >Hell.
> >I would then have to ask, "so what"?
>
> ***{The "so what" is that we can no longer use the principle of continuity
> as a tool of reasoning--which means: step (3)(b) in my proof (see below)
> does in fact follow from step (3)(a). --MJ}***

What would prevent us from using the principle of continuity as a tool of
reasoning in our macro world when there IS apparent jumping into and out of
existence at the particle level?  Why must the principle be abandoned under all
conditions?  You see, it is this general application of your conclusion that gives
us all so much trouble.

>
>
>   If this one particle doing its jump, or even
> >a few of them, would not change my perception of the world then the
> >principle of
> >continuity has no use to me.
>
> ***{I didn't say it wouldn't change our perception of the world, Ed. Nor
> did I say it *would* change our perception of the world. What I said was
> this:

Yes, you say what you noted below, but you also say that this could affect our
perceptions as well as our very existence.  Let us not quibble over issues that
are outside of the core problem.

>
>
> >if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
> >nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or elsewhere--then we are
> >forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
>
> However, now that you have raised the issue of the effects on our
> perceptions, I must say that the restoration of magical thinking has, in
> fact, had an enormous effect on the perceptions of most people. Think about
> it: in a mere 100 years, people have abandoned the enlightenment view that
> we live in a clockwork universe ruled by an inexorable causality, and have
> returned to the magical worldview of primordial savages, where anything
> goes and things pop randomly into and out of existence. The degree of the
> change, to any person with an understanding of history, has been mind
> boggling in its extent.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> The logic becomes only a mental game.
>
> ***{A flat-out proof of the epistemological validity of the principle of
> continuity would restore the enlightment worldview--the worldview which,
> not coincidentally, led to the industrial revolution, the rise of
> capitalism and freedom, rapidly improving standards of living around the
> world, and a century (the 19th) that was uncommonly free from war. With
> such stakes on the table, such a proof is most assuredly *not* merely a
> mental game. --MJ}***

Now we have changed subjects.  We are no longer discussing the implications of a
few particles making the BIG jump.  We are now discussing how normal humans
evaluate their reality. More detail below.

>
>
> I would
> >better conclude that the principle of continuity seems to act most of the time
> >and, for all practical purposes, provides me with a useful view of the
> >world, much
> >like most theories in science.  This is much like seeing a unicorn once
> >but never
> >again encountering another. The existence of unicorns would have very little
> >relevance to my life.  In fact, this is also like cold fusion.  If I can't
> >make
> >heat on a regular basis, having made it once is not very useful.  So, if
> >particles
> >are jumping into and out of existence below my level of perception, then I
> >don't
> >care whether the principle of continuity exist or not, just like you do
> >not yet
> >care whether cold fusion exists or not.
>
> ***{I repeat: a proof of the epistemological validity of the principle of
> continuity changes everything about our views of the world and of science.
> For example, it puts the "why?" back into physics, by restoring the
> supremacy of classical mechanics. No longer would we be content to merely
> describe the behavior of things in mathematical terms. Instead, we would
> also have to *explain* the behavior by showing how it arose out of the
> interactions of lesser entities. (According to the classical worldview, all
> of the phenomena of nature are explicable in terms of the interactions of
> lesser entities. This was the view known as *reductionism.*) That means the
> traditional distinction between mathematical and theoretical physics would
> be restored, and physics departments would once again contain thinkers who
> spent most of their time attempting to construct models that made sense out
> of the mathematics, and who made no apologies for doing so. Bottom line:
> the stakes here are huge, and this debate is in no sense merely a game.
> --MJ}***

I agree with you, this subject has some importance.  However, I do not agree that
"proof" of the principle of continuity, as you define it, has any relationship to
the subject.

First of all, most scientists in the working world, in contrast to academia, use
both the classical as well as the quantum view of reality, depending on which
works best under the circumstances.  Second, none of these people would change
their approach whether the principle of continuity where proven to be true or
not.  The question I raise is, should we change our approach?  What benefit to me
would result if I believed the principle of continuity to be absolutely true under
all circumstances?  One result, I  suggest, would be a more consistent rejection
of any observation which seemed to violate this belief.  In other words, a person
seeing particles or people doing the BIG jump would ignore their results and
criticize any one else who made the claim.  The result would be one more blinder
placed on our ability to understand nature.

> >> snip
> >>
> >> And, of course, at that point you are in the soup, because if the
> >> probability is greater than zero that your sensations are leaping into
> >> existence out of nothing, then the probability is less than 1.0 that you
> >> exist. Result: a flat-out contradiction is established between your certain
> >> knowledge that you exist, and the implications of the denial of continuity.
> >> Result: you are constrained to conclude that the denial of continuity is
> >> false, and, as a consequence, that the principle of continuity must be true.
> >
> >At this point you jump from the particular to the general by making the
> >assumption
> >that a relationship exists between the two.  Particles making the big jump
> >have
> >absolutely no relationship to your or my existence.  We can just as well exist
> >while watching the jump and marvel at the process.
>
> ***{A truly sophisticated person--a deep thinker--would note that such an
> event has very disturbing implications. He would note that if the thing--a
> pink elephant that appeared after the 16th beer, say--were deemed real,
> then the possibility of other events of that kind would be established.
> Result: it would be possible that sensations themselves might be leaping
> into existence out of nothing--and thus it would be possible that *all*
> sensations were doing that--which means: it would be possible that the
> external world, your body, your brain, your memories, and your self, do not
> exist. Result: steps (3)(b), (3)(c), and (3)(d) of my proof (see below)
> follow. --MJ}***

Just because I know I might be fooled by my perceptions (sensations), or that
other people see things that are not there, these aberrations do not stop me from
testing reality and forming conclusions.  "That sensations (perceptions)
themselves might be leaping into existence out of nothing" is expected and common
place.  This general reality has no apparent relationship to the behavior of
particles nor would it be influenced by the principle of continuity, as you define
it.  Our conflict is between how the real world works and how pure logic works.
You have not shown the relationship between the two.

>
> Indeed, we may even discover
> >that the particles are not coming from "nothing" as we first thought, but
> >from a
> >realm of existence we heretofore did not believe existed. Then what
> >appeared to be
> >a proof for the destruction of the principle of continuity no longer would be
> >true.
>
> ***{Indeed, we know for a fact that any apparent instance of a continuity
> violation will turn out, in the long run, to have been merely apparent and
> not real. (The pink elephant, for example, turns out to have been a
> hallucination induced by drinking too much alcohol.) The reason: we can
> *flatly prove* the epistemological validity of the principle of continuity.
> All we have to do is assume it is false and show a contradiction. (See
> below.) --MJ}***

This example, chosen to have an easy explanation, provides you with a
demonstration of the principle of continuity.  However, what about the observation
of ghosts, a phenomenon which does not result from too much alcohol and which
seems to come from and go back into nothing?  Your principle of continuity would
require you to reject such observations as hallucination, thereby causing you to
miss out on understanding a very interesting phenomenon.

> >>
> >> It's real sad! :-)
> >>
> >> --Mitchell Jones}***
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> And,
> >> >> if we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible*
> >>that
> >> >> all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.
> >> >
> >> >It is possible but not very likely.  Nevertheless, I do not discount the
> >> >possibility that some of my and your sensations do just that.  The
> >> >question is, so
> >> >what?
> >>
> >> ***{So what? The "what," of course, is that my indirect proof of the
> >> principle of continuity then follows. (Note: to construct an indirect proof
> >> of a proposition, you assume it is false, and then show a contradiction.
> >> Thus to prove the principle of continuity indirectly, you demonstrate that
> >> the denial of continuity leads to a contradiction.)
> >
> >It leads to a contradiction only because you design the logic to produce the
> >contradiction.  You make "a particle leaping out of nothing" equal to "our
> >existence" when, in fact, this equality is only an assumption.
>
> ***{I do nothing of the kind. Your statement is so utterly incoherent, in
> fact, that I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. I can
> only suppose you made the statement after your 16th beer, just before you
> saw the pink elephant. :-) --MJ}***

This is an example of a conceptual disconnect.  You are so sure your proof is
correct that you do not see the implied assumption.  When you say "a particle
leaping out of nothing" has an effect on, can influence, has a relationship to our
existence or our sensations, you are making an assumption.  This relationship is
not a fact of nature, it is only a statement you make in order to arrive at the
conclusion you wish to prove, i.e. if particles could make the BIG jump then "it
would be possible that sensations themselves might be leaping into existence out
of nothing--and thus it would be possible that *all* sensations were doing
that--which means: it would be possible that the external world, your body, your
brain, your memories, and your self, do not exist."  This is a classic case of
assuming one's conclusions.  Once "jump' equals "existence" than your conclusion
naturally follows.  But what if there were no relationship between "jump" and
"existence".  Suppose, all kinds of particles did the "jump" and we were still
here.  If this were how reality actually worked, your conclusion would be false.
Since we do not know for sure whether particles can make such a "jump", although
they appear to, we do not know whether the equality you assume is true or not.
Therefore, we do not know whether your conclusion is true or not.  Consequently,
the debate is pointless and deserves a "so what?" because you have only proven
your assumptions.

> >>
> >> Remember your response to what I said earlier:
> >>
> >> >>>That I know with utter and absolute
> >> >>> certainty that I exist? That every premise which is incompatible
> >>with that
> >> >>> certainty must be false?
> >> >>
> >> >>These are truths I accept as well.
> >>
> >> Since you have now accepted every premise of my argument, you are firmly
> >> enmeshed in its coils, and are now constrained to accept the conclusion. To
> >> refresh your memory, therefore, here is the proof again (between the lines
> >> of asterisks), broken down into numbered steps:
> >>
> >> ********************************************
> >> (1) Every reasoning person knows with utter and absolute certainty that he
> >> exists, because you can't doubt your existence, if you do not exist. That
> >> means the probability of the existence of any person who considers the
> >> issue (call it Pe) is such that Pe = 1.0.
> >>
> >> (2) Every premise which is incompatible with that certainty must be false.
> >>
> >> (3) If we assume the principle of continuity is false, the following
> >> reasoning applies:
> >>
> >> (a) If things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into
> >> nothing *in any realm*--whether the microcosm or elsewhere--then we are
> >> forced to give up the principle of continuity as a tool of reasoning.
> >
> >This is a derivation based on your assumptions, not an absolute truth.
>
> ***{The sole purpose of step (3)(a) above, is to provide a logical
> connection to (3)(b), below. Since you accept the validity of step (3)(b)
> when you agree that it is "possible but not probable" (see below), it is
> clear that step (3)(a) served its intended purpose. --MJ}***
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> (b) If we give it up, we are then forced to concede that it is *possible*
> >> that all of our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing.
> >
> >Possible but not probable.
>
> ***{I didn't say it was probable. All I need to establish is that it is
> possible, in order to provide a logical link to the next step, which is
> (3)(c), below. Thus you have now accepted the validity of step (3)(b).
> --MJ}***

Just because something is possible does not mean it will actually occur, no matter
how pure the logic. For example, it is possible for a star to approach the earth
and move the earth to another star system inhabited by intelligent beings.  Would
you want to base your behavior or belief system on this possibility?  In our
discussion, you suggest something that is so remotely possible (i.e. that all of
our sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing) in order to prove a
conclusion which is just as remotely possible, because it is based on a very
remote possibility.

> >>snip
>
>  On the other
> >hand, it is just as valid to assume the opposite extreme, i.e. particles
> >leaping
> >into existence out of nothing and vanishing into nothing have no effect
> >whatsoever
> >on our bodies, brains or memories.
>
> ***{Irrelevant. The nature of the world is not given to us. Each person is
> in the position of having to laboriously construct his view of that world,
> by a process of inference which uses sensations as input. Thus the fact
> that you can imagine a world in which discontinuities are benign in their
> physical effects does not mean that such a state of affairs is given to you
> as a fact. You still are in the position of attempting to infer what is out
> there from the contents of your sensory inputs. And, from the perspective
> of a person who is trying to infer what is out there, the possibility that
> the sensory inputs are leaping into existence out of nothing leads
> inexorably to the conclusion that the external world, his body, his brain,
> and his memories may not exist. Result: step (3)(c) in the proof stands.
> --MJ}***

All true up to a point.  You lose me when you leap to the statement that "the
conclusion that the external world, his body, his brain, and his memories may not
exist".  Since we "know" we exist, I suggest you turn your logic in the other
direction, i.e. that what ever BIG jumps take place in the particle world, these
"jumps" do not change our existence.

>
>
> If this assumption is adopted, the principle
> >of continuity becomes a trivial mental construct, much like the logic used
> >by the
> >Church many years ago to determine how many angels could dance on the head
> >of a
> >pin.
>
> ***{You are not thinking clearly. It is not an assumption: it is an
> unavoidable step in the logical chain of the proof, as explained above.
> --MJ}***

Apparently, one of us is not thinking clearly.

> >>
> >> (d) If we do that, then we are forced to concede that it is possible that
> >> we do not exist--which means: Pe < 1.0.
> >
> >Only using your extreme assumption.
>
> ***{I repeat: it isn't an assumption; it is a derived step in the proof. I
> realize this is very unfamiliar territory for most people, and it is easy
> to become confused. I can only suggest that you think long and hard about
> my comments, above. If you do so, I think you will eventually be able to
> grasp the limitations that face a person who is trying to infer the nature
> of the world from sense data. Once you do, it will become clear to you
> that, since your benign scenario is not given as a fact, such a thinker is
> forced to open himself to the less benign scenario *as a possibility*. From
> his perspective, the extreme scenario is possible--which means: Pe < 1.0,
> and step (3)(d) stands. Result: the contradiction between the denial of
> continuity and a thinker's utter certainty of his own existence is
> established. Result: the denial of continuity must be false--which means:
> the principle of continuity must be true. --MJ}***

You say "must be true". I say "may be true". You say "if not true, we would not
exist".  I say "if true or not true, our existence has no relationship to the
principle".

>
>
>  My assumption is that we always exist no
> >matter what the particles are doing.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> (4) Since the conclusion of (3)(d) is in direct contradiction with the
> >> conclusion of (1), above--we cannot simultaneously say that Pe = 1.0, and
> >> that Pe < 1.0--it is clear that the denial of continuity stands flatly in
> >> contradiction to our absolute certainty of our own existence. Thus by (2),
> >> above, it follows that the principle of continuity must be true. Q.E.D.
> >> ********************************************
> >>
> >> While you quibbled with the wording of (3)(a), you nevertheless conceded
> >> that (3)(b) is implied. Therefore the chain of logic was unbroken, and the
> >> conclusion inexorably follows: the principle of continuity must be true.
> >>
> >> --Mitchell Jones}***
> >>
> >> We work around these distractions which sometime provide unexpected
> >> >insight.  The world is a chaotic place in which logical relationships
> >> >break down.
> >> >Most of us just note the fact and move on.
> >>
> >> ***{If the above proof is correct, then the world is *not* "a chaotic place
> >> in which logical relationships break down." Thus before you can safely
> >> "note the fact and move on," you need to find a hole in the proof. Thus
> >> far, despite some quibbling, you have not denied any link in the chain of
> >> reasoning. --MJ}***
> >
> >Oh, but I think I have, Mitchell.  I have no problem with your logic, which is
> >flawless.  I just do not agree with your assumptions as already noted.
>
> ***{After you read my annotations, above, I hope you will think again. --MJ}***

Have read and have thought - no change.

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 17:33:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05463;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:31:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:31:27 -0700
Message-ID: <397255E1.2A0AC998 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:40:01 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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: Danger! "Happy99.exe" on the loose!!!!
References: <3971314B.AB8C08F7 csrlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fKdqp2.0.DL1.UFbSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36218
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 16, 2000

Vortex,

As indicated on this post by Johnston, a later "gutted" virus program
was reposted by him on Vortex. My installed Norten anti-virus program
has issued a Red Trojan Virus Alert to this later posting. 
The posting has been "quarantined". It may be too late for many
vortexers but a run of an anti-virus program on the e-mails is
recommended.
Jonston is not doing Vortex any favors.

-AK- 

Michael Johnston wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> This past thursday at 12:38 am, Jack Folek aka: enersola worldpath.net
> sent an email entitled Re: Request for Tesla Information Assistance to
> energy21 listbot.com. It contained no message. Only the Happy99 virus as
> an attachment. I would advise all to check your systems as listbot may
> have been infected as well. This message is clean.
> MJ
> I am going to gut it and post as text in a few minutes.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 20:53:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA08453;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:52:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:52:14 -0700
From: dtmiller midiowa.net (Dean T. Miller)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Danger! "Happy99.exe" on the loose!!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 03:52:46 GMT
Organization: Miller and Associates
Reply-To: dtmiller midiowa.net
Message-ID: <397482a5.779522323 mail.midiowa.net>
References: <3971314B.AB8C08F7 csrlink.net> <397255E1.2A0AC998@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <397255E1.2A0AC998 ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 UAA08432
Resent-Message-ID: <"LUxWV.0._32.kBeSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36219
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:40:01 -0700, Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>As indicated on this post by Johnston, a later "gutted" virus program
>was reposted by him on Vortex. My installed Norten anti-virus program
>has issued a Red Trojan Virus Alert to this later posting. 
>The posting has been "quarantined". It may be too late for many
>vortexers but a run of an anti-virus program on the e-mails is
>recommended.
>Jonston is not doing Vortex any favors.

The "Happy" sent by Mike Johnston was a text file, not an EXE.
There's no problem with it unless you forced it to execute.

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines  (CDP, KB0ZDF)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 21:05:28 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA12776;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:04:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:04:35 -0700
Sender: hoyt eskimo.com
Message-ID: <39728616.4682F52D home.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:05:42 -0700
From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." <hoyt-stearns home.com>
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Danger! "Happy99.exe" on the loose!!!!
References: <3971314B.AB8C08F7 csrlink.net> <397255E1.2A0AC998@ix.netcom.com> <397482a5.779522323@mail.midiowa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"P_co13.0.Y73.INeSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36220
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Just switch to Linux or UNIX and don't worry about such things, and get a

better operating system for free.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 22:44:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA02092;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:43:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:43:03 -0700
Message-ID: <39729E0E.CFD5B244 csrlink.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:47:58 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Danger! "Happy99.exe" on the loose!!!!
References: <3971314B.AB8C08F7 csrlink.net> <397255E1.2A0AC998@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"k1tcI1.0.cW.dpfSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36221
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Akira,
   Um... didn't look at it did you? I cut some gaps in it's code and
sent it as a text. It was no longer an exe file and couldn't run if it
wanted to. If YOU wanted it to run you would have to patch the holes and
then turn it back into an exe file. Mr. Norton just reads the text,
compares it to it's database and says "virus". It was harmless. It
doesn't know the difference between a live rattlesnake and a dead one.
It just yells "SNAKE"!
MJ

Akira Kawasaki wrote:
> 
> July 16, 2000
> 
> Vortex,
> 
> As indicated on this post by Johnston, a later "gutted" virus program
> was reposted by him on Vortex. My installed Norten anti-virus program
> has issued a Red Trojan Virus Alert to this later posting.
> The posting has been "quarantined". It may be too late for many
> vortexers but a run of an anti-virus program on the e-mails is
> recommended.
> Jonston is not doing Vortex any favors.
> 
> -AK-
> 
> Michael Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > This past thursday at 12:38 am, Jack Folek aka: enersola worldpath.net
> > sent an email entitled Re: Request for Tesla Information Assistance to
> > energy21 listbot.com. It contained no message. Only the Happy99 virus as
> > an attachment. I would advise all to check your systems as listbot may
> > have been infected as well. This message is clean.
> > MJ
> > I am going to gut it and post as text in a few minutes.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 16 23:19:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA10086;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:13:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:13:26 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>
In-Reply-To: <3971F40D.2CF542EC ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>		
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>	
 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>
 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:11:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"uB0_p3.0.ST2.4GgSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36222
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{Hi Ed. Well, it looks to me like we are beginning to close in on the
core of the problem that you, and possibly some others, are having with my
attempted proof of continuity. For that reason, despite the fact that there
are many other interesting points raised by your latest post, I am going to
snip everything but the one core point. Time permitting, I will respond to
the deleted material later. --MJ}***

[big snip]

>> >> ***{So what? The "what," of course, is that my indirect proof of the
>> >> principle of continuity then follows. (Note: to construct an indirect
>>proof
>> >> of a proposition, you assume it is false, and then show a contradiction.
>> >> Thus to prove the principle of continuity indirectly, you demonstrate
>>that
>> >> the denial of continuity leads to a contradiction.)
>> >
>> >It leads to a contradiction only because you design the logic to
>>produce the
>> >contradiction.  You make "a particle leaping out of nothing" equal to "our
>> >existence" when, in fact, this equality is only an assumption.
>>
>> ***{I do nothing of the kind. Your statement is so utterly incoherent, in
>> fact, that I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. I can
>> only suppose you made the statement after your 16th beer, just before you
>> saw the pink elephant. :-) --MJ}***
>
>This is an example of a conceptual disconnect.  You are so sure your proof is
>correct that you do not see the implied assumption.  When you say "a particle
>leaping out of nothing" has an effect on, can influence, has a
>relationship to our
>existence or our sensations, you are making an assumption.  This
>relationship is
>not a fact of nature, it is only a statement you make in order to arrive
>at the
>conclusion you wish to prove, i.e. if particles could make the BIG jump
>then "it
>would be possible that sensations themselves might be leaping into
>existence out
>of nothing--and thus it would be possible that *all* sensations were doing
>that--which means: it would be possible that the external world, your
>body, your
>brain, your memories, and your self, do not exist."  This is a classic case of
>assuming one's conclusions.  Once "jump' equals "existence" than your
>conclusion
>naturally follows.  But what if there were no relationship between "jump" and
>"existence".  Suppose, all kinds of particles did the "jump" and we were still
>here.

***{If we assume the principle of continuity is invalid, then each of the
following outcomes are possible:

(1) It is possible that things leap into and out of existence so
unobtrusively that we can never detect them, and that they have no
influence on our lives. Let Pu represent the probability of this outcome..

(2) It is possible that continuity violations occur only in the microcosm,
that they are detectible through complex experiments and sophisticated
statistics, but that they "average out" so effectively that they are not
apparent in the world of the ordinary senses--i.e., the macrocosm. This is
the view of "quantum mechanics." Let Pq represent the probability of this
state of affairs.

(3) It is possible that continuity violations are detectible with man's
natural senses, but that they are not so obtrusive as to seriously impact
human life. Let Po represent the probability of this state of affairs.

(4) It is possible that continuity violations seriously screw things up for
us, but do not preclude our existence or that of the world. Let Ps
represent the probability of this state of affairs.

(5) It is possible that all of our sensations are leaping into existence
out of nothing--which means: it is possible that the external world, our
bodies, our brains, our memories, and our selves, do not exist. Let Pn
represent the probability of this state of affairs.

In other words, the denial of continuity implies that each of Pu, Pq, Po,
Ps, and Pn is greater than zero.

Note that I very explicitly acknowledge the truth of (1) through (4)--which
means I am *not* assuming that a denial of continuity requires that we not
exist. What I am saying is that the denial of continuity requires us to
conclude that it is *possible* that we do not exist--which means: Pn > 0.

Note that while I do not deny that Pu, Pq, Po, and Ps are also greater than
zero, I am not interested in them, because they do not contradict my
certain knowledge of my own existence--i.e., they do not contradict the
fact that Pe = 1.0.

However, I *am* interested in the fact that Pn > 0, because Pe = 1 - Pn,
and thus it follows that Pe < 1.0, which means the denial of continuity
contradicts my utter certainty that Pe = 1.0.

In other words, if I assume that continuity is false, I obtain a
contradiction of a known fact--to wit: the fact that Pe = 1.0. Result: by
the method of indirect proof, my assumption must be wrong--which means: the
principle of continuity must be true.

Let me say it again: the denial of continuity implies not just (5), above,
but implies (1) through (4) as well. However, only (5) contradicts my
certain knowledge that Pe = 1.0, and so it was the only item out of the
list that I mentioned in my proof. My failure to mention the other items in
the list did not mean that I denied them. It simply meant that they were
irrelevant.

Bottom line: I'm trying to do an indirect proof here, Ed. I take it as an
utter certainty that Pe = 1.0. That's my premise. What I want to show is
that if I assume the principle of continuity is false, then it logically
follows that Pe < 1.0--which is a contradiction. (Pe cannot simultaneously
equal 1.0 and be less than 1.0.) If I can show that--and I have--then I
will have proven that the principle of continuity must be true--and I have.


--Mitchell Jones}***

[another big snip]

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 03:32:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA18303;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 03:26:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 03:26:47 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b59885533271 [12.21.211.204]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 02:28:46 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"hWlAp2.0.vT4.dzjSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36223
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:11 AM 7/17/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:

[snip]
>(5) It is possible that all of our sensations are leaping into existence
>out of nothing--which means: it is possible that the external world, our
>bodies, our brains, our memories, and our selves, do not exist. Let Pn
>represent the probability of this state of affairs.
[snip]

This is a very strange premise on which to base an analysis of reality, and
it seems that it is one that any reasonable person should feel free to
reject.  There are other possibilities that are far more palatable and
consistent with our experience.  For example, it is reasonable to assume
our ability to think is supported by a fault tolerant system.  After all,
we are constantly bombarded by cosmic rays and internal radiation, and are
subject to continual chemical reactions, element replacement, molecule
formation, flawed genetic replication, viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites,
plaque formation, toxins, psychotropic chemicals, dimentia causeing metals,
sleep and other altered fors of consciousness etc.  We are not in the same
body from moment to moment, yet usually our thought processes continue
unimpeded.  However, it is not within our scientifically verifyable
experience that people contiue to think or perceive in a normal way after
massive destrution of the brain.  An individual building a system of
premises to represent reality based on personal observation and scientific
experimentation would in my opinion be likely to reject your hypothesis. A
person who  believes in an existence outside the body migth be inclined to
accept your premise, or to reject it in favor of discontiuity being the
means that nature has of providing a part of us not tied to reality, i.e.
to matter.

A sound argument requires a valid argument, one which follows the rules of
deductive logic, PLUS requires a foundation of true premises.  The truth of
the premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.  Look this
up in most any text on logic and check it out.  If you ignore this then you
are simply making up your own personal private form of logic, so you should
not be surprised at a lack of persuasiveness of your arguments.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 07:01:33 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA08500;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:00:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:00:21 -0700
Message-ID: <3973129E.5B8A5C11 bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:05:18 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: More Mars Anomalies
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jR5R52.0.g42.r5nSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36224
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Some truly interesting sights!

http://www.sightings.com/general2/saudmars.htm

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 07:34:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA20110;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:32:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:32:55 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.108.150
Message-Id: <v04210101b598c68d9234 [128.183.108.190]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5971baeec04 [12.21.208.141]>
References: <v01530500b5971baeec04 [12.21.208.141]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:32:39 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe?  (corrected)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"0R7zn1.0.8w4.ManSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36225
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner Writes:

>It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
>due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
>here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
>to differing relativistic effects occuring with repect to multiple
>particles at varying velocities.
>The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
>integrating:
>
>  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)
>
>for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2.  If the integration result is
>non-zero then the net charge makes sense.

This integral may be done exactly.  The proper form is:

Integral k(theta) = (1-b) 2Pi Integral(1/(1-b sin^2 theta)^3/2) d cos theta

where the integral goes from -1 to 1.  The result is just 4Pi and 
there is no velocity dependence.  Integration in spherical 
coordinates involves integrating sin(theta) d theta = - d cos(theta) 
and not just d theta .

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 07:50:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26635;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:44:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:44:05 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
In-Reply-To: <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000717073417.3494A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ymPgf1.0.3W6.pknSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36226
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


You cannot know the world by assigning "probabilities" to your
expectations, and then selecting the most "probable".

Logic preserves the truth. If you don't start with the truth, that is,
experimental observation, logic produces garbage. Ditto for math.

Aristotelian approaches of knowing the world has been proven to be be so
bogus as to be disreputable. 

Flat claims that seem reasonable to the claiment are not logic. That is,
assuming some principle to be invalid and then jumping to a bunch of
unsupported claims is not an appeal to logic.

In order to refute a theory, you almost always first have to know what the
theory acutally is. Refuting one's own misconceptions about a theory is
almost always easy. 

bottom line: It is sad that our educational system has really mucked up
the teaching of the philosophy of science. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 08:08:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA05690;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:07:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:07:22 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000717110720.007cfe60 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:07:20 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: No continuity on the macroscopic level
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"so_KY1.0.qO1.f4oSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36227
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I have not been following the debate about quantum mechanical particles
jumping in and out of existence, because Mitchell Jones is on my kill file
list, but I read Ed Storms' response. I know nothing about quantum
mechanics, but I would like to point out that the whole idea of
"continuity" in the self is flawed. It is a very old idea in philosophy,
expressed in the simplest and most famous form by Descartes "I think,
therefore I am." Descartes was mainly concerned with an obscure theological
debate, but in modern terms this might be crudely summarized as saying that
the thought process cannot exist without a physical object, so therefore
the self (body, mind), must physically exist. This is probably true, but
there is no reason to suppose that a thought, apprehension or any other
mental process must be continuous or confined to a single physical object.
The human body -- including brain cells as far as I know -- is continually
destroyed and rebuilt with new atoms and molecules. No one knows exactly
what chemical and electrical state of matter constitutes a thought or
memory, but there is no question that these states of matter can be
disrupted and revived. Memories fade, lessons are lost. They can be revived
and reinforced by external stimuli. The brain can malfunction and even
cease functioning and then start working normally again.

>From moment to moment there is no continuity on the microscopic level of
thought. Over the longer term, of years, there is no continuity on the
macroscopic level either: you are literally not the person you were twenty
years ago; nearly every atom of your body has been replaced. I have no idea
what happens on the subatomic level, but if particles flit in and out of
existence, that would be no more difficult to believe than the idea that
the electrical difference of potential and chemicals that make up a
"memory" are periodically disrupted, changed out, and revived, like the
skin on your finger or the hair on your head. Your memories have probably
faded and been revived countless times, like the data in a dynamic RAM
chip. Some memories, it turns out, are false, being the product of fantasy,
suggestion or confusion. Even a healthy person is capable of forgetting
anything and everything under extreme circumstances, when memories are not
revived periodically. The most fundamental learned thought process is
language. Yet children who emigrate to other countries even at 8 or 12
years of age can forget their native language. There are rare but
documented cases of adolescents and adults who emigrated and forgot their
original language, and even their names! This is usually caused by trauma,
which can be psychological, not necessarily organic or physical. Adults who
hated their native country because they were severely persecuted, and who
live happily in the new country may make no effort to remember the language
or culture, or to keep in touch with other native speakers. After 50 years
they may be incapable of speaking more than a few broken sentences, with a
foreign accent.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 10:24:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32077;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:21:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:21:11 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011702b598d8695410 [207.8.127.170]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000717110720.007cfe60 pop.mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:16:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: No continuity on the macroscopic level
Resent-Message-ID: <"-1UKA.0.tq7.52qSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36228
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I have not been following the debate about quantum mechanical particles
>jumping in and out of existence, because Mitchell Jones is on my kill file
>list

***{I had been wondering why I was no longer having to deal with the
exaggerations, wishful thinking, ad hominem attacks, and bizarre
emotionality of Jed Rothwell, and now I know! :-) Good riddance, I say.
--MJ}***

, but I read Ed Storms' response. I know nothing about quantum
>mechanics, but I would like to point out that the whole idea of
>"continuity" in the self is flawed. It is a very old idea in philosophy,
>expressed in the simplest and most famous form by Descartes "I think,
>therefore I am."

***{Incorrect. The principle of continuity deals with the passage of time,
whereas the dictum of Descartes is concerned only with the present. They
are separate and distinct ideas.

To be specific, the principle of continuity is concerned with the fact that
physical entities--things that have mass and occupy space--can change their
forms with the passage of time (e.g., can break up into lesser particles,
or merge together to form greater particles or entities), but cannot be
created or destroyed. The simplest expression of that relationship is that
of the ancient Greek philosophers: "No thing may come into existence out of
nothing or vanish into nothing."

On the other hand, the famous dictum of Descartes ("I think, therefore I
am."), is not concerned with the passage of time at all, and hence is
something completely different. According to Descartes, if you are thinking
at some specific instant in time, then you exist at that specific instant
in time. No opinion is expressed about whether you existed in the past, or
whether you will exist in the future.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Descartes was mainly concerned with an obscure theological
>debate, but in modern terms this might be crudely summarized as saying that
>the thought process cannot exist without a physical object, so therefore
>the self (body, mind), must physically exist.

***{Yes: at the time when thought is taking place, the thinker must
physically exist in some form. There is, however, no implication that he
existed in the past or will exist in the future. Thus the dictum of
Descartes would apply even if the thinker popped into existence an instant
before, and popped out of existence again a moment later, in violation of
the principle of continuity. That means the dictum of Descartes is true
regardless of whether the principle of continuity is true or false. It is
thus logically independent of, and more fundamental than, the principle of
continuity. The two ideas are *not* different expressions of the same
thing. --MJ}***

This is probably true, but
>there is no reason to suppose that a thought, apprehension or any other
>mental process must be continuous or confined to a single physical object.

***{That is correct: thoughts and other mental processes are attributes,
not entities--which means: they do not have mass and occupy space. Thus the
principle of continuity no more applies to them than it applies to the
color of a rose or the aroma of a fresh-baked apple pie. Note, however,
that attributes are produced by entities: thought requires that the thinker
exist while thought is taking place; the redness of a rose requires that
the rose exist while the redness is present; etc. Moreover, attributes are
carried by entities: thought, while poorly understood at the
electrochemical level, does clearly require electrochemical activity in the
brain. (If no such activity is detected, comatose patients are declared
"brain dead," and, with the permission of next-of-kin, are unplugged from
life sujpport.) And the color of a rose is carried from the rose to the
observer by photons of red light that bounce off of the rose and into the
eye of the beholder. And so on. Thus while attributes are manifestations of
entities and are carried by entities, they are themselves *not* entities,
and as such the principle of continuity does not apply to them. --MJ}***

>The human body -- including brain cells as far as I know -- is continually
>destroyed and rebuilt with new atoms and molecules.

***{Actually, there is quite a bit of controversy about this subject among
neurophysiologists, though that is irrelevant to the present issue. The
reason it is irrelevant is as noted above: things such as personality,
intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, judgment, character--all the things that
define who we are--are not entities, but are attributes of entities. As
such, they can endure over time even as the source material undergoes
partial, or even total, renewal, provided only that the underlying material
follows a sufficient approximation of a continuous spatial pathway to
enable the manifestation to evolve as a coordinated whole. Twins, for
example, are different people, because their common embryo split itself
into two parts shortly after conception, after which they became subject to
separate influences and embarked on separate paths of development. This
means that, in theory, a person's brain cells could be replaced one at a
time, over decades, by computer chips that functioned like brain cells, and
that person's essence--his personality, knowledge, wisdom, judgment,
character, etc.--could slowly transfer itself into a "cyborg" form. There
is nothing about such a possibility that conflicts with the principle of
continuity, because, as noted above, the principle of continuity is
concerned with physical entities, not with the attributes of entities. As
long as the entities themselves (e.g., the atoms comprising the human body,
either individually or en masse) do not pop into or out of existence, then
there is no violation of continuity. That means you can go to sleep and,
when you wake up, you will be the same person you were when you went to
sleep. It means you can be in a coma for months and, if you awake, you will
be the same person you were before. And it means you could, in theory, be
cyrogenically frozen for a thousand years and, when you woke up, you would
be the same person you were before. --MJ}***

No one knows exactly
>what chemical and electrical state of matter constitutes a thought or
>memory, but there is no question that these states of matter can be
>disrupted and revived. Memories fade, lessons are lost. They can be revived
>and reinforced by external stimuli. The brain can malfunction and even
>cease functioning and then start working normally again.

***{Absolutely correct. --MJ}***

>
>>From moment to moment there is no continuity on the microscopic level of
>thought.

***{That's because thoughts are attributes of entities, and, as noted
above, the principle of continuity only applies to the entities themselves.
For example, a lighted room is an attribute associated with a switched-on
light bulb. When you switch on the bulb, there is no necessity that atoms,
molecules, electrons, etc., come into existence out of nothing. What
happens is that electrons flow through the filament and heat it up, causing
it to emit photos of visible light, which fly off into the room, bounce off
of objects in the room, and bounce back into your eyes, enabling you to
see. There is no requirement that anything leap into existence ouf of
nothing or vanish into nothing, in order to account for the fact that the
room goes black when you turn out the light, any more than continuity is
violated when you turn a lawn sprinkler on or off. A light bulb is like a
sprinkler of photons; a light switch is like a water faucet; and the flow
of electrons in the wire is like the flow of water in the hose. The
attributes can be turned on and off without requiring any physical entities
to leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. --MJ}***

Over the longer term, of years, there is no continuity on the
>macroscopic level either

***{Yes there is: the material entities of which macroscopic entities  such
as the human body and brain are composed--i.e., atoms, molecules,
electrons, etc.--do not leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing. --MJ}***

: you are literally not the person you were twenty
>years ago; nearly every atom of your body has been replaced.

***{This is hotly debated by specialists in the various relevant
disciplines, but, as explained above, is irrelevant to whether the
principle of continuity is valid or not. To repeat: the principle of
contiunity is concerned with the behavior of physical entities--things that
have mass and occupy space--not with processes, attributes, and other
manifestations of entities. --MJ}***

 I have no idea
>what happens on the subatomic level, but if particles flit in and out of
>existence, that would be no more difficult to believe than the idea that
>the electrical difference of potential and chemicals that make up a
>"memory" are periodically disrupted, changed out, and revived, like the
>skin on your finger or the hair on your head. Your memories have probably
>faded and been revived countless times, like the data in a dynamic RAM
>chip. Some memories, it turns out, are false, being the product of fantasy,
>suggestion or confusion. Even a healthy person is capable of forgetting
>anything and everything under extreme circumstances, when memories are not
>revived periodically. The most fundamental learned thought process is
>language. Yet children who emigrate to other countries even at 8 or 12
>years of age can forget their native language. There are rare but
>documented cases of adolescents and adults who emigrated and forgot their
>original language, and even their names! This is usually caused by trauma,
>which can be psychological, not necessarily organic or physical. Adults who
>hated their native country because they were severely persecuted, and who
>live happily in the new country may make no effort to remember the language
>or culture, or to keep in touch with other native speakers. After 50 years
>they may be incapable of speaking more than a few broken sentences, with a
>foreign accent.

***{All true, and all irrelevant. I repeat: the principle of continuity
states that no thing--no entity that has mass and occupies space--can leap
into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. It does
*not*--repeat: does *not*--state that the color of a rose or of the sky
cannot fade, or that lights cannot be turned off, or than human beings
cannot be knocked unconscious or killed. Even death does not require that
any physical entities cease to exist: all it requires is that certain
properties which an object--the human body or brain--used to exhibit,
should cease to be exhibited. --MJ}***

>
>- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 10:54:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15515;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:52:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:52:49 -0700
Message-ID: <397349F6.7B3E76CB ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:01:26 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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: Danger! "Happy99.exe" on the loose!!!!
References: <3971314B.AB8C08F7 csrlink.net> <397255E1.2A0AC998@ix.netcom.com> <39729E0E.CFD5B244@csrlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"acEpo.0.Ko3.nVqSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36229
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 17, 2000

Vortex, (& Michael)

I think it's fine that Norton gave due notice, whatever the motive to
post it in the first place. Maybe there is another live snake hidden in
the bush somewhere. I don't care, I do not want to be bothered by an off
topic, for Vortex, pc interruption.
I do not think Norton just reads the text and gives alarms. The virus
was recognized in its database. It did not have a deletion remedy but
was able to isolate it, i.e. quarantine it.

-AK-
Michael Johnson wrote:
> 
> Hi Akira,
>    Um... didn't look at it did you? I cut some gaps in it's code and
> sent it as a text. It was no longer an exe file and couldn't run if it
> wanted to. If YOU wanted it to run you would have to patch the holes and
> then turn it back into an exe file. Mr. Norton just reads the text,
> compares it to it's database and says "virus". It was harmless. It
> doesn't know the difference between a live rattlesnake and a dead one.
> It just yells "SNAKE"!
> MJ
> 
> Akira Kawasaki wrote:
> >
> > July 16, 2000
> >
> > Vortex,
> >
> > As indicated on this post by Johnston, a later "gutted" virus program
> > was reposted by him on Vortex. My installed Norten anti-virus program
> > has issued a Red Trojan Virus Alert to this later posting.
> > The posting has been "quarantined". It may be too late for many
> > vortexers but a run of an anti-virus program on the e-mails is
> > recommended.
> > Jonston is not doing Vortex any favors.
> >
> > -AK-
> >
> > Michael Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > > This past thursday at 12:38 am, Jack Folek aka: enersola worldpath.net
> > > sent an email entitled Re: Request for Tesla Information Assistance to
> > > energy21 listbot.com. It contained no message. Only the Happy99 virus as
> > > an attachment. I would advise all to check your systems as listbot may
> > > have been infected as well. This message is clean.
> > > MJ
> > > I am going to gut it and post as text in a few minutes.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 13:18:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06809;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:10:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:10:51 -0700
Message-ID: <39736959.67232ACF ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:15:39 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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, "Morrison, Douglas" <Douglas.Morrison@cern.ch>,
        "Mallove\", \"E.F." <editor infinite-energy.com>,
        "Rothwell, Jed" <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>,
        "Larsen, Lewis" <73763.14 compuserve.com>,
        "(IDS), Bass, Robert W" <robert.w.bass baesystems.com>
Subject: Debate
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"x93T83.0.Hg1.BXsSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36230
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dear Douglas,
I would like to suggest an approach which might
help clarify our different
opinions about cold fusion.  Your review of ICCF-8
and my comments about your
review, I suggest, would make a good starting
point for a debate between us about
the subject.  If you agree, this exchange could be
published on the internet as part
of Vortex-l and/or sci.physics.fusion.  In
addition, this will give other people a chance to
raise issues we might have missed. To start the
ball rolling, I have extracted
the comments you made about my comments from your
longer reply, to which I will reply.  If you think
this is a worthwhile project, I would invite you
to respond in kind.

Best regards,

Ed Storms



I would like to thank Ed for the serious tone of
his letter - so
different from some other communications. On the
other hand, was surprised by
some of his phrases which seemed out of character,
such as "you distort the facts
and give a completely false impression", "you
completely ignored", "you
should at least represent the controversy
honestly". Well, I will try and respond
to his points paragraph by paragraph;

**I will avoid such comments in the future because
I realize you do not believe
you are distorting facts, any more than I believe
I'm doing such a thing.  I will
simply state the facts and allow the readers to
come to their own conclusions.**

Para. 1 and 2 - no comment - expressions of
opinion.

P3. You asked where is the "Overwhelming evidence"
against cold fusion? For
this see the paper "Review of Cold Fusion" which I
presented at the ICCF-3
conference in Nagoya - strangely enough it seems
not to have been published
in the proceedings despite being an invited paper
- will send a copy if
desired. As Dieter Britz has shown, most cold
fusion papers were published
before 1993 and are therefore in my summary. There
it is shown that for
every subject (excess heat, neutrons, tritium,
4He, 3He, Gammas, protons)
there are more null papers than positive papers.
Further, and which is
very damning, the quality papers almost all show
null effects. The fact
that cold fusion is in contradiction with a vast
body of research, is
expressed by saying that from this research work,
theories have been
developed which are in agreement with the
experimental results. Thus when
it is written that cold fusion is in disagreement
with theory, this
basically means that it is in disagreement with
the overwhelming experimental
evidence
on which the theory is justified.

**While it is true, many papers as well as much
unpublished work show null
effects, this does not provide "overwhelming
evidence" as you claim.  Early in the
field’s history, much was not understood about
conditions needed to make the
effect work.  Also, most of the work was based on
the original method proposed
by P-F, a method which has been found to resist
reproduction.  As understanding
developed, methods using finely divided palladium
in ambient D2 gas, gas discharge techniques, and
proton conductors have been more easily
duplicated.  In
addition, in spite of the known difficulties
inherent in the P-F method, positive
results continue to be reported.

The second point you raise goes to quality of
work.  This issue is very subjective
and is difficult to quantify in a short answer.  I
admit, much early work was
either poorly done or showed obvious limitations,
not all of which would be fatal.  On the
other hand, work at SRI (Stanford Research
International) under the direction of
Dr. McKubre employed very high quality
calorimetry.  This work showed
anomalous energy in 19 samples, they showed the
same patterns of behavior found
in other equally good studies, and they revealed
some of the requirements need to
make the effect work.  Surely, this study along
with ones of the same high quality
done in recent times should have some impact on
the issue, and not be ignored in
favor of poor work done in the distant past.

The third point involves theory.  Here, the
important issue is being ignored.  The
present theory of fusion is based on studies using
high energy plasma or high
energy ion bombardment.  The theory applies very
well to these conditions.
However, cold fusion involves low energy and a
solid environment of regularly
spaced atoms, i.e. a lattice.  To equate these two
conditions is like trying to equate
air and a rock.  I realize that some scientists
argue that the same type of reactions
should result from, and the same rules should
apply to both environments.
However, this assertion is a matter of debate, not
an absolute requirement of
nature.  As such, it can not be used as a basis
for rejecting cold fusion unless the
assertion is proven to be true.  Competent
theoreticians on both sides of the issue
have made very good arguments for their respective
views.  We need to be patient
and wait to see which side prevails.**

P4. Sorry for my mistake in misquoting you. I
appreciate you making the
point that theories should take into account
metals other than palladium.

*This is an important point on which I would like
to elaborate further.  Because of the
field's history, palladium has been given an
extreme amount of attention.  Early in
the history, skeptics pointed out that palladium
does not have the basic properties
required to produce the effect.  The atoms are too
far apart, the electron structure
is not sufficiently unique, and the claimed
concentration of deuterium was too low to
produce anomalous interaction.  We now know that
beta-PdD is not the active
material.  Instead, another phase having a very
high deuterium content and having
unknown electron and atom structures is the active
material.  We also know that
many other metals, most of which do not absorb
significant deuterium, are claimed
to produce anomalous energy.  Clearly, the
conditions in which the anomalous
effects occur are not understood and may, when
they are understood, provide the
mechanism demanded by skeptics.  Again, we will
just have to be patient.**

P5. Harwell - "subsequent work revealed the
presence of overlooked excess
energy". This is a completely misleading
statement.
  What I wrote was "Harwell did 127 varieties of
experiment, and searched
for excess heat, neutrons, gammas and tritons, but
did not find any
significant signal in any of them". Please note
the phrase "significant
signal".

**Point taken.  However,  even P-F never claimed a
significant signal by your
definition.**

   Remember what happened; Before the press
conference of 23 March 1989,
Fleischmann talked to his friend David Williams,
an electrochemist, and told
him of a simple experiment that would verify his
Utah work. Harwell
assembled a multi-disciplinary team which spent
half a million pounds on
this "simple experiment". They tried to repeat
Fleischmann and Pons work
and could not get the same results - despite
having Fleischmann's help!

**Of the many mistakes made by P-F, the worst was
claiming the method was
"simple" and could be easily reproduced.

As for Fleischmann's help, according to
Fleischmann, Williams refused to accept
the help, deciding instead to attempt a completely
independent replication.  If this
approach had been successful, the work would have
provided a more convincing proof
than if Fleischmann had been involved.
Unfortunately, they made some serious
mistakes by ignoring Fleischmann's advice.**

Also there is the problem of analyzing these
different results. For example,
should they use Newton's Law of Cooling as
Fleischmann and Pons did at that
time with a T to the power one term, or should
they guess that they should
switch, as F&P did later, to using Stefan's Law
with a T to the power
four term? Strangely enough, this did not seem to
worry Fleischmann and Pons!

**If absolute calorimetry were being used, this
issue would have been important.
However, P-F used relative calorimeter based on a
heater calibration and based on
a result assumed to be null, measured during the
long wait for anomalous heat.
All that is required for their method to succeed
is stability.   This is why P-F were
not worried. They would see a null signal for
weeks, with periodic calibrations
using the heater to make sure the calorimeter was
stable.  If they were lucky,
the signal would rise above the null value.
Again, the heater
calibration was used to determine whether this
increase was real or not.  Use of T
to the first power (Newton) or T to the 4th power
(Stefan) would only influence
the amount of anomalous heat claimed, not the
existence thereof.  Unfortunately,
the description provided by P-F is very difficult
to understand.  As a result,
what they did in the real world was not properly
understood.**


   I wrote "When they used the best technology,
they found no excess heat".
Now "best technology" is not the Fleischmann and
Pons technique. Hope you
agree that when they used best technology (the
null method), they found no excess
heat? Would it be fair to ask you why did you
"completely ignore", in your
phrase, the best technology results of Harwell?

**Attributing failure to see anomalous energy only
to the method used is not
appropriate in this field because other variables
are equally important.  The sample
is very important in producing the effect because
potentially active samples are so
rare.  As I summarized in my review in Infinite
Energy Vol. 6, Issue 31 page10,
only a small fraction of samples from certain
batches have been found to be
active.  Unless an active sample is transferred
from one calorimeter to another, it
is not possible to reach any conclusion about the
role of the calorimeter. **


   Now some desperate people looked at the data
using not the best technology,
and claimed that they had found excess heat -
which David Williams et al.
deny - they say that there were minor statistical
fluctuations but when all the
results were combined, there was no significant
signal. And what I wrote on
page 16 was "did not find any significant signal".

   I am sorry that you have adopted the position
of certain people who
search for the slightest fluctuation and claim
that this particular run
showed excess heat while neglecting all the other
runs which show that
there is no significant signal. Further, and what
is worse, they neglect the
very careful work done with one of the world's
best calorimeters where
they have three temperature controlled water baths
round the object
being studied - this is a super-Wheatstone bridge
technique. The major
point is, that it is much better to do a good
experiment to show that
outside (room) temperature effects are not
important by eliminating them,
rather than doing a poor experiment where one has
to do doubtful calculations
to try to prove that heat exchange with the
environment is not important or
is adequately corrected for..

**On the other hand, McKubre used a water bath
stable to ±0.003° and
calorimeters stable to <0.05 watts in which he
detected heat up to 2 watts on one
occasion and heat significantly above the
detection limit on 19 occasions, yet you
ignore this work.  As you have suggested, I have
included in my reviews the fact
that the effect is difficult to produce no matter
what kind of calorimeter is used,
good or bad.  In contrast, I also include in my
reviews the fact that many people
have produced the effect and each has seen the
same pattern of behavior, i.e. a
relationship to applied current, a relationship to
the D/Pd ratio, and a relationship
to the properties of the palladium used.  These
patterns can not be produced by
chance or error alone.  Why do you not include and
evaluate these
observations in your reviews?**

   The Harwell series of experiments were
magnificent and it is pretty
mean to look for a fluctuation and to try and
ignore the totality of their
results on neutrons, tritium. gammas and tritons,
apart form excess heat
with what was probably the world's best
calorimeter.

**Everyone, believer and skeptic alike, admits
that neutron emission is very rare
and at a very low level, much below the detection
limit of Harwell. Tritium is
produced only very rarely and under conditions
different from those that produce
heat.  Apparently, microwhiskers of metal plated
on the cathode surface are
required, a bit of information not known at the
time of the Harwell study.  Gamma
emission is absent even when helium is being
produced, much to the disappointment of
skeptics.  On the other hand , tritons and alpha
emission have been detected when
the work is done under conditions which permit
their detection.  Failure of
Harwell to see these other anomalous effects is
not the issue at the present time.**

P5A. Similar comment about the NHE lab experiments
in Japan. But here we can
make a more precise statement - which in fact is
in my report but I see
it needs expanding to make it clear to all.
     I wrote two paragraphs about Miles's visit to
NHE lab. He and
Fleischmann claimed to find exceptional excess
heat peaks. But they were all
very small (much smaller than the Fleischmann and
Pons claims incidentally).
This was answered by the NHE people at ICCF-7 when
they said that there were
fluctuations but these fluctuations were always
within a few standard
deviations and therefore did not represent
significant signals of excess heat. In my
report, I quoted that Miles claimed errors of +/-
20 mW while NHE people said
the errors were ten times bigger, +/- 200 mW.

**It is easy to say errors are 20 mW or 200 mW,
but it is much more difficult to prove these
assertions.  Miles went to some trouble in his
paper to justify his claim of 20 mW.  The NHE
people simply stated their value as a belief.
Yet, you emphasize the 200 mW value.  Why?**

Now the General Electric group
who did a thorough analysis of the Fleischmann and
Pons work, concluded that
F&P's calculated errors were far too small (the
response of F&P did not answer
the points made by the GE group of Wilson et al.).

**The GE group came to the conclusion that the
error claimed by P-F was too small, but it was not
large enough to cause them to reject all of the
P-F claims.  On the other hand, their failure to
reproduce the effect caused them to reject the P-F
claims, not the error analysis.  Hansen also
evaluated the P-F work and also came to the
conclusion that the errors were well below the
claimed anomalous energy. (See Storms, Review of
the “Cold Fusion” Effect, J. Sci. Exploration 10
(1996) 185 for more details).  Three published and
many unpublished evaluations of the P-F errors
have come to the conclusion that errors in
calorimetry did not produce the claimed anomalous
results.  Perhaps you might want to examine the
literature in this area in more detail.**

   However this question may be settled another
way. It is universally agreed
that the excess heat claimed is not reproducible -
even by True Believers.
Then for a True Believer, the result of a series
of runs should be a
combination of two sets of results - firstly, a
Gaussian distribution of
random fluctuations with a certain standard
deviation, and secondly, some
runs where excess heat occurs and this would have
a different distribution
with a significantly higher average value. So,
combining these two sets of
runs,
one would expect a messy distribution of excess
heat values. But the actual
results found as I wrote, "the distribution of
fluctuations gave a perfect
Gaussian distribution with three standard
deviation limits of +/- 2.3%
with no indication of excess heat occurring
spasmodically".
   I hope this is clearer to all now.

** This approach is valid when a process is being
influenced by random variables, and it is
suggested here because skeptics believe the
anomalous effects are caused by random error in
the calorimetry.  However, all of the work shows
that the effect is not random.  It depends on the
nature of the palladium, i.e. it being crack-free,
and on the particular batch used.  As Miles
published, and other people have experienced, once
a piece of palladium becomes active, it stays
active and can be made to produce anomalous energy
at will.  Miles took an active piece which made
anomalous energy at China Lake in the US and
showed the same effect at NHE in Japan.  A dead
piece was dead at both places while using the same
calorimeter. **

P6. I am sorry that in one place I missed out
Russia as an important
collaborator. However, I did mention them
extensively elsewhere and indeed
Appendix 3 is devoted to them.
   Incidentally, I had lunch today with the
Director of a major Russian
Laboratory who is an excellent physicist, and he
was very surprised to hear
that someone in his lab was publicly involved in
cold fusion.

**I hope you did not blow someone’s cover.**

6A. Do not understand the comment about India - I
was only talking about
countries where experiments were being done now. I
was not making a list
of countries which have stopped such as Spain
which could not find neutrons
after I visited the group.

**Point taken.**

P7. I do not think that the balance of
publications on the reliability
of the Fleischmann and Pons methods, is in favour
of them. As I wrote
above, the most complete and serious analysis was
that done by the General
Electric group and I would strongly recommend
everyone to return and study
their paper carefully.

** I agree.  Also study Hansen, “Report to the
Utah State Fusion/Energy Council on analysis of
selected Pons Fleischmann calorimeter data”, Proc
of the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion,
June 29-July 4, 1991, page 491. ( Available from
Infinite Energy.)**

P8. You say the "more modern methods of data
collection which are as
accurate and certainly more convenient than this "
null method. Well. I am
an experimentalist. If there is any doubt, then
"you should try and prove
yourself wrong" and use both methods. I do not
admire the lazy way of saying
this is "more convenient" and then do some unclear
calculations to support
this point of view. This is not the way of good
scientists - they do the work.

** Most people in the field do try to prove
themselves wrong.  However, one does not have to
use methods more appropriate to Faraday to do
this.  Modern data acquisition is very reliable
and, in most cases, is made redundant.  Each
person’s approach needs to be examined rather than
insisting that everyone use a particular “null
method”.  In fact, some of the methods have a null
method built in because they compare the
potentially active cell to a dead cell, the
anomalous energy being the difference between the
output of the two cells. **

P9. Answer as above. "The Jones work has been
completely discredited" - could
you please send me a publication where Fleischmann
and Pons repeated the very
simple and inexpensive Jones(actually Lee Hansen)
experiments?
Experimentalist do experiments.
  Also could you send me any publication which
"discredits" the Provo results?

**P-F did not repeat the J-H work because it  has
no relationship to their work.  P-F measured the
amount of deuterium lost from the cell and
compared this to the amount expected from applied
current.  No recombination was detected within
±1%.  As I show in my review in Infinite Energy 6,
#31 (2000) 10, the applied current determines the
amount of recombination.  J-H used a very low
current where recombination is high, while P-F
used a high current where recombination is low.
J-H made fools of themselves by ignoring this
effect and by claiming that all anomalous energy
can be explained by unrecognized recombination,
while ignoring those claims for anomalous energy
obtained from sealed cells containing a recombiner
- a situation in which recombination is total.**

P9a. On the 31 March 1989, to which I refer,
Fleischmann did not say that
he had done a control experiment with light water
- he said that the 8 mm
rod that gave no effect, was their control! This I
checked by looking at the
video tape of Fleischmann's talk.

**Fleischmann said many things in the past which
were wrong or incomplete.  I’m sure you have done
the same thing.  The question is, what does this
have to do with the present discussion about the
reality of the claims?  P-F published 11 null
studies involving Pd-H2O or Pt-D2O, all of which
showed no anomalous energy.  Their failure to do
many null studies early in their work, I suggest,
has no bearing on the present situation.**

P10. Sorry if I was confusing. Your conclusion is
that "the theory that you
and others use to discredit cold fusion is not so
perfect after all". Well,
I was being polite. There are two possibilities -
either the hundreds of
experiments that have been made previously are
wrong, or the new and
very difficult experiments of Dr. Kasagi is wrong.
Which do you choose?

**No other measurements of the fusion cross
section exist at the low energy being explored by
Kasagi.  In addition, Kasagi is exploring this
reaction in a lattice, not in a plasma in which
most of the studies you note were made.  The
choice you suggest simply does not exist.  Even
“conventional” physicists are interested in the
Kasagi work because it is very straightforward and
very conventional in its approach.  You might
reasonably object to it having any relationship to
cold fusion, but that is a different approach from
the one you have chosen.**

You may remember my polite conclusion; "These
values are very high and
merit checks". Too bad that you force me to
reverse my politeness.
   Further, I discussed the possible effect of
secondary interactions,
which you seem to have missed.

** Your comments are all reasonable challenges to
the Kasagi work.  Nevertheless, the results do
open some new issues in trying to explain the CF
claims, do you not agree?**

P11. This is interesting. I had been told that
Champion came to Bockris and
asked to be his grad student but Bockris was not
interested, until he was
told
that $200,000 would be given to his funds for
research. Now you say this is
"completely false". Your story is that "Champion
hired Prof. Bockris". Well,
that does not sound good. One would expect a
Distinguished Professor like
Bockris would check out anyone who wanted to hire
him? and find out the
source
of the money and if Champion had a criminal
record? The claims that you
talk about - are they the conversion of mercury to
gold? If so would a
Distinguished Professor not have some doubts? How
would you react to such
an offer?

**The money was supplied by Mr Teelander, a rich
investor, and the whole situation was checked out
by the University, and approved.  Universities
accept grants to do research all the time,
especially when amounts as high as $200,000 are
involved.  As for my approach, Champion asked me
to do the work at LANL, which I refused because I
did not think there was a snow ball’s chance in
Hell of getting approval.  Nevertheless, the
experiments were interesting and the claims,
although hard to believe, are important.  The
question is, does a person reject an idea just
because it is hard to believe or does a person go
to a little trouble to check it out, especially
for $200,000?  Unfortunately, John Bockris, like
the good scientist he is, checked it out, found
positive results, and then paid a dear personal
price for his efforts.  But that is the nature of
the present system in science these days - a
system you seem to want to defend.**

P12. My mistake if only one of Arata and Case used
activated carbon.
I will correct this and other mistakes.

P13. Thank you for your best wishes for more
accurate work. I will try and
do
so. May I humbly suggest on my part, that you
consider the possibility that
99.9% of scientists are correct in their opinion
of cold fusion and try to
re-evluate all the experiments that you like and
also those that you do not
like, with the thought that maybe cold fusion does
not and cannot exist?

** Well, Douglas, I have done this over the years
each time I write another review, of which four
are now in print.  In addition, I have seen the
effect work with my own eyes even though I have
tried to prove my self wrong. I have built over 9
calorimeters of various designs, I have studied
the variables which produce error, and I have
studied palladium to determine its important
properties.  All of this work is published in 21
papers, some in peer reviewed journals. At least
to me, the work proves the reality of the claims.
Can you say you have done as much to reach your
conclusion?**

(more accurately, could only exist with a very low
probability of 10^-40.
  Also could you please do experiments and not
make calculations ( no doubt
using a non-linear regression analysis with Kalman
filtering) to disprove
things such as recombination in the Hansen manner.

**A person can do all the filtering or non-linear
regression analysis a person can stand, but this
will have no usefulness if the phenomenon being
analyzed has no relationship to the claims being
made.  As I note above, Hansen’s studies are
completely irrelevant.**

   When a group of excellent scientists thought
that Steve Jones was the
only recuperable cold fusion experimentalist, they
took him aside and
asked him to segment his counters and see if he
got the expected result.
He did segment them and realized that all his
claims of neutron bursts were
false. Then he awoke and realized that cold fusion
was crazy - but then
he asked, how come these other guys are getting
results that are obviously
wrong? So with Lee Hansen, he did some trivial
experiments which any
self-respecting experimentalist would have done
ages ago, and showed how you
can get false results of excess heat.

** Yes, this is a fair description.  Jones knew
the effect could not be true so he set out to
discover the mistakes other people were making.
He showed that recombination operates in cells to
which a few mA are applied. Rather than trying to
show himself to be wrong by going to a higher
current, he concluded that recombination was
occurring in the P-F  cells to which hundreds of
mA were being applied, this was in spite of direct
measurements by P-F showing that recombination was
not taking place in their cells.  To prove either
Jones or P-F wrong, I studied recombination as a
function of applied current.  This work, published
in Infinite Energy, shows that Jones is wrong and
P-F are correct.  Perhaps you would like to
comment on this work and forget Jones.**


 So Ed, is there any change you can make to your
experiments which is the
equivalent of segmenting Jones's counters? For
example, using a null
method as Harwell did, or as Tom Droege did on a
smaller scale?
   Maybe the committee was underestimating and you
are also recuperable?
Please think about it and do simple experiments to
try and prove yourself
wrong such as blowing nitrogen gas between the
electrodes every time
you think that you have excess heat.

**  The question that naturally comes up when
anomalous heat is observed is, what aspect of the
measuring system could have failed.  After all,
only a few measurements are involved, i.e.
temperature, the cooling water flow rate, and the
applied power.  All of these variables can be
checked independently.  In my case, I use a sealed
cell containing a recombiner.  Therefore,
recombination is not an issue and blowing nitrogen
would serve no purpose.  On the other hand, when I
obtained anomalous energy using Pt, I tried
changing the current and showed that aspects of
the behavior were completely reproducible.  All of
this work was published on the internet and was
evaluated by many skeptics.  As a result of their
comments, I made additional measurements in an
attempt to find the source of the energy.  At this
point, the excess energy is very difficult to
explain by operation of conventional processes.**

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 15:32:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29672;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:21:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:21:52 -0700
Message-Id: <200007172221.SAA28651 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:22:15 -0400
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JGDl03.0.XF7._RuSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36231
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortexians.

Got this just now  -- Gene Mallove

*****

Downloaded:  July 19, 2000


Grass Valley Company Gets Funding for Fusion Power

by Celia Lamb

Sacramento Business Journal

June 23, 2000

A Grass Valley company working on a technology for generating energy 
by fusion has captured $825,000 in financing, despite skepticism by 
some scientists.

Impulse Devices Inc., founded by mechanical engineer Ross Tessien, 
aims to produce power plants that use a process called 
sonoluminescence to fuse atoms together and make energy.

The company plans to sell 1-megawatt power plants using the 
technology that could be shipped to small towns and industrial 
manufacturers throughout the world.  The company estimates it could 
capture $100 billion of a $500 billion per year electric power 
generation market.

The technology could produce power for only $6 per megawatt-hour 
compared to $30 to $60 per megawatt-hour by

Besides the low production costs, the company's Web site points to 
other benefits, from eliminating air pollution to making wars over 
oil obsolete.

But a scientist contacted by the Business Journal said the business 
plan may be too good to be true.

"Nobody's even demonstrated the (effectiveness) of fusion technology 
with sonoluminescence, and to anticipate megawatt power plants based 
on that technology seems premature," said Mike Moran, a scientist 
with the experiments with sonoluminescence.

Though the technology is unproven, investors have bought in.  The 
company raised $830,000 in two rounds of financing and will seek $5 
million more.  Tessien said the financial supporters are private 
investors in the Bay Area who are sophisticated enough to understand 
the risk. The lead investor has financed Internet, medical and 
aerospace companies.

Impulse Devices has submitted 20 patent applications to the U.S. 
Patent Office, but it is keeping details about its research secret. 
The company has not published the results of its research in 
peer-reviewed scientific journals, leaving many scientists dubious.

"I can't imagine who they're getting money from.  Maybe the people 
who are giving them money don't care about peer review," said William 
Moss, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore. "If they can demonstrate 
that there's some science here, then that's fantastic.  The world is 
waiting for it."

Technical Difficulties: Fusion involves heating a mixture of hydrogen 
isotopes - hydrogen atoms with neutrons inside.  When they get hot 
enough, atoms fuse to form helium and expel neutrons and energy. The 
most common way to start fusion is by bombarding a pellet of 
neutron-laden hydrogen atoms with a laser.

Sonoluminescence uses sound waves to collapse tiny bubbles of gas 
suspended in liquid, generating heat and light.

Both sonoluminescence and fusion are proven physical phenomena, but 
nobody has been able to demonstrate that sonoluminescence can 
generate enough heat to fuse nuclei, said Robert Apfel, a mechanical 
engineer at Yale University who studies sonoluminescence.

The temperatures needed for fusion are in the hundreds of thousands 
of degrees Celsius, while temperatures measured from collapsing 
bubbles have reached only 20,000 to 30,000 degrees Celsius.

Even if Impulse Devices were to prove it could start fusion with 
sonoluminescence, the technology probably would not produce enough 
energy to fuel power plants, scientists said.  That's because the 
bubbles are so small, with a diameter of less than one-hundredth the 
width of a human hair when the bubble is collapsing.

Moss, one of the first scientist to suggest that sonoluminescence 
could result in temperatures high enough for fusion, said his 
calculations show that even if he were to tile the earth with flasks 
containing sonoluminescent bubbles, he would only get enough energy 
from fusion in one hour to heat a cup of coffee one degree.

"I'm not intimately familiar with what they're doing up there," Moss 
said.  "If you consider the practice of fusion from sonoluminescence 
from a strictly classical perspective, I think it's going to be very 
difficult to do."

Proof: Tessien and his company's chief scientist, Felipe Gaitan, 
acknowledge that they have yet to prove their technology.  Gaitan 
said he's been experimenting with different temperatures, pressures, 
and liquids.

"Where we're at right now is essentially like Edison trying to figure 
out what kind of filament to put in the light bulb," Tessein said.

Gaitan estimates that he's about two years a way from proving that 
sonoluminescence can be used to produce energy from fusion in the 
quantity needed for power plants.  After that the company would need 
only about six months to engineer the first plant, Tessein said.

Gaitan, who earned his Ph.D. in physics from the University of 
Mississippi, home of the National Center for Physical Acoustics, was 
recruited by Apfel to work at Yale before he decided to enter the 
private sector. He was the first scientist to show that stabilized 
sonoluminescence was possible. He admits he's working in a 
controversial field.

"Most people laugh when you tell them you're trying to do nuclear 
physics with sonoluminescence," he said. "Some people would like to 
say we're outside regular physics. I'd like to think we're at the 
forefront."




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 16:31:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA21899;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:28:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:28:18 -0700
Message-ID: <397397C9.15CA39CC ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:33:57 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>		
	 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>	
	 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>
	 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]> <v04011700b5980d3b5275@[207.8.127.190]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g98LK2.0.zL5.IQvSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36232
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{Hi Ed. Well, it looks to me like we are beginning to close in on the
> core of the problem that you, and possibly some others, are having with my
> attempted proof of continuity. For that reason, despite the fact that there
> are many other interesting points raised by your latest post, I am going to
> snip everything but the one core point. Time permitting, I will respond to
> the deleted material later. --MJ}***

I agree.  I think it may even be possible for us to agree to disagree.

>
>
> [big snip]
>
> >> >> ***{So what? The "what," of course, is that my indirect proof of the
> >> >> principle of continuity then follows. (Note: to construct an indirect
> >>proof
> >> >> of a proposition, you assume it is false, and then show a contradiction.
> >> >> Thus to prove the principle of continuity indirectly, you demonstrate
> >>that
> >> >> the denial of continuity leads to a contradiction.)
> >> >
> >> >It leads to a contradiction only because you design the logic to
> >>produce the
> >> >contradiction.  You make "a particle leaping out of nothing" equal to "our
> >> >existence" when, in fact, this equality is only an assumption.
> >>
> >> ***{I do nothing of the kind. Your statement is so utterly incoherent, in
> >> fact, that I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. I can
> >> only suppose you made the statement after your 16th beer, just before you
> >> saw the pink elephant. :-) --MJ}***
> >
> >This is an example of a conceptual disconnect.  You are so sure your proof is
> >correct that you do not see the implied assumption.  When you say "a particle
> >leaping out of nothing" has an effect on, can influence, has a
> >relationship to our
> >existence or our sensations, you are making an assumption.  This
> >relationship is
> >not a fact of nature, it is only a statement you make in order to arrive
> >at the
> >conclusion you wish to prove, i.e. if particles could make the BIG jump
> >then "it
> >would be possible that sensations themselves might be leaping into
> >existence out
> >of nothing--and thus it would be possible that *all* sensations were doing
> >that--which means: it would be possible that the external world, your
> >body, your
> >brain, your memories, and your self, do not exist."  This is a classic case of
> >assuming one's conclusions.  Once "jump' equals "existence" than your
> >conclusion
> >naturally follows.  But what if there were no relationship between "jump" and
> >"existence".  Suppose, all kinds of particles did the "jump" and we were still
> >here.
>
> ***{If we assume the principle of continuity is invalid, then each of the
> following outcomes are possible:
>
> (1) It is possible that things leap into and out of existence so
> unobtrusively that we can never detect them, and that they have no
> influence on our lives. Let Pu represent the probability of this outcome..

I would accept a value between 0 and 0.5 for this number.

>
>
> (2) It is possible that continuity violations occur only in the microcosm,
> that they are detectible through complex experiments and sophisticated
> statistics, but that they "average out" so effectively that they are not
> apparent in the world of the ordinary senses--i.e., the macrocosm. This is
> the view of "quantum mechanics." Let Pq represent the probability of this
> state of affairs.

I would accept a value between 0.5 and 1 for this number.

>
>
> (3) It is possible that continuity violations are detectible with man's
> natural senses, but that they are not so obtrusive as to seriously impact
> human life. Let Po represent the probability of this state of affairs.

I would accept a value of 0 to 0.5 for this number.

>
>
> (4) It is possible that continuity violations seriously screw things up for
> us, but do not preclude our existence or that of the world. Let Ps
> represent the probability of this state of affairs.

I would accept a value of 0 for this number.

>
>
> (5) It is possible that all of our sensations are leaping into existence
> out of nothing--which means: it is possible that the external world, our
> bodies, our brains, our memories, and our selves, do not exist. Let Pn
> represent the probability of this state of affairs.

I would accept a value of 0 for this number.

>
>
> In other words, the denial of continuity implies that each of Pu, Pq, Po,
> Ps, and Pn is greater than zero.

No, only the first three need be greater than zero.  The last one can not be
greater than zero because, as you agree, we could not be holding this debate.
But, then that is your proof.

>
> Note that I very explicitly acknowledge the truth of (1) through (4)--which
> means I am *not* assuming that a denial of continuity requires that we not
> exist. What I am saying is that the denial of continuity requires us to
> conclude that it is *possible* that we do not exist--which means: Pn > 0

Here you assume that it is possible for Pn to be greater than zero, actually by
reversing your logic. If it is possible for Pn to be greater than zero, your
conclusion naturally follows using your normal logic.  I, on the other hand,
assume that Pn is never, ever greater than zero even though the other
probabilities may be.   What arguments or demonstrations prove that Pn must ever
be greater than zero?

> .
>
> Note that while I do not deny that Pu, Pq, Po, and Ps are also greater than
> zero, I am not interested in them, because they do not contradict my
> certain knowledge of my own existence--i.e., they do not contradict the
> fact that Pe = 1.0.

That's right, but the other probabilities may be greater than zero, thereby
causing serious conflict on some level with a general application of your
continuity principle.

>
> However, I *am* interested in the fact that Pn > 0, because Pe = 1 - Pn,
> and thus it follows that Pe < 1.0, which means the denial of continuity
> contradicts my utter certainty that Pe = 1.0.

Yes, this logic is correct provided Pn can be greater than zero.  However, nothing
is proven if Pn can never be greater than zero no matter what, hence it is not a
valid test for your proposition.  Pn then becomes an inert factor having no
relationship to continuity, any more than does the phase of the moon

>
>
> In other words, if I assume that continuity is false, I obtain a
> contradiction of a known fact--to wit: the fact that Pe = 1.0. Result: by
> the method of indirect proof, my assumption must be wrong--which means: the
> principle of continuity must be true.

I think you see the conflict we have and the problem anyone has in using such an
approach to a proof.  The out come depends on at least one critical assumption.  I
do not agree as to the validity of the assumption you made.  You need to prove to
me that Pn has the ABILITY to be greater than zero.  Simply saying that it can be
greater than zero as a hypothetical possibility to prove a negative is not
enough.  Otherwise, you have no argument in my eyes, just an arbitrary logical
relationship.

Snip

Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 16:40:59 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27665;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:39:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:39:58 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b599492a528c [12.21.208.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:41:45 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe?  (corrected)
Resent-Message-ID: <"OWil92.0.9m6.DbvSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36233
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:32 AM 7/17/0, Larry Wharton wrote:
>Horace Heffner Writes:
>
>>It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
>>due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
>>here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
>>to differing relativistic effects occuring with repect to multiple
>>particles at varying velocities.
>>The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
>>integrating:
>>
>>  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)
>>
>>for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2.  If the integration result is
>>non-zero then the net charge makes sense.
>
>This integral may be done exactly.  The proper form is:
>
>Integral k(theta) = (1-b) 2Pi Integral(1/(1-b sin^2 theta)^3/2) d cos theta
>
>where the integral goes from -1 to 1.  The result is just 4Pi and
>there is no velocity dependence.  Integration in spherical
>coordinates involves integrating sin(theta) d theta = - d cos(theta)
>and not just d theta .


Thanks for the help!  But why do you integrate from -1 to 1?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 16:48:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA31468;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:46:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:46:26 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b5994b27ca15 [12.21.208.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:48:20 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
Resent-Message-ID: <"13VVB2.0.Xh7.IhvSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36234
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 6:22 PM 7/17/0, Eugene F. Mallove wrote:

>Moss, one of the first scientist to suggest that sonoluminescence
>could result in temperatures high enough for fusion, said his
>calculations show that even if he were to tile the earth with flasks
>containing sonoluminescent bubbles, he would only get enough energy
>from fusion in one hour to heat a cup of coffee one degree.


Yes, but do the cups have magnets blue tacked to their sides so they roll
up little ramps first?    8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 16:58:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA00926;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:35 -0700
Message-ID: <39739D33.E1AAC552 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:57:06 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
References: <200007172221.SAA28651 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RjQ6E1.0.OE.7mvSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36235
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortexians,

Here is what a clever operator can do with a scientific phenomenon
before it has been painted with the black brush of skepticism.  The fact
that the same method has been used to initiate a cold fusion reaction in
metals to produce significant power  is ignored, because such success
has the bad taste of cold fusion.  Never mind that the one application
works and the other does not.  The nonworking method gets the money, the
working method gets nothing.  This shows clearly the effect skeptics
have on science.

Ed Storms

"Eugene F. Mallove" wrote:

> Vortexians.
>
> Got this just now  -- Gene Mallove
>
> *****
>
> Downloaded:  July 19, 2000
>
> Grass Valley Company Gets Funding for Fusion Power
>
> by Celia Lamb
>
> Sacramento Business Journal
>
> June 23, 2000
>
> A Grass Valley company working on a technology for generating energy
> by fusion has captured $825,000 in financing, despite skepticism by
> some scientists.
>
> Impulse Devices Inc., founded by mechanical engineer Ross Tessien,
> aims to produce power plants that use a process called
> sonoluminescence to fuse atoms together and make energy.
>
> The company plans to sell 1-megawatt power plants using the
> technology that could be shipped to small towns and industrial
> manufacturers throughout the world.  The company estimates it could
> capture $100 billion of a $500 billion per year electric power
> generation market.
>
> The technology could produce power for only $6 per megawatt-hour
> compared to $30 to $60 per megawatt-hour by
>
> Besides the low production costs, the company's Web site points to
> other benefits, from eliminating air pollution to making wars over
> oil obsolete.
>
> But a scientist contacted by the Business Journal said the business
> plan may be too good to be true.
>
> "Nobody's even demonstrated the (effectiveness) of fusion technology
> with sonoluminescence, and to anticipate megawatt power plants based
> on that technology seems premature," said Mike Moran, a scientist
> with the experiments with sonoluminescence.
>
> Though the technology is unproven, investors have bought in.  The
> company raised $830,000 in two rounds of financing and will seek $5
> million more.  Tessien said the financial supporters are private
> investors in the Bay Area who are sophisticated enough to understand
> the risk. The lead investor has financed Internet, medical and
> aerospace companies.
>
> Impulse Devices has submitted 20 patent applications to the U.S.
> Patent Office, but it is keeping details about its research secret.
> The company has not published the results of its research in
> peer-reviewed scientific journals, leaving many scientists dubious.
>
> "I can't imagine who they're getting money from.  Maybe the people
> who are giving them money don't care about peer review," said William
> Moss, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore. "If they can demonstrate
> that there's some science here, then that's fantastic.  The world is
> waiting for it."
>
> Technical Difficulties: Fusion involves heating a mixture of hydrogen
> isotopes - hydrogen atoms with neutrons inside.  When they get hot
> enough, atoms fuse to form helium and expel neutrons and energy. The
> most common way to start fusion is by bombarding a pellet of
> neutron-laden hydrogen atoms with a laser.
>
> Sonoluminescence uses sound waves to collapse tiny bubbles of gas
> suspended in liquid, generating heat and light.
>
> Both sonoluminescence and fusion are proven physical phenomena, but
> nobody has been able to demonstrate that sonoluminescence can
> generate enough heat to fuse nuclei, said Robert Apfel, a mechanical
> engineer at Yale University who studies sonoluminescence.
>
> The temperatures needed for fusion are in the hundreds of thousands
> of degrees Celsius, while temperatures measured from collapsing
> bubbles have reached only 20,000 to 30,000 degrees Celsius.
>
> Even if Impulse Devices were to prove it could start fusion with
> sonoluminescence, the technology probably would not produce enough
> energy to fuel power plants, scientists said.  That's because the
> bubbles are so small, with a diameter of less than one-hundredth the
> width of a human hair when the bubble is collapsing.
>
> Moss, one of the first scientist to suggest that sonoluminescence
> could result in temperatures high enough for fusion, said his
> calculations show that even if he were to tile the earth with flasks
> containing sonoluminescent bubbles, he would only get enough energy
> from fusion in one hour to heat a cup of coffee one degree.
>
> "I'm not intimately familiar with what they're doing up there," Moss
> said.  "If you consider the practice of fusion from sonoluminescence
> from a strictly classical perspective, I think it's going to be very
> difficult to do."
>
> Proof: Tessien and his company's chief scientist, Felipe Gaitan,
> acknowledge that they have yet to prove their technology.  Gaitan
> said he's been experimenting with different temperatures, pressures,
> and liquids.
>
> "Where we're at right now is essentially like Edison trying to figure
> out what kind of filament to put in the light bulb," Tessein said.
>
> Gaitan estimates that he's about two years a way from proving that
> sonoluminescence can be used to produce energy from fusion in the
> quantity needed for power plants.  After that the company would need
> only about six months to engineer the first plant, Tessein said.
>
> Gaitan, who earned his Ph.D. in physics from the University of
> Mississippi, home of the National Center for Physical Acoustics, was
> recruited by Apfel to work at Yale before he decided to enter the
> private sector. He was the first scientist to show that stabilized
> sonoluminescence was possible. He admits he's working in a
> controversial field.
>
> "Most people laugh when you tell them you're trying to do nuclear
> physics with sonoluminescence," he said. "Some people would like to
> say we're outside regular physics. I'd like to think we're at the
> forefront."

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 17 18:49:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA09794;
	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:47:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:47:39 -0700
Message-ID: <004701bff062$398d8360$b78e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumping of H2-D2-K Gas?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:45:16 -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: <"jcOUe2.0.sO2.vSxSv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36236
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

 To Vortex:
 
 Using a standard 40 watt Mercury Discharge Quartz Tube so that the 254 nanometer (4.88 ev)
 photons
 which represent about 60% of the energy of the Hg discharge, mounted in a tube so that
 the annular space filled with H2 or D2 and at an optimum pressure, with Potassium Vapor,
 with or without a discharge, might prove interesting.
 
 OTOH, a "wire" wrapped around the tube could serve as a cathode for running a discharge.

 The 254 nanometer (4.88 ev) uv can ionize the potassium (4.34 ev) as well as  dissociate
 the H2 or D2 (~ 4.53 ev).
 
Will this make Hydrinos?
 
 Regards,   Frederick
 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 00:21:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA28262;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5996c53c352 [207.8.127.170]>
In-Reply-To: <397397C9.15CA39CC ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>			
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>		
 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>	
 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>
 <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:13:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"8D_XH1.0.Vv6.aG0Tv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36237
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

***{This is in response to Ed Storms. --MJ}***

[snip]

>
>>
>> Note that I very explicitly acknowledge the truth of (1) through (4)--which
>> means I am *not* assuming that a denial of continuity requires that we not
>> exist. What I am saying is that the denial of continuity requires us to
>> conclude that it is *possible* that we do not exist--which means: Pn > 0
>
>Here you assume that it is possible for Pn to be greater than zero,
>actually by
>reversing your logic. If it is possible for Pn to be greater than zero, your
>conclusion naturally follows using your normal logic.  I, on the other hand,
>assume that Pn is never, ever greater than zero even though the other
>probabilities may be. What arguments or demonstrations prove that Pn must ever
>be greater than zero?

***{OK, let's examine the logical consequences of assuming that the
principle of continuity is false. If you assume that it is possible for
things to leap into and out of existence, then one logical consequence is
that it is possible (i.e., the probability is greater than zero) that all
of your sensations are leaping into existence out of nothing. And that
leads to a second logical consequence--to wit: it is possible that the
external world, your body, your brain, your memories, etc.--all the things
that define you as a person--do not exist. Bottom line: the denial of
continuity implies that you may not exist--which means: Pn > 0. --MJ}***

[snip]

>>
>> However, I *am* interested in the fact that Pn > 0, because Pe = 1 - Pn,
>> and thus it follows that Pe < 1.0, which means the denial of continuity
>> contradicts my utter certainty that Pe = 1.0.
>
>Yes, this logic is correct provided Pn can be greater than zero.  However,
>nothing
>is proven if Pn can never be greater than zero no matter what

***{But, as explained above, the denial of continuity implies that Pn > 0.
That's the whole point: if we assume the principle of continuity is false,
it follows that Pn > 0. Since Pe = 1 - Pn, it then follows that Pe < 1.0.
But, based on Descarte's dictum, we know that in fact Pe = 1.0. Thus we
have a contradiction, which forces us to conclude that we erred when we
denied continuity. Conclusion: the principle of continuity must be true.
--MJ}***

[snip]

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 02:13:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA27157;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:12:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:12:27 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b599bffaeb02 [12.21.208.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:14:27 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"XbE5x2.0.Ae6.wz1Tv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36238
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

A sound argument requires a valid argument, one which follows the rules of
deductive logic, PLUS requires a foundation of true premises.  The truth of
the premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.

Have you looked this up in some texts on logic to check it out?  Is this
not a standard accepted definition?

If this definition of a sound argument is generally accepted, then it must
be generally accepted that whatever is palatable by one's own experience,
philosophy and religion governs what he will accept as a premise, including
any premises cooked up to imply or restate the principle of continuity.
You can not prove such a principle in a generally accepted manner, for no
sound argument exists for it.  It is a matter of choice of axioms, and I
say the freedom to choose is the most fundamental principle necessary for
the formation of a philosophy, even preceeding the ability to think.
Without freedom, of what use is thought, and what is thought?  Without
freedom we are merely automotons grinding out a flawed heuristic.  With
individual freedom, plus with nature's unending enforcement of its rules,
even without continuity, then we have the ability to evolve from
nothingness to at least our present level of being, thus the ability to
think freely, as I think we do, must necessarily ultimately evolve.
However, if we are all free to chose axioms, who is to be the judge of the
correct and true axioms?  Science provides the answer to that by supplying
nature as the final arbiter.  Nature has the veto power.  If you deny
nature as arbiter, you are left only with god or yourself as arbiter, with
yourself being the only thing you know for sure to exist.  If left with
only yourself then this seems to be an empty philosophy.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 02:14:42 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA27839;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:14:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:14:03 -0700
Message-ID: <3974199C.E6F06733 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:47:24 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Off Topic TWA Flt 800: [Fwd: Press Conference Summary]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"a2iOB1.0.ro6.P_1Tv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36239
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Press Conference Summary
Date: 18 Jul 2000 01:44:45 -0000
From: "TWA Flight 800" <bobdonaldson yahoo.com>
To: List Member <aki ix.netcom.com>

TWA Flight 800 - http://twa800.com

Dear Member,

Following is a brief summary of today's press conference.

Press Conference

The press conference began at 10:30am with a family member, Marge Gross,
who lost her brother on the flight, expressing her belief that the NTSB
and FBI were not were not telling the truth about the loss of Flight
800.
She also related a story about how FBI Deputy Director Kallstrom, early
in
the investigation, told her "It was definitely a missile, but I'll deny
it
if you quote me."  She said she was stunned, but that there were other
witnesses present who could corroborate her story.

Next was Master Chief Dwight Brumley, the passenger on USAir Flight 217,
who saw a streak of light coming from behind his plane (the USAir
flight),
going faster than Flight 217, end in a small explosion that subsequently
grew to a large fireball.  His aircraft was traveling approximately
north
and Flight 800 was traveling east.  The CIA distorted his statement,
after
reading a short FBI 302 form, and said his view of the streak was
consistent with the flight path of Flight 800.  In fact, his view of the
streak was at a 90-degree angle to Flight 800's path and could not have
been the burning aircraft as claimed by the CIA.

Next was Michael Wire, the eyewitness on a bridge.  Although only the
FBI
interviewed him, the CIA based their entire video discrediting the
eyewitnesses, on his written FBI 302 statement.  Mr. Wire stated that
the
CIA video bears no resemblance to what he was.  He proceeded to describe
seeing a flare rapidly rise from the surface, arcing up leaving a
squiggly
smoke trail, and then disappear for a second and erupting into an
explosion.  During the Q&A it was clear that what the CIA video showed
was
not what Mr. Wire saw.

Next was James Sanders who presented photographs from the Calverton
hanger.  He discussed how metal was bent during the reconstruction to
fit
the CWT explosion theory.  He presented quite a few photographs with a
discussion of how the missile went through the aircraft.

Next came Tom Stalcup, president of FIRO, Flight 800 Independent
Researchers Organization.  Tom gave a discussion of the eyewitness
evidence and provided some examples along with the statistics related to
the witness forms.  He also discussed the lawsuit filed by FIRO to force
the FBI to release information.

Last was Cmdr. Donaldson who spoke passionately about his reasons for
pursuing this investigation and the evidence that is being ignored by
the
NTSB - the failure of the left wing due to asymmetrical damage which is
completely inconsistent with the CWT theory and completely consistent
with
the China Lake military expert's report that recommended the FBI fire
live
stinger missiles into the #2 left wing tank to see if it matched the
damage to the left upper wing skin.  The expert suggested this is the
only
explanation for the damage found on the left wing.

Finally, there was an open Q&A session with active participation in by
numerous reporters present.  For an hour and a half after the conference
all of the presenters were sought out for one on one interviews.

At the end of the session, AIM filmed each of the presenters for a
documentary on the tragedy.

Paula Zahn Interview

Cmdr. Donaldson's interview with Paula Zahn was cancelled late this
afternoon to provide more coverage of Hillary Clinton's alleged racial
slur.

Regards,

Bob


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to fl800-unsubscribe listbot.com

Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 03:59:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA12729;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:54:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:54:53 -0700
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 06:54:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200007181054.GAA10295 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: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
Resent-Message-ID: <"MDmmW3.0.p63.yT3Tv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36240
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ed Storms writes:
>Here is what a clever operator can do with a scientific phenomenon
>before it has been painted with the black brush of skepticism.  The fact
>that the same method has been used to initiate a cold fusion reaction in
>metals to produce significant power  is ignored, because such success
>has the bad taste of cold fusion.  Never mind that the one application
>works and the other does not.  The nonworking method gets the money, the
>working method gets nothing.  This shows clearly the effect skeptics
>have on science.
>
>Ed Storms

Ed,

Ross Tessien is a very intelligent and talented engineer, and I would bet
that he has something that works pretty well already, or he would not be
able to garner these kinds of funds.  As far as I can tell by what you have
written, you don't even know what his method is yet, and already you are
calling him a "clever operator" whose method doesn't work.  Your comment
sounds more like professional jealousy than anything based on any facts
whatsoever.

As Jed has so well pointed out, Stringham is just not interested in a big
marketing effort with all the political hassle that goes along with it.  I
don't blame him.  He is evidently a mellow guy who is content to do basic
science research in peace with the money that he has available to him.
Nobody has ignored his work however, and neither have they ignored the work
of Heller, Barber, Schwinger, Suslick or Putterman, who also has a patent on
a cavitation based fusion device, as you know.  Two of those guys won
Nobels, for crying out loud.  They just are not Pons and Fleischmann style,
electrochemical cold fusionists.

You are, and so far, you haven't produced anything that looks even remotely
viable in the marketplace, even with having millions of dollars at your
disposal and after ten years of effort.  Neither have Pons and Fleischmann.
As I recall, your last effort reported here produced a measured 1% or so of
excess heat, and the calorimetry was questioned.  With all due respect for
your knowledge of material science, calorimetry and electrochemistry, your
dogged persistence, dedication, and your 300+, peer reviewed, published
papers, it is no wonder that you have difficulty with funding.  Funding
comes with results, and the cavitation researchers have produced so many
positive, usable discoveries in the last ten years in so many different
areas, that they get funded.  It is really quite simple when you think about
it.  It works.  It has nothing to do with getting painted with anybody's
"brush of skepticism".  You are just flogging a barely breathing, exhausted
old horse.

Moss's objection to the idea of cavitation producing usable amounts of
excess heat is no doubt based upon the calculations resulting from the
measurements taken of the simplistic embodiment of a single bubble
sonoluminescence device.  He is correct that you probably could cover the
Earth with those kinds of flasks and transducer systems, and not get more
than a dime's worth of excess heat. So what?  Those devices only produce one
very tiny bubble.  However, with a massively, multi-bubble cavitator, which
I'm sure Tessien is using, you do get excess heat, and it comes in easily
measurable quantities, even with light water.  You also get a higher volume
of steam per unit of input energy by a factor of about 2.5 as compared to
Joule heating, which is also not to be ignored, and can be quite useful in
generating electricity for a properly funded, capable engineer like Tessien.
Everybody in the field that doesn't have their head buried in the sand knows
this.

Moss himself may be working on something more powerful than a SBSL device,
as he should be, and like yourself, simply may not be inclined to endorse
the efforts of the uncredentialed for competitive reasons.  I don't know,
and I really don't care.  I just am a bit disappointed to see him use the
data for one type of cavitation device, a single bubble device which was
only designed for pure research, and apply it to the whole lot of them, some
of which were/are designed for real life, large scale applications.  It
seems a bit dishonest to me, but I've gotten so used to seeing that sort of
behavior amongst money grubbing professionals that it no longer surprises or
depresses me.   

What Tessien is now doing is what I think too many cavitation researchers
are too afraid to do, and that is boldly going for the throat of the energy
generation matter, and looking at what conditions will create fusion instead
of using cavitation to do everything else in the chemical, environmental and
medical world.  Temperature and pressure are the keys to a very simple,
reliable and inexpensive, cavitation based fusion method using the right
ingredients, and I'm sure he will find the right combination of each, if he
hasn't already.  I wonder myself, what the embodiment is of his device, but
I can wait with the rest of us in the peanut gallery of life, I suppose.  I
don't think it will take long.  He's a smart guy.  He can do the math.  He's
honest and hard working, and his writing can be as charismatic as Mills'
when he wants it to be, if not more so. 

I wish him all the best, as should you.  Grousing about who got a lousy 800
grand in investment capitalization for his company after all the years of
hard work, effort and personal expenditure on Tessien's part is kind of
cheeeezy, I think. ;)

Knuke - The Other Modest Mouse in the Cheeeeziest of Worlds
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 Jul 18 08:32:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28704;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:24:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:24:58 -0700
Message-ID: <008a01bff0d4$67df8ca0$b78e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <Knuke LCIA.COM>, <Ron.Brodzinski@pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Commercial Colloid Mills
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:22:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFF099.B3CECBC0"
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: <"ktvCt3.0.Q07.9R7Tv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36242
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_01BFF099.B3CECBC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Seems to me that this technology should produce sonoluminescence/fusion.

Are they missing something?   :-)

 http://www.sonicmixing.com/

Regards,     Frederick

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFF099.B3CECBC0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Sonic Corp.-Innovative Mixing Technology.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Sonic Corp.-Innovative Mixing Technology.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.sonicmixing.com/

[DOC#6#7#8]
BASEURL=http://www.sonicmixing.com/art/frame1051577.html

[DOC#6#7#9]
BASEURL=http://www.sonicmixing.com/navbar.html

[DOC#6#10]
BASEURL=http://www.sonicmixing.com/art/frame1051727.html

[DOC#6#11]
BASEURL=http://www.sonicmixing.com/info.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.sonicmixing.com/
Modified=A0D37FBDD3F0BF0132

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFF099.B3CECBC0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 08:32:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28121;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:24:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:24:01 -0700
Message-ID: <397477C4.9B4F91DE ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:29:15 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>			
	 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>		
	 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>	
	 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>
	 <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]> <v04011700b5996c53c352@[207.8.127.170]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AsBoI.0.Ht6.GQ7Tv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36241
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{This is in response to Ed Storms. --MJ}***
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >>
> >> Note that I very explicitly acknowledge the truth of (1) through (4)--which
> >> means I am *not* assuming that a denial of continuity requires that we not
> >> exist. What I am saying is that the denial of continuity requires us to
> >> conclude that it is *possible* that we do not exist--which means: Pn > 0
> >
> >Here you assume that it is possible for Pn to be greater than zero,
> >actually by
> >reversing your logic. If it is possible for Pn to be greater than zero, your
> >conclusion naturally follows using your normal logic.  I, on the other hand,
> >assume that Pn is never, ever greater than zero even though the other
> >probabilities may be. What arguments or demonstrations prove that Pn must ever
> >be greater than zero?
>
> ***{OK, let's examine the logical consequences of assuming that the
> principle of continuity is false. If you assume that it is possible for
> things to leap into and out of existence, then one logical consequence is
> that it is possible (i.e., the probability is greater than zero) that all
> of your sensations are leaping into existence out of nothing.

No, I can, in my mind, believe that things can leap into and out of existence
without my sensations being involved at all.  These are two separate and
independent processes.  Particles making the "jump" and my sensations have no
relationship to each other except in the logic of your argument and in your
imagination.  As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This situation, I suggest, is
the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of continuity can not
be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying to do.

> And that
> leads to a second logical consequence--to wit: it is possible that the
> external world, your body, your brain, your memories, etc.--all the things
> that define you as a person--do not exist. Bottom line: the denial of
> continuity implies that you may not exist--which means: Pn > 0. --MJ}***

If you use this logic path, then you have to conclude that nothing can leap into
and out of existence, which is the conclusion you are trying to achieve.  How
would you handle the problem of actually finding particles that were found to make
the big "jump"? Would you ignore the effect by claiming the effect was impossible
because you "proved" the principle of continuity?

>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> >> However, I *am* interested in the fact that Pn > 0, because Pe = 1 - Pn,
> >> and thus it follows that Pe < 1.0, which means the denial of continuity
> >> contradicts my utter certainty that Pe = 1.0.
> >
> >Yes, this logic is correct provided Pn can be greater than zero.  However,
> >nothing
> >is proven if Pn can never be greater than zero no matter what
>
> ***{But, as explained above, the denial of continuity implies that Pn > 0.
> That's the whole point: if we assume the principle of continuity is false,
> it follows that Pn > 0. Since Pe = 1 - Pn, it then follows that Pe < 1.0.
> But, based on Descarte's dictum, we know that in fact Pe = 1.0. Thus we
> have a contradiction, which forces us to conclude that we erred when we
> denied continuity. Conclusion: the principle of continuity must be true.
> --MJ}***

We seem to be plowing the same ground over and over again.  Let me try another
approach.  You say " denial of continuity implies that Pn > 0." But other
possibilities can exist. For example, continuity CAN NOT exist while Pn=0, or
continuity CAN exist while Pn=0, the latter condition being the one you wish to
prove.  Because the former statement can also be true, the value of Pn has no
ability to determine the existence of continuity.  You might just as well argue
that continuity exists because the earth is round, or that you are hungry.

Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 09:32:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA22564;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:29:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:29:36 -0700
Message-ID: <39748727.145D9ED3 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:34:58 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
References: <200007181054.GAA10295 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"pkQ7F1.0.UW5.lN8Tv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36243
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Michael T Huffman wrote:

> Ed Storms writes:
> >Here is what a clever operator can do with a scientific phenomenon
> >before it has been painted with the black brush of skepticism.  The fact
> >that the same method has been used to initiate a cold fusion reaction in
> >metals to produce significant power  is ignored, because such success
> >has the bad taste of cold fusion.  Never mind that the one application
> >works and the other does not.  The nonworking method gets the money, the
> >working method gets nothing.  This shows clearly the effect skeptics
> >have on science.
> >
> >Ed Storms
>
> Ed,
>
> Ross Tessien is a very intelligent and talented engineer, and I would bet
> that he has something that works pretty well already, or he would not be
> able to garner these kinds of funds.  As far as I can tell by what you have
> written, you don't even know what his method is yet, and already you are
> calling him a "clever operator" whose method doesn't work.  Your comment
> sounds more like professional jealousy than anything based on any facts
> whatsoever.

My comments were based on the following statements made by Ross Tessien as
noted in the press release.

"Ross Tessien and his company's chief scientist, Felipe Gaitan,
acknowledge that they have yet to prove their technology.  Gaitan
said he's been experimenting with different temperatures, pressures,
and liquids.

"Where we're at right now is essentially like Edison trying to figure
out what kind of filament to put in the light bulb," Tessein said."

I did not say the method does not work, I said that theirs was a nonworking
method as they admit to having.  Perhaps, some time in the future they may turn
a nonworking method into a working method. Meanwhile a presently working method
is ignored.

In addition, this phenomenon is being studied at LANL.  These studies reveal
several basic problems which will make production of significant energy very
unlikely.  The worst problem is the mismatch in the rate of energy release by
the bubble compared to the energy needed by the fusion reaction.  Unlike cold
fusion, this is a high energy process which follows the rules of normal hot
fusion.  These rules, which are well understood, seem to predict that the
process will not work as claimed.  On the other hand, I'm the last one to use
conventional fusion theory to prove anything.

>
>
> As Jed has so well pointed out, Stringham is just not interested in a big
> marketing effort with all the political hassle that goes along with it.  I
> don't blame him.  He is evidently a mellow guy who is content to do basic
> science research in peace with the money that he has available to him.
> Nobody has ignored his work however, and neither have they ignored the work
> of Heller, Barber, Schwinger, Suslick or Putterman, who also has a patent on
> a cavitation based fusion device, as you know.  Two of those guys won
> Nobels, for crying out loud.  They just are not Pons and Fleischmann style,
> electrochemical cold fusionists.

As you note, Stringham would like to avoid all the hassle, but he also would
like to have some support to further his work, support he does not have.  The
issue is what the word "ignore" means.  Yes, we all know about Stringham, but
do we give him any money so that the work can advance?

As for the other people, they are not proposing to raise money to solve the
energy problem.

>
> You are, and so far, you haven't produced anything that looks even remotely
> viable in the marketplace, even with having millions of dollars at your
> disposal and after ten years of effort.  Neither have Pons and Fleischmann.

You must be talking about someone else.  I have never had millions of dollars
at my
disposal to study cold fusion.  Even the $250,000 given to LANL for this
purpose was shared between many studies, most of which were poorly done and
failed to show anything.

>
> As I recall, your last effort reported here produced a measured 1% or so of
> excess heat, and the calorimetry was questioned.

All calorimetry in this field is questioned.  That fact has nothing to do with
the reality of the claims. The amount of excess, based on the percentage of
applied power, varies between about 5% (which was the amount obtained by me in
the study you quoted) to over 200% in other reported studies.  The issue is not
whether commercial amounts of power have been produced. The issue is whether
the phenomenon of cold fusion is real or not.  Once we can convenience
conventional science that the claims actually result from a new phenomenon
rather than error, many people will start to study the effect and discover how
to produce useful power.

> With all due respect for
> your knowledge of material science, calorimetry and electrochemistry, your
> dogged persistence, dedication, and your 300+, peer reviewed, published
> papers, it is no wonder that you have difficulty with funding.  Funding
> comes with results, and the cavitation researchers have produced so many
> positive, usable discoveries in the last ten years in so many different
> areas, that they get funded.  It is really quite simple when you think about
> it.  It works.  It has nothing to do with getting painted with anybody's
> "brush of skepticism".  You are just flogging a barely breathing, exhausted
> old horse.

Cavitation and sonoluminescence are accepted phenomenon.  Therefore, they get
support to explore their basic nature without having to demonstrate any
practical application.  Eventually, these studies will result in practical
applications.  On the other hand, because cold fusion is not considered real,
money is not applied to a study of its basic nature.  Instead, the only
acceptable proof that cold fusion is real is based on a demand for a practical
amount of power.  You can surely see the problem.

>
>
> Moss's objection to the idea of cavitation producing usable amounts of
> excess heat is no doubt based upon the calculations resulting from the
> measurements taken of the simplistic embodiment of a single bubble
> sonoluminescence device.  He is correct that you probably could cover the
> Earth with those kinds of flasks and transducer systems, and not get more
> than a dime's worth of excess heat. So what?  Those devices only produce one
> very tiny bubble.  However, with a massively, multi-bubble cavitator, which
> I'm sure Tessien is using, you do get excess heat, and it comes in easily
> measurable quantities, even with light water.  You also get a higher volume
> of steam per unit of input energy by a factor of about 2.5 as compared to
> Joule heating, which is also not to be ignored, and can be quite useful in
> generating electricity for a properly funded, capable engineer like Tessien.
> Everybody in the field that doesn't have their head buried in the sand knows
> this.

I agree with your assessment of Moss's objection.  However, I am surprised at
your statement "you do get excess heat, and it comes in easily measurable
quantities, even with light water".  You apparently have had more success in
making the effect work than any one I know.  Where can I get more detail about
this study?

>
>
> Moss himself may be working on something more powerful than a SBSL device,
> as he should be, and like yourself, simply may not be inclined to endorse
> the efforts of the uncredentialed for competitive reasons.  I don't know,
> and I really don't care.  I just am a bit disappointed to see him use the
> data for one type of cavitation device, a single bubble device which was
> only designed for pure research, and apply it to the whole lot of them, some
> of which were/are designed for real life, large scale applications.  It
> seems a bit dishonest to me, but I've gotten so used to seeing that sort of
> behavior amongst money grubbing professionals that it no longer surprises or
> depresses me.

I share your feelings.

>
>
> What Tessien is now doing is what I think too many cavitation researchers
> are too afraid to do, and that is boldly going for the throat of the energy
> generation matter, and looking at what conditions will create fusion instead
> of using cavitation to do everything else in the chemical, environmental and
> medical world.  Temperature and pressure are the keys to a very simple,
> reliable and inexpensive, cavitation based fusion method using the right
> ingredients, and I'm sure he will find the right combination of each, if he
> hasn't already.  I wonder myself, what the embodiment is of his device, but
> I can wait with the rest of us in the peanut gallery of life, I suppose.  I
> don't think it will take long.  He's a smart guy.  He can do the math.  He's
> honest and hard working, and his writing can be as charismatic as Mills'
> when he wants it to be, if not more so.

I also hope he succeeds.  Fortunately, he did not have to demonstrate
commercial quantities of energy before he got the money to study the effect in
more detail.

>
> I wish him all the best, as should you.  Grousing about who got a lousy 800
> grand in investment capitalization for his company after all the years of
> hard work, effort and personal expenditure on Tessien's part is kind of
> cheeeezy, I think. ;)

I don't begrudge Tessien anything.  I'm just pissed at the double standard
being applied to such claims.

Ed Storms


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 09:47:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA24796;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000718123915.0079f100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:39:15 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
In-Reply-To: <39748727.145D9ED3 ix.netcom.com>
References: <200007181054.GAA10295 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"dXFeD1.0.G36.Db8Tv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36244
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Edmund Storms wrote:

>As you note, Stringham would like to avoid all the hassle, but he also would
>like to have some support to further his work, support he does not have.  The
>issue is what the word "ignore" means.  Yes, we all know about Stringham, but
>do we give him any money so that the work can advance?

We would if he would only act in his own best interests! As Lord Egmont
said to Harrison: "Sir . . . you are the strangest and most obstinate
creature that I have ever met with, and, would you do what we want you to
do, and which is in your power, I will give you my word to give you the
money, if you will but do it!"

(That was not quoted in the recent historical drama on A&E. I wish it had
been. It would have illustrated that Harrison's opponents were upset with
him for a reason.)



>I don't begrudge Tessien anything.  I'm just pissed at the double standard
>being applied to such claims.

Me too, but I hope Tessien makes progress. I think the sonoluminscent
claims are not widely believed or appreciated, although of course they are
not as controversial as CF.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 12:07:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA25786;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:05:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:05:35 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b59a3dfb1abc [207.8.127.193]>
In-Reply-To: <397477C4.9B4F91DE ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>				
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>			
 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>		
 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>	
 <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>
 <v04011700b5996c53c352 [207.8.127.170]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:02:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"hOBaR.0.oI6._fATv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36245
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Storms wrote:

[snip]

As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
>this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This situation, I
>suggest, is
>the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of continuity
>can not
>be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying to do.

***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that discontinuities
which do not affect sensations are *not* the only possibility--which means:
it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect sensations. Thus if we
assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of continuity is
false, we have two implications, not one:

1.1. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
possible that they do not affect sensations.

1.2. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
possible that they *do* affect sensations.

Both 1.1 and 1.2, above, are statements of fact, and are true
simultaneously. We do not have to choose between 1.1 and 1.2, because the
denial of continuity implies the truth of both. The key word that you seem
to be ignoring is the word "possible." To clarify the significance of this
word, compare the following:

2.1. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then either they affect
sensations, or they do not affect sensations."

2.2. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then it is possible that
they affect sensations, and it is also possible that they do not affect
sensations."

In 2.1, note the absence of the word "possible." Because of that absence,
we have to use the "either ... or" (XOR) construct to indicate that the two
subordinate statements cannot be true simultaneously. In 2.2, on the other
hand, the use of the word "possible" requires us to use the word "and",
which indicates that the two subordinate statements are, in fact, true at
the same time.

Because the two possibilities are true *simultaneously*, you commit a
logical fallacy when you insist, as you have been doing, that the truth of
1.1 prohibits me from using 1.2 in my proof. My proof works just fine even
if 1.1 is true, because both 1.1 and 1.2 are true *simultaneously*.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>Ed Storms

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 18 13:06:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA16544;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:03:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:03:48 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b59a652872b4 [12.21.211.5]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:05:35 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"ar2lT1.0.P24.YWBTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36246
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:02 PM 7/18/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>2.1. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then either they affect
>sensations, or they do not affect sensations."
>
>2.2. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then it is possible that
>they affect sensations, and it is also possible that they do not affect
>sensations."


Both the above propositions could be wrong, or at least misleading.  Given
the present state of our ever to remain imperfect knowledge, it appears
that the following is alternative proposition, one of many:

2.3  "If discontinuities are provided by nature, then the discontinuities
provided by nature as we have observed them are necessary to permit and
sustain the existence of all material things."

Of course it directly follows that sensation or even existence would be
impossible without them, that if you exist then discontinuities exist.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 00:14:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA01029;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:13:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:13:01 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b59b04920309 [12.21.209.44]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:14:58 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
Resent-Message-ID: <"cNGX72.0.-F.yJLTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36247
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:22 PM 7/17/0, Eugene F. Mallove wrote:

>Moss, one of the first scientist to suggest that sonoluminescence
>could result in temperatures high enough for fusion, said his
>calculations show that even if he were to tile the earth with flasks
>containing sonoluminescent bubbles, he would only get enough energy
>from fusion in one hour to heat a cup of coffee one degree.


I wrote: "Yes, but do the cups have magnets blue tacked to their sides so
they roll up little ramps first?    8^)"

Gad, my apologies!  I just realized I confused Ross Tessien with Greg
What's-his-name the SMOT guy.  Just getting old I guess.  Don't have time
for any good comments so I should get back to my work and be quiet!  Sorry
for the waste of bandwidth and time.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 01:47:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA15580;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:46:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:46:47 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59b0cc5f02d [12.21.209.47]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:48:08 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Relativistic net charge expands universe? (corrected again)
Resent-Message-ID: <"GyYAy.0.Ep3.rhMTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36248
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is another shot at correcting my bungles.  I just can't seem to get
anything right lately, so this one is probably wrong too.

It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
to differing relativistic effects occuring with respect to multiple
particles at varying velocities.

On p.492 of *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz provides the
equation for relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

which can be interpreted to mean apparent charge is reduced to observers in
line with the charge velocity and increased when viewed (felt) from the
side.

NOTE - it is not standard physics to interpret pancaking as a change in
apparent charge (standard relativity assumes charge is invariant with
velocity) but rather a change in observered field strength, but I think it
is clear we are free to interpret the above equations either way.

Consider an atom where the electrons whiz around a nucleus. They present
some degree of pancaking from any angle viewed.  Some directions apparent
charge is increased and some directions decreased.  The polar orientation
of atom orbitals is mixed in a uniform way due to the orientation of atoms
being mixed in a uniform way.

The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
integrating to find the average value of:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2, and then subtracting the average
value from one to obtain the net charge change factor K, because if v = 0
then

   Q' = Q * 1

If the average value of k is non-zero over all angles theta, for v not 0,
then an average apparent net charge exists when v not 0.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

Note: we want to simplify

   (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

but we know, because b is small that:

   (1 - b sin^2 theta)^3  ~= 1 - 3 b sin^2 theta

                           = b (1/b - 3 sin^2 theta)

however, because b is small, 1/b is very large compared to -3 sin^2 theta,
so we can delete  -3 sin^2 theta with no consequence, so

(1 - b sin^2 theta)^3  ~= b (1/b) = 1

so:

   k(theta)  ~= (1 - b)/(1)^(1/2)

             ~= 1 - b

and we now have for net charge multiplier K:

   K  = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

      = 1 - 1/(2 Pi) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ (1 - b) d theta ]

      = 1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1 - b) (2 Pi)

      = b

   K  = v^2/c^2

which yields a very small net charge Q_net available to expand the universe:

   Q_net = K Q = v^2/c^2 Q

where v is approxiately equal to the average speed of the electrons, be
they in non-ionized atoms or in plasmas with balanced charges, and Q is the
total coulombs of electrons in the subject matter.

The net charge, being the same in all ordinary matter, would be repulsive,
thus slightly anti-gravitic.  The net charge in anti-matter would appear to
be attractive, or slightly gravitic, toward ordinary matter.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 02:47:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA24654;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:41:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:41:28 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bff16d$996c3cc0$5c8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:16 -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: <"IHiWQ.0.816.8VNTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36249
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Vortex:

A power generator that uses the photon amplification in an H2 or D2 Gas
containing Potassium:

1, A Quartz tube containing a low pressure Mercury Discharge surrounded by a transparent tube
containing H2 or D2 and Potassium (possibly at atmospheric pressure).

2, The outside surface of the surrounding tube is coated with a Photovoltaic array
    that feeds part of the output power back to run the Hg Discharge.

IF the UV from the Hg Discharge effects CF or Hydrino reactions in the
annular H2 or D2 - Potassium Gas,  there should be a substantial photo-amplification
effect to at least make a self-sustaining energy device, especially if the
Hg Discharge Tube is powered by a high frequency Electronic Ballast.

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 03:17:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA32493;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:16:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:16:23 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530504b59b28b9816c [12.21.209.47]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:18:21 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? (corrected again)
Resent-Message-ID: <"nntoH1.0.dx7.t_NTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36250
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well I did bungle it.  I wrote:"The net charge, being the same in all
ordinary matter, would be repulsive, thus slightly anti-gravitic.  The net
charge in anti-matter would appear to be attractive, or slightly gravitic,
toward ordinary matter."

The effect, if it existed as calculated, would be absurdly large.  Looking
at a Cavendish experiment with two 100 kg lead balls:

USING:

Pb: 82 electrons/atom, 11.4 g/cm^3,  with 207.2 g/mol

1 coul = 6.24x10^18 electrons

v = 2.18x10^6 m/s  (way low for lead)

c = 3x10^8 m/s

b = v^2/c^2 = 5.3x10^-5

Navogadro = 6x10^23 atoms/mol

G = 9x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2

e0 = 8.86x10^12 F/m

Assume two 100 kg lead balls at 1 meter separation.

  Q = [(100 kg)/(207.2 g/mol)](82 electrons/atom)(6x10^23atoms/mol)

    = (2.4x10^28 electrons)/(6.24x10^18 electrons/coul) = 3.8x10^9 coul

  K = b = 5.3x10^-5

  Q' = K Q (5.3x10^-5) (3.8x10^9 coul) = 2x10^5 coul !!

  F_coul = 1/(4 Pi e0)  q1 q2/r^2

         = 1/(4 Pi 8.86x10^12 F/m) (2x10^5 coul)^2

         = 3x10^20 N  (nonsense)

The gravitational attraction is:

  F_grav = G (m)^2/(1m)^2 = (9x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2)(100kg)^2/(1m)^2

         = 9x10^-7 N

thus:

  F_grav/F_coul = 3x10^27

You could assume that this could resolve the question of whether electron
waveforms move in the Newtonian sense, so to get the velocity down to where
it looks right:

   ((2.18x10^6 m/s)^2)/(v^2) = 3x10^27

and the average electron velocity would have to be:

   v = 2.7x10^-11 m/s

or about 1/2 rpm.  Not good.

I liked the v^3/c^3 answer a lot better.  Too bad we can't just pick some
answers we like.    8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 04:10:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA12254;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:09:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:09:45 -0700
Message-ID: <002401bff179$ebf804e0$5c8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 05:07:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFF13F.398AE1E0"
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: <"RYSB31.0.O_2.unOTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36251
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_01BFF13F.398AE1E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

These should do for a trial converter device.

 http://www.ovonic.com/unisolar.html


FJS

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFF13F.398AE1E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="United Solar Systems Home Page.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="United Solar Systems Home Page.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.ovonic.com/unisolar.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.ovonic.com/unisolar.html
Modified=E0E1F29679F1BF0173

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFF13F.398AE1E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 04:30:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA16066;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:24:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:24:57 -0700
Message-ID: <003501bff17c$0c675300$5c8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 05:22:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFF141.59525740"
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: <"1rPWf1.0.uw3.90PTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36252
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_000D_01BFF141.59525740
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Modified, these should run off the Photovoltaic D.C.

 http://www.pge.com/customer_services/other/pec/inftoc/ballasts.html


FJS

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFF141.59525740
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="The Pacific Energy Center - Ballasts.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="The Pacific Energy Center - Ballasts.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.pge.com/customer_services/other/pec/inftoc/ballasts.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.pge.com/customer_services/other/pec/inftoc/ballasts.html
Modified=A01B5DA47BF1BF01E8

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFF141.59525740--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 04:42:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA19818;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:42:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:42:08 -0700
Message-ID: <003601bff17e$735b4d80$5c8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: UltravioletPumped Power Generator
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 05:39:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01BFF143.BE0402E0"
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: <"vWlfM.0.ar4.GGPTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36253
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_0015_01BFF143.BE0402E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

UV Lamp Source and Technology

 http://www.light-sources.com/germ.html

FJS

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BFF143.BE0402E0
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=A09C681A7EF1BF01ED

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BFF143.BE0402E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 07:34:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04625;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:28:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:28:28 -0700
Message-ID: <3975BC41.74FCEBBA ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:33:44 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>				
	 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>			
	 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>		
	 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>	
	 <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>
	 <v04011700b5996c53c352 [207.8.127.170]> <v04011700b59a3dfb1abc@[207.8.127.193]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hnp3E2.0.p71.AiRTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36254
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Mitchell Jones wrote:

> Ed Storms wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
> >this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This situation, I
> >suggest, is
> >the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of continuity
> >can not
> >be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying to do.
>
> ***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that discontinuities
> which do not affect sensations are *not* the only possibility--which means:
> it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect sensations. Thus if we
> assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of continuity is
> false, we have two implications, not one:

Once again, you are assume that because a person can imagine a process taking
place, that it has a probability of taking place in nature.  I use the word
"if" only because I don't know whether the process can take place or not in
nature.

>
>
> 1.1. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
> possible that they do not affect sensations.
>
> 1.2. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
> possible that they *do* affect sensations.
>
> Both 1.1 and 1.2, above, are statements of fact, and are true
> simultaneously. We do not have to choose between 1.1 and 1.2, because the
> denial of continuity implies the truth of both. The key word that you seem
> to be ignoring is the word "possible." To clarify the significance of this
> word, compare the following:

So, if I understand correctly, you say that some discontinuities can affect
sensations and some do not.  If this is what you mean, then those
discontinuities that affect sensations would apply to your argument and those
that do not affect sensations would not apply.  Thus, we are living in a world
where the principle of continuity applies to our sensations, hence existence,
but it does not apply to conditions where other kinds of discontinuities
occur.

>
>
> 2.1. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then either they affect
> sensations, or they do not affect sensations."
>
> 2.2. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then it is possible that
> they affect sensations, and it is also possible that they do not affect
> sensations."
>
> In 2.1, note the absence of the word "possible." Because of that absence,
> we have to use the "either ... or" (XOR) construct to indicate that the two
> subordinate statements cannot be true simultaneously. In 2.2, on the other
> hand, the use of the word "possible" requires us to use the word "and",
> which indicates that the two subordinate statements are, in fact, true at
> the same time.
>
> Because the two possibilities are true *simultaneously*, you commit a
> logical fallacy when you insist, as you have been doing, that the truth of
> 1.1 prohibits me from using 1.2 in my proof. My proof works just fine even
> if 1.1 is true, because both 1.1 and 1.2 are true *simultaneously*.

Here, I suggest you are playing word games without acknowledging a
relationship between the logic and the real world.  For example, 1.1 and 1.2
can not be true simultaneously in the same event.  You are, therefore, talking
about different events occurring at different times and in different
locations.  Indeed, these events can have a much different character, i.e. one
affects sensations and the other does not.  So, as I noted above, your logic
only applies to 1.1.

Nice try, Mitchell.  You are a truly resourceful debater.

Ed


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 09:47:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA22740;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:44:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:44:35 -0700
Message-ID: <00db01bff19f$5dceef00$ef2f9fca xplornote>
From: "xplorer" <xplorer indo.net.id>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>				 <v04011701b595039676c7@[207.8.127.51]>			 <v04011700b59594454b8e@[207.8.127.51]>		 <v04011700b59714f1840c@[207.8.127.70]>	 <v04011700b5980d3b5275@[207.8.127.190]> <v04011700b5996c53c352@[207.8.127.17
0]> <v04011700b59a3dfb1abc [207.8.127.193]> <3975BC41.74FCEBBA@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Enough already: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. I Don't Care
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:26:11 +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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VIMRY1.0.8Z5.ohTTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36255
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Please take this banal conversation
 somewhere else.
Let it vanish from here without a trace
 and appear as if by magic on Vortex-B,
 please.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, of course,
 but, however appropriate the philosophy,
 I prefer to examine events without a
 prejudice as to whether they can or cannot
 occur.  This discontinuity discussion
 is morbidly interesting, but it leads to
 a prejudice (either way) which I don't care
 to even entertain.  { the prejudice, not the
 concepts }

Whether things can exist continuously or
 simply 'spontaneously pop into existence'
 is something we can leave you discussers
 to discuss while the rest of us are busy
 manipulating reality with bench lathes
 and power supplies.

Not being cynical or acidic,
 just tired of wading through
 the mush...

[flame out]


----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: 2000 July 19, Wednesday 21:33
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism


|
|
| Mitchell Jones wrote:
|
| > Ed Storms wrote:
| >
| > [snip]
| >
| > As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
| > >this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This situation, I
| > >suggest, is
| > >the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of
continuity
| > >can not
| > >be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying to do.
| >
| > ***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that
discontinuities
| > which do not affect sensations are *not* the only possibility--which
means:
| > it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect sensations. Thus if
we
| > assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of continuity is
| > false, we have two implications, not one:
|
| Once again, you are assume that because a person can imagine a process
taking
| place, that it has a probability of taking place in nature.  I use the
word
| "if" only because I don't know whether the process can take place or not
in
| nature.
|
| >
| >
| > 1.1. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
| > possible that they do not affect sensations.
| >
| > 1.2. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
| > possible that they *do* affect sensations.
| >
| > Both 1.1 and 1.2, above, are statements of fact, and are true
| > simultaneously. We do not have to choose between 1.1 and 1.2, because
the
| > denial of continuity implies the truth of both. The key word that you
seem
| > to be ignoring is the word "possible." To clarify the significance of
this
| > word, compare the following:
|
| So, if I understand correctly, you say that some discontinuities can
affect
| sensations and some do not.  If this is what you mean, then those
| discontinuities that affect sensations would apply to your argument and
those
| that do not affect sensations would not apply.  Thus, we are living in a
world
| where the principle of continuity applies to our sensations, hence
existence,
| but it does not apply to conditions where other kinds of discontinuities
| occur.
|
| >
| >
| > 2.1. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then either they
affect
| > sensations, or they do not affect sensations."
| >
| > 2.2. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then it is possible
that
| > they affect sensations, and it is also possible that they do not affect
| > sensations."
| >
| > In 2.1, note the absence of the word "possible." Because of that
absence,
| > we have to use the "either ... or" (XOR) construct to indicate that the
two
| > subordinate statements cannot be true simultaneously. In 2.2, on the
other
| > hand, the use of the word "possible" requires us to use the word "and",
| > which indicates that the two subordinate statements are, in fact, true
at
| > the same time.
| >
| > Because the two possibilities are true *simultaneously*, you commit a
| > logical fallacy when you insist, as you have been doing, that the truth
of
| > 1.1 prohibits me from using 1.2 in my proof. My proof works just fine
even
| > if 1.1 is true, because both 1.1 and 1.2 are true *simultaneously*.
|
| Here, I suggest you are playing word games without acknowledging a
| relationship between the logic and the real world.  For example, 1.1 and
1.2
| can not be true simultaneously in the same event.  You are, therefore,
talking
| about different events occurring at different times and in different
| locations.  Indeed, these events can have a much different character, i.e.
one
| affects sensations and the other does not.  So, as I noted above, your
logic
| only applies to 1.1.
|
| Nice try, Mitchell.  You are a truly resourceful debater.
|
| Ed
|
|
|

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 10:40:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15674;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:38:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:38:21 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b59b93c77655 [12.21.211.15]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:40:16 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Enough already: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. I Don't Care
Resent-Message-ID: <"sWw_H.0.qq3.CUUTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36256
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:26 PM 7/19/0, xplorer wrote:

>Not being cynical or acidic,
> just tired of wading through
> the mush...
>
>[flame out]

Not really a flame I think, but a fair criticism and OK by me.  I've
already said more than I wanted to say on the subject.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 11:40:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10387;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:36:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:36:42 -0700
Message-ID: <00ee01bff1af$10282360$ef2f9fca xplornote>
From: "xplorer" <xplorer indo.net.id>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>				 <v04011701b595039676c7@[207.8.127.51]>			 <v04011700b59594454b8e@[207.8.127.51]>		 <v04011700b59714f1840c@[207.8.127.70]>	 <v04011700b5980d3b5275@[207.8.127.190]> <v04011700b5996c53c352@[207.8.127.17
0]> <v04011700b59a3dfb1abc [207.8.127.193]> <3975BC41.74FCEBBA@ix.netcom.com> <00db01bff19f$5dceef00$ef2f9fca@xplornote>
Subject: water transformer
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:27:51 +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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vZflA2.0.BY2.wKVTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36257
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Greetings, vorts:

Somebody said it couldn't be done,
 so naturally, I tried.

I connected tubing to a water pump
 in a coil configuration in an attempt
 to see if I could make a transformer
 using water (and also salt water)
 as the primary of a transformer.
Pumping pure water (later I salted
 the water to enhance current),
I punched 2300vac 50 Hz,
  getting ~40 ma through,
 using a 0.33 mH coil as the secondary.
I also tried 210 vac 50Hz getting ~1 A
 through the 'primary'.

In no instance could I get even a single
 volt (or milliamp) out of the 'secondary'.

Nor was there any discernible magnetic
 (or any other) force present,
 but I seemed to sense a slight movement of air.

I will try again, as I am interested in measuring
 the heat generated during this. It seemed to
 be more than I anticipated, but probably just
 my imagination.

Just thought you might get a laugh out of this...

cheers for now.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 13:43:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA29696;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:37:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:37:12 -0700
Message-ID: <397612A5.47D18210 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:42:13 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Time Doesn't Exist
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VyQEs2.0.oF7.t5XTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36258
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Continuity vs. discontinuity?  How about this:

http://www.feedmag.com/essay/es359lofi.html

quoting:

In his new book, The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics,
Barbour asserts that time simply doesn't exist. This by itself is
not so shocking. My friend Artie, for example, has always
insisted that there's only change, not time. Things move around;
time may just be a way of noting that. But Barbour goes further.
He says there's no such thing as motion either. Instead, Barbour
sees a universe filled with static instants -- instants that
contain "records" that fool any conscious beings who happen to
find themselves encased in one into believing that things have
moved and time has passed.  

<end>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 13:45:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA00612;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000719163938.007c3b00 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:39:38 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5QW5T.0.U9.M8XTv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36259
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A Toyota dealer here told me that I can rent a hybrid-electric Prius for a
day, and if I put in to purchase one he can deliver in 90 days. However,
after the initial batch is sold and delivered, the next ones will not be
available for a year. Customers who wait a few weeks will have to wait a year.

I would evalate the thing, and maybe even buy one, but I have no need for a
new car. My 1994 GM Metro gets fantastic mileage.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 13:45:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA31257;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:40:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:40:21 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b59ba0d07cc5 [207.8.127.20]>
In-Reply-To: <3975BC41.74FCEBBA ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>					
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>				
 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>			
 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>		
 <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>	
 <v04011700b5996c53c352 [207.8.127.170]>
 <v04011700b59a3dfb1abc [207.8.127.193]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:33:57 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"2FXvl1.0.He7.q8XTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36260
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> Ed Storms wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
>> >this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This situation, I
>> >suggest, is
>> >the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of continuity
>> >can not
>> >be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying to do.
>>
>> ***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that discontinuities
>> which do not affect sensations are *not* the only possibility--which means:
>> it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect sensations. Thus if we
>> assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of continuity is
>> false, we have two implications, not one:
>
>Once again, you are assume that because a person can imagine a process taking
>place, that it has a probability of taking place in nature.

***{Probability numbers are not measures of the world, but of the degree of
certainty permitted by the information we have about the world. Suppose,
for example, that you have a friend go into another room, close the door,
and roll an unloaded die. Suppose further that he obtains a two, and that
after doing so he makes one of the following statements:

(1) He says "It wasn't a five." In this case, from your perspective, the
probability that the result was a six is 1/5, whereas from his perspective
the probability that it was a six is zero.

(2) He says nothing. Result: from your perspective, the probability it was
a six is 1/6, while from his perspective, it remains zero.

(3) He says "It wasn't an odd number." In this case, the probability it was
a six is 1/3 from your perspective, while it is still zero from his
perspective.

(4) He says "It was a two." At that point both of you suddenly have the
same information about the event, and your probability numbers become the
same: from both of your perspectives, the probability that the outcome was
a six is now zero.

Note that in this example, the die has already been rolled, and a two was
obtained. Thus that outcome is an existing historical fact, and none of the
other five results that we can imagine are permitted by the rules of
nature. In spite of that, however, we can correctly say in case (1) that
the probability from your perspective is 1/5, that in case (2) it is 1/6,
that in case (3) it is 1/3, that in case (4) it is zero. The reason we can
do this is that probability statements are not statements about the
external world, but about the degrees of certainty permitted by specific
sets of information. That is not to say that probability numbers are not
objectively true, only that they are statements about information, rather
than statements about physical objects.

Given that probability numbers are objective statements about the certainty
permitted by specific sets of information, and not about physical objects,
it follows that when we assume for the sake of argument that continuity
violations are possible, but do not specify the form those discontinuities
are to take, our information is inadequate to permit us to say that
sensations cannot be affected. Result: we must concede, given the nature of
the assumption we made about the set of information we are working with,
that it is *possible* that sensations will leap into existence out of
nothing. This is true in precisely the same sense that you could have
correctly said, in (1), (2), or (3), above, that a six was possible,
despite the reality that the die had already been rolled and was sitting on
the table showing a two. In other words, when we say something is possible,
we are saying that a specific, limited set of information contains
insufficient detail to permit us to deny that state of affairs, rather than
that the unlimited data set containing all information about reality does
not permit us to deny it. "Possible," in short, does not mean "not
contradicted by the rules of nature," but rather means "not contradicted by
any of the details contained in a specific set of information."

Bottom line: when we assume, for the sake of argument, that continuity
violations are possible, but neglect to specify the specific form they are
to take, the data set created by our assumption is inadequate to permit us
to say that sensations cannot be affected. Result: it is possible that they
*are* affected--which means: the assumption that the principle of
continuity is false implies that we may not exist--which means: Pn > 0,
and, since Pe = 1 - Pn, it follows that Pe < 1.0. But that contradicts our
utter certainty that Pe = 1.0, and, by the method of indirect proof, forces
us to conclude that the principle of continuity is true. Q.E.D

--Mitchell Jones}***

I use the word
>"if" only because I don't know whether the process can take place or not in
>nature.

***{As finite beings, we are always working with a limited data set, rather
than with the unlimited data set that we call "reality." Since it is
desirable that we make the best use of our limited data that we can, the
discipline known as "probability theory" has arisen, and the derivative
discipline known as "statistics" has been erected on top of it, to enable
us to make the best possible use of the information we have, in each given
instance. The principles enunciated in those disciplines enable us to make
reason based statements about the degrees of certainty permitted by
specific sets of information, and, when we are judging an indirect proof,
they constrain us to accept, for the sake of argument, the very specific,
limited data set defined by the assumptions of the proof. In the present
case, since we are merely assuming that the principle of continuity is
false, but are *not* specifying the form that falsehood takes, we are
constrained to conclude that effects on sensations are possible--i.e., that
they are not contradicted by any information contained in the assumptions.
--MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> 1.1. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
>> possible that they do not affect sensations.
>>
>> 1.2. If discontinuities are permitted by the rules of nature, it is
>> possible that they *do* affect sensations.
>>
>> Both 1.1 and 1.2, above, are statements of fact, and are true
>> simultaneously. We do not have to choose between 1.1 and 1.2, because the
>> denial of continuity implies the truth of both. The key word that you seem
>> to be ignoring is the word "possible." To clarify the significance of this
>> word, compare the following:
>
>So, if I understand correctly, you say that some discontinuities can affect
>sensations and some do not. If this is what you mean, then those
>discontinuities that affect sensations would apply to your argument and those
>that do not affect sensations would not apply.  Thus, we are living in a world
>where the principle of continuity applies to our sensations, hence existence,
>but it does not apply to conditions where other kinds of discontinuities
>occur.

***{I'm trying to do an indirect proof, Ed. The method of indirect proof is
simple: if you want to prove X is true, then assume X is false, and see if
that leads to a contradiction with some other premise that you accept. In
the present case, I want to prove that the principle of continuity is true,
and so I assume it is false, and note the implication: that Pn > 0, and,
since Pe = 1 - Pn, it follows that Pe < 1.0, which contradicts my utter
certainty that Pe = 1.0. Hence, since the assumed falsehood of continuity
leads to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must
be true.

Your method of arguing against this proof is to insist that we must do more
than assume continuity is false--that, in addition, we must specify details
about the specific form that falsehood is to take. That, however, is not
how the method of indirect proof works. To do an indirect proof, you simply
assume the statement you want to prove is false. Period. That defines a
specific set of information, and you then search about within that set of
information until you discover some implication which contradicts some
other premise that you accept.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
>>
>>
>> 2.1. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then either they affect
>> sensations, or they do not affect sensations."
>>
>> 2.2. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then it is possible that
>> they affect sensations, and it is also possible that they do not affect
>> sensations."
>>
>> In 2.1, note the absence of the word "possible." Because of that absence,
>> we have to use the "either ... or" (XOR) construct to indicate that the two
>> subordinate statements cannot be true simultaneously. In 2.2, on the other
>> hand, the use of the word "possible" requires us to use the word "and",
>> which indicates that the two subordinate statements are, in fact, true at
>> the same time.
>>
>> Because the two possibilities are true *simultaneously*, you commit a
>> logical fallacy when you insist, as you have been doing, that the truth of
>> 1.1 prohibits me from using 1.2 in my proof. My proof works just fine even
>> if 1.1 is true, because both 1.1 and 1.2 are true *simultaneously*.
>
>Here, I suggest you are playing word games

***{That is an inappropriate comment. I don't play "word games." I am
deadly serious about what I am saying here, and while I am *at least* as
frustrated with you as you are with me, I have deliberately refrained from
giving voice to that frustration, because I prefer to get to the truth in
this matter. If that is also your goal, then I suggest you do likewise.
--MJ}***

 without acknowledging a
>relationship between the logic and the real world.  For example, 1.1 and 1.2
>can not be true simultaneously in the same event.

***{Of course they can: remember the example of the die that had already
been rolled, yielding a two, as explained previously. From the perspective
of the person standing in another room with incomplete information, several
outcomes were simultaneously possible, despite the fact that, from the
perspective of a person who could see the outcome, there was only one
possibility. If, based on the specific information being examined, a
probability number is greater than zero, then that outcome is possible.
That's all "possible" means. Result: when we assume that the principle of
continuity is false, but do not specify the details of *how* it is false,
the probability that the discontinuities will affect sensations is greater
than zero, and, thus, effects on sensations are "possible," by definition.
--MJ}***

You are, therefore, talking
>about different events occurring at different times and in different
>locations.  Indeed, these events can have a much different character, i.e. one
>affects sensations and the other does not.  So, as I noted above, your logic
>only applies to 1.1.

***{Information exists, Ed, and specific sets of information have specific
properties. Hence we can make objectively true, reason-based statements
about the properties of data sets, despite the fact that information is a
manifestation of physical things rather than an actual physical thing
itself. That means probabilistic statements are reason-based propositions
that can be used in a proof--which is all that I need them to be, in order
to prove that the principle of continuity must be true. --MJ}***

>
>Nice try, Mitchell.  You are a truly resourceful debater.

***{I repeat: I am deadly serious about this--so serious, in fact, that I
am willing to stifle my frustration and pursue this to a conclusion. The
question is: are you? --MJ}***

>
>Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 14:10:07 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA07856;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <39761645.FABE8261 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:57:41 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
References: <3.0.6.32.20000719163938.007c3b00 pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nmEGC.0.fw1.DVXTv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36261
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 
> A Toyota dealer here told me that I can rent a hybrid-electric Prius for a
> day, and if I put in to purchase one he can deliver in 90 days. However,
> after the initial batch is sold and delivered, the next ones will not be
> available for a year. Customers who wait a few weeks will have to wait a year.
> 
> I would evalate the thing, and maybe even buy one, but I have no need for a
> new car. My 1994 GM Metro gets fantastic mileage.

Clark Howard (Atlanta's "Pocket Protector") has taken delivery on
a Honda Insight which advertised around 70 mpg.  He says he's
getting 58.2 with this Japanese hybrid.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 14:38:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA19042;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:16 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b59bca8853b0 [12.21.208.35]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:28:13 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"AKs3D1.0.Mf4.upXTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36262
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:33 PM 7/19/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]
>>Nice try, Mitchell.  You are a truly resourceful debater.
>
>***{I repeat: I am deadly serious about this--so serious, in fact, that I
>am willing to stifle my frustration and pursue this to a conclusion. The
>question is: are you? --MJ}***


Hopefully you are serious enough to pursue it in private or on vortexb.
There can be no conclusion because your fundmental assumption that logic
can prove any of a set of independent premises as true or false is
seriously flawed. Resolution can only be a matter of changing belief
systems, unless of course experiment is the final arbiter.  This is my
final comment on the issue for now.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 14:46:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26059;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:43:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:43:21 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000719174309.0079ecd0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:43:09 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
In-Reply-To: <39761645.FABE8261 bellsouth.net>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000719163938.007c3b00 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"nzzGt1.0.4N6.u3YTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36263
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Terry Blanton wrote:

>Clark Howard (Atlanta's "Pocket Protector") has taken delivery on
>a Honda Insight which advertised around 70 mpg.  He says he's
>getting 58.2 with this Japanese hybrid.

Is he driving it in the city? Would he mind dropping by Chamblee?!? I'd
love to see it. It is advertised as getting 60 mpg in the city:

http://www.honda2000.com/models/insight/environment.html

The Honda gets better mileage on the highway, whereas the Toyota Prius gets
slightly less mileage. My guess is that Prius is engineered for peak
performance around 45 mph (typical city speed).

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 15:01:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03622;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:59:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:59:49 -0700
Message-ID: <003f01bff1d4$bb854f60$b2441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:57:21 -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: <"VvIpo1.0.Su.KJYTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36264
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I had a chat with Bill Sax at Light Sources Co., www.light-sources.com regarding
the use of a UV lamp with an annular Hydrogen-Potassium chamber surrounding
the UV source with 185 to > 254 nanometers.

Bill said he would provide a 5/8 inch diameter x 33 inch long unit along with an 
Electronic Ballast (Free of Charge) to someone qualified to run an experiment
to see if there is EUV Photon Amplification and/or ou heat.

Any qualified takers?

Regards,   Frederick

 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 15:14:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08381;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:12:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:12:17 -0700
Message-ID: <397628EF.40975424 csrlink.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:17:19 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Michael S. Johnston" <H2OPower listbot.com>
Subject: [Fwd: A mystery of Earth's wobble solved: It's the ocean]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------0BA375EC65C7A5EA3FC4B5E9"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fY3Z92.0.t22.0VYTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36265
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.
--------------0BA375EC65C7A5EA3FC4B5E9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 
--------------0BA375EC65C7A5EA3FC4B5E9
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <news-owner www.jpl.nasa.gov>
Received: from www-onlab.jpl.nasa.gov (www-onlab.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.99.25])
	by uplink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16336;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (jplnews localhost)
	by www-onlab.jpl.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA19101;
	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: JPLNews jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: A mystery of Earth's wobble solved: It's the ocean
Reply-To: news-owner www.jpl.nasa.gov
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-ID: <bulk.18859.20000718083819 jpl.nasa.gov>
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov

Contact: Rosemary Sullivant (818) 354-0474

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         July 18, 2000

A MYSTERY OF EARTH'S WOBBLE SOLVED: IT'S THE OCEAN

     The century-old mystery of Earth's "Chandler wobble" has 
been solved by a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 
Pasadena, Calif. The Chandler wobble, named for its 1891 
discoverer, Seth Carlo Chandler, Jr., an American businessman 
turned astronomer, is one of several wobbling motions exhibited 
by Earth as it rotates on its axis, much as a top wobbles as it 
spins.

     Scientists have been particularly intrigued by the Chandler 
wobble, since its cause has remained a mystery even though it has 
been under observation for over a century. Its period is only 
around 433 days, or just 1.2 years, meaning that it takes that 
amount of time to complete one wobble. The wobble amounts to 
about 20 feet at the North Pole. It has been calculated that the 
Chandler wobble would be damped down, or reduced to zero, in just 
68 years, unless some force were constantly acting to 
reinvigorate it.

     But what is that force, or excitation mechanism? Over the 
years, various hypotheses have been put forward, such as 
atmospheric phenomena, continental water storage (changes in snow 
cover, river runoff, lake levels, or reservoir capacities), 
interaction at the boundary of Earth's core and its surrounding 
mantle, and earthquakes.

     Writing in the August 1 issue of Geophysical Research 
Letters, Richard Gross, a JPL geophysicist, reports that the 
principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on 
the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity 
changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans. 
He determined this by applying numerical models of the oceans, 
which have only recently become available through the work of 
other researchers, to data on the Chandler wobble obtained during 
the years 1985-1995. Gross calculated that two-thirds of the 
Chandler wobble is caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and 
the remaining one-third by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. 
He says that the effect of atmospheric winds and ocean currents 
on the wobble was minor. 

     Gross credits the wide distribution of the data that 
underlay his calculations to the creation in 1988 of the 
International Earth Rotation Service, which is based in Paris, 
France. Through its various bureaus, he writes, the service 
enables the kind of interdisciplinary research that led to his 
solution of the Chandler wobble mystery. Gross's research was 
supported by NASA's Office of Earth Science, Washington, D.C.

     JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology 
in Pasadena.

                            #####
7/17/00 rs    
#2000-066

---------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to JPL's news mailing list.  To unsubscribe,
please send an e-mail to  JPLNews jpl.nasa.gov  and in the body
of the message include the following line.

unsubscribe news

Please do not reply to this e-mail.  
For help,  send a message to listmaster www.jpl.nasa.gov.


--------------0BA375EC65C7A5EA3FC4B5E9--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 15:25:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA13832;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:22:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:22:25 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59bdaa6c57f [12.21.209.207]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:24:24 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: water transformer
Resent-Message-ID: <"YTyf1.0.1O3.VeYTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36266
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I posted this earlier, but it did not show up, so here it is again.


At 1:27 AM 7/20/0, xplorer wrote:
>Greetings, vorts:
>
>Somebody said it couldn't be done,
> so naturally, I tried.
>
>I connected tubing to a water pump
> in a coil configuration in an attempt
> to see if I could make a transformer
> using water (and also salt water)
> as the primary of a transformer.
>Pumping pure water (later I salted
> the water to enhance current),
>I punched 2300vac 50 Hz,
>  getting ~40 ma through,
> using a 0.33 mH coil as the secondary.
>I also tried 210 vac 50Hz getting ~1 A
> through the 'primary'.


This may be a very interesting experiment.  Could you describe your coil
counts and core if any?

I would suggest setting up a control, i.e. a copper analog of your
transformer first, i.e. a copper primary with the geometry and same number
of turns and with resistors added.  Then compare outputs obtained using the
liquid primary.

The reason it is interesting is that that the liquid primary confuration
may be able to measure or give evidence  of a QM phenomenon.  Conduction in
electrolytes is thought to consist primarily of proton motion.  Free
protons quickly associate with H2O to make an H3O+ radical.  One model of
conduction involves H3O+ rotation, followed by tunneling from H3O+ to H2O
to make a new H3O+ closer to the cathode.  This process, if it is the
primary conduction process, should have two earmarks.  One is that the
conduction when tunnneling should produce a field that differs from the
standard magnetic field, if it even makes a magnetic field at all, due to
the fact the tunneling is instantaneous.  Since the magnetic field can be
fully accounted for by application of relativty to a coulombic field,
exactly what velocity should one use to calculate the magnetic field or
radiation from a tunneling event?   Secondly, the H3O+ rotation should
produce an additional magnetic field that is normal to the conduction
magnetic field.

My own experiments indicate there is an additional conduction mechanism in
water that is too fast to be accomplished by proton or ion conduction
alone, so is likely conduction by electrons.  Such a conduction mechanism
may be almost entirely by tunneling.  Most of the conduction in
electrolytes appears to be due to ion motion (ultimately diffusion
according to Bockris) though, because electroplating bears that out.  To
the extent that is not true, Avogadro's number may be wrong.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 15:35:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA19016;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:32:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:32:52 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b59bb9f96fc2 [12.21.208.35]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:56:15 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: water transformer
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kj2fC2.0.2f4.JoYTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36267
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 1:27 AM 7/20/0, xplorer wrote:
>Greetings, vorts:
>
>Somebody said it couldn't be done,
> so naturally, I tried.
>
>I connected tubing to a water pump
> in a coil configuration in an attempt
> to see if I could make a transformer
> using water (and also salt water)
> as the primary of a transformer.
>Pumping pure water (later I salted
> the water to enhance current),
>I punched 2300vac 50 Hz,
>  getting ~40 ma through,
> using a 0.33 mH coil as the secondary.
>I also tried 210 vac 50Hz getting ~1 A
> through the 'primary'.


This may be a very interesting experiment.  Could you describe your coil
counts and core if any?

I would suggest setting up a control, i.e. a copper analog of your
transformer first, i.e. a copper primary with the geometry and same number
of turns and with resistors added.  Then compare outputs obtained using the
liquid primary.

The reason it is interesting is that that the liquid primary confuration
may be able to measure or give evidence  of a QM phenomenon.  Conduction in
electrolytes is thought to consist primarily of proton motion.  Free
protons quickly associate with H2O to make an H3O+ radical.  One model of
conduction involves H3O+ rotation, followed by tunneling from H3O+ to H2O
to make a new H3O+ closer to the cathode.  This process, if it is the
primary conduction process, should have two earmarks.  One is that the
conduction when tunnneling should produce a field that differs from the
standard magnetic field, if it even makes a magnetic field at all, due to
the fact the tunneling is instantaneous.  Since the magnetic field can be
fully accounted for by application of relativty to a coulombic field,
exactly what velocity should one use to calculate the magnetic field or
radiation from a tunneling event?   Secondly, the H3O+ rotation should
produce an additional magnetic field that is normal to the conduction
magnetic field.

My own experiments indicate there is an additional conduction mechanism in
water that is too fast to be accomplished by proton or ion conduction
alone, so is likely conduction by electrons.  Such a conduction mechanism
may be almost entirely by tunneling.  Most of the conduction in
electrolytes appears to be due to ion motion (ultimately diffusion
according to Bockris) though, because electroplating bears that out.  To
the extent that is not true, Avogadro's number may be wrong.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 15:55:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25904;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:47:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:47:38 -0700
Message-ID: <3976313A.C099F149 csrlink.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:52:42 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: water transformer
References: <v01530501b59bdaa6c57f [12.21.209.207]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eJWa32.0.YK6.A0ZTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36268
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In the original post the experimenter mentioned using ac. Since Ac
doesn't react with water in electrolysis could that have a bearing in
this respect? Perhaps pulsed dc would give other results or maybe even
rotating a permanent magnet inside the water coil? Perhaps a decidedly
metallic electrolyte would give other results (sodium IS metallic I
know) like one of the Cu salts, or Fe3O2?
I once did a similar experiment where I made the water coil out of
tubing and at each end of the coil I inserted one end of a length of
varnished copper coil wire. I caulked it in place and thereby had a
circuit. I next made an electromagnetic coil by wrapping 10 gauge
household wire around a piece of soft iron bar and place this next to my
water coil. The distance from my electromagnet to the furthest point in
the wire from my water coil was 8 feet. For a power source I used a 12v
dc battery charger which put out 2a max.
   When I plugged in the charger there was a distinct deflection of a
compass held at the furthest end of the water coil wire. I was unsure
however whether or not this deflection was due to an induced current
from my water coil or the field from my electromagnet. That is where the
experiment remains. I would like to do it again, under better conditions
when I have time.
MJ

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 16:08:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30910;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:00:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:00:25 -0700
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:05:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: xplorer <xplorer indo.net.id>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: water transformer
In-Reply-To: <00ee01bff1af$10282360$ef2f9fca xplornote>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000719190214.16784B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lR3tv3.0.uY7.9CZTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36269
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear E,

	Did you make a continuity check for your "salt water wire" "


	If you simply use clear plastic, say Tygon [tm], tubes and apply
60 cps to salt water...  you will find:

	( provided you are establishing a current flow),

	magnetic field, induction, transformer action and so on.  This is
an old time physics lecture demonstration. 

On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, xplorer wrote:

> 
> Greetings, vorts:
> 
> Somebody said it couldn't be done,
>  so naturally, I tried.
> 
> I connected tubing to a water pump
>  in a coil configuration in an attempt
>  to see if I could make a transformer
>  using water (and also salt water)
>  as the primary of a transformer.
> Pumping pure water (later I salted
>  the water to enhance current),
> I punched 2300vac 50 Hz,
>   getting ~40 ma through,
>  using a 0.33 mH coil as the secondary.
> I also tried 210 vac 50Hz getting ~1 A
>  through the 'primary'.
> 
> In no instance could I get even a single
>  volt (or milliamp) out of the 'secondary'.
> 
> Nor was there any discernible magnetic
>  (or any other) force present,
>  but I seemed to sense a slight movement of air.
> 
> I will try again, as I am interested in measuring
>  the heat generated during this. It seemed to
>  be more than I anticipated, but probably just
>  my imagination.
> 
> Just thought you might get a laugh out of this...
> 
> cheers for now.
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 16:18:33 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03828;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:12:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:12:08 -0700
Message-ID: <3976359D.B973D93A verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:11:25 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is finally on Nature
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dXuJs2.0.kx.7NZTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36270
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6793/abs/406277a0_fs.html

What is available online without a subscription is pasted below.

Regards,

hamdi ucar


20 July 2000 

Nature 406, 277 - 279 (2000) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 
    


Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation

L. J. WANG, A. KUZMICH & A. DOGARIU

Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality imply that
the speed of any moving object cannot exceed that of light in a vacuum (c).
Nevertheless, there exist various proposals for observing faster-than- c
propagation of light pulses, using anomalous dispersion near an absorption
line, nonlinear and linear gain lines, or tunnelling barriers. However, in all
previous experimental demonstrations, the light pulses experienced either very
large absorption or severe reshaping, resulting in controversies over the
interpretation. Here we use gain-assisted linear anomalous dispersion to
demonstrate superluminal light propagation in atomic caesium gas. The group
velocity of a laser pulse in this region exceeds c and can even become
negative, while the shape of the pulse is preserved. We measure a
group-velocity index of ng = -310(5); in practice, this means that a light
pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so
much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the
peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it. The observed
superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality, being a
direct consequence of classical interference between its different frequency
components in an anomalous dispersion region.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 16:22:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06056;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:16:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:16:48 -0700
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ross Tessien snags nice chunk of capital
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b59b04920309 [12.21.209.44]>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000719161809.23202A-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"vIIwL2.0.YU1.WRZTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36271
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace
	I thought it was a beautiful bit of sarcasm.

Hank


On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:

> At 6:22 PM 7/17/0, Eugene F. Mallove wrote:
> 
> >Moss, one of the first scientist to suggest that sonoluminescence
> >could result in temperatures high enough for fusion, said his
> >calculations show that even if he were to tile the earth with flasks
> >containing sonoluminescent bubbles, he would only get enough energy
> >from fusion in one hour to heat a cup of coffee one degree.
> 
> 
> I wrote: "Yes, but do the cups have magnets blue tacked to their sides so
> they roll up little ramps first?    8^)"
> 
> Gad, my apologies!  I just realized I confused Ross Tessien with Greg
> What's-his-name the SMOT guy.  Just getting old I guess.  Don't have time
> for any good comments so I should get back to my work and be quiet!  Sorry
> for the waste of bandwidth and time.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 16:29:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA09534;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:23:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:23:09 -0700
Message-ID: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:22:30 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is finally 
 on Nature
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ez-QE.0.sK2.TXZTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36272
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6793/abs/406277a0_fs.html

>What is available online without a subscription is pasted below.

Full text is available without subscription on the page of link above. Great!

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 16:59:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA27554;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:57:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:57:16 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is finally  on Nature
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:56:34 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <00gcns0lrkrq2euiir4anu25ev2ddd90p6 4ax.com>
References: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr>
In-Reply-To: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr>
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 QAA27498
Resent-Message-ID: <"Esm5Z1.0.Sk6.S1aTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36273
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In reply to  hamdi ucar's message of Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:22:30 +0300:

>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6793/abs/406277a0_fs.html
>
>>What is available online without a subscription is pasted below.
>
>Full text is available without subscription on the page of link above. Great!
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
I wonder if the same principle could be applied in a specially constructed
optical fibre?

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  Wed Jul 19 18:52:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA32542;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:49:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:49:51 -0700
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:49:46 -0400
Message-Id: <200007200149.VAA24202 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: water transformer
Resent-Message-ID: <"2B6oN.0.Oy7._gbTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36274
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

The current direction is also important, and not disclosed.  Judging by the
wattage, it might be that the coil is picking up a low power, back EMF spike.

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 Jul 19 19:26:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA11218;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:25:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:25:00 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <6e.14b775a.26a7bccc aol.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:24:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Debate (Storms & Morrison on ICCF-8)
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: <"NI8QA1.0.Cl2.xBcTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36275
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

It's frustrating to read the debate between Ed Storms and Douglas Morrison 
about Morrison's review of ICCF-8 without a copy of Morrison's review.

Where can one get a copy of the review, complete with Morrison's email 
signature and the date that he posted it?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 19 23:05:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA08510;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:04:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:04:12 -0700
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:04:08 -0400
Message-Id: <200007200604.CAA09636 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: Sonoluminescence and Commercial Colloid Mills
Resent-Message-ID: <"ltATu.0.u42.SPfTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36276
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Fred writes:
>Seems to me that this technology should produce sonoluminescence/fusion.
>
>Are they missing something?   :-)
>
> http://www.sonicmixing.com/

Well, for one thing, they list photoemulsions as one of the applications
that can use this.  If the device were cavitating, I would think that any
photoemulsion would be fogged by the UV light, but perhaps not.  One would
have to test the cavitation claim with potassium iodide, and then run
calorimetry on the system to see if it was an OU device.  Another thing
about this device is the PSI required.  My machine requires only 45 PSI to
massively cavitate water, and it would homogenize whatever other liquids
were injected into the input flow, but mine is rotary and this is tranducer
based.

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 Jul 19 23:06:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA09326;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:05:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:05:52 -0700
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:05:49 -0400
Message-Id: <200007200605.CAA09995 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 Pumped Power Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"coZ9Q.0.eH2.0RfTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36277
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Modified, these should run off the Photovoltaic D.C.
>
> http://www.pge.com/customer_services/other/pec/inftoc/ballasts.html

Hi Fred,

How would you modify these for D.C.?

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 Jul 19 23:26:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA15065;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:26:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:26:20 -0700
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:26:11 -0400
Message-Id: <200007200626.CAA14419 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: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y3Nny.0.1h3.8kfTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36278
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

You may want to check this one out.

http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/June00/30June0004.html

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 Jul 20 02:34:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA24082;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:33:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:33:43 -0700
Message-ID: <001101bff235$ad6db5a0$588e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <200007200605.CAA09995 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:31:18 -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: <"c1GIp3.0.Au5.tTiTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36279
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 <knuke lcia.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator

Knuke Wrote:


> >Modified, these should run off the Photovoltaic D.C.
> >
> > http://www.pge.com/customer_services/other/pec/inftoc/ballasts.html
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> How would you modify these for D.C.?

You could use an Inverter to power them, but the board circuitry rectifies the
120/240 volt A.C. line input, then goes from there to produce operating
frequencies up to 40 kilohertz or so to increase the luminous efficiency.

The 3 watt plug-in fluorescent night lights put out as much light as a 20 watt
incandescent bulb. They run about $4.50 each. The ones with a photocell
to shut them off in the daytime run about twice that, but in the long run it's cheaper to
use the low wattage ones without the photocell.  :-)

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  Thu Jul 20 04:13:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA10199;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:12:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:12:15 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59c839d27ce [12.21.209.3]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:14:20 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Resent-Message-ID: <"fVevz3.0.HV2.FwjTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36280
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is yet another and more serious shot at correcting some things.

It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
to differing relativistic effects occuring with respect to multiple
particles at varying velocities.

On p.492 of *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz provides the
equation for relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

which can be interpreted to mean apparent charge is reduced to observers in
line with the charge velocity and increased when viewed (felt) from the
side.

NOTE - it is not standard physics to interpret pancaking as a change in
apparent charge (standard relativity assumes charge is invariant with
velocity) but rather a change in observered field strength, but I think it
is clear we are free to interpret the above equations either way.

Consider an atom where the electrons whiz around a nucleus. They present
some degree of pancaking from any angle viewed.  Some directions apparent
charge is increased and some directions decreased.  The polar orientation
of atom orbitals is mixed in a uniform way due to the orientation of atoms
being mixed in a uniform way.

The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
integrating to find the average value of:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2, and then subtracting the average
value from one to obtain the net charge change factor K, because if v = 0
then

   Q' = Q * 1

If the average value of k is non-zero over all angles theta, for v not 0,
then an average apparent net charge exists when v not 0.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

which requires solving an elliptic integral of the second kind, and yields
a  net charge Q_net which if real, is available to expand the universe:

   Q_net = K Q

where K can be approxiately based on the average speed of the electrons.

The net charge, being the same in all ordinary matter, would be repulsive,
thus  anti-gravitic.  The net charge in anti-matter atoms would appear to
be attractive, or gravitic, toward ordinary matter.

It might be thought that a slight net apparent charge could account for
gravity and antigravitc effects, or that it could be shown that gravity is
a purely repulsive force in ordinary matter.  However, the apparent net
charge calculated for electrons in high energy orbitals is way to high to
be real.  This calculation, if correct, could thus be used to justify the
notion that orbital electrons do not move in their orbital waveforms, that
the waveform is static until the electron momentum is actually sampled.

The values of K for various velocites relative to c were directly
calculated by computer program by averaging the incremental force factor:

  K_incr =  1 - (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

over a complete circle, for theta = 0 to 2 Pi.  Here are the results:

  v/c           K_incr

 .999999   0.363371045179493
 .5        6.57845423323069D-02
 .1        2.50470713873419D-03
 .01       2.5000468772296D-05
 .001      2.50000048662713D-07
 .0001     2.50000153911856D-09


These factors indicate staggering apparent net charges, especially from k
shell electrons.  The innermost electrons of Fe have an ionization
potential of 9277.69 eV, and Ni has 10775.40 eV.

Using half the ionization potential of Ni as electron kinetic energy we obtain:

   1/2 m_e v^2 = (10775.4 eV)/2 = 8.63 J

           v = 4.35x10^7 m/s

           v = 0.145 c

so more than 0.25 percent of the total charge for such electrons would
appear as net apparent positive charge in the atom.  This would have a
profound effect on a Cavendish experiment, as shown earlier, so, if the
subject integral is evaluated accurately, it must be that orbital state
electrons do not move in the Newtonian sense.  Their waveforms are static
about the nucleus.  Alternatively, there could be problems in relativity or
electomagnetics, which would be no surprise to many.

There may be errors in my assumption or in the application of Shadowitz'
pancaking equation.  Also, the only considerations here were those of
special relativity, so general relativity considerations could of course
change the picture.  I think due to time dilation in GR, that a case could
be made for the "charge dilaton" effect being even larger.

Possibly I have an error in my program, so I am interested in comparing my
numerical solutions of the given elliptic integral of the second kind to an
analytical solution, if that be available.  Any assistance would be
appreciated.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 04:48:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA16798;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:47:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:47:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3976E7F9.D364EDA0 bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:52:25 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
References: <3.0.6.32.20000719163938.007c3b00 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000719174309.0079ecd0@pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"p2jT41.0.O64.1RkTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36281
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:
> 
> >Clark Howard (Atlanta's "Pocket Protector") has taken delivery on
> >a Honda Insight which advertised around 70 mpg.  He says he's
> >getting 58.2 with this Japanese hybrid.
> 
> Is he driving it in the city? Would he mind dropping by Chamblee?!? I'd
> love to see it. It is advertised as getting 60 mpg in the city:
> 
> http://www.honda2000.com/models/insight/environment.html
> 
> The Honda gets better mileage on the highway, whereas the Toyota Prius gets
> slightly less mileage. My guess is that Prius is engineered for peak
> performance around 45 mph (typical city speed).

Clark says that his Honda gasoline engine actually shuts down at
a traffic light.

You can visit his web site at:

http://www.clarkhoward.com

or catch him afternoons on WSB 750 AM.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 06:02:53 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA00482;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:59:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:59:53 -0700
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000720125947.00908b74 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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:59:47 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny voyager.net>
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Pumped Power Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"f4kfE2.0.N7.8VlTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36282
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I contacted Light Sources by email some time back and never received a
reply.  Since then I purchased an EPROM eraser and found another working
surplus mercury vapor lamp with ballast free.

My problem right now is buiding a leak proof vacuum system.  I am rebuiding
a system I had set up a couple years ago.  I just ordered hardware from
McMaster-Carr which I hope will make such a system possible.

Ed

At 03:57 PM 7/19/00 -0700, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>I had a chat with Bill Sax at Light Sources Co., www.light-sources.com
regarding
>the use of a UV lamp with an annular Hydrogen-Potassium chamber surrounding
>the UV source with 185 to > 254 nanometers.
>
>Bill said he would provide a 5/8 inch diameter x 33 inch long unit along
with an 
>Electronic Ballast (Free of Charge) to someone qualified to run an experiment
>to see if there is EUV Photon Amplification and/or ou heat.
>
>Any qualified takers?
>
>Regards,   Frederick
>
> 
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 07:11:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA22523;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:10:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:10:48 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000720101047.007c79c0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:10:47 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Debate (Storms & Morrison on ICCF-8)
In-Reply-To: <6e.14b775a.26a7bccc aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"HxHAc.0.rV5.eXmTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36283
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Tstolper aol.com wrote:

>It's frustrating to read the debate between Ed Storms and Douglas Morrison 
>about Morrison's review of ICCF-8 without a copy of Morrison's review.

Morrison has posted three long messages, as far as I know. Perhaps there
are others? I will send copies to Tom. They are available on
sci.physics.fusion, and I do not see much point to cross posting them here.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 07:33:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA32229;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:29:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:29:53 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000720102948.0079d2b0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:29:48 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
In-Reply-To: <200007200626.CAA14419 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"AHPnj3.0.Rt7.XpmTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36284
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael T Huffman wrote:

>Gnorts,
>
>You may want to check this one out.
>
>http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/June00/30June0004.html

Amazing! It isn't even a hybrid car. This is a VW with a direct drive. It
has a diesel engine with 40% Carnot efficiency and lightweight components.
It just goes to show, the automakers could have increased efficiency years
ago, if the consumers had demanded it.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 08:24:54 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20958;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:21:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:21:31 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b59c0220dd58 [207.8.127.144]>
In-Reply-To: <397647AF.64B72EFB ix.netcom.com>
References: <v01530500b5946e0d1e41 [12.21.208.183]>						
 <v04011701b595039676c7 [207.8.127.51]>					
 <v04011700b59594454b8e [207.8.127.51]>				
 <v04011700b59714f1840c [207.8.127.70]>			
 <v04011700b5980d3b5275 [207.8.127.190]>		
 <v04011700b5996c53c352 [207.8.127.170]>	
 <v04011700b59a3dfb1abc [207.8.127.193]>
 <v04011700b59ba0d07cc5 [207.8.127.20]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:19:08 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Y_5e.0.M75.wZnTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36285
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:
>> >
>> >> Ed Storms wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
>> >> >this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This situation, I
>> >> >suggest, is
>> >> >the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of
>>continuity
>> >> >can not
>> >> >be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying to do.
>> >>
>> >> ***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that
>>discontinuities
>> >> which do not affect sensations are *not* the only possibility--which
>>means:
>> >> it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect sensations. Thus
>>if we
>> >> assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of continuity is
>> >> false, we have two implications, not one:
>> >
>> >Once again, you are assume that because a person can imagine a process
>>taking
>> >place, that it has a probability of taking place in nature.
>>
>> ***{Probability numbers are not measures of the world, but of the degree of
>> certainty permitted by the information we have about the world. Suppose,
>> for example, that you have a friend go into another room, close the door,
>> and roll an unloaded die. Suppose further that he obtains a two, and that
>> after doing so he makes one of the following statements:
>
>We are not talking about probabilities based on known phenomenon, i.e. a
>roll of
>the dice.  We are talking about an imagined phenomenon about which we know
>nothing.

***{OK, Ed, suppose that a special die exists which we may call the
discontinuity die. You don't know how many sides it has, but you know that
the side which comes up determines the form that discontinuities take, and
that one of the sides, if it comes up, causes all sensations to leap into
existence out of nothing. (Let's call that the sensation side of the die.)

Given that state of affairs, I ask you to assume that the discontinuity die
exists and was rolled at some time in the past, and has been sitting in an
unknown room somewhere ever since, with one of the sides being in the up
position. Now, given that state of affairs, are we not forced, by the
nature of the assumptions we have made, to conclude that it is possible
that the sensation side is face up? If so, then since we don't know how
many sides the discontinuity die has, we cannot assign a specific number to
the probability that the sensation side is face up, but we can say that the
probability is greater than zero, because that conclusion is a direct
consequence of the assumptions we have made--to wit: the assumptions that
the discontinuity die exists and has been rolled.

Since there is obviously no difference, in terms of essentials, between
assuming that a discontinuity die exists and has been rolled, and in simply
assuming that discontinuities are possible, it is now crystal clear that
the latter assumption leads to the same conclusion as the former one--i.e.,
to the conclusion that it is possible that all of our sensations may be
leaping into existence out of nothing. And that, in turn leads to the
conclusion that we may not exist, which in turn contradicts our absolute
certainty of our own existence (as per the dictum of Descartes)--which
means: our assumption that discontinuities are possible (i.e., that a
discontinuity die exists and has been rolled) leads to a contradiction, and
is therefore a false assumption--which means: the principle of continuity
must be true. Q.E.D.

Bottom line: we are *not* talking about "an imagined phenomenon of which we
know nothing." Instead, we are talking about a very specific set of
assumptions, and very specific implications can be deduced from those
assumptions.

Ed, it's time to turn down your king.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 09:28:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA16915;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:25:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:25:17 -0700
Message-ID: <397660DC.BBBDB0A6 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:15:56 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is 
 finally  on Nature
References: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr> <00gcns0lrkrq2euiir4anu25ev2ddd90p6@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QlC4.0.D84.iVoTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36286
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> 
> In reply to  hamdi ucar's message of Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:22:30 +0300:
 

> I wonder if the same principle could be applied in a specially constructed
> optical fibre?
> 

Probably. It is needed to dope the fiber with cesium atoms and provide a similar condition.

Can somebody explain the difference between the signal velocity and the information (propagation) velocity? It is said that the signal (velocity) exceed c but not the information (propagation velocity). I think the conclusion on information speed on the b
elow paragraph is conditional or interpretable:


"Remarkably, the signal velocity of a light pulse, defined as the velocity at which the half point of the pulse front travels, also exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, c, in the present experiment. It has also been suggested that the true speed at whi
ch information is carried by a light pulse should be defined as the "frontal" velocity of a step-function-shaped signal which has been shown not to exceed c (ref. 4). The implications of the present experiment on signal propagation and its speed will be f
urther analysed, particularly for the case when the light pulse consists of only a few photons."

> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 10:54:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19883;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:50:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:50:35 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b59cea3a85ad [207.8.127.182]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:48:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Gigantic Saguaros on Mars!
Resent-Message-ID: <"fGTOH1.0.bs4.hlpTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36287
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Look at this: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0307158.html. This is
a photo, taken in diffuse light rather than direct sunlight, which avoids
the low signal-to-noise ratios that normally cause very dark areas in CCD
images to lose detail. Result: we see *limbs* protruding out from the dark
objects in the lower half of the photo! What we appear to be seeing here
are gigantic saguaros--as big as skyscrapers--with blatantly obvious limbs
sticking out from them! This is a spectacular, smoking-gun proof of life on
Mars, in my opinion! And with plants this enormous, it is a virtual
lead-pipe cinch that huge animals live there as well. Wow! --MJ

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 11:47:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA07111;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:42:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:42:15 -0700
Message-ID: <39774931.F657D68F csrlink.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:47:13 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Gigantic Saguaros on Mars!
References: <v04011703b59cea3a85ad [207.8.127.182]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"L8uWK.0.vk1.7WqTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36288
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

hi,
  Um...exactly how BIG? Maybe I don't want to go there any more...
MJ

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> Look at this: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0307158.html. This is
> a photo, taken in diffuse light rather than direct sunlight, which avoids
> the low signal-to-noise ratios that normally cause very dark areas in CCD
> images to lose detail. Result: we see *limbs* protruding out from the dark
> objects in the lower half of the photo! What we appear to be seeing here
> are gigantic saguaros--as big as skyscrapers--with blatantly obvious limbs
> sticking out from them! This is a spectacular, smoking-gun proof of life on
> Mars, in my opinion! And with plants this enormous, it is a virtual
> lead-pipe cinch that huge animals live there as well. Wow! --MJ

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 12:03:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15161;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:57:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200007201857.OAA22364 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 Pumped Power Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"7MYYA2.0.li3.6lqTv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36290
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I contacted Light Sources by email some time back and never received a
>reply.  Since then I purchased an EPROM eraser and found another working
>surplus mercury vapor lamp with ballast free.
>
>My problem right now is buiding a leak proof vacuum system.  I am rebuiding
>a system I had set up a couple years ago.  I just ordered hardware from
>McMaster-Carr which I hope will make such a system possible.
>
>Ed

By the looks of the ad, Light Sources goes to a great deal of trouble to
ensure that as much of that critical light bandwidth can make it out of the
glass, unlike say a streetlamp glass envelope.  As for the leakproof vacuum
system, there is always bubblegum and TorrSeal, or you could try a Brown's
Gas welder. ;)

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 Jul 20 12:07:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15154;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:57:48 -0400
Message-Id: <200007201857.OAA22343 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: Toyota Prius available in Atlanta
Resent-Message-ID: <"x7JOx.0.di3.6lqTv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36289
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed writes
>Amazing! It isn't even a hybrid car. This is a VW with a direct drive. It
>has a diesel engine with 40% Carnot efficiency and lightweight components.
>It just goes to show, the automakers could have increased efficiency years
>ago, if the consumers had demanded it.
>
>- Jed

Yep!  That, and a whole lot more.  The part count for that powerplant is
probably about half or less than a hybrid, owing to the fact that that
diesels are inherently simpler anyway.  I wonder if the injectors are
sonically driven?  I wonder how well it would do on A-55 fuel?  If it ran on
that, it would be cheaper to drive than a Harley.

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 Jul 20 12:09:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17124;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:05:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:05:20 -0700
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:05:10 -0400
Message-Id: <200007201905.PAA25470 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 Pumped Power Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"xcvtT.0.QB4.krqTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36291
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Fred writes:

>You could use an Inverter to power them, but the board circuitry rectifies the
>120/240 volt A.C. line input, then goes from there to produce operating
>frequencies up to 40 kilohertz or so to increase the luminous efficiency.

An inverter?  I was hoping for another Sparber magic trick!  I would
probably try to bypass the rectifier altogether, and run it off a battery.
Then you could charge the battery during the day with Photoelectric cells.
In the daytime, I would use lightpipes to light any room.  Once they are
installed, they are free, and last forever.

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 Jul 20 12:48:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05192;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:29 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.108.150
Message-Id: <v04210100b59d0407306f [128.183.108.190]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b59c839d27ce [12.21.209.3]>
References: <v01530501b59c839d27ce [12.21.209.3]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:44:01 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_bJFR1.0.-G1.SQrTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36292
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Here is yet another and more serious shot at correcting some things.
>
>It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
>due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
>here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
>to differing relativistic effects occuring with respect to multiple
>particles at varying velocities.
>
>On p.492 of *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz provides the
>
>so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:
>
>    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]
>
>which requires solving an elliptic integral of the second kind, and yields
>a  net charge Q_net which if real, is available to expand the universe:


This analysis by Horace Heffner is still wrong as was version #1 and 
#2.  The averaging integral in spherical coordinates would be

Integral from 0 to Pi [k(theta) sin(theta) d theta]

The sin(theta) term is missing in Horace's integral.  It is an error 
to average over theta.  You need to average over theta with a weight 
of sin(theta).  As I said before, the correct integral may be done 
exactly, it may be looked up in tables of integrals and there is no 
dependence on the velocity.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 12:51:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06740;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:47:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:47:22 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011706b59d01b70e76 [207.8.127.182]>
In-Reply-To: <39774931.F657D68F csrlink.net>
References: <v04011703b59cea3a85ad [207.8.127.182]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:45:43 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Gigantic Saguaros on Mars!
Resent-Message-ID: <"bNO0P.0.Ef1.9TrTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36293
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>hi,
>  Um...exactly how BIG? Maybe I don't want to go there any more...

***{If you go to http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0307158.html and
scroll down to the bottom, you will find that the scaled image width is
2.84 km. Thus a straight line perpendicular to the left side of the image,
going from left to right, is 2.84 km in length. On my monitor, the
equivalent distance is 8.7 cm. Looking at one of the fairly typical round,
isolated objects with limbs showing--as opposed to the dense stands of such
objects that also appear on the photo--I get a measured width of .3 cm.
Thus the actual diameter of that object is about (.3/8.7)(2.84) = .098 km
or about 321 feet--which means: the thing has a horizontal cross-section
similar to a skyscraper. While I cannot judge its height, since there are
no shadows, the heights of similar objects in other photos come out to be
around 100 feet. Thus what we seem to be dealing with here are squat cacti
with vertical heights of around 100 feet and diameters of about 300 feet.
The volume inside such a thing would be enormous, and the contained
community of organisms--other plants and animals--would also be enormous.
Moreover, if these objects follow the pattern of many plants on
earth--where, for example, whole forests of trees are connected underground
via common root systems--then the entire vast forest of gigantic objects
that we see on the photo could all be interconnected, via underground root
systems, and there may be large open spaces and an atmosphere therein, and
the pressure of that atmosphere could be 1013 mbar (sea level atmospheric
pressure on Earth) or even higher. Frankly, if these photos mean what they
seem to mean, this is an enormous discovery. --MJ}***

>MJ
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>
>> Look at this: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0307158.html. This is
>> a photo, taken in diffuse light rather than direct sunlight, which avoids
>> the low signal-to-noise ratios that normally cause very dark areas in CCD
>> images to lose detail. Result: we see *limbs* protruding out from the dark
>> objects in the lower half of the photo! What we appear to be seeing here
>> are gigantic saguaros--as big as skyscrapers--with blatantly obvious limbs
>> sticking out from them! This is a spectacular, smoking-gun proof of life on
>> Mars, in my opinion! And with plants this enormous, it is a virtual
>> lead-pipe cinch that huge animals live there as well. Wow! --MJ

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 12:52:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07586;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:48:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:48:30 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011707b59d079a716d [207.8.127.182]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:46:48 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"DikA21.0.Os1.CUrTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36294
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:
>> >
>> >> >Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ed Storms wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
>> >> >> >this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This
>>situation, I
>> >> >> >suggest, is
>> >> >> >the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of
>> >>continuity
>> >> >> >can not
>> >> >> >be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying
>>to do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that
>> >>discontinuities
>> >> >> which do not affect sensations are *not* the only possibility--which
>> >>means:
>> >> >> it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect sensations. Thus
>> >>if we
>> >> >> assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of continuity is
>> >> >> false, we have two implications, not one:
>> >> >
>> >> >Once again, you are assume that because a person can imagine a process
>> >>taking
>> >> >place, that it has a probability of taking place in nature.
>> >>
>> >> ***{Probability numbers are not measures of the world, but of the
>>degree of
>> >> certainty permitted by the information we have about the world. Suppose,
>> >> for example, that you have a friend go into another room, close the door,
>> >> and roll an unloaded die. Suppose further that he obtains a two, and that
>> >> after doing so he makes one of the following statements:
>> >
>> >We are not talking about probabilities based on known phenomenon, i.e. a
>> >roll of
>> >the dice.  We are talking about an imagined phenomenon about which we know
>> >nothing.
>>
>> ***{OK, Ed, suppose that a special die exists which we may call the
>> discontinuity die. You don't know how many sides it has, but you know that
>> the side which comes up determines the form that discontinuities take, and
>> that one of the sides, if it comes up, causes all sensations to leap into
>> existence out of nothing. (Let's call that the sensation side of the die.)
>
>Once again you create a model out of your imagination and use this model to
>derive a conclusion that you want to apply to nature.  This is like saying, "I
>can imagine the principle of continuity being correct, therefore it must
>operate
>in nature."  The rest of the logic path is chosen to justify this view point.

***{This description is incorrect. See detailed analysis further down. --MJ}***

>Just because theoreticians do this all the time does not make it right.
>Indeed,
>this is why so little theory actually describes nature very well.  This is
>what
>Bohr did in his model of the atom to which you object.

***{With this I agree. --MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> Given that state of affairs, I ask you to assume that the discontinuity die
>> exists and was rolled at some time in the past, and has been sitting in an
>> unknown room somewhere ever since, with one of the sides being in the up
>> position. Now, given that state of affairs, are we not forced, by the
>> nature of the assumptions we have made, to conclude that it is possible
>> that the sensation side is face up? If so, then since we don't know how
>> many sides the discontinuity die has, we cannot assign a specific number to
>> the probability that the sensation side is face up, but we can say that the
>> probability is greater than zero, because that conclusion is a direct
>> consequence of the assumptions we have made--to wit: the assumptions that
>> the discontinuity die exists and has been rolled.
>
>But is it not just as likely that the sensation side is face down, or that a
>blank side is face up, i.e. a side that has no relevance to the argument, or
>there is no sensation side anywhere on the die?

***{Of course it is. The probability of any given face coming up is greater
than zero, and so it is *possible* that any side could be face up. However,
all of these possibilities exist *simultaneously*. Result: I can use the
fact that it is possible that the sensation side is up in my proof. Result:
the proof works, and proves that the principle of continuity must be true.
--MJ}***

Your model is constructed to
>support your logic, hence is just a variation on the same theme, just
>another way
>of saying the same thing.

***{My intent was to assume that the principle of continuity was false, and
see if I could find a contradiction, thereby invalidating the assumption,
and, thus, proving that the principle of continuity was true. You cannot
refute that proof by pointing out that I deliberately constructed it with
the goal in mind of proving the principle of continuity. (Most proofs are
constructed with the intent of demonstrating a particular outcome.) What
you have to do, instead, is show that there is some important difference
between assuming that the discontinuity die exists and has been rolled, and
assuming that discontinuities are possible. I say that, in terms of
substance, there is no difference between the two things. If that is so,
then the proof stands, despite the fact that I intended to prove the
conclusion from the beginning. --MJ}***

>
>>
>>
>> Since there is obviously no difference, in terms of essentials, between
>> assuming that a discontinuity die exists and has been rolled, and in simply
>> assuming that discontinuities are possible, it is now crystal clear that
>> the latter assumption leads to the same conclusion as the former one--i.e.,
>> to the conclusion that it is possible that all of our sensations may be
>> leaping into existence out of nothing.
>
>If the blank side is up, we can conclude nothing, or if the sensation side is
>face down , we can conclude that our existence is not affected.  We know
>nothing
>about the imaginary die, yet you choose a condition that fits with your
>argument.  What basis, other than the need of your logic, do you make this
>choice?

***{It is dictated by the nature of the information set we are working
with, Ed. If you assume that an unloaded, six-sided die has been rolled, it
is possible that any one of the six sides came up--and these possibilities
coexist *simultaneously*. The reason they can do that, despite the fact
that the die may be sitting in another room with the two facing up, is that
when you say a given side is possible, all you are saying is that *the
information set you are working with doesn't permit you to discount that
possibility*. That's what "possible" means, and is all that it means.
Result: if you assume that the principle of continuity is false, every form
which discontinuity can take is possible *simultaneously*, despite the fact
that they cannot all coexist in the same reality at the same time. --MJ}***

If a reason exists for your choice independent of your logic, I would be
>more persuaded.

***{The decision to assume the principle of continuity is false is a
decision to work within the confines of a specific information set, Ed, and
within the confines of that information set, there are no details which one
might use to decide in favor of one form of discontinuity over another.
Result: all forms are possible *simultaneously*. --MJ}***

>
>> And that, in turn leads to the
>> conclusion that we may not exist, which in turn contradicts our absolute
>> certainty of our own existence (as per the dictum of Descartes)--which
>> means: our assumption that discontinuities are possible (i.e., that a
>> discontinuity die exists and has been rolled) leads to a contradiction, and
>> is therefore a false assumption--which means: the principle of continuity
>> must be true. Q.E.D.
>>
>> Bottom line: we are *not* talking about "an imagined phenomenon of which we
>> know nothing." Instead, we are talking about a very specific set of
>> assumptions, and very specific implications can be deduced from those
>> assumptions.
>
>Ah yes, you call them assumptions. That is progress.  You see, I do not agree
>with your assumptions because your assumptions are arbitrary.

***{Incorrect. I chose to assume that the principle of continuity was false
because I wanted to see if that assumption led to a contradiction. Thus my
decision to make that assumption was based on the same considerations that
motivate any other person who constructs an indirect proof. That is simply
the way indirect proofs are created. Period.

As to whether you *agree* with the assumption that is the starting point of
an indirect proof, that is a matter of no importance. The question is this:
if you make the assumption, does it lead to a contradiction, or not? If it
does, then the proof stands, *regardless* of whether you like the
assumption or the conclusion of the proof.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Someone else, with
>equal justification, can make the opposite assumption, i.e. that the
>principle of
>continuity is not correct

***{You aren't following what I am saying. The assumption I made was that
the principle of continuity was *incorrect*, not that it was correct. After
assuming it to be incorrect, I then demonstrated that the assumption of
incorrectness lead to a contradiction, thereby *proving* (not assuming)
that the principle of continuity had to be true. Let me say it again: you
*assume* continuity is incorrect, which leads to a contradiction, thereby
*proving* that the principle of continuity must be true. That's the way an
indirect proof works. --MJ}***

, but we have no way to know this because our sensations
>are so constructed to make the principle look correct

***{Our sensations make the principle look correct because it *is* correct,
as my indirect proof demonstrates. --MJ}***

, or any one of a number of
>variations using this theme.
>
>>
>>
>> Ed, it's time to turn down your king.
>
>OK, I'm stumped. What does this comment mean?

***{I'm a recovering chessaholic, Ed. That means I used to play in chess
tournaments, where it is the custom for a player to resign--i.e., to admit
defeat--by tipping his king over so it lays on its side. Sorry for the
ambiguity. :-) --MJ}***

>
>Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 15:35:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11480;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:34:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:34:15 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b59d0bd5d4a0 [12.21.211.184]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:23:14 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Resent-Message-ID: <"uDvjs3.0.Ip2.dvtTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36295
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:44 PM 7/20/0, Larry Wharton wrote:
[snip]
>
>This analysis by Horace Heffner is still wrong as was version #1 and
>#2.  The averaging integral in spherical coordinates would be
>
>Integral from 0 to Pi [k(theta) sin(theta) d theta]
>
>The sin(theta) term is missing in Horace's integral.  It is an error
>to average over theta.  You need to average over theta with a weight
>of sin(theta).


Could you explain why this is so?  My assumption is that electron direction
is uniformly random.  This seems a reasonably fair assumption for neutral
matter and a good hypothetical starting point for a large body of plasma.
The orientations are not weighted, so why should the integral be weighted?



>As I said before, the correct integral may be done
>exactly, it may be looked up in tables of integrals and there is no
>dependence on the velocity.


The following values were calculated by brute force by incrementing theta
10,000 times to obtain a full circle:

  v/c           K_incr

 .999999   0.363371045179493
 .5        6.57845423323069D-02
 .1        2.50470713873419D-03
 .01       2.5000468772296D-05
 .001      2.50000048662713D-07
 .0001     2.50000153911856D-09

Any analytic attempt to integrate must match these results.  Even if my
analysis was wrong I think the above numbers are a correct reflection of
the net effect, because they represent the most direct calculation of the
effect, and have no relation to the analysis.

If these are a correct reflection of the anticipated special relativistic
effects then the implications are stunning for interpretation of solar
flares and cycles, formation of galactic bubbles, great attractors, and
many other things, some higly practical.  Plasma electrons are not
hamstrung by the same QM boundaries as orbital electrons.  This analysis
should not be so easily dismissed.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 17:58:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA27235;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:57:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:57:22 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59d3d6d5c18 [12.21.211.62]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:59:23 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #4
Resent-Message-ID: <"NZS4j1.0.Tf6.n_vTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36296
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
to differing relativistic effects occurring with respect to multiple
particles at varying velocities.

On p.492 of *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz provides the
equation for relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

which can be interpreted to mean apparent charge is reduced to observers in
line with the charge velocity and increased when viewed (felt) from the
side.

NOTE - it is not standard physics to interpret pancaking as a change in
apparent charge (standard relativity assumes charge is invariant with
velocity) but rather a change in observed field strength, but I think it is
clear we are free to interpret the above equations either way.

Consider an atom where the electrons whiz around a nucleus. They present
some degree of pancaking from any angle viewed.  Viewed from some
directions apparent charge is increased and from some directions decreased.
The polar orientation of atom orbitals is mixed in a uniform way due to
the orientation of atoms being mixed in a uniform way.  In a plasma without
significant currents, the movement of charge should be uniform, with
lighter charges moving faster than heavy charges.

The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
integrating to find the average value of:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2, and then subtracting the average
value from one to obtain the net charge change factor K, because if v = 0
then

   Q' = Q * 1

If the average value of k is non-zero over all angles theta, for v not 0,
then an average apparent net charge exists when v not 0.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

which requires solving an elliptic integral of the second kind, and yields
a  net charge Q_net which if real, is available to expand the universe:

   Q_net = K Q

where K can be approximately based on the average speed of the electrons.

The net charge, being the same in all ordinary matter, would be repulsive,
thus  anti-gravitic.  The net charge in anti-matter atoms would appear to
be attractive, or gravitic, toward ordinary matter.

It might be thought that a slight net apparent charge could account for
gravity and antigravitc effects, or that it could be shown that gravity is
a purely repulsive force in ordinary matter.  However, the apparent net
charge calculated for electrons in high energy orbitals is way to high to
be real.  This calculation, if correct, could thus be used to justify the
often held notion that orbital electrons do not move in their orbital
waveforms, that the waveform is static until the electron momentum is
actually sampled.

The average values of k(theta), ie. K_avg, for various velocities relative
to c were directly calculated by computer program by averaging the
incremental force factor:

  K_incr =  1 - K_avg

over a complete circle, for theta = 0 to 2 Pi.  Here are the results:

  v/c           K_incr

 .999999   0.363371045179493
 .5        6.57845423323069D-02
 .1        2.50470713873419D-03
 .01       2.5000468772296D-05
 .001      2.50000048662713D-07
 .0001     2.50000153911856D-09


These factors indicate staggering apparent net charges, especially from k
shell electrons.  The innermost electrons of Fe have an ionization
potential of 9277.69 eV, and Ni has 10775.40 eV.

Using half the ionization potential of Ni as electron kinetic energy we obtain:

   1/2 m_e v^2 = (10775.4 eV)/2 = 8.63 J

           v = 4.35x10^7 m/s

           v = 0.145 c

so more than 0.25 percent of the total charge for such electrons would
appear as net apparent positive charge in the atom.  This would have a
profound effect on a Cavendish experiment, as shown earlier, so, if the
subject integral is evaluated accurately, it must be that orbital state
electrons do not move in the Newtonian sense.  Their waveforms are static
about the nucleus.  Alternatively, there could be problems in relativity or
electomagnetics, which would be no surprise to many.

There may be errors in my assumptions or in the application of Shadowitz'
pancaking equation.  Also, the only considerations here were those of
special relativity, so general relativity considerations could of course
change the picture.  I think due to time dilation in GR, that a case could
be made for the "charge dilation" effect being even larger.

Possibly I have an error in my program, so I am interested in comparing my
numerical solutions of the given elliptic integral of the second kind to an
analytical solution, if that be available.  Any assistance would be
appreciated.


Here is an analysis and partial confirmation of the simulation results
using Mathematica to integrate obtaining a finite integral, but which
unfortunately yields a  complete elliptic integral of the second kind in
the solution.

Earlier, I averaged:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2, and then subtracted the average
value from one to obtain the net charge change factor K_incr, because if v
= 0 then

   Q' = Q * 1

If the average value of k, K_avg, is not one over all angles theta, for v
not 0, then an average apparent net charge exists when v not 0.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

Mathematica says:

   [integral from 0 to 2 Pi] [ (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(-3/2) d theta]

is given by:

    -(EllipticE[x, b]/(-1 + b)) + (b*Sin[2*x])/(Sqrt[2]*(-1 + b)*
                      Sqrt[2 - b + b*Cos[2*x]])

which, when evaluated from 0 to 2 Pi, is

    -4(EllipticE[b])/(b-1)

where EllipticE[b] is a complete elliptic integral of the second kind. So:


    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

      = 1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1-b) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi]
                                [ (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(-3/2) d theta]

      =  1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1-b)  (-4(EllipticE[b])/(b-1))

      = 1 - 4/(2 Pi)  EllipticE[b]

    K = 1 - 2 Pi  EllipticE[v^2/c^2]

or more appropriately:

    K(v) = 1 - 2 Pi  EllipticE[v^2/c^2]

My son John, a Carnegie Mellon CS undergraduate, using his properly
licensed student copy of Mathematica, gave me some help with the above and
produced these (confirming) values of K(v):


              (Averaged)             Mathematica evaluation of K(v) =
   v/c          K_incr               1 - 2 EllipticE[(v/c)^2]/Pi

 .999999   0.363371045179493         0.363375
 .5        6.57845423323069D-02      0.0657845
 .1        2.50470713873419D-03      0.00250471
 .01       2.5000468772296D-05       0.0000250005
 .001      2.50000048662713D-07      2.5e-7
 .0001     2.50000153911856D-09      2.5e-9

Thus it appears there is evidence for a predicted net apparent charge in
both neutral condensed matter and plasmas.  The fact the apparent charge
does not manifest in condensed matter could be construed to confirm the QM
view that the "electron is everywhere" in the wave function, or that is
nowhere specific until sampled.  There is no radiation from atoms because
the electrons do not move.

Plasma electrons are not so constrained by the QM boundaries though.  The
effect is less due to lower velocities, but still significant.  At a solar
temperature of 1x10^6 K we have, at 11,600 K/eV, a mean energy of 86.2 eV,
or 1.38x10^-17 J, thus v = 3.89x10^6 m/s, and v/c = 0.0013, and K(v) ~
2.5x10^-7.  The sun thus has a massive apparent positive charge and must
maintain an excess of electrons to remain neutral.  A temperature increase
would cause an increase in apparent positive charge and thus create the
need for expulsion of heavy positive mass into space.  Space may therefore
be populated by mostly positive charge, thereby partially explaining
anti-gravitational effects and galactic bubbles.  Cooling would produce a
reduction of apparent positive charge, thus creating a negative charge
tending to expel electrons and attract positive ions into the sun, thus
heating it.

Considering that hadrons consist of quarks with partial charge, even
hadrons may be involved in relative charge shifts. Perhaps gravity itself
can be explained by this relativistic effect. There are many things
possibly explained and much room for speculation and practical application
of the principle is found to be sound.

Any assistance available in evaluating or approximating EllipticE[x] for
very small x would be appreciated.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 18:31:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA06068;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:30:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:30:56 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is  finally  on Nature
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:30:07 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <eo9fnsgulabpcf94u616acrqtaqh18491g 4ax.com>
References: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr> <00gcns0lrkrq2euiir4anu25ev2ddd90p6@4ax.com> <397660DC.BBBDB0A6@verisoft.com.tr>
In-Reply-To: <397660DC.BBBDB0A6 verisoft.com.tr>
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 SAA06041
Resent-Message-ID: <"1TwvH1.0.kU1.GVwTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36297
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: A

In reply to  hamdi ucar's message of Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:15:56 +0300:
[snip]
>Probably. It is needed to dope the fiber with cesium atoms and provide a similar condition.
>
>Can somebody explain the difference between the signal velocity and the information (propagation) velocity? It is said that the signal (velocity) exceed c but not the information (propagation velocity). I think the conclusion on information speed on the 
below paragraph is conditional or interpretable:
>

Sorry, not me. I get the impression that the experimenters themselves are
desperately trying to come to terms with the collapse of the assumptions on
which SR was based. :>

>
>"Remarkably, the signal velocity of a light pulse, defined as the velocity at which the half point of the pulse front travels, also exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, c, in the present experiment. It has also been suggested that the true speed at wh
ich information is carried by a light pulse should be defined as the "frontal" velocity of a step-function-shaped signal which has been shown not to exceed c (ref. 4). The implications of the present experiment on signal propagation and its speed will be 
further analysed, particularly for the case when the light pulse consists of only a few photons."
[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  Thu Jul 20 20:25:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA14060;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:23:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:23:45 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Seduced by FATBRAIN
In-Reply-To: <eo9fnsgulabpcf94u616acrqtaqh18491g 4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000720201053.869D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"-bO6H2.0.YR3.19yTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36298
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


"Hypertext" was Ted Nelson's dream in early 1970, and he wanted the
readers to be able to directly pay the authors for pages viewed online. 

I heard that fatbrain.com was offering a similar service.  I went and
looked.  Uh oh.  Before I knew it I had signed up and paid $2.00 to read
an article. Couldn't stop myself.  What a great scam!  :)  Take a look: 

  Those Who Lapse: Are Mavericks Bad Scientists or Just Unlucky?  
  by Henry Bauer and Patrick Huyghe     ($2.00)
  http://www1.mightywords.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=EB00015215

Articles are delivered as secure PDF, and you need your internet
connection open in order to view the file.  In this case the $$ go to a
good cause: everyone here is probably familiar with the two mavericks
above?  Their article is a excerpt from a book they're writing.  So in
this case they are getting us to PAY THEM for the act of reading their
advertizements!

:)

Maybe I should contact Henry and see if I can get a cut of that $2.00 for
waving his article under vortex-L's nose.



Now what's REALLY interesting is the link on that page which reads:
"publish ematter"...

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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 Jul 20 20:52:59 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA21772;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:51:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:51:12 -0700
Message-ID: <001001bff2c6$d810f6a0$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr> <00gcns0lrkrq2euiir4anu25ev2ddd90p6@4ax.com> <397660DC.BBBDB0A6@verisoft.com.tr>
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is finally  on Nature
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:50:10 -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: <"LK-kV3.0.0K5.lYyTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36299
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

It is odd that this is the first message in the thread to appear. Did this
discussion
start under a different subject?

This seems to be discussing the AIP's Physics News Updata 495, which refers
back to a nature article.

"SUPERLUMINAL LIGHT PROPAGATION.  Scientists at the NEC
Research Institute in Princeton have performed an experiment in
which the group velocity of a light pulse traveling through a special
medium appears to be faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum,
without, however, violating the principle of  causality or the theory of
relativity.  Such experiments have been performed before and have
exploited the fact that a finite pulse of light is necessarily the sum of
an ensemble of waves at different frequencies.  One therefore speaks
of a "phase velocity" for component waves and the "group velocity"
for the pulse as a whole.  When such an ensemble enters a medium
with a frequency-dependent index of refraction, interesting things
start to happen.  In a Harvard experiment last year, for example, the
component light waves of a pulse passing through a Bose-Einstein
condensate were affected in such a way as to yield a group velocity of
only 17 m/sec (Hau et al., Nature, 18 February 1999).  Working in the
other direction, manipulating the component waves in order to
achieve a higher group velocity, is more difficult to establish since it
usually occurs when the index of refraction is varying rapidly in a
frequency range where the light is being absorbed by the medium;
hence the light pulse can be severely distorted or attenuated, making
it difficult to detect superluminal effects.  In the NEC experiment, by
contrast, the medium in question, a cell filled with a gas of cesium
atoms, does not absorb light at the crucial frequencies but actually
enhances the light through a type of laser action; that is, the cesium
atoms are promoted into an excited state and contribute to the light
pulse when it travels through.  Consequently the pulse shape is
largely preserved even as the component waves interfere (through a
process called anomalous dispersion) in such a way as to shift the
pulse forward in time by a tiny amount, about 1.7% of the original
pulse width, compared to the situation in which the cell is not present.
According to the NEC researchers, "the peak of the pulse appears to
leave the cell before entering it."  This superluminal behavior does
not contradict the principles of Einstein's relativity theory, but it
might well encourage further discussion among scientists about how
exactly to specify the onset of light signals.   (Wang et al., Nature, 20
July 2000.)"

Now, from "Optics", Page 205, 1974 Hecht & Zajac...
  "The special theory of relativity makes it quite clear that there are
no circumstances under which a signal can propagate at a speed
greater than c. Yet we have already seen that under certain circumstances,
the phase velocity can exceed c. The contradiction is only an
apparent one arising from the fact that while a mocochromatic wave can
indeed have a speed in excess of c, it cannot convey information. In
contrast, a signal in the form of any modulated wave will propagate
at the group velocity which is always less than c in normally dispersive
media.
  "In regions of anomalous dispersion where dn/dk<0, Vg may be
greater than c. Here, however, the signal propagates at yet a different
speed, known as the signal velocity Vs. Thus Vs=Vg except in a
resonance absorption band. In all cases Vs corresponds to the velocity
of transfer of energy and never exceeds c."

----- Original Message -----
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract)
is finally on Nature


> Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> >
> > In reply to  hamdi ucar's message of Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:22:30 +0300:
>
>
> > I wonder if the same principle could be applied in a specially
constructed
> > optical fibre?
> >
>
> Probably. It is needed to dope the fiber with cesium atoms and provide a
similar condition.
>
> Can somebody explain the difference between the signal velocity and the
information
> (propagation) velocity? It is said that the signal (velocity) exceed c but
not the
> information (propagation velocity). I think the conclusion on information
speed on
> the below paragraph is conditional or interpretable:

If you have two em waves of slightly different frequency but the same
amplitude,
say one is U=U0*exp(i*[(k+deltak)*z-(w+deltaw)*t]) and
the other is U=U0*exp(i*[k-deltak)*z-(w-deltaw)*t]), then when you combine
them together you get...

U=2*U0*exp(i*[k*z-w*t])*cos(z*deltak-t*deltaw)

Where the group velocity Vg = deltaw/deltak

Note that the group velocity is a sort of modulation envelope.


> "Remarkably, the signal velocity of a light pulse, defined as the velocity
at which the half point of the pulse front travels, also exceeds the speed
of light in a vacuum, c, in the present experiment. It has also been
suggested that the true speed at which information is carried by a light
pulse should be defined as the "frontal" velocity of a step-function-shaped
signal which has been shown not to exceed c (ref. 4). The implications of
the present experiment on signal propagation and its speed will be further
analysed, particularly for the case when the light pulse consists of only a
few photons."
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> hamdi ucar
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 20:54:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA22693;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:53:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:53:13 -0700
Message-ID: <001301bff2c7$1fc3c2c0$0601a8c0 federation>
From: "Steve Lajoie" <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr> <00gcns0lrkrq2euiir4anu25ev2ddd90p6@4ax.com> <397660DC.BBBDB0A6@verisoft.com.tr> <eo9fnsgulabpcf94u616acrqtaqh18491g@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is  finally  on Nature
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:52:14 -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: <"DMtLA3.0.VY5.eayTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36300
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 <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract)
is finally on Nature


[snip]

> Sorry, not me. I get the impression that the experimenters themselves are
> desperately trying to come to terms with the collapse of the assumptions
on
> which SR was based. :>

Not at all. It has been known for a long time that this does not violate
anything about special relativity. When Vg>Vc, Vg carries no information.
That propagates at the signal speed, Vs.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 20 21:22:54 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA32386;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:21:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:21:50 -0700
From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is  finally  on Nature
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:21:11 +1000
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <pljfns86v21oev4g195knaia7ngf4n7fd5 4ax.com>
References: <39763836.B55B053C verisoft.com.tr> <00gcns0lrkrq2euiir4anu25ev2ddd90p6@4ax.com> <397660DC.BBBDB0A6@verisoft.com.tr> <eo9fnsgulabpcf94u616acrqtaqh18491g@4ax.com> <001301bff2c7$1fc3c2c0$0601a8c0@federation>
In-Reply-To: <001301bff2c7$1fc3c2c0$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 VAA32365
Resent-Message-ID: <"Rt1vs.0.yv7.T_yTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36301
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 Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:52:14 -0700:
[snip]
>Not at all. It has been known for a long time that this does not violate
>anything about special relativity. When Vg>Vc, Vg carries no information.
>That propagates at the signal speed, Vs.
Perhaps "signal speed" is a misnomer. Energy transfer speed would be
appropriate. If they were able to measure a velocity exceeding c, then there
must have been some effect to measure. I.e. something changed. If something
changes, then a signal has been sent, irrespective of whether or not it was
accompanied by energy from the original source of the signal.

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  Thu Jul 20 21:27:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA02059;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:26:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:26:02 -0700
Message-Id: <200007210425.AAA17734 tisch.mail.mindspring.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: (correction) NEC's superluminal experiment article (abstract) is  finally  on Nature
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:20:34 -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: <"ScUQD1.0.0W.P3zTv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36302
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Not at all. It has been known for a long time that this does not violate
> anything about special relativity. When Vg>Vc, Vg carries no information.
> That propagates at the signal speed, Vs.

This is my opinion, also. As far as I can tell, the _front_ velocity of
electromagnetic propagation has not exceeded c in this experiment. If
Vf>Vc, then information would be transferred FTL...but group and phase
velocity do not necessarily carry information. The fact that these
velocities are different is the basis of the concept of dispersion.

--Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 00:52:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA14164;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:47:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:47:25 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59db00eda02 [12.21.208.189]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:49:22 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #4
Resent-Message-ID: <"dRKKN1.0.2T3.800Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36303
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

I've been at it on vortex and the net charge of atoms came up in a Mills
context.  If I recall we more or less gave up on the concept, but I beat it
about a bit with Larry Wharton, who disargees with my integration technique
(and my first one WAS bad) but I feel fairly confident about it now.  I
didn't expect much to pop out of the discussion but it sure did.  I feel
this is food for thought along other lines, and I sure would like to get
more familiar with the EllipticE[b] function that shows up below and which
has some descriptive material at www.integrals.com.

If anything comes of the vortex posts (unlikely as it is) I know you guys
deserve credit - if you want it known you collaborate with an
uncredentialed fringe free energy guy.   8^)

Here is my latest thinking and post to vortex:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

             Relativistic net charge expands universe?

It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to change for an observer
due to relativistic pancaking of the coulombic field.  It is the intent
here to examine whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change, due
to differing relativistic effects occurring with respect to multiple
particles at varying velocities.

On p.492 of *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz provides the
equation for relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

which can be interpreted to mean apparent charge is reduced to observers in
line with the charge velocity and increased when viewed (felt) from the
side.

NOTE - it is not standard physics to interpret pancaking as a change in
apparent charge (standard relativity assumes charge is invariant with
velocity) but rather a change in observed field strength, but I think it is
clear we are free to interpret the above equations either way.

Consider an atom where the electrons whiz around a nucleus. They present
some degree of pancaking from any angle viewed.  Viewed from some
directions apparent charge is increased and from some directions decreased.
The polar orientation of atom orbitals is mixed in a uniform way due to
the orientation of atoms being mixed in a uniform way.  In a plasma without
significant currents, the movement of charge should be uniform, with
lighter charges moving faster than heavy charges.

The net apparent charge of atoms of ordinary unmagnetized mass comes from
integrating to find the average value of:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2, and then subtracting the average
value from one to obtain the net charge change factor K, because if v = 0
then

   Q' = Q * 1

If the average value of k is non-zero over all angles theta, for v not 0,
then an average apparent net charge exists when v not 0.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

which requires solving an elliptic integral of the second kind, and yields
a  net charge Q_net which if real, is available to expand the universe:

   Q_net = K Q

where K can be approximately based on the average speed of the electrons.

The net charge, being the same in all ordinary matter, would be repulsive,
thus  anti-gravitic.  The net charge in anti-matter atoms would appear to
be attractive, or gravitic, toward ordinary matter.

It might be thought that a slight net apparent charge could account for
gravity and antigravitc effects, or that it could be shown that gravity is
a purely repulsive force in ordinary matter.  However, the apparent net
charge calculated for electrons in high energy orbitals is way to high to
be real.  This calculation, if correct, could thus be used to justify the
often held notion that orbital electrons do not move in their orbital
waveforms, that the waveform is static until the electron momentum is
actually sampled.

The average values of k(theta), ie. K_avg, for various velocities relative
to c were directly calculated by computer program by averaging the
incremental force factor:

  K_incr =  1 - K_avg

over a complete circle, for theta = 0 to 2 Pi.  Here are the results:

  v/c           K_incr

 .999999   0.363371045179493
 .5        6.57845423323069D-02
 .1        2.50470713873419D-03
 .01       2.5000468772296D-05
 .001      2.50000048662713D-07
 .0001     2.50000153911856D-09


These factors indicate staggering apparent net charges, especially from k
shell electrons.  The innermost electrons of Fe have an ionization
potential of 9277.69 eV, and Ni has 10775.40 eV.

Using half the ionization potential of Ni as electron kinetic energy we obtain:

   1/2 m_e v^2 = (10775.4 eV)/2 = 8.63 J

           v = 4.35x10^7 m/s

           v = 0.145 c

so more than 0.25 percent of the total charge for such electrons would
appear as net apparent positive charge in the atom.  This would have a
profound effect on a Cavendish experiment, as shown earlier, so, if the
subject integral is evaluated accurately, it must be that orbital state
electrons do not move in the Newtonian sense.  Their waveforms are static
about the nucleus.  Alternatively, there could be problems in relativity or
electomagnetics, which would be no surprise to many.

There may be errors in my assumptions or in the application of Shadowitz'
pancaking equation.  Also, the only considerations here were those of
special relativity, so general relativity considerations could of course
change the picture.  I think due to time dilation in GR, that a case could
be made for the "charge dilation" effect being even larger.

Possibly I have an error in my program, so I am interested in comparing my
numerical solutions of the given elliptic integral of the second kind to an
analytical solution, if that be available.  Any assistance would be
appreciated.


Here is an analysis and partial confirmation of the simulation results
using Mathematica to integrate obtaining a finite integral, but which
unfortunately yields a  complete elliptic integral of the second kind in
the solution.

Earlier, I averaged:

  k(theta)  = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

for theta = 0 to 2Pi, where b = v^2/c^2, and then subtracted the average
value from one to obtain the net charge change factor K_incr, because if v
= 0 then

   Q' = Q * 1

If the average value of k, K_avg, is not one over all angles theta, for v
not 0, then an average apparent net charge exists when v not 0.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K = 1 - k_avg is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

Mathematica says:

   [integral from 0 to 2 Pi] [ (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(-3/2) d theta]

is given by:

    -(EllipticE[x, b]/(-1 + b)) + (b*Sin[2*x])/(Sqrt[2]*(-1 + b)*
                      Sqrt[2 - b + b*Cos[2*x]])

which, when evaluated from 0 to 2 Pi, is

    -4(EllipticE[b])/(b-1)

where EllipticE[b] is a complete elliptic integral of the second kind. So:


    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

      = 1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1-b) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi]
                                [ (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(-3/2) d theta]

      =  1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1-b)  (-4(EllipticE[b])/(b-1))

      = 1 - 4/(2 Pi)  EllipticE[b]

    K = 1 - 2 Pi  EllipticE[v^2/c^2]

or more appropriately:

    K(v) = 1 - 2 Pi  EllipticE[v^2/c^2]

My son John, a Carnegie Mellon CS undergraduate, using his properly
licensed student copy of Mathematica, gave me some help with the above and
produced these (confirming) values of K(v):


              (Averaged)             Mathematica evaluation of K(v) =
   v/c          K_incr               1 - 2 EllipticE[(v/c)^2]/Pi

 .999999   0.363371045179493         0.363375
 .5        6.57845423323069D-02      0.0657845
 .1        2.50470713873419D-03      0.00250471
 .01       2.5000468772296D-05       0.0000250005
 .001      2.50000048662713D-07      2.5e-7
 .0001     2.50000153911856D-09      2.5e-9

Thus it appears there is evidence for a predicted net apparent charge in
both neutral condensed matter and plasmas.  The fact the apparent charge
does not manifest in condensed matter could be construed to confirm the QM
view that the "electron is everywhere" in the wave function, or that is
nowhere specific until sampled.  There is no radiation from atoms because
the electrons do not move.

Plasma electrons are not so constrained by the QM boundaries though.  The
effect is less due to lower velocities, but still significant.  At a solar
temperature of 1x10^6 K we have, at 11,600 K/eV, a mean energy of 86.2 eV,
or 1.38x10^-17 J, thus v = 3.89x10^6 m/s, and v/c = 0.0013, and K(v) ~
2.5x10^-7.  The sun thus has a massive apparent positive charge and must
maintain an excess of electrons to remain neutral.  A temperature increase
would cause an increase in apparent positive charge and thus create the
need for expulsion of heavy positive mass into space.  Space may therefore
be populated by mostly positive charge, thereby partially explaining
anti-gravitational effects and galactic bubbles.  Cooling would produce a
reduction of apparent positive charge, thus creating a negative charge
tending to expel electrons and attract positive ions into the sun, thus
heating it.

Considering that hadrons consist of quarks with partial charge, even
hadrons may be involved in relative charge shifts. Perhaps gravity itself
can be explained by this relativistic effect. There are many things
possibly explained and much room for speculation and practical application
of the principle is found to be sound.

Any assistance available in evaluating or approximating EllipticE[x] for
very small x would be appreciated.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 01:05:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA10511;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.31]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: A mystery of Earth's wobble solved: It's the ocean]
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:57:06 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F175dTMVwVn20lbhsKd0000006b hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2000 07:57:06.0949 (UTC) FILETIME=[43DC8350:01BFF2E9]
Resent-Message-ID: <"FwKMG3.0.5a2.s90Uv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36304
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Yes, the ocean, now one on the forces of nature, gives the energy of motion 
to the wobble of the Earth.

Bull!!!!

Pressure from the ocean comes from, "The Force" of gravity.

Gravity causes presession of the Earth.  Precession occurs at three distinct 
notes, The Cosmic Chord.

(1) Long slow precession, (2) Chandlers Wobble, and, the off dead center of 
the poles in one revolution, the (3) Phoenix wobble; the Third Wave, the 
Whirlpower wobble.

David


>From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: "Michael S. Johnston" <H2OPower listbot.com>
>Subject: [Fwd: A mystery of Earth's wobble solved: It's the ocean]
>Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:17:19 -0400
>
><< message3.txt >>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 03:31:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA05160;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 03:27:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 03:27:33 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b59dd540975e [12.21.211.135]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 02:29:41 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #4
Resent-Message-ID: <"rtfZq3.0.UG1.LM2Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36305
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Courtesy John Winterflood (much thanks) the first terms of EllipticE[b] are:

                    2
  Pi   Pi b   3 Pi b        3
  -- - ---- - ------- + O[b]
  2     8       128


Now, to evalute the integral giving k(b) for b = (v/c)^2, b small:

  K(v) = 1 - 2 EllipticE[q]/Pi

       = 1 - 2 {1/2 - b/8 - 3 b^2/128)

  K(v) =  b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128

which is pretty good, and for many things

  K(v) = b/4

works OK too.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 04:50:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA21344;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:45:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:45:23 -0700
Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net
Message-ID: <397837E2.50792414 centurytel.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:45:38 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 centurytel.net>
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: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
References: <v01530501b59c839d27ce [12.21.209.3]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-DHyX2.0.PD5.IV3Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36306
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Horace Heffner wrote:

Here is yet another and more serious shot at correcting
some things.

It is possible for apparent charge of a particle to
change for an observer due to relativistic pancaking of
the coulombic field.  It is the intent here to examine
whether the apparent net charge of an atom can change,
due to differing relativistic effects occuring with respect
to multiple particles at varying velocities ...

It might be thought that a slight net apparent charge could
account for gravity and antigravitc effects, or that it
could be shown that gravity is a purely repulsive force
in ordinary matter.  However, the apparent net charge
calculated for electrons in high energy orbitals is way
too high to be real.  This calculation, if correct, could
thus be used to justify the notion that orbital electrons
do not move in their orbital waveforms, that the waveform
is static until the electron momentum is actually sampled ...

Hi Horace and All,

I'm curious why there has been no comment on your
suggestion that "orbital electrons do not move in
their orbital waveforms ..."  Or did I miss a post?

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 08:09:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12841;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:08:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:08:01 -0700
Message-ID: <001b01bff32d$89320da0$238e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:05:00 -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: <"X8JKv3.0.Z83.GT6Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36307
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since you "busy" Horace.   :-)

For any Wave-Particle or Length-Only SuperString or String-Circle:

Capacitance, C = 2(pi)r*eo = Lambda*eo       (Farads)

Inductance, L = 2(pi)r* uo =  Lambda*uo   (Henrys)

(L/C)^1/2 = 377   (ohms) " The intrinsic impedance of space"

Energy, E = 1/2*CV^2 + 1/2*LI^2 = mc^2   (Joules)

Charge,  q = CV = 1.602E-19 Coulombs (An Invariant Constant)

Spin  =   Lambda*mc = h*alpha

h/mc = The Compton Wavelength

Radius of String-Circle or String Length (amplitude) r = kq^2/E      (2.81E-15 meters for
electron)

alpha = 0.00729 729  = 1/137  the "fine structure constant"

h = Planck's Constant = 6.626E-34 Joule-Seconds

Possibilities?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 08:19:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA16299;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:17:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:17:59 -0700
Message-ID: <39786999.E4B118B3 cwnet.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:17:50 -0700
From: Jones Beene <jonesb9 cwnet.com>
Reply-To: jonesb9 cwnet.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com vortex news group" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: tau neutrino discovered - not a lepton?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LAnd21.0.W-3.dc6Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36308
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This story was on the newswire this morning at:

http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500230429-500333749-501904478-0,00.html

A curious part of this story is the following:


> The tau neutrino is the third and perhaps final type of neutrino to be found. The first two
> types - electron neutrinos and muon neutrinos - were discovered in 1956 and 1962.
>
> In 1978, tests by Perl and others at Stanford discovered the existence of another class of
> subatomic particle, the tau lepton. This suggested there would be a tau neutrino, too, because
> neutrinos are precursors to leptons.
>
Is this statement correct? Can Frederick or anyone else out
there point out the difference between a tau lepton (which I
suppose is what used to be called the tau particle) and the
tau neutrino?

Thanks

Jones

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 10:13:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA28076;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:12:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:12:14 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b59e346ad9b7 [207.8.127.68]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:10:40 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"qSdZE.0.cs6.kH8Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36309
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:
>> >
>> >> >Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Ed Storms wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As we discussed before,  particles could do the big jump without
>> >> >> >> >this having any effect whatsoever on our sensations. This
>> >>situation, I
>> >> >> >> >suggest, is
>> >> >> >> >the way nature behaves.  If this is the case, the principle of
>> >> >>continuity
>> >> >> >> >can not
>> >> >> >> >be applied in a general way to all situations, as you are trying
>> >>to do.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ***{Your use of "if" in the preceding sentence implies that
>> >> >>discontinuities
>> >> >> >> which do not affect sensations are *not* the only
>>possibility--which
>> >> >>means:
>> >> >> >> it is also possible that discontinuities *do* affect
>>sensations. Thus
>> >> >>if we
>> >> >> >> assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle of
>>continuity is
>> >> >> >> false, we have two implications, not one:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Once again, you are assume that because a person can imagine a
>>process
>> >> >>taking
>> >> >> >place, that it has a probability of taking place in nature.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ***{Probability numbers are not measures of the world, but of the
>> >>degree of
>> >> >> certainty permitted by the information we have about the world.
>>Suppose,
>> >> >> for example, that you have a friend go into another room, close
>>the door,
>> >> >> and roll an unloaded die. Suppose further that he obtains a two,
>>and that
>> >> >> after doing so he makes one of the following statements:
>> >> >
>> >> >We are not talking about probabilities based on known phenomenon, i.e. a
>> >> >roll of
>> >> >the dice.  We are talking about an imagined phenomenon about which
>>we know
>> >> >nothing.
>> >>
>> >> ***{OK, Ed, suppose that a special die exists which we may call the
>> >> discontinuity die. You don't know how many sides it has, but you know
>>that
>> >> the side which comes up determines the form that discontinuities
>>take, and
>> >> that one of the sides, if it comes up, causes all sensations to leap into
>> >> existence out of nothing. (Let's call that the sensation side of the
>>die.)
>> >
>> >Once again you create a model out of your imagination and use this model to
>> >derive a conclusion that you want to apply to nature.  This is like
>>saying, "I
>> >can imagine the principle of continuity being correct, therefore it must
>> >operate
>> >in nature."  The rest of the logic path is chosen to justify this view
>>point.
>>
>> ***{This description is incorrect. See detailed analysis further down.
>>--MJ}***
>>
>> >Just because theoreticians do this all the time does not make it right.
>> >Indeed,
>> >this is why so little theory actually describes nature very well.  This is
>> >what
>> >Bohr did in his model of the atom to which you object.
>>
>> ***{With this I agree. --MJ}***
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Given that state of affairs, I ask you to assume that the
>>discontinuity die
>> >> exists and was rolled at some time in the past, and has been sitting
>>in an
>> >> unknown room somewhere ever since, with one of the sides being in the up
>> >> position. Now, given that state of affairs, are we not forced, by the
>> >> nature of the assumptions we have made, to conclude that it is possible
>> >> that the sensation side is face up? If so, then since we don't know how
>> >> many sides the discontinuity die has, we cannot assign a specific
>>number to
>> >> the probability that the sensation side is face up, but we can say
>>that the
>> >> probability is greater than zero, because that conclusion is a direct
>> >> consequence of the assumptions we have made--to wit: the assumptions that
>> >> the discontinuity die exists and has been rolled.
>> >
>> >But is it not just as likely that the sensation side is face down, or
>>that a
>> >blank side is face up, i.e. a side that has no relevance to the
>>argument, or
>> >there is no sensation side anywhere on the die?
>>
>> ***{Of course it is. The probability of any given face coming up is greater
>> than zero, and so it is *possible* that any side could be face up. However,
>> all of these possibilities exist *simultaneously*. Result: I can use the
>> fact that it is possible that the sensation side is up in my proof. Result:
>> the proof works, and proves that the principle of continuity must be true.
>> --MJ}***
>
>Well, this much I agree with.  If you assume a multisided physical object,
>then
>each side has a greater than zero probability of landing on top when the
>object is
>thrown, and the probability of each side exists simultaneously.

***{The key question, remember, is whether that analogy captures the
essence of what it means to deny continuity. In other words, when we say
"Assume the principle of continuity is false," does that mean essentially
the same thing as saying "Assume the discontinuity die exists and has been
rolled." If it does--and I think it does--then if continuity is assumed
false, the clear implication is that it is *possible* that all our
sensations are leaping into existence out of nothing--which means: it is
possible that we do not exist. --MJ}***

Now let me make
>my own example, Mitchell. I take this object, in my example a three-sided
>die, and
>assign to each side a condition. Suppose one side is the condition "I was
>not born
>today", another side is the condition, "I was not born in the past", and the
>condition of the third side is, "I will not be born in the future".
>According to
>your logic, each of these conditions has a probability greater than zero
>and each
>exists "simultaneously".  Am I correct so far?  Now, I want to "prove" that I
>exist, i.e. was born.

***{Then you would begin an indirect proof by assuming that you were not
born--i.e., that you were not born in the past. Thus the statements "I was
not born today," and "I will not be born in the future" are utterly
irrelevant. --MJ}***

So, according to your logic, I try to prove the negative
>using the die.

***{Incorrect. After you assume the denial of the statement you want to
prove, you examine the implications of that denial, in hopes of finding a
contradiction of something you are sure of. The die analogy would apply
only if the implications you decided to use were stated in terms of
possibilities or probabilities. In the case of the denial of continuity,
that was true. But in the case of the denial that you were born, it is
*not* true. Result: the use of the die analogy would be inappropriate. (See
my next response for more detail.) --MJ}***

  If any of the statements on the three sides is true (turned up)
>then I have never been born, so I do not exist. But I know I exist, so the
>negative argument is false, hence I exist.  Does this sound familiar?

***{Not in the least. For the reasons, see above.

In fact, there is nothing vague, arbitrary, or subjective about the method
of indirect proof, and its application to the problem you describe above
does not lead to anything that even slightly resembles what you said.
Instead, if you want use the indirect method to prove to yourself that you
were born, you would simply assume that you were not born and see if that
led to a contradiction with some premise or premises that you were sure of.

If, for example, you believe that you could make your way into this world
only by being born--that you could not, for example, get here by simply
appearing out of nothing--then the very fact that you are thinking about
how to prove that you were born, itself, becomes proof that you were born.
After all, the fact that you are thinking means you exist. In other words,
given the premise that the only way for you to get here is to be born, the
assumption you were not born clashes with the fact that you are here, and
forces you to conclude that the assumption is false--which means: you were
born. Note, however, that if you could have gotten here by simply appearing
out of nothing in violation of continuity, then that proof fails.

Continuity, you see, is basic to the entire structure of human knowledge.
Without it, we cannot know anything beyond the brute fact of our own
existence. Thus once we come into existence, the first order of business is
to somehow convince ourselves that the principle of continuity is true,
because until that task has been accomplished, we can proceed no further
toward the goal of accumulating knowledge.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>>
>> Your model is constructed to
>> >support your logic, hence is just a variation on the same theme, just
>> >another way
>> >of saying the same thing.
>>
>> ***{My intent was to assume that the principle of continuity was false, and
>> see if I could find a contradiction, thereby invalidating the assumption,
>> and, thus, proving that the principle of continuity was true.
>
>Actually, I think you want to believe the principle of continuity is true
>(all of
>your previous discussions are based on this principle being true) and you
>tried to
>find a way to "prove" the principle.

***{Given the alternative--to wit: that I can know nothing beyond the brute
fact of my own existence--it is of course correct to say that I want the
principle to be true. That, however, does not mean I want to believe it is
true even if it is false. Wanting something to be true and wanting to
believe it is true are not the same thing.

I would add that every human being who progresses beyond the essentially
vegetative status that he has when he enters the world, does so by
proceeding as if the principle of continuity is true. Unfortunately, most
members of the human race become so habituated to that mode of thought that
they lose all conscious awareness of the premise upon which it is based,
and, as a consequence, many of them become open to the possibility that the
premise--the principle of continuity--is wrong. At that point, they engage
in the "fallacy of the stolen concept"--which means: they employ skills and
ideas which are based on the principle of continuity, to attack the
principle of continuity itself. Of course, when so engaged, the futility of
their endeavor is exactly comparable to that of a man attempting to lift
himself off the floor by pulling on his own bootstraps, yet on they go,
babbling about gods, demons, witches, ghosts, magic, quantum mechanics,
force at a distance, and on and on. It's as if they were born yesterday, in
fact. Nevertheless, that's the unfortunate state of most of mankind as we
begin the 21st century. :-(

--Mitchell Jones}***


Assuming the negative appeared to provide
>such a "proof".  I can not imagine that you were truly confused and sought an
>objective method to resolve the confusion.  But them I don't know you that
>well.
>I just know that I would have a hard time keeping the wish-to-prove and the
>actual-proof separate.

***{I don't. However, since you bring the matter up, I would suggest that
your admitted difficulty in distinguishing between your wishes and the
requirements of proof may have something to do with your absurd claim that
discontinuities are possible in the microcosm but are not possible in our
sensations. --MJ}***

>
>> You cannot
>> refute that proof by pointing out that I deliberately constructed it with
>> the goal in mind of proving the principle of continuity. (Most proofs are
>> constructed with the intent of demonstrating a particular outcome.) What
>> you have to do, instead, is show that there is some important difference
>> between assuming that the discontinuity die exists and has been rolled, and
>> assuming that discontinuities are possible. I say that, in terms of
>> substance, there is no difference between the two things. If that is so,
>> then the proof stands, despite the fact that I intended to prove the
>> conclusion from the beginning. --MJ}***
>
>Normally, I would agree. Logic can have its own path, independent of our
>wishes.
>However, most of the time logic is used to justify an action or outcome we
>wish to
>see happen.  How else can politicians or a religion operate?  In your
>case, the
>relationship between the chosen logic and the intent to "prove" a
>principle you
>already believe is just too obvious to everyone, regardless of your stated
>intent.  As you have observed from the various comments, your "proof" is
>just not
>convincing and appears to be contrived as an element of faith.  But, I
>agree, this
>is not a refutation.

***{If you agree that these sorts of speculations about my thought
processes are not a refutation of my proof, why are you continuing to
engage in them? Why not simply respond in a substantive manner to the
question that I raised above: demonstrate, if you can, that there is some
important difference between assuming that the discontinuity die exists and
has been rolled, and assuming that discontinuities are possible. --MJ}***

>
>>
>> >> Since there is obviously no difference, in terms of essentials, between
>> >> assuming that a discontinuity die exists and has been rolled, and in
>>simply
>> >> assuming that discontinuities are possible, it is now crystal clear that
>> >> the latter assumption leads to the same conclusion as the former
>>one--i.e.,
>> >> to the conclusion that it is possible that all of our sensations may be
>> >> leaping into existence out of nothing.
>> >
>> >If the blank side is up, we can conclude nothing, or if the sensation
>>side is
>> >face down , we can conclude that our existence is not affected.  We know
>> >nothing
>> >about the imaginary die, yet you choose a condition that fits with your
>> >argument.  What basis, other than the need of your logic, do you make this
>> >choice?
>>
>> ***{It is dictated by the nature of the information set we are working
>> with, Ed. If you assume that an unloaded, six-sided die has been rolled, it
>> is possible that any one of the six sides came up--and these possibilities
>> coexist *simultaneously*. The reason they can do that, despite the fact
>> that the die may be sitting in another room with the two facing up, is that
>> when you say a given side is possible, all you are saying is that *the
>> information set you are working with doesn't permit you to discount that
>> possibility*. That's what "possible" means, and is all that it means.
>> Result: if you assume that the principle of continuity is false, every form
>> which discontinuity can take is possible *simultaneously*, despite the fact
>> that they cannot all coexist in the same reality at the same time. --MJ}***
>
>I agree, but please see the comment above.

***{See what? The speculations about my mental processes? I would hope that
you could come up with something a bit more substantive. --MJ}***

>
>>
>> If a reason exists for your choice independent of your logic, I would be
>> >more persuaded.
>>
>> ***{The decision to assume the principle of continuity is false is a
>> decision to work within the confines of a specific information set, Ed, and
>> within the confines of that information set, there are no details which one
>> might use to decide in favor of one form of discontinuity over another.
>> Result: all forms are possible *simultaneously*. --MJ}***
>
>But you define the conditions within the information set, hence control the
>outcome of the logic. For example, you control what statements are on each die
>face.

***{Not true. The statements that go on the die faces are the possibilities
that come into existence when we assume the principle of continuity is
false. I don't "control" them. They are unavoidable implications of what
the words mean. As soon as you make that assumption, it immediately follows
that the discontinuities might involve our sensations leaping into
existence out of nothing, and that they might not. Both outcomes are
possible simultaneously, in the same sense that all outcomes of a
previously rolled die can be possible simultaneously, even though only one
can be the actual outcome. I don't force that to be true any more than I
control the nature of the original assumption itself. (If I want to do an
indirect proof of the principle of continuity, the first step is to assume
that the principle of continuity is false. Period. There is no other way to
begin.)

Bottom line: there is nothing whatsoever that is arbitrary about my proof,
either in the initial assumption, or in the subsequent steps.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

>
>Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 10:15:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29586;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:14:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:14:31 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59e2da042d1 [12.21.211.135]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:16:39 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace
Resent-Message-ID: <"vzNm32.0.CE7.sJ8Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36310
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:05 AM 7/21/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>Since you "busy" Horace.   :-)

Well I was, but am now fully distracted.  8^)

>
>For any Wave-Particle or Length-Only SuperString or String-Circle:
>
>Capacitance, C = 2(pi)r*eo = Lambda*eo       (Farads)
>
>Inductance, L = 2(pi)r* uo =  Lambda*uo   (Henrys)
>
>(L/C)^1/2 = 377   (ohms) " The intrinsic impedance of space"
>
>Energy, E = 1/2*CV^2 + 1/2*LI^2 = mc^2   (Joules)
>
>Charge,  q = CV = 1.602E-19 Coulombs (An Invariant Constant)
>
>Spin  =   Lambda*mc = h*alpha
>
>h/mc = The Compton Wavelength
>
>Radius of String-Circle or String Length (amplitude) r = kq^2/E
>(2.81E-15 meters for
>electron)
>
>alpha = 0.00729 729  = 1/137  the "fine structure constant"
>
>h = Planck's Constant = 6.626E-34 Joule-Seconds
>
>Possibilities?


So many it's mind boggling.  Maybe  place to start is to get gamma = (1 -
v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)  into the mix as m = m0*gamma and plug it in above to get
relativistic lambda, thus variable capacitance and inductance.  Also ,
charge q is relativistic funtion q = q*  K(v) = q* (b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128 +
...) but here the v in b = v^2/c^2 is the (tangential) speed of a string
circle segment, and q probably has to be instantaneously line-integrated
over the string.  Lots of imponderable string dynamics there.  The
"electron as a string loop" notion makes the "electron as everywhere" model
much more palatable, as well as results of two slit interference
experiments, etc, doesn't it?  Then there are considerations of
quantization of space and time.  I'd say it's at least a lifetime of work.
If I had the money and time I'd buy the string theory books you
recommended, but I'm full up on work and out of cash.  I've been busy
learning Visual Basic, and it has not been a rewarding experience so far,
so it's no wonder I'm distracted.  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 10:15:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA29624;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:14:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:14:34 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b59e32f3830c [12.21.211.135]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:16:43 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Resent-Message-ID: <"cdY8Z.0.nE7.vJ8Uv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36311
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:45 AM 7/21/0, Taylor J. Smith wrote:

>Hi Horace and All,
>
>I'm curious why there has been no comment on your
>suggestion that "orbital electrons do not move in
>their orbital waveforms ..."  Or did I miss a post?
>
>Jack Smith


Actully it's more than a suggestion.  It's a proof that either that is so
or there is a problem with either special relativity (a known) or
Maxwell-Heavyside EM (a known).  I guess I suggest that all three are so.

If you missed something then I did too.  The probability of attention is
inversely proportional to the significance?  No, I guess that doesn't
apply. 8^)  Probably no one reads the continual rantings of an
uncredentialed fringe free energy guy ... or maybe no one trusts my
integration?   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 12:18:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13484;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:13:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:13:30 -0700
Message-ID: <004401bff34f$d206f320$238e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530501b59e2da042d1 [12.21.211.135]>
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:10:27 -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: <"G2DH9.0.OI3.P3AUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36312
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace

Horace wrote:


> At 9:05 AM 7/21/0, Frederick Sparber wrote: 
> 
> >For any Wave-Particle or Length-Only SuperString or String-Circle:
> >
> >Capacitance, C = 2(pi)r*eo = Lambda*eo       (Farads)
> >
> >Inductance, L = 2(pi)r* uo =  Lambda*uo   (Henrys)
> >
> >(L/C)^1/2 = 377   (ohms) " The intrinsic impedance of space"
> >
> >Energy, E = 1/2*CV^2 + 1/2*LI^2 = mc^2   (Joules)

Should be, Energy, E = 1/2*CV^2 = 1/2*LI^2 = mc^2   (Joules)
> >
> >Charge,  q = CV = 1.602E-19 Coulombs (An Invariant Constant)
> >
> >Spin  =   Lambda*mc = h*alpha
> >
> >h/mc = The Compton Wavelength
> >
> >Radius of String-Circle or String Length (amplitude) r = kq^2/E
> >(2.81E-15 meters for
> >electron)
> >
> >alpha = 0.00729 729  = 1/137  the "fine structure constant"
> >
> >h = Planck's Constant = 6.626E-34 Joule-Seconds
> >
> >Possibilities?
> 
> 
> Maybe  place to start is to get gamma = (1 -
> v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)  into the mix as m = m0*gamma and plug it in above to get
> relativistic lambda, thus variable capacitance and inductance.

Easy,  Gamma  = [(E'/Eo) + 1]  and since r = kq^2/(Eo + E') the other
string particles in a nucleus can share their energy with a lower energy
string particle and give it relativistic mass, Mrel = Mo[(E'/Eo) + 1] =  Mo/[1- (v^2/c^2)]^1/2
which happens all the time in electron K capture, or the opposite in Beta Decay.

> Also ,
> charge q is relativistic funtion q = q*  K(v) = q* (b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128 +
> ...) but here the v in b = v^2/c^2 is the (tangential) speed of a string
> circle segment, and q probably has to be instantaneously line-integrated
> over the string.
I figure tangential velocity of c, but a phase velocity of  137*c due to boundary
conditions of the string-circle wave.
> Lots of imponderable string dynamics there.  The
> "electron as a string loop" notion makes the "electron as everywhere" model
> much more palatable, as well as results of two slit interference
> experiments, etc, doesn't it? 
Might be.
Regards,    Frederick
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 13:26:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08203;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:24:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:24:39 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.108.150
Message-Id: <v04210100b59e5f97ff27 [128.183.108.190]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:14:19 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"89oVC1.0.502.66BUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36313
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>
> >This analysis by Horace Heffner is still wrong as was version #1 and
> >#2.  The averaging integral in spherical coordinates would be
> >
> >Integral from 0 to Pi [k(theta) sin(theta) d theta]
> >
> >The sin(theta) term is missing in Horace's integral.  It is an error
> >to average over theta.  You need to average over theta with a weight
> >of sin(theta).
>
>
>Could you explain why this is so?  My assumption is that electron direction
>is uniformly random.  This seems a reasonably fair assumption for neutral
>matter and a good hypothetical starting point for a large body of plasma.
>The orientations are not weighted, so why should the integral be weighted?

The surface integral element in spherical coordinates is well known 
and is given by

dS = r*r sin(theta) d theta d phi

This formula may be looked up in any appropriate elementary textbook 
in which surface integrals are done in 3 dimensions.  If there is no 
dependence on phi, as is the case for the electric field, then the 
surface integral is given by

dS = r*r 2 Pi sin(theta) d theta

where the integral in phi from 0 to 2Pi has been done.  The averaging 
should be done in spherical coordinates as the expression for the 
electric field used was in spherical coordinates.  The averaging 
technique is

Q(average) = Int E dot dS / 4Pi

Since E is directed radially outward we have

Q(average) = Int |E| dS / 4Pi

with dS the usual surface element in spherical coordinates given 
above.  Your averaging technique assumes that the probability of a 
velocity angle being within one degree of zero is the same as being 
within one degree of 90.  That is pure nonsense.  Think of a sphere 
filled up with one degree cones.  You could only fit in one at zero 
angle but at 90 degrees you could fit in 360.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 13:33:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11784;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:32:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:32:21 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b59e5eded493 [12.21.211.229]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:34:27 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace
Resent-Message-ID: <"xjafI.0.yt2.LDBUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36314
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:10 PM 7/21/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:

>> Also ,
>> charge q is relativistic funtion q = q*  K(v) = q* (b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128 +
>> ...) but here the v in b = v^2/c^2 is the (tangential) speed of a string
>> circle segment, and q probably has to be instantaneously line-integrated
>> over the string.
>I figure tangential velocity of c, but a phase velocity of  137*c due to
>boundary
>conditions of the string-circle wave.


But tangential velocity means rest mass zero for the string?  And what
constitutes antimatter, e.g. a positron?

Also, I meant to say:

   q = q0 K(v) = q0 (b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128 + ...)

and not to use q* to denote the rest charge.

The "q" we observe implies a smaller actual "rest" q0.  It is interesting
though, that:

    EllipticE[1] = 1

so for your light speed string:

    K(c) = 1 - 2 EllipticE[q]/Pi

         = 1 - 2/Pi = 0.363380227632

So if the string is light speed then we know what q0,  the "rest" q, is:

    q0 = 0.363380227632 q

       = 5.82199562883x10^-20 coul


BTW, I see I had a typo in my posted derivation of K(v).  Let me try that
on more time:

 EllipticE[b] = Pi/2 - (Pi b^2)/8 - (3 Pi b^2) + O[b]^3 ...

so, to evalute the integral giving k(b) for b = (v/c)^2, b small:

  K(v) = 1 - 2 EllipticE[b]/Pi

       = 1 - 2 {1/2 - b/8 - 3 b^2/128)

  K(v) =  b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 14:17:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA27165;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:15:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:15:38 -0700
Message-ID: <008101bff360$e1fc94e0$238e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "tp.sparber" <tp.sparber gateway.net>
References: <v01530501b59e5eded493 [12.21.211.229]>
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:13:15 -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: <"ulNUz1.0.Ne6.wrBUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36315
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace

Horace wrote:


> At 1:10 PM 7/21/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>> Horace wrote:
> >> Also ,
> >> charge q is relativistic funtion q = q*  K(v) = q* (b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128 +
> >> ...) but here the v in b = v^2/c^2 is the (tangential) speed of a string
> >> circle segment, and q probably has to be instantaneously line-integrated
> >> over the string.
> >I figure tangential velocity of c, but a phase velocity of  137*c due to
> >boundary
> >conditions of the string-circle wave.
> 
> 
> But tangential velocity means rest mass zero for the string?

Yes. The rest mass  of  1/2 the rest mass of the photon progenitor of a particle 
is zero. Manifest Mass and Charge of a string circle particle has to be due
to the wave circle properties. The progenitor photon (1.02 Mev for the electron positron pair)
was traversing space at c when it collided with something and became a "standing wave"
string circle particle.

  And what
> constitutes antimatter, e.g. a positron?

Opposite Phase of oscillation thus opposite charge, q = CV = +/- 1.602E-19 coulombs

A proton consists of Three string circles or Quarks:

Two "up" or Plus with spin + 1/2 each and
One "down" or Minus with spin - 1/2 (opposite) thus net charge is + 1
and net spin is + 1/2.  The external electron balances the charge.

An Antiproton (antimatter) has two "down" minus and  One "up" plus, thus
charge of -1 and spin - 1/2 with an external positron to balance charge.

Since the manifest charge is "circling" at c, and  Loop Current I' = q*f
= 19.68 amperes for the electron and 624*19.68 amperes for
each of the string circle quarks in a nucleus, it is easy to derive
the "Gravitaional Frequency" of 8.2 hz for the electron-positron,
and 124.5 Megahertz for matter/antimatter.

Regards,   Frederick
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 15:06:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12993;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:04:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:04:48 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.108.150
Message-Id: <v04210100b59e170cf19b [128.183.108.190]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530503b59d0bd5d4a0 [12.21.211.184]>
References: <v01530503b59d0bd5d4a0 [12.21.211.184]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:50:36 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"qiUHv.0.xA3.0aCUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36316
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>
> >This analysis by Horace Heffner is still wrong as was version #1 and
> >#2.  The averaging integral in spherical coordinates would be
> >
> >Integral from 0 to Pi [k(theta) sin(theta) d theta]
> >
> >The sin(theta) term is missing in Horace's integral.  It is an error
> >to average over theta.  You need to average over theta with a weight
> >of sin(theta).
>
>
>Could you explain why this is so?  My assumption is that electron direction
>is uniformly random.  This seems a reasonably fair assumption for neutral
>matter and a good hypothetical starting point for a large body of plasma.
>The orientations are not weighted, so why should the integral be weighted?

The surface integral element in spherical coordinates is well known 
and is given by

dS = r*r sin(theta) d theta d phi

This formula may be looked up in any appropriate elementary textbook 
in which surface integrals are done in 3 dimensions.  If there is no 
dependence on phi, as is the case for the electric field, then the 
surface integral is given by

dS = r*r 2 Pi sin(theta) d theta

where the integral in phi from 0 to 2Pi has been done.  The averaging 
should be done in spherical coordinates as the expression for the 
electric field used was in spherical coordinates.  The averaging 
technique is

Q(average) = Int E dot dS / 4Pi

Since E is directed radially outward we have

Q(average) = Int |E| dS / 4Pi

with dS the usual surface element in spherical coordinates given 
above.  Your averaging technique assumes that the probability of a 
velocity angle being within one degree of zero is the same as being 
within one degree of 90.  That is pure nonsense.  Think of a sphere 
filled up with one degree cones.  You could only fit in one at zero 
angle but at 90 degrees you could fit in 360.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 20:18:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA21430;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:16:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:16:51 -0700
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:16:45 -0400
Message-Id: <200007220316.XAA03454 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: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Resent-Message-ID: <"HkewN.0.mE5.Z8HUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36317
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace writes:
>If you missed something then I did too.  The probability of attention is
>inversely proportional to the significance?  No, I guess that doesn't
>apply. 8^)  Probably no one reads the continual rantings of an
>uncredentialed fringe free energy guy ... or maybe no one trusts my
>integration?   8^)
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          

I think that it is more the case, at least for me anyway, that most of us
are just too stupid to follow what you are saying.  We all have a great deal
of respect for your skills, Horace.

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 Jul 21 20:57:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA32522;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:56:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:56:01 -0700
Message-ID: <02f701bff38f$81602d20$ef2f9fca xplornote>
From: "xplorer" <xplorer indo.net.id>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530502b59e32f3830c [12.21.211.135]>
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:46:57 +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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YKJhq1.0._x7.HjHUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36318
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Actually, I read this thread with a great deal of interest.
I expect there are others who are, like me, digesting
 this thought very slowly before responding.

The first knee-jerk thought is that a simple magnetic
 field from a magnet should have some clues to this thought.
Something wrong with that idea, so I am still trying to
 visualize how before responding.

cheers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: 2000 July 22, Saturday 00:16
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3


| At 3:45 AM 7/21/0, Taylor J. Smith wrote:
| 
| >Hi Horace and All,
| >
| >I'm curious why there has been no comment on your
| >suggestion that "orbital electrons do not move in
| >their orbital waveforms ..."  Or did I miss a post?
| >
| >Jack Smith
| 
| 
| Actully it's more than a suggestion.  It's a proof that either that is so
| or there is a problem with either special relativity (a known) or
| Maxwell-Heavyside EM (a known).  I guess I suggest that all three are so.
| 
| If you missed something then I did too.  The probability of attention is
| inversely proportional to the significance?  No, I guess that doesn't
| apply. 8^)  Probably no one reads the continual rantings of an
| uncredentialed fringe free energy guy ... or maybe no one trusts my
| integration?   8^)
| 
| Regards,
| 
| Horace Heffner          
| 
| 
| 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 20:58:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA00772;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:57:16 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:57:16 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.23]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:56:42 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F320CI76rOJhKPc99ir00000d26 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2000 03:56:43.0036 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8F3CDC0:01BFF390]
Resent-Message-ID: <"1nsyz2.0.-B.SkHUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36319
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

An infinite universe can not expand or contract.

Ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers.

It is impossible for a universe to have an edge or and age.  All cosmology 
science we know of is based on a curved universe.  All comsology science we 
know of has been disposed of by the proof of flat space.

"Cosmology is not sceince if it cannot predict the data"
"There are too many theories"
Dr. Stephen Hawking

"Scientists are going to have to give up their most precious beliefs"
Dr. Vera Rubin

Sciintists thinking they have seen the edge of the universe is the same 
voodoo practiced by our ancestors thinking they saw the edge of the Earth.  
Scoolchildren of the future are laughing at us the way our schoolchildren 
laugh at our ancestors.

Whirlpower Declaration now backed up independently at;
http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html

No whirlpools, unrecognized by science, ignored, no data, no tests, no 
nothin'.

Totally amazing ignorance.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.html


>From: knuke LCIA.COM (Michael T Huffman)
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:16:45 -0400
>
>Horace writes:
> >If you missed something then I did too.  The probability of attention is
> >inversely proportional to the significance?  No, I guess that doesn't
> >apply. 8^)  Probably no one reads the continual rantings of an
> >uncredentialed fringe free energy guy ... or maybe no one trusts my
> >integration?   8^)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Horace Heffner
>
>I think that it is more the case, at least for me anyway, that most of us
>are just too stupid to follow what you are saying.  We all have a great 
>deal
>of respect for your skills, Horace.
>
>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
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 22:23:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA24775;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:21:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:21:25 -0700
Message-ID: <033201bff39b$50f86600$ef2f9fca xplornote>
From: "xplorer" <xplorer indo.net.id>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:10:12 +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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UNtwQ.0.136.LzIUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36320
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Someone in an email I received
 interpreted the objects in
(I kept your name out of the public post
 to the sci.space.science group,
 Mitchell, as I didn't feel comfortable
 with exposing you to the coming
 backlash of UFO debunker religion
 and their acolytes - you get full credit
 for it, though.  Let me know if you
 want me to publicize the fact that it
 is your idea... regards, PA)

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0307158.gif

 to be a Martian equivalent of cactus.

I would like to think they simply boulders,
 but their distribution pattern seems odd for
 just a bunch of rocks.

In particular, they seem to exist (in places)
 at high points/crests between gulleys
 rather than down inside gulleys.
Although this is counter-intuitive
 to the idea of plant-life seeking lower,
 water(ice)-rich environments rather than
 higher, possibly more arid locations, the recent
 discussion on solar-warmed surfaces exuding
 vapor might possibly justify that idea.

Additionally, the distribution pattern seems
 to favor what appear to be surface outcrops
 of near-surface beds
 (and their attendant interfaces)
These interfaces could possibly be conduits
 for vapor and mineral-laden vapor from
 deeper (possibly warmer geothermally ?)
 regions, which would provide possible
 sustenance for life-forms, if that is what they are.

The other problem with interpreting these objects
 as boulders is their color and lack of attendant
 formations from where they would have been
 broken off from.
If they had been transported by glacial or
 water flow, they would not be so angular.

Their color is such that they would be warmer
 in sunlight, a probable if they were life-forms.

Also, if they are boulders, where are the bits
 and pieces that broke off during transport ?
There would be deposits of smaller bits
 in delta formations, having the same color.
These don't appear here - just big individual
 things with no apparent debris fields to
 justify the idea that these are the large chunks
 of some rock formation broken up by
 environmental action.

(see
 http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/ab1/ab1_figure1_50.jpg
 for an example of debris fields accompanying boulder
 formation)

No assumptions,
 just anomalous observations

regards...









From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 21 23:20:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA04014;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:19:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:19:34 -0700
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 02:19:31 -0400
Message-Id: <200007220619.CAA11935 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: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"cX2vt1.0.e-.spJUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36321
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

I haven't studied geology, but this looks to me like the way a lot of
mineral deposits look here on Earth - veiny.  If there is anything
interesting or weird about them, it would be that some of them look to
follow something resembling magnetic field line patterns, which could
indicate that there is possibly an iron or other magnetic component to the
ore.  The Martian surface has been hit with a lot of meteors, and it does
have intense atmospheric storms.  We also know very little about the deep
internal structure of the planet, and we are still learning about that stuff
on our own planet.  The Universe is very old, and we have only been
recording events and findings for a brief moment of that time.

When I was a kid, my girlfriend and I would lay in the grass on our backs
and tell each other what shapes we saw in the clouds.  Bunnies, lions,
trucks, monsters and so forth.  It was fun.  I admire the fact that Mitch
has such a vivid imagination at his stage in life, but from these photos and
the rest of the data that has been released to the public, I don't see any
compelling reason at the moment to think that there is anything there
besides what it appears to be, namely a depression in the surface with
windblown sand dunes and some mineral deposit outcroppings to liven up an
otherwise very bleak and uninviting landscape.  Even on Earth there are
gigantic natural rock formations that resemble faces, and that sort of
thing.  The Schlafende Hexe in the Berchtesgadener area of Bavaria comes to
mind.  It happens.  So what?

Of course, it could all be a clever camouflage, in which case, we should
probably still give it the nuking that it so richly deserves, just in case,
right? <8^)

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 Jul 21 23:24:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA05159;
	Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:23:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:23:55 -0700
Message-ID: <3979400D.BEC85D86 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:32:45 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jul 21, 2000]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xJrah1.0.SG1.wtJUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36322
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 Jul 21, 2000
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:45:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org>
To: aki ix.netcom.com

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 21 Jul 00   Washington, DC

1. GROAN!  LIGHT IS REPORTED TO TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT.  The
real news in physics was that the tau neutrino, the last of the
fermions predicted by the Standard Model, had been discovered at
Fermilab.  But front page headlines across the country were
proclaiming, "The Speed of Light Has Been Broken."  It's now
going to be impossible to characterize any claim as physically
impossible without people scoffing: "that's what they said about
the speed of light."  At WN, we're already getting triumphant
phone calls and e-mails from Einstein deniers.  Charles Bennett
at IBM Watson points out that this is little more than a confused
rehash of an old story, where the peak of the wave packet leaving
the "superluminal" medium is causally related to just the leading
edge of the wave packet entering the medium.  "Rolf Landauer is
dead," Bennett sighed, "and someone needs to complain for him." 

2. DOD: SNAFU PROVES INFORMATION DOESN'T PROPAGATE FASTER THAN c. 
Q: How long does it take for the right hand to find out what the
left hand is doing?  A: Twelve hours   the time it took for the
DOD to give, then rescind, its award for "superior execution of
security responsibilities" to satellite maker Loral Space
Sciences.  For the past three years, Loral has been under a grand
jury probe for giving sensitive information to China.

3. LOS ALAMOS: PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS COMPENSATION BILL.  The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is now organizing the
process whereby Los Alamos fire victims will be compensated for
losses sustained during last May's catastrophic conflagration. 
The $661M authorized by the bill includes $455M for fire victims
and $138M for damages to the laboratory complex.  In its long-
awaited report on the Cerro Grande fire, GAO recommends that a
peer-review process be created to review prescribed burn plans.

4. CRYONICS: HEADS, YOU LOSE.  Another cryopreservation company
has gone out of business.  However, CryoCare, founded in 1993 by
a science fiction writer named Charles Platt, claims its two
"patients" are still being cared for.  The patients are in fact
disembodied heads.  Presumably, the theory is that, by the time
technology is ready to reactivate the head, building a new body
should be a snap.  A futurist named FM-2030, who had arranged for
cryopreservation, died just last week.  He was revising his book
"Countdown to Immortality," when he was stricken.  Perhaps an
appropriate anthem would be, "Freeze a jolly good fellow."

5. KANSAS: SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER THE SCOPES TRIAL.  The focus
of the Aug 1 Republican primary in Kansas is the school board. 
"Democracy got us into this," said one activist, "and democracy
will get us out" (WN 13 Aug 99).  More about this next week.

(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  Sat Jul 22 00:11:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA13348;
	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:10:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:10:31 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b59ef51ee96b [12.21.211.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:12:31 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic net charge expands universe? #3
Resent-Message-ID: <"8xKOn1.0.TG3.cZKUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36323
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:50 AM 7/21/0, Larry Wharton wrote:
[snip]
> Your averaging technique assumes that the probability of a
>velocity angle being within one degree of zero is the same as being
>within one degree of 90.  That is pure nonsense.  Think of a sphere
>filled up with one degree cones.  You could only fit in one at zero
>angle but at 90 degrees you could fit in 360.


Yes it looks like you are right about this.  I assumed theta and phi to be
independent, thus only thee need to integrate over theta, and thus I did
not really have a surface integral situation.  I need to dig into this a
lot more to get a good personal understanding, and to look at currents in
torroidal rings, etc. where my formula does apply, but it looks like you
put me on the right track and that the resulting extreme excess charge will
disappear for neutral matter.  Thanks for the help.


At 11:16 PM 7/21/0, Michael T Huffman wrote:
[snip]
>I think that it is more the case, at least for me anyway, that most of us
>are just too stupid to follow what you are saying.  We all have a great deal
>of respect for your skills, Horace.


Thanks for he encouraging words, but in this case it looks like Larry
Wharton is right and I have a mistaken approach.  I feel certain my
integration is correct, but I integrated the wrong thing.  I have some
detailed homework to do on this but will get back about this soon.


I have lots of ideas, but being a typical brainstormer only a small percent
are in the right direction and practicable.  That's OK.  One good idea in
100 in this field should have a high payoff rate - for someone ... I think.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 22 06:55:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA01592;
	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:54:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:54:50 -0700
Message-ID: <002301bff3ec$7a8485c0$cb441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace, Light Lepton String Particle  Interaction
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:49:31 -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: <"2qsQv2.0.kO.gUQUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36324
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

IF a UV photon (~ 5.0 ev)creates a LL string circle particle pair, the LL- can 
be taken up by a Proton or Deuteron.

The total energy  (Et) of a LL- string about a Proton or Deuteron is the sum
of the potential and kinetic (relativistic) energy given to the LL-. 

Et = - kq^2/r + kq^2/2r = - kq^2/2r

IOW, the quarks of about 312 Mev each, (3 in the proton) or deuteron can
share some of their energy (with a slight increase in radius) with
the LL- string circle and shrink it down to about 3 Fermi to make the
Neutral P* or D* Entity. That is to say, the original radius r of the LL-,
string circle, r = kq^2/Eo  is decreased due to relativistic effects:

r' = kq^2/(Eo + E kin)

This cannot happen with an electron which already has a radius of ~ 3 Fermi
due to it's ~ 0.5 Mev  rest energy, and acts more like a point particle than a string circle
wrt a proton or deuteron.

Regards,   Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 22 10:50:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23135;
	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:47:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:47:26 -0700
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: other...: water and magnetism
In-Reply-To: <3976313A.C099F149 csrlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000722135147.8825Q-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"hDZxb2.0.Pf5.kuTUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36325
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Any other water and magnetism notes out there?

			Please,

			J

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 22 11:31:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01590;
	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:30:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:30:22 -0700
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Hmmm
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000722143453.10116A-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"2U94L2.0.lO.zWUUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36326
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Subject: What's New for Jul 21, 2000
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:45:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org>
To: aki ix.netcom.com

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 21 Jul 00   Washington, DC

4. CRYONICS: HEADS, YOU LOSE.  Another cryopreservation company
has gone out of business.  However, CryoCare, founded in 1993 by
a science fiction writer named Charles Platt, claims its two
"patients" are still being cared for.  The patients are in fact
disembodied heads.  Presumably, the theory is that, by the time
technology is ready to reactivate the head, building a new body
should be a snap.  A futurist named FM-2030, who had arranged for
cryopreservation, died just last week.  He was revising his book
"Countdown to Immortality," when he was stricken.  Perhaps an
appropriate anthem would be, "Freeze a jolly good fellow."


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 22 21:10:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA01828;
	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 21:09:21 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 21:09:21 -0700
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:09:06 -0400
Message-Id: <200007230409.AAA30722 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: Hmmm
Resent-Message-ID: <"SK4mf3.0.US.j_cUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36327
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

  Perhaps an
>appropriate anthem would be, "Freeze a jolly good fellow."

And perhaps there is more to the saying, "Cooler heads will prevail"

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 Jul 22 23:52:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA25889;
	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:51:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:51:52 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b5a03e59ae00 [12.21.208.130]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:53:05 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Resent-Message-ID: <"whSoz.0.MK6.6OfUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36328
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Do you agree that my derivation of Q' = Q K(v) is correct for planar charge
motion viewed by an observer from within the plane of motion?  A quick
summary of the derivation, as discussed earlier, follows.

Given the relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:

   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

If we let b = v^2/c^2 then we can interpret apparent charge Q' to be:

   Q' = Q (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

   Q' = Q k(v)

for a given charge Q with speed v relative to the observer.

Assume a random or circular motion of charges in a planar fashion observed
from within the plane of motion.

The average value f_avg of any function f(x) is given by:

    f_avg = 1/(b - a) [integral from a to b][ f(x) dx ]

so the value of net charge change factor K(b) = 1 - k_avg(b) is given by:

    K = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

Mathematica says:

   [integral from 0 to 2 Pi] [ (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(-3/2) d theta]

is given by:

    -(EllipticE[x, b]/(-1 + b)) + (b*Sin[2*x])/(Sqrt[2]*(-1 + b)*
                      Sqrt[2 - b + b*Cos[2*x]])

which, when evaluated from 0 to 2 Pi, is

    -4(EllipticE[b])/(b-1)

where EllipticE[b] is a complete elliptic integral of the second kind. So:


    K(b) = 1 - 1/(2 Pi - 0) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi][ k(theta) d theta ]

         = 1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1-b) [integral from 0 to 2 Pi]
                                [ (1 - b sin^2 theta)^(-3/2) d theta]

         =  1 - 1/(2 Pi) (1-b)  (-4(EllipticE[b])/(b-1))

    K(b) = 1 - 4/(2 Pi)  EllipticE[b]

         = 1 - 2 Pi  EllipticE[v^2/c^2]

where

    EllipticE[b] = Pi/2 - (Pi b^2)/8 - (3 Pi b^2) + O[b]^3 ...

so, to evalute the integral giving K(b) for b = (v/c)^2, b small:

    K(b) = 1 - 2 EllipticE[b]/Pi

         = 1 - 2 {1/2 - b/8 - 3 b^2/128)

    K(b) =  b/4 + 3 (b^2)/128

Thus we have both an exact form and a simple approximation of G(v), where
the apparent charge Q' is given by:


    Q' = Q G(v) = Q ( (v^2/4c^2) + 3(v^4/c^4)/128 +...)

which applies to a collection of charged particles of charge Q with uniform
speed v in a planar circular path or a similar collection of charges in
random planar motion, either case as viewed within the plane of motion.

This of course ignores general relativity considerations.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 23 11:54:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08985;
	Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:53:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:53:33 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b59f6ce8917e [207.8.127.68]>
In-Reply-To: <033201bff39b$50f86600$ef2f9fca xplornote>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:49:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"CXV-71.0.JC2.jypUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36329
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Someone in an email I received
> interpreted the objects in
>(I kept your name out of the public post
> to the sci.space.science group,
> Mitchell, as I didn't feel comfortable
> with exposing you to the coming
> backlash of UFO debunker religion
> and their acolytes - you get full credit
> for it, though.  Let me know if you
> want me to publicize the fact that it
> is your idea... regards, PA)
>
>http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0307158.gif
>
> to be a Martian equivalent of cactus.
>
>I would like to think they simply boulders,
> but their distribution pattern seems odd for
> just a bunch of rocks.
>
>In particular, they seem to exist (in places)
> at high points/crests between gulleys
> rather than down inside gulleys.
>Although this is counter-intuitive
> to the idea of plant-life seeking lower,
> water(ice)-rich environments rather than
> higher, possibly more arid locations, the recent
> discussion on solar-warmed surfaces exuding
> vapor might possibly justify that idea.
>
>Additionally, the distribution pattern seems
> to favor what appear to be surface outcrops
> of near-surface beds
> (and their attendant interfaces)
>These interfaces could possibly be conduits
> for vapor and mineral-laden vapor from
> deeper (possibly warmer geothermally ?)
> regions, which would provide possible
> sustenance for life-forms, if that is what they are.
>
>The other problem with interpreting these objects
> as boulders is their color and lack of attendant
> formations from where they would have been
> broken off from.
>If they had been transported by glacial or
> water flow, they would not be so angular.
>
>Their color is such that they would be warmer
> in sunlight, a probable if they were life-forms.
>
>Also, if they are boulders, where are the bits
> and pieces that broke off during transport ?
>There would be deposits of smaller bits
> in delta formations, having the same color.
>These don't appear here - just big individual
> things with no apparent debris fields to
> justify the idea that these are the large chunks
> of some rock formation broken up by
> environmental action.
>
>(see
> http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/ab1/ab1_figure1_50.jpg
> for an example of debris fields accompanying boulder
> formation)
>
>No assumptions,
> just anomalous observations
>
>regards...

***{Let us suppose, purely hypothetically, that in the course of a
newsgroup discussion of the Mars photos, a particular photograph was
mentioned that had various very interesting features, and that as a result
you spent several hours one morning examing that photo, that you identified
among its complexities several very specific features which seemed
unambiguously indicative of the presence of life there, that you identified
the most compelling of those features by noting unique geological
formations that were near to them, so you could easily find them again and
tell others where to find them, that you saved a copy of the photo on your
hard drive, spent the rest of the day using your computer for other things,
and finally went to bed.

Suppose further--again purely hypothetically--that the next morning you
returned to your computer, eager to prepare a post to one of the newsgroups
discussing that photo and, when you again pulled up your copy, you
discovered that it had been modified--that when you looked near the
geological formations which you had been using to identify the particular
features of most interest, those features had been blurred out to the point
that they could no longer be considered as unambiguously indicative of
anything, and that every similar feature throughout the photo had been
similarly modified. In that case, obviously, you would quickly return to
the original link with the intent of pulling down a fresh copy of the
original photo. But then suppose, again *purely* hypothetically, that to
your surprise that photo had also been modified!

Your mind would reel, I suspect, as you considered the implications--to
wit: that some organization somewhere, with an enormous budget, a huge
staff, and lots of big mainframe computers, was following the usenet
discussions of Mars features, and, when such discussions began to home in
on something clearly indicative of life on Mars, they were hacking both
into the Mars photos data base, but also into every personal computer on
the net that had accessed that data base, and modifying all copies of the
photo so that ambiguities were introduced, thereby preventing any clear-cut
demonstration that there was life on Mars.

At that point, what would you do? Would you rush forward to utter charges
of conspiracy, despite the fact that you had not a shred of proof that
would be convincing to anyone? Or would you reflect on the situation for
awhile, reluctantly conclude that you were in the position of a chessplayer
facing a mate in three, and turn down your king? If the latter, that would
mean, in this case, that you would cease all discussion of Mars images and
anything related to UFO's or extraterrestrial life, due to your unhappy yet
unavoidable recognition of the simple fact that, since those who do not
want such things proven are in control of all the data, proof is
impossible.

The above comments, of course, are purely hypothetical. I had no such
experience, nor any similar experience, and it is utterly coincidental that
I will henceforth not say one word about the above subjects under any
circumstances to anyone.

--Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 23 13:47:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08729;
	Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:45:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:45:00 -0700
Message-ID: <397B5934.648B1E1B groupz.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:44:37 -0400
From: sno <sno groupz.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,x-ns1siWpfcUINhQ,x-ns2r2d09OnmPe2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
References: <v04011701b59f6ce8917e [207.8.127.68]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qWUPh3.0.J82.CbrUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36330
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I would suggest that you get a separate hard drive...and put your
working pics on it...and keep in unplugged when you are not working
on the pics...that way you could be sure it would not be modified....
steve

Mitchell Jones wrote:

>
> ***{Let us suppose, purely hypothetically, that in the course of a
> newsgroup discussion of the Mars photos, a particular photograph was
> mentioned that had various very interesting features, and that as a result
> you spent several hours one morning examing that photo, that you identified
> among its complexities several very specific features which seemed
> unambiguously indicative of the presence of life there, that you identified
> the most compelling of those features by noting unique geological
> formations that were near to them, so you could easily find them again and
> tell others where to find them, that you saved a copy of the photo on your
> hard drive, spent the rest of the day using your computer for other things,
> and finally went to bed.
>
> Suppose further--again purely hypothetically--that the next morning you
> returned to your computer, eager to prepare a post to one of the newsgroups
> discussing that photo and, when you again pulled up your copy, you
> discovered that it had been modified--that when you looked near the
> geological formations which you had been using to identify the particular
> features of most interest, those features had been blurred out to the point
> that they could no longer be considered as unambiguously indicative of
> anything, and that every similar feature throughout the photo had been
> similarly modified. In that case, obviously, you would quickly return to
> the original link with the intent of pulling down a fresh copy of the
> original photo. But then suppose, again *purely* hypothetically, that to
> your surprise that photo had also been modified!
>
> Your mind would reel, I suspect, as you considered the implications--to
> wit: that some organization somewhere, with an enormous budget, a huge
> staff, and lots of big mainframe computers, was following the usenet
> discussions of Mars features, and, when such discussions began to home in
> on something clearly indicative of life on Mars, they were hacking both
> into the Mars photos data base, but also into every personal computer on
> the net that had accessed that data base, and modifying all copies of the
> photo so that ambiguities were introduced, thereby preventing any clear-cut
> demonstration that there was life on Mars.
>
> At that point, what would you do? Would you rush forward to utter charges
> of conspiracy, despite the fact that you had not a shred of proof that
> would be convincing to anyone? Or would you reflect on the situation for
> awhile, reluctantly conclude that you were in the position of a chessplayer
> facing a mate in three, and turn down your king? If the latter, that would
> mean, in this case, that you would cease all discussion of Mars images and
> anything related to UFO's or extraterrestrial life, due to your unhappy yet
> unavoidable recognition of the simple fact that, since those who do not
> want such things proven are in control of all the data, proof is
> impossible.
>
> The above comments, of course, are purely hypothetical. I had no such
> experience, nor any similar experience, and it is utterly coincidental that
> I will henceforth not say one word about the above subjects under any
> circumstances to anyone.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 23 18:22:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA13143;
	Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:21:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:21:41 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5a1459762f7 [207.8.127.199]>
In-Reply-To: <397B5934.648B1E1B groupz.net>
References: <v04011701b59f6ce8917e [207.8.127.68]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:20:07 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"-PRf01.0.HD3.bevUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36331
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I would suggest that you get a separate hard drive...and put your
>working pics on it...and keep in unplugged when you are not working
>on the pics...that way you could be sure it would not be modified....
>steve

***{As I said, the example was purely hypothetical; and, of course, I
continue to deny that I had any such experience. However, continuing the
discussion of the hypothetical situation, let's suppose that someone
actually had such an experience, and that he responded as you suggest. My
question then would be: what would be the point? He would still be
checkmated, if his purpose were to *prove* anything one way or the other
vis-a-vis whether there is life on Mars. The reason: nobody would take such
precautions other than a few "kooks" who were distrustful of our wonderful
government. Everybody else would simply conclude that the "kooks" had faked
their data, and would choose to believe the official line. Under such
circumstances it would be checkmate. The Mars photos would be meaningless,
could not be used to prove anything concerning the issue of life on Mars,
and it would be an utter waste of time to discuss them, think about them,
or save any such information. It would, indeed, be an exercise in
self-abuse no different than discussing the meaning of an experiment in
which the data change from day to day.

In the actual world that exists, of course, we can trust every single pixel
on every single Mars photo to be absolutely authentic, and we can be
utterly sure that no agency of our wonderful government would ever even
consider invading the private property of its citizens, and so, because we
have the good fortune to exist in such a world, it is purely coincedental
that I do not choose to participate in these sorts of discussions any
longer.

--Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 23 21:14:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA23687;
	Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:13:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:13:08 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a171185d24 [12.21.208.130]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:15:18 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"L3xnY3.0.vn5.J9yUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36332
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:49 PM 7/23/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:

>***{Let us suppose, purely hypothetically, that in the course of a
>newsgroup discussion of the Mars photos, a particular photograph was
>mentioned that had various very interesting features, and that as a result
>you spent several hours one morning examing that photo, that you identified
>among its complexities several very specific features which seemed
>unambiguously indicative of the presence of life there, that you identified
>the most compelling of those features by noting unique geological
>formations that were near to them, so you could easily find them again and
>tell others where to find them, that you saved a copy of the photo on your
>hard drive, spent the rest of the day using your computer for other things,
>and finally went to bed.
>
>Suppose further--again purely hypothetically--that the next morning you
>returned to your computer, eager to prepare a post to one of the newsgroups
>discussing that photo and, when you again pulled up your copy, you
>discovered that it had been modified--that when you looked near the
>geological formations which you had been using to identify the particular
>features of most interest, those features had been blurred out to the point
>that they could no longer be considered as unambiguously indicative of
>anything, and that every similar feature throughout the photo had been
>similarly modified.


I would suggest as a first step towards checking things out pulling the
image back up from the original site and saving it as a bmp file, not as a
gif file which loses details in the compression/expansion, depending on the
graphics program used to save or view the gif.  That's hypothetically
speaking of course.   ;^)

I noticed that the gif image shows some very interesting white dots about
the size of houses, especially along the top ridge at the bottom of the
photo, none of which are in the black areas.   These blurred or disappeared
when the image was saved as a gif and then later viewed using Lview.
Saving the image (right click in Explorer) as bmp preserved them.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 23 22:44:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA14848;
	Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:43:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:43:11 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5a18342a207 [207.8.127.225]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5a171185d24 [12.21.208.130]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:41:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"hMcbO3.0.wd3.lTzUv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36333
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 1:49 PM 7/23/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>***{Let us suppose, purely hypothetically, that in the course of a
>>newsgroup discussion of the Mars photos, a particular photograph was
>>mentioned that had various very interesting features, and that as a result
>>you spent several hours one morning examing that photo, that you identified
>>among its complexities several very specific features which seemed
>>unambiguously indicative of the presence of life there, that you identified
>>the most compelling of those features by noting unique geological
>>formations that were near to them, so you could easily find them again and
>>tell others where to find them, that you saved a copy of the photo on your
>>hard drive, spent the rest of the day using your computer for other things,
>>and finally went to bed.
>>
>>Suppose further--again purely hypothetically--that the next morning you
>>returned to your computer, eager to prepare a post to one of the newsgroups
>>discussing that photo and, when you again pulled up your copy, you
>>discovered that it had been modified--that when you looked near the
>>geological formations which you had been using to identify the particular
>>features of most interest, those features had been blurred out to the point
>>that they could no longer be considered as unambiguously indicative of
>>anything, and that every similar feature throughout the photo had been
>>similarly modified.
>
>
>I would suggest as a first step towards checking things out pulling the
>image back up from the original site and saving it as a bmp file, not as a
>gif file which loses details in the compression/expansion, depending on the
>graphics program used to save or view the gif.  That's hypothetically
>speaking of course.   ;^)
>
>I noticed that the gif image shows some very interesting white dots about
>the size of houses, especially along the top ridge at the bottom of the
>photo, none of which are in the black areas.   These blurred or disappeared
>when the image was saved as a gif and then later viewed using Lview.
>Saving the image (right click in Explorer) as bmp preserved them.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

***{The described events, of course, never happened. But if they *had*
happened, we can all rest assured that some explanation such as the one
proposed by you would have to be the correct one. There is, after all, *no
possibility whatsoever* that any agency of the American government would
engage in activity of the sort that I hypothesized. Since we are all agreed
on that point, there is nothing further to be said, and this is my final
word on the subject. --MJ}***



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 07:31:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA28528;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:29:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:29:23 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.108.150
Message-Id: <v04210100b5a1fd97faf0 [128.183.108.190]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5a171185d24 [12.21.208.130]>
References: <v01530500b5a171185d24 [12.21.208.130]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:27:52 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sS4hH1.0.cz6.3B5Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36334
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 1:49 PM 7/23/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> >***{Let us suppose, purely hypothetically, that in the course of a
> >newsgroup discussion of the Mars photos, a particular photograph was
> >mentioned that had various very interesting features, and that as a result
> >you spent several hours one morning examing that photo, that you identified
> >among its complexities several very specific features which seemed
> >unambiguously indicative of the presence of life there, that you identified
> >the most compelling of those features by noting unique geological
>
>I would suggest as a first step towards checking things out pulling the
>image back up from the original site and saving it as a bmp file, not as a
>gif file which loses details in the compression/expansion, depending on the
>graphics program used to save or view the gif.  That's hypothetically
>speaking of course.   ;^)

Modification of graphics images by viewers always is a big problem 
and saving as a bmp file is only an option if you do not care about 
the large increase in disk space that will be required.  Some useful 
techniques are to turn off dithering, two pass analysis, output 
optimization and smoothing and set the output quality at 75% or 
higher.  Also images viewed with Netscape will be saved in the cache 
folder without modification and they can be copied from the cache 
folder to a save folder.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 07:58:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA04933;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:57:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:57:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.108.150
Message-Id: <v04210101b5a2034f5322 [128.183.108.190]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b5a03e59ae00 [12.21.208.130]>
References: <v01530502b5a03e59ae00 [12.21.208.130]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:57:14 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"u72fo2.0.-C1.Wb5Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36335
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Do you agree that my derivation of Q' = Q K(v) is correct for planar charge
>motion viewed by an observer from within the plane of motion?  A quick
>summary of the derivation, as discussed earlier, follows.
>
>Given the relativistic (Coulombic) field pancaking as:
>
>   E = Q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (1 - (v^2/c^2))/(1 - (v^2/c^2) sin^2 theta)^(3/2)
>

This latest analysis by Horace Heffner is once again incorrect.  The 
problem being that if the plane of motion is of finite spatial extent 
then the particles in motion must at some time change velocity in 
order to be contained in the plane.  This change in velocity will 
involve acceleration and there will be an additional electric field 
from the acceleration.  The acceleration field will exactly cancel 
out the effective charge change.  This may be exactly shown 
mathematically and can be demonstrated numerically.  I have a 
computer program that solves the problem of an electron moving around 
a closed loop of wire in 3 dimensions.  The velocity dependent 
electric field and the acceleration electric field are calculated and 
they combine together to produce an electric field that is identical 
to the simple Coloumb field.  It is written in an unusual language 
"Gauss" but would not be very hard to convert to Mathematica.  I 
could post it if there is any interest.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 08:11:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA11087;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:10:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:10:05 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5a171185d24 [12.21.208.130]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000724080650.18006B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"2SVpH2.0.9j2.Dn5Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36336
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:

> I would suggest as a first step towards checking things out pulling the
> image back up from the original site and saving it as a bmp file, not as a
> gif file which loses details in the compression/expansion, depending on the
> graphics program used to save or view the gif.  That's hypothetically
> speaking of course.   ;^)

Nitpick: The compuserve GIF format is a non lossy format. I think you mean
JPG or JPEG format. 

Most programs save in JPG format now since the developers of the
compression scheme used in GIF files are now demanding royalties from
programs that just GIF. 



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 08:17:04 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13617;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:14:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:14:23 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
In-Reply-To: <v04210100b5a1fd97faf0 [128.183.108.190]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000724081056.18006C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"O5eBn3.0.fK3.Er5Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36337
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Larry Wharton wrote:

> Modification of graphics images by viewers always is a big problem 
> and saving as a bmp file is only an option if you do not care about 
> the large increase in disk space that will be required.

(Slapping head!) Duho! 

Yes, while the GIF format is "non-lossy" in the sense that you can resave
the file and not lose anything, the coversion from anything but a 8 bit
bitmap to the 256 color limitation of GIF is lossy. If you have a 16, 24
or 32 bit per pixel bitmap you will lose information when you convert it
to a GIF. My error, I should have seen that. I was wrong. Never mind....

>  Some useful 
> techniques are to turn off dithering, two pass analysis, output 
> optimization and smoothing and set the output quality at 75% or 
> higher.  Also images viewed with Netscape will be saved in the cache 
> folder without modification and they can be copied from the cache 
> folder to a save folder.
> 
> Lawrence E. Wharton
> NASA/GSFC code 913
> Greenbelt MD 20771
> (301) 614-6121  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 09:57:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA18281;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501b5a2195ba75a [12.21.208.142]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:47:45 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Resent-Message-ID: <"hDQCB.0.VT4.OB7Vv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36338
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:57 AM 7/24/0, Larry Wharton wrote:
[snip]
> I have a
>computer program that solves the problem of an electron moving around
>a closed loop of wire in 3 dimensions.  The velocity dependent
>electric field and the acceleration electric field are calculated and
>they combine together to produce an electric field that is identical
>to the simple Coloumb field.  It is written in an unusual language
>"Gauss" but would not be very hard to convert to Mathematica.  I
>could post it if there is any interest.



I am very interested in the formula used to calculate the effects of
acceleration.  Is it based on Maxwell's equations?  I assume it is not
along the lines of Parry Moon, Jefimenko, or some other non-conformist?  Is
it general relativity based?

Let's assume uniform circular motion, i.e. DC current, in a charge balanced
medium.  There is no net induction then, but there is radiation, true?

This is an unusual field that acceleration produces if it exactly cancels
the special relativistic (SR) Coulomb field, which is non-uniform, even in
direction, assuming the current is in a charge balanced medium, a medium
having the same number of positive and negative charges.

Given the SR coulombic field pancaking equation:

   k(theta) = (1 - b)/(1 - b sin^2 theta)^(3/2)

At theta = 90 deg we have:

   k(Pi/2) = (1 - b)(1 - b)^(-3/2)

            = (1 - b)^(-1/2) = gamma(v)

which represents an apparent charge increase for every charge as viewed
from a point on the major axis and distant from the circle.

At theta = 0 deg. we have:

   G(c) = b/2 + ...

which represents an apparent charge decrease.  This gives the following
picture from the perspective of the velocity dependent SR field component:



          q' = q * gamma      (q_e' > q_e)


              (-)

               N
               |
               |
  (+)      o   |   x     (+)            q' = q * K(v)      (q_e' < q_e)
               |
               |
               S
            Magnetic
             Poles

              (-)


          o - current out of page (electrons into page)
          x - current into page (electrons out of page)
         (+) - positive net apparent charge
         (-) - negative net apparent charge


Note that, because the proposed current is carried by electrons moving
within a positive medium, that the field is positive to the sides.  If the
current were carried by positive charge, the SR Coulombic field would be
reversed.

I am very curious as to how the acceleration from uniform circular motion
produces an exactly cancelling field at all points.  Of course, I am not
saying it doesn't.  In fact the problem with the proposed special
relativistic field, calculated without considerations of acceleration, is
that it is non-conservative.  Ignoring radiation, unless the SR Coulombic
field is exactly nullified at all points by the acceleration component,
energy is not conserved.  It is therefore logical that something is
missing, which is why I  maintained a question mark in the original posts.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 10:14:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21899;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:11:56 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:11:56 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000724131119.007c8220 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:11:19 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5a171185d24 [12.21.208.130]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OHRnO2.0.5M5.SZ7Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36339
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:

>I would suggest as a first step towards checking things out pulling the
>image back up from the original site and saving it as a bmp file, not as a
>gif file which loses details in the compression/expansion, depending on the
>graphics program used to save or view the gif.  That's hypothetically
>speaking of course.   ;^)

I have heard the TIF format is the standard for publishing, rather than
BMP. It takes a ton of space but it is non-lossy and it seems to read into
Japanese and English word processors. I tested a picture just now and found
the TIF came out slightly larger than the BMP, and it took longer for Turbo
Browser to read. Both TIF and BMP are roughly 10 times larger than JPG.

I have seen many high resolution images altered by converting formats, with
details disappearing and artifacts appearing out of nowhere.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 12:31:54 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06822;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:28:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:28:13 -0700
Message-ID: <397C9ADE.62237C6E ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:37:02 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
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" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: CF news in Japan
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"C7Aq03.0.Wg1.DZ9Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36340
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

July 24, 2000

Vortex,

My wife off handedly told me this morning that her brother heard (news
in Japan) of plans in Japan that they (not identified) were going to
develop a cold fusion research facility in Ibaraki or Aoyama Prefecture.
And they would be working together with the European Union (EU). It is
said to be a five year plan. The initiative arose to look further into
the cold fusion field since it was far from a settled issue.
Jed Rothwell, may be picking up on this item from his Japanese sources.
Ibaraki Prefecture is the location of a large nuclear facility.
Both my wife and her brother are aware that I am tinkering with cold
fusion but they themselves are totally not involved so I get these
snippets of news sans much detail once in a while. :)

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 14:10:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08529;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:01:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:01:03 -0700
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:00:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200007242100.RAA31081 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: CF news in Japan
Resent-Message-ID: <"PGLfJ.0.B52.DwAVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36341
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Aki writes:
>My wife off handedly told me this morning that her brother heard (news
>in Japan) of plans in Japan that they (not identified) were going to
>develop a cold fusion research facility in Ibaraki or Aoyama Prefecture.
>And they would be working together with the European Union (EU). It is
>said to be a five year plan. The initiative arose to look further into
>the cold fusion field since it was far from a settled issue.
>Jed Rothwell, may be picking up on this item from his Japanese sources.
>Ibaraki Prefecture is the location of a large nuclear facility.
>Both my wife and her brother are aware that I am tinkering with cold
>fusion but they themselves are totally not involved so I get these
>snippets of news sans much detail once in a while. :)
>
>-AK-

I've heard it rumoured on another list that the Japanese have had some
success with Cadmium and Rhodium doping of the Pd lattice.  Like the reports
given to you, there wasn't any detail about who did it exactly, or even
when, but that's the rumour of the week. ;)

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 Jul 24 15:43:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA15362;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:36:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:36:06 -0700
Message-ID: <397CC4B0.2817561A verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:35:28 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
CC: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
Subject: A new paper on superconductor-gravity connection
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gXHdx.0.tl3.LJCVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36342
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi,

I found this reference on High-Tc Update June/July 2000 Preprints (http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/htcu/archive/2000July.html):

"M. Agop, C. Gh. Buzea, and P. Nica, "Local Gravitoelectromagnetic Effects on a Superconductor." To be published in Physica C (in press). St. Moara de Foc, no. 10, Bl. 406, sc. B, et. 8, ap. 35, Iasi 6600, Romania; e-mail pnica ch.tuiasi.ro. Keywords: Max
well's and London's generalized equations;
generalized Meissner effect; gravitational shielding in an electromagnetic field; dispersion relations for superconductors." 

May somebody write to the author and request a copy of the paper.

BTW, It is also referenced on the Updates to a new version of the Harald Reiss paper (3/1/2000). Harald Reiss had obtained positive results, increase of weight on sc samples (not YBCO but BiSrCaCuO).

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 15:52:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA21445;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:50:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:50:49 -0700
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:50:44 -0400
Message-Id: <200007242250.SAA12151 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: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"2uipk.0._E5.9XCVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36343
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

There was also an e-mail virus that bit me a couple of times that worked
through the Netscape html enabled e-mail reader.  It basically changed the
Windoze settings, and that included the settings for my graphics adapter.
The virus wasn't too bad as virii go, no more than an annoyance, but all my
high res, high color graphics looked worse after I got the bite.  I still
use Win3.1, and fortunately, I had older versions of the settings files
archived, and could tinker with those until I got my system back up to the
way I had it originally optimized to take full advantage of the specific
hardware.  With later versions of Windows, I've heard that this is more
difficult to repair.

I don't know if Mitch checked for this possibility when the hypothetical
event never occurred, but like I said, it happened to me twice, and it
affected all my graphics across the board, but it was really only noticable
on the higher res, higher color pictures.  After spending the hours it took
to fix it a couple of times, I just quit using the html e-mail program, and
went with Eudora Lite exclusively.  I haven't had it happen again since.

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 Jul 24 16:59:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA18699;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530502b5a27df63aa6 [12.21.211.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:52:20 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Sun proof of non-conservative relativistic field?
Resent-Message-ID: <"5d7ZG2.0.4a4.ZQDVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36344
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Looking again at a simplistic model of a star solely from the point of view
of the planar SR Coulombic field due to velocity, without regard to
acceleration:


          q' = q * gamma      (q_e' > q_e)


              (-)

               N
               |
               |
  (+)      o   |   x     (+)        q' = q * G(v)=(b/4 + ...),    (q_e' < q_e)
               |
               |
               S
            Magnetic
             Poles

              (-)


          o - current out of page (electrons into page)
          x - current into page (electrons out of page)
         (+) - positive net apparent charge
         (-) - negative net apparent charge


we can see the apparent charge in the eqatorial plane is less, while the
apparent charge derived from the pancaking formula is increased at the
poles by gamma. This gives a purely relativistic electrostatic field that
nets to negative at the poles of the sun down to roughly 54.7 degrees from
the poles, and positive in the equatorial plane.   The equatorial plane
apparent field is actually due to the (appx.) net charge of

    q_net = (q+) G(v+)  -  (q-) G(q-)

where q+ is total number of positive charges, v+ is avg velocity of
positive charges, etc.  A similar netting occurs for the net charge at the
top of the sun due to calculations both of gamma(v+) and gamma(v-).

We would thus expect heavy mass ejecta from the equator towards the poles
and electron ejecta toward the equator from the polar regions, and heavy
mass return to the poles, and electron return to the equatorial region.  Of
course when you further consider the relativistic effects that create the
magnetic field, you get strong lateral forces on these current loops that
tend to eject them laterally into space, as we commonly see visually.

Further, if the mean velocity of the bulk of a (young) star's plasma is
high enough, then the reurn of masses of heavy particles to the pole will
create a high vleocity vortex there, the negative polar charge will be
balanced, and there will be a jet of material extending into space above
each of the magnetic poles.

A long term solar cycle resulting from relativistic effects of heating can
develop is there is a means of ejecting the mass, which clearly there is.
The heavy positive mass returning to the poles adds angular momentum to the
polar material and thus creates turbulence within the star.  It is also of
interest that the largest effect of the proposed kind would be in the
corona, due to the fact G(v) is more valid at longer distances from the
magnetic equator.

One interesting thing about this configuration is that the net SR field is
purely relativistic.  It appears that there is a closed loop that creates
net free energy for either positive or negative charges, provided they
travel in the directions suggested, and thus would heat the corona with
free energy.  It would be interesting to know if solar flares tend to
follow this pattern of positive  ejecta from lower latitudes and negative
ejecta from higher latitudes.

Conversely, it is interesting as to whether, at higher charge velocities,
stellar mechanics indicates that a non-conservative relativistic field
pravails in the netting out of the components due to velocity and
acceleration, adn time dilation.  One intriguing angle on this is that time
dilation occurs due to both translation and acceleration, but
translationally it is observational, while, when acceleration is involved,
it is apparently a real time dilation.  If the Coulombic field is a result
of virtual photon emission at a uniform stochastic rate, then (acceleration
based) time dilation should reduce the apparent (or real) charge of a
charged particle in acceleration in a real, not just obsrvational basis,
i.e. on a retardation basis.  Perhaps the sun gives us evidence of this
effect?  Perhaps the current flow around paired sunspots provides a field
that accelerates the mass ejection.  The above diagram would be reversed
for one of the pair of sunspots, each of which represent local vortices and
currents with polar axes.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 17:01:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA08530;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:59:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:59:30 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5a284759f71 [207.8.127.134]>
In-Reply-To: <200007242250.SAA12151 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:56:45 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: 'Official' interpretation Mars 'cactus' foto
Resent-Message-ID: <"Oi9Qm3.0.r42.VXDVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36345
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Gnorts,
>
>There was also an e-mail virus that bit me a couple of times that worked
>through the Netscape html enabled e-mail reader.  It basically changed the
>Windoze settings, and that included the settings for my graphics adapter.
>The virus wasn't too bad as virii go, no more than an annoyance, but all my
>high res, high color graphics looked worse after I got the bite.  I still
>use Win3.1, and fortunately, I had older versions of the settings files
>archived, and could tinker with those until I got my system back up to the
>way I had it originally optimized to take full advantage of the specific
>hardware.  With later versions of Windows, I've heard that this is more
>difficult to repair.
>
>I don't know if Mitch checked for this possibility when the hypothetical
>event never occurred, but like I said, it happened to me twice, and it
>affected all my graphics across the board, but it was really only noticable
>on the higher res, higher color pictures.  After spending the hours it took
>to fix it a couple of times, I just quit using the html e-mail program, and
>went with Eudora Lite exclusively.  I haven't had it happen again since.

***{When I describe hypothetical events that never happened, they always
involve the use of a Macintosh computer, and the hypothetical victims in
such purely purely imaginary scenarios are always people who didn't ride in
on a turnip truck, so these fictional characters invariably do the obvious
tests before beginning to bemoan their fates. In this case, the obvious
test was mentioned in my original post: comparing the hypothetically
altered file to the hypothetical original, by simply going back,
hypothetically, to the original link. Bottom line: these hypothetical
explanations for the event that never happened ain't makin' it, however
much I may wish it were otherwise, and this time I *really am* going to bow
out of this discussion. --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 Jul 24 17:36:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24617;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:32:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:32:53 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5a27407e52d [12.21.211.197]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:42:31 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Resent-Message-ID: <"M1c_b2.0.Z06.r0EVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36346
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In *Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity,* Plenum Press, 1968, W. G.
V. Rosser develops (p. 272 ff) a proof that the field from a closed
circuit, ignoring radiation fields, is zero.   Rosser develops the
following SR based equations for his proof:

   E = Ev + Ea

   Ev = q/(4 Pi e0 s^3) [r - r u/c][1 - v^2/c^2]

   Ea = q/(4 Pi e0 s^3 c^2) {r x ([r - r u/c] x [a])}

   s = [r - (r dot u)/c]

where r, u, and a are vectors.

However, the above formlae are only based on first order approximation,
assuming v/c is small.  Also, Rosser only actually proves his case for a
specific circuit which has sharp bends, but assumes the bends are not
significnt because the accelerations involved are not large (due to the
fact the electron velocity is slow in wires I assume.)  This strikes me as
a flawed approach and also as immaterial to high velocity situations, like
those found in stars.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 21:49:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA15910;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:48:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:48:38 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5a2c86c7256 [207.8.127.154]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b59885533271 [12.21.211.204]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:46:52 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"MNqvy1.0.Wu3.cmHVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36347
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 1:11 AM 7/17/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>(5) It is possible that all of our sensations are leaping into existence
>>out of nothing--which means: it is possible that the external world, our
>>bodies, our brains, our memories, and our selves, do not exist. Let Pn
>>represent the probability of this state of affairs.
>[snip]
>
>This is a very strange premise on which to base an analysis of reality, and
>it seems that it is one that any reasonable person should feel free to
>reject.


***{Huh? How do you reject it? If you assume that the principle of
continuity is false, it follows directly, as a necessary implication of
that assumption, that it is possible that all of our sensations are leaping
into existence out of nothing--which means: the presumed sources of those
sensations do not exist--which means: the external world, our bodies, our
brains, our memories, and our selves, do not exist. How can a person be
deemed "reasonable" if he "feels free" to reject the deductive consequences
of his assumptions? --MJ}***

 There are other possibilities that are far more palatable and
>consistent with our experience.  For example, it is reasonable to assume
>our ability to think is supported by a fault tolerant system.  After all,
>we are constantly bombarded by cosmic rays and internal radiation, and are
>subject to continual chemical reactions, element replacement, molecule
>formation, flawed genetic replication, viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites,
>plaque formation, toxins, psychotropic chemicals, dimentia causeing metals,
>sleep and other altered fors of consciousness etc.  We are not in the same
>body from moment to moment, yet usually our thought processes continue
>unimpeded.  However, it is not within our scientifically verifyable
>experience that people contiue to think or perceive in a normal way after
>massive destrution of the brain.  An individual building a system of
>premises to represent reality based on personal observation and scientific
>experimentation would in my opinion be likely to reject your hypothesis. A
>person who  believes in an existence outside the body migth be inclined to
>accept your premise, or to reject it in favor of discontiuity being the
>means that nature has of providing a part of us not tied to reality, i.e.
>to matter.

***{What does the above have to do with my proof? Do you deny that, if we
assume the principle of continuity is false, it follows that we may not
exist? If not, why not? What kind of "existence" is it that we would have,
if our sensations had no sources--i.e., if we had no body and no brain, no
past, no world, and no life? What is there that remains, which has anything
to do with the essence of what we are? --MJ}***

>
>A sound argument requires a valid argument, one which follows the rules of
>deductive logic, PLUS requires a foundation of true premises.  The truth of
>the premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.  Look this
>up in most any text on logic and check it out.  If you ignore this then you
>are simply making up your own personal private form of logic, so you should
>not be surprised at a lack of persuasiveness of your arguments.

***{Reasonable people *are* persuaded, albeit after a struggle in most
cases. The rest, quite frankly, I don't care about. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 23:14:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA25956;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b5a2cce7808e [207.8.127.224]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b595ada0bdb6 [12.21.211.213]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:07:21 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"yuoPp.0.EL6.vzIVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36348
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I believe I read somewhere that the human body exchanges about 90 percent
>of its atoms with the environment every 3 years.  If that is true then we
>really are not even the same physical person from day to day, minute to
>minute.  What is "us" is really an informational thing, not strictly and
>totally a physical thing.

***{Most people assume that the information in question is stored in
physical form somewhere in the physical organ known as the brain. Their
basis for that inference is their memories, which, based on the principle
of continuity, they assume are not leaping into existence out of nothing. A
few people, on the other hand, deny the reality of physical existence, and
presume that the sources of their memories exist in some higher plane. They
too, however, assume that their memories and other sensations are not
leaping into existence out of nothing. They merely place the sources in a
realm that they label as "non-physical." Both groups, however, rely on the
presumed validity of the principle of continuity as the basis for denying
that their memories and other sensations have no sources at all, for the
latter notion is equally destructive to all notions of existence, whether
ethereal or physical. Hence my proof applies equally to both types of
conception: either the principle of continuity is true, or else you may not
exist--regardless of whether you are a materialist or not. --MJ}***

In a sense we reside at a higher level of being
>than the purely physical.

***{You don't reside at any level of being, if all of your sensations are
leaping into existence out of nothing. Since that possibility is utterly
incompatible with and contradictory to a person's certainty of his own
existence, any assumption which leads to it is false--which means: the
principle of continuity must be true. --MJ}***

[snip]

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 23:14:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA25991;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011703b5a2d287d3bd [207.8.127.224]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b599bffaeb02 [12.21.208.195]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:01:03 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"7BY7v.0.-L6.0-IVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36349
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Mitchell,
>
>A sound argument requires a valid argument, one which follows the rules of
>deductive logic, PLUS requires a foundation of true premises.  The truth of
>the premises for a sound argument is outside the realm of logic.

***{One's certainty of one's own existence is not outside the realm of
logic: if I am considering the question of whether I exist, then I
exist--period. One cannot contemplate anything, if one does not exist.
--MJ}***

>
>Have you looked this up in some texts on logic to check it out?  Is this
>not a standard accepted definition?

***{The world is full of superficial people who say superficial things, and
some of them write books. That, however, does not alter the obvious fact
that, in order to think, one must exist. --MJ}***

>
>If this definition of a sound argument is generally accepted, then it must
>be generally accepted that whatever is palatable by one's own experience,
>philosophy and religion governs what he will accept as a premise, including
>any premises cooked up to imply or restate the principle of continuity.

***{It is not "cooked up" that the first step of an indirect proof is to
deny the statement that you seek to prove. And it is not "cooked up" that,
when continuity is denied, the possibility of one's own nonexistence
quickly follows. Nor is it "cooked up" that such a possibility *flatly
contradicts* the utter certainty which each reasonable person has of his
own existence. Hence it is not "cooked up" that the conditions of an
indirect proof are thereby satisfied--which means: it is not "cooked up"
that the principle of continuity must be true. --MJ}***

>You can not prove such a principle in a generally accepted manner, for no
>sound argument exists for it.  It is a matter of choice of axioms, and I
>say the freedom to choose is the most fundamental principle necessary for
>the formation of a philosophy, even preceeding the ability to think.
>Without freedom, of what use is thought, and what is thought?

***{If I ask you to assume that the principle of continuity is false, as
the first step in constructing a deductive proof that it is not false, what
do you do--refuse to make that assumption? If not, then I will proceed to
the next step, which is to point out that if continuity is false, our
sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing. Do you then
exercise your "freedom" to deny the obvious? If not, then I will proceed to
the next step, which is to point out that if our sensations may be leaping
into existence out of nothing, then we may not exist. And, if you do not
exercise your "freedom" to deny the obvious at that point, then a
contradiction is established between our justified certainty in our own
existence and the denial of continuity, and you are forced to conclude that
the principle of continuity must be true--unless, of course, you exercise
your "freedom" to deny the obvious. But what would be the point of denying
the obvious? What sort of "freedom" is that? Are we seeking the truth about
this matter, or not? --MJ}***

.Without
>freedom we are merely automotons grinding out a flawed heuristic.  With
>individual freedom, plus with nature's unending enforcement of its rules,
>even without continuity, then we have the ability to evolve from
>nothingness to at least our present level of being, thus the ability to
>think freely, as I think we do, must necessarily ultimately evolve.
>However, if we are all free to chose axioms, who is to be the judge of the
>correct and true axioms?

***{The denial of continuity contradicts the self-evident certainty which
each individual has of his own existence and, for that reason, must be
false. Thus we are free to deny it only to the extent that we are "free" to
behave like idiots. But, again, what sort of "freedom" is that? --MJ}***

 Science provides the answer to that by supplying
>nature as the final arbiter.  Nature has the veto power.  If you deny
>nature as arbiter, you are left only with god or yourself as arbiter, with
>yourself being the only thing you know for sure to exist.

***{Before we can set up "nature" as arbiter, we have to find some firm
basis for concluding that "nature"--i.e., the physical world--exists.
That's what I have done with my proof of continuity. Result: I am in a
position to do science. You, on the other hand, are not, because your
philosophy rests on nothing at all. --MJ}***

If left with
>only yourself then this seems to be an empty philosophy.

***{When we come into existence, the only certainty we have is that we
exist. Fortunately, that certainty provides us with the basis we need to
verify the principle of continuity, which in turn enables us to verify the
principle of induction, and from that, plus a lot of hard work, everything
else follows. The ultimate basis of all knowledge, however, lies in the
utter certainty that the individual has of his own existence. Everything
else is secondary, and consequential, to that--and that explicitly includes
our knowledge of the existence of other people. Thus this "social"
structure of knowledge that you are so fond of, ultimately, rests of the
same epistemological individualism as everything else. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 24 23:15:31 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA26009;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011704b5a2de03882f [207.8.127.224]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b59a652872b4 [12.21.211.5]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:07:42 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"vahT53.0.EM6.3-IVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36350
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 2:02 PM 7/18/0, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>>2.1. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then either they affect
>>sensations, or they do not affect sensations."
>>
>>2.2. "If discontinuities are permitted by nature, then it is possible that
>>they affect sensations, and it is also possible that they do not affect
>>sensations."
>
>
>Both the above propositions could be wrong, or at least misleading.  Given
>the present state of our ever to remain imperfect knowledge, it appears
>that the following is alternative proposition, one of many:
>
>2.3  "If discontinuities are provided by nature, then the discontinuities
>provided by nature as we have observed them are necessary to permit and
>sustain the existence of all material things."

***{Discontinuities cannot be "provided by nature" unless the principle of
continuity is false. But if we assume the principle of continuity is false,
we quickly arrive at a contradiction, thereby proving that the principle of
continuity is true and, hence, that your statement, above, is false.
--MJ}***

>
>Of course it directly follows that sensation or even existence would be
>impossible without them, that if you exist then discontinuities exist.

***{The implications of a proven falsehood are of no consequence and, thus,
of no concern. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 25 07:50:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA20642;
	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:47:24 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:47:24 -0700
From: fjsparber earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:47:16 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200007251447.JAA21487 norman.ljworld.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Your story
X-Sender: The News-Bulletin web server
Resent-Message-ID: <"FjRKg3.0.L25.xXQVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36351
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

You have been sent a story from our site, The News-Bulletin.
The sender added this:

Los Alamos original.

==================

Evelyn M. Mather

Mother, homemaker and community and peace activist Evelyn M. Mather, a
longtime Los Lunas resident, died in her home on Monday, July 17,
following a stroke. She was 80 years young. As she wished, there was an
immediate cremation and there will be no memorial service.

Read the full story here:
http://www.news-bulletin.com/section/obituaries/story/667

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 25 08:12:37 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA22433;
	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000725110514.0079e840 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:05:14 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-R1kc.0.NU5.kpQVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36352
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

See:

http://www.evworld.com/

"New This Wook" (middle column).

- JR

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 25 12:38:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03337;
	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:34:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:34:36 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a3984eb4a6 [12.21.211.202]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:36:46 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace, Light Lepton String Particle  Interaction
Resent-Message-ID: <"okLWB2.0.3q.ClUVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36353
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:49 AM 7/22/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>IF a UV photon (~ 5.0 ev)creates a LL string circle particle pair, the LL- can
>be taken up by a Proton or Deuteron.
>
>The total energy  (Et) of a LL- string about a Proton or Deuteron is the sum
>of the potential and kinetic (relativistic) energy given to the LL-.
>
>Et = - kq^2/r + kq^2/2r = - kq^2/2r

This is all too complex for me.  I am still plodding along trying to
understand more basic questions, like whether magnetic fields exist in any
real sense at all, or are merely the collective secondary relativistic
effects of many charges.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 25 12:51:29 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10451;
	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:50:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:50:30 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000725155020.00792da0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:50:20 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Italian CF research trend
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"SPMBL.0.6Z2.5-UVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36354
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The trend in Italian CF research is to test small devices with highly
sophisticated instruments. The attached ICCF-8 Abstract describes an
example. This trend makes me nervous, perhaps because the claims are over
my head. I cannot tell whether this research is brilliant, or whether these
people are going off on a tangent measuring tiny, meaningless variations in
instrument readings, the way the polywater researchers did back in 1970. De
Ninno said computation is complicated and "interpretation of the data is
difficult," but she feels confident that the results are correct, and the
S/N ratio is high. She described the methodology as "well known," meaning
conventional, albeit sophisticated and demanding.

The synchrotron used in this experiment is in Grenoble, France.

I wish this research could be replicated. Then we would know for sure
whether the results are meaningful or not.

- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ICCF-8 ABSTRACT U089

Raffaele G. Agostino, INFM do Univ. della Calabria


Study of the Pd local structure and conduction band features in pddx with
x>O.7


R.G. Agostino, G. Liberti, V. Formosa, A. De Ninno, F. D'Acapito, S. Colonna


The PdDX system is probably the most widely studied of the simple
deuterates. The evolution of its structural and electronic features
associated to the deuterium content are matter for several publication and
only few regions remain to be investigated [1].

The X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy (XAS) technique has the ability to probe
both electronic parameters (from the x-ray absorption near edge structures,
XANES) and local geometry (from the extended x-ray absorption fine
structures, EXAFS) with element specificity. An innovative use of XANES and
EXAFS consists in the in situ measurements that can be performed at high
photon fluxes. The 3rd generation synchrotron radiation sources combine
high-energy photons to high fluxes allowing this kind of analysis. Recent
measurements performed on similar systems pointed out the feasibility of
this kind of measurements on samples immersed in an electrochemical cell.
[2] [3] The Pd electrode is fixed on a glass window that seals one side the
electrochemical cell. The electrode is constituted by a 5000A-thick Pd
film. The D concentration is monitored by R/R0 simultaneous measurements.
The X-ray absorption experiment was performed at GILDA beamline of ERSF
light source.

With the combination of XANES and EXAFS one can study the geometric and
electronic structure at the same time. [4] Furthermore it is even possible
to measure in the original environment with the etectrochemical cell with
different deutenum concentrations. [6]

A study on the deuterium induced features was performed during the D
loading in Pd deposited film (each loading cycle take place in several
minutes). The changes in the chemical bonding of the Pd deuteride is
studied on the XANES spectra. The variation of the electronic structure
with different deuterium concentrations is measured using different charge
state. The lattice deformations around each atom is followed with the
radial distribution function obtained from the EXAFS signal.

References

[1]. see Wipf, Helmut, Hydrogen in metals III: properties and applications
- Berlin : Springer, 1997 and references therein.

[2]. D.A. Tryk et at. J. Electrochem. Soc. 142.824 (1995); Mukerjee et al.,
J. Electrochem. Soc. 142, 1409 (1995); Mukerjee et al., J. Electrochem.
Soc. 142, 2278 (1995)

[3]. see SRN 11, (1998) - A monographic issue on in-situ synchrotron based
electrochemical experiments. 4. G. Schmid et al. J. of Molecular Cat. A:
Chemical 107 (1996) 95-104 G Schmid, Journal of the Chemical Society -
Dalton Transactions: 7 (APR 7 1998), pp. 1077-1 082

[4]. Pd hydride and deuterate studied by in-situ XAS in electrochemical
cell, RG Agostino, G. Uberli, V. Formoso, A. De Ninno, F. D'Acapito, S.
Colonna, C. Neutzenadel, A. Zuettel, in prep., experiment performed at
Gilda beamline on a 5000A Pd film.


[Footnote 6 appears in the text but it is not listed below. Footnote 5 is
not in the text or listed below.]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Jul 25 18:26:39 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08675;
	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:22:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:22:05 -0700
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:21:57 -0400
Message-Id: <200007260121.VAA27738 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: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Resent-Message-ID: <"N6E3V1.0.N72.wqZVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36355
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed writes:
>See:
>
>http://www.evworld.com/
>
>"New This Wook" (middle column).
>
>- JR

Nice article Jed.  I also looked through the other test drive articles, and
saw that one on the motorcycle.  I couldn't get on to the website of the
manufacturer after several attempts, and hope it is not an indication of
their overall company status.  It certainly looks though, like we finally
have more than a handful of companies putting out EV's. 

Looking at the specs of the various makes and models, it is obvious that the
fuel celled models have a much larger range than the ones that use
rechargable batteries, but the main point is that they all have electric
motors.  If Mills finally comes out with a megabattery, or a small plasma
generator device gets discovered, or if cold fusion makes a breakthrough,
or, or or, it is just now a simple matter of swapping out the powerpack when
a better one surfaces.  Just the developmental engineering for getting the
electric motors into these vehicles properly is not exactly simple or
costfree, and it won't have to be re-invented, fortunately.  Being able to
upgrade the powersupply later, might encourage people to buy now, even
though the models are not as ideal as they might like.

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 Jul 26 07:01:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA04004;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:57:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:57:51 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000725172046.0079c100 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:20:46 -0400
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Another chemical fuel tragedy
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Iyghu.0.U-.VvkVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36356
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I hesitate to express such a narrow view of things, but whenever I read
about an accident like today's Concord crash in France, I think to myself,
"that was caused by chemical fuel." Airplanes powered by CF or some other
nuclear source will crash, but they will not burn. Airframes are so strong
that even in a severe crash, when there is no fire, the survival rate is
surprisingly high. (This happens when the fuel is exhausted or dumped out
prior to an emergency landing, for example.) A 747 pilot riding as a
passenger once told me, as we flew over Alaska, "we could land one of these
things safely just about anywhere, if they did not blow up. You could glide
down and pick a spot on the ice down there or a stretch of open pavement.
The plane would be destroyed but everyone on board would walk away."

Chemical fuel causes most pollution and many horrifying accidents on
highways, in the air, and with things like gas line explosions in
buildings. I hope that a generation from now people will look back at these
machines and wonder how we put up with them.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 09:00:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA24597;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:57:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:57:11 -0700
MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:55:46 -0400 (EDT)
MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:53:17 -0400 (EDT)
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
Subject: Power lift wing?
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-id: <E2876ZYOMH129O*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
UA-content-id: E2876ZYOMH129O
X400-MTS-identifier: [;64551162700002/4919628 ODNVMS]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"39dsr2.0.F06.MfmVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36357
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

All,

A couple of years back I saw an article about a special wing-engine combination
that created a lot of lift over a smaller area.

What they did is put a specially shaped cowling around half of a spinning
propeller, I can't remember if it was above or below.

Does anyone have any references to this?

Bill
webriggs concentric.net
Briggs XLNsystems.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 09:42:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA08633;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:40:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:40:09 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a4c33e7a98 [12.21.208.44]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:42:20 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Resent-Message-ID: <"hoLcT3.0.l62.eHnVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36358
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:57 AM 7/24/0, Larry Wharton wrote:

>I have a
>computer program that solves the problem of an electron moving around
>a closed loop of wire in 3 dimensions.  The velocity dependent
>electric field and the acceleration electric field are calculated and
>they combine together to produce an electric field that is identical
>to the simple Coloumb field.  It is written in an unusual language
>"Gauss" but would not be very hard to convert to Mathematica.  I
>could post it if there is any interest.


OK, if there is no other info to be gained on this could you please post
the program?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 10:14:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA18128;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:08:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:08:10 -0700
Message-Id: <200007261708.NAA24809 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Another chemical fuel tragedy
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:08:26 -0400
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"R5q5m.0.-Q4.whnVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36360
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Chemical fuel causes most pollution and many horrifying accidents on
>highways, in the air, and with things like gas line explosions in
>buildings. I hope that a generation from now people will look back at these
>machines and wonder how we put up with them.
>
>- Jed


Even more horrific was the recent incident in Africa that was widely  
mentioned in the news from Africa.  A few hundred "poachers" -- i.e. poor 
children, men, and women -- who were burned alive in a gasoline pipeline 
explosion as they sought to "poach" some gasoline to sell or use. This is 
not all that rare an occurence. Maybe this one was bigger in numbers 
killed than most.

Villagers all over the third world without electricity often use kerosene 
lighting to make the evenings tolerable. Burning accidents are quite 
common.  Solar electric lighting (see IE#31) is an immediate solution to 
this problem, but the best solution would be CF.

Gene

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 10:15:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17681;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:06:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:06:57 -0700
Message-ID: <397F1A7B.6813671D verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:06:03 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9MRaV3.0.BK4.ngnVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36359
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi,

I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino informing availability of his new paper.

It is again demonstrated modification on gravity or variation of inertial 
mass / gravitational mass ratio require the conservation of energy law be violated.
(At least in classical frame of thinking)

Regards,

hamdi ucar


Subject:  The Gravitational Motor
Date:     Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:32:25 -0300
From:     "Fran De Aquino" <deaquino elo.com.br>

My recent paper posted yesterday in Los Alamos Archive;
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007069 
Best regards
Fran De Aquino

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 10:50:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32250;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:47:41 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:47:41 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a4cc339533 [12.21.209.208]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:49:51 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Resent-Message-ID: <"pXLpi.0.qt7.zGoVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36361
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In *Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity,* Plenum Press, 1968, W. G.
V. Rosser develops (p. 272 ff) a proof that the field from a closed
circuit, ignoring radiation fields, is zero.   Rosser develops the
following SR based equations for his proof:

   E = Ev + Ea

   Ev = q/(4 Pi e0 s^3) [r - r u/c][1 - v^2/c^2]

   Ea = q/(4 Pi e0 s^3 c^2) {r x ([r - r u/c] x [a])}

   s = [r - (r dot u)/c]

where r, u, and a are vectors.

However, the above formlae are only based on first order approximation,
assuming v/c is small.  Also, Rosser only actually proves his case for a
specific circuit which has sharp bends, but assumes the bends are not
significnt because the accelerations involved are not large (due to the
fact the electron velocity is slow in wires I assume.)  This strikes me as
a flawed approach and also as immaterial to high velocity situations, like
those found in stars.

Further, Rosser's proof has the glaring limitation that it only shows a
netting to zero in the plane of his special circuit, which consists of two
(radial form the point) straight lines and too arcs centered on the point
of interest.

Even if we assume Rossser's proof to be correct in general, to the level of
accuracy he produces, and even if we assume the apparent charge to net to
zero in the plane of the circuit, a non-conservative field appears when we
look at the ramifications of the Ea equation in the polar regions of Fig.
1.


          q' = q * gamma      (q_e' > q_e)


              (-)

               N
               |
               |
  (+)      o   |   x     (+)        q' = q * G(v)=(b/4 + ...),    (q_e' < q_e)
               |
               |
               S
            Magnetic
             Poles

              (-)


          o - current out of page (electrons into page)
          x - current into page (electrons out of page)
         (+) - positive net apparent charge
         (-) - negative net apparent charge

       Fig. 1 - Diagram of SR based Coulombic field



Rosser shows that the formula for Ea implies:

   Ea ~= -q/(4 Pi e0 c^2)  [a_perp]/[r]

where [a_perp] is the component vector of vector [a] that is perpendicular
to vector [r]. Using scalar centripital acceleration

   a = u^2/r

to estimate the Coulombic field at points on the central polar axis distant
from the current ring, we obtain:


   Ea ~= -q/(4 Pi e0 c^2)  (u^2/r)/(r)

       = -q/(4 Pi e0 r^2)  (u^2/c^2)

and we obtain an apparent charge factor of -u^/c^ = -b due to the
acceleration component of the polar Coulombic field.  Now, clearly , -b
does not offset

   gamma = (1-b)^(-1/2)

obtained using the standard SR field pancaking eqaution

This, combined with Rosser's approximation for Ea, shows that there should
be a polar jet of POSITIVE material emerging from young stars, and that
there exists a non-conservative Coulombic field about the poles of an
ordinary, though high velocity, current ring.

Comments?

It is interesting though likely coincidental that I obtained nearly
identical results analysing Marinov's equations some time ago.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 11:01:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA11223;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b5a4d3cb3044 [207.8.127.222]>
In-Reply-To: <397F1A7B.6813671D verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:49:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"n9x4z1.0.El2.YLoVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36362
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Hi,
>
>I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino informing availability
>of his new paper.
>
>It is again demonstrated modification on gravity or variation of inertial
>mass / gravitational mass ratio require the conservation of energy law be
>violated.
>(At least in classical frame of thinking)

***{This is incorrect. It depends on the theory of gravity that you accept.
If, for example, we are being pushed toward the Earth by "ultramundane
corpuscles" that are raining down on us from deep space, then it would be
theoretically possible to harness them with a "water wheel" type of setup,
in much the same way that the energy of a waterfall is harnessed to produce
electricity. In such cases, there is no conservation law violation, because
the incoming particles are transferring their energy to the "water wheel,"
rather than creating energy out of nothing. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
>
>
>Subject:  The Gravitational Motor
>Date:     Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:32:25 -0300
>From:     "Fran De Aquino" <deaquino elo.com.br>
>
>My recent paper posted yesterday in Los Alamos Archive;
>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007069
>Best regards
>Fran De Aquino

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 11:02:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04257;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:59:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:59:52 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5a4d68c039a [12.21.209.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:02:02 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov's Longitudinal Force
Resent-Message-ID: <"RPL5o1.0.R21.OSoVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36363
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


                     Marinov's Longitudinal Force
                 An Analysis from a Design Standpoint
                        Horace Heffner - 3/24/98

The following is an attempt to analyze the Lorentz-Marinov equation of
electromagnet force Fm from a design standpoint. The objective is to
extract an expression for the longitudinal force resulting from Fm that may
be useful to form longitudinal force accelerator design concepts, and to
briefly consider some design consequences.  An alternate objective was to
derive an absurdity and thus disprove Marinov's derivation, however that
has not been sufficiently achieved.  Some unusual consequences have been
derived that raise some doubts, however.  Any assistance in finding my
errors or an error of Marinov's would be appreciated.

In an April, 1996 issue of Nature, Stephen Marinov published in a paid
advertisement the rationale for the "Lorentz-Marinov equation" of force
between two moving charges, q and q' with vector velocities V and V', with
R being the vector distance from q' to q, which he derived from the
Grassmann Formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}        (1)

Here Fg is the force with which the action q'V' acts on qV.  Pi is
3.14159..., r is the scalar distance from q' to q, and u0 = 4Pi x 10^-7
weber/amp-m is the permeability constant of the vacuum.

Noting that Fg' is not equal and oppositely directed to Fg, noting also
that R = - R', and based upon experimental findings, Marinov set:

   Fm = (Fg - Fg')/2             (2)

from which he derived immediately the Lorentz-Marinov equation:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (3)

For simplicity set:

   k = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3)        (4)

It seems desirable to find the longitudinal component directly from Fm:

   Fm = k {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}         (5)

Here Fm, V, V' and R are all vectors. Converting everything into
longitudinal components also has the advantage of reducing the vector
effects to a single dimensionless number.

In the above equation * means dot product, an operation on two vectors.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid the use of Greek letters for
angles, let us denote the cosine of the angle between two vectors V and V'
as cos(V,V'). If we denote the length of a vector V by |V|, then we have
the definition of the dot product being given by:

   V*V' = |V| |V'| cos(V,V')           (6)

Applying (6) to (5) we have:

   Fm = k { [ |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) ] V
          + [ |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  ] V'
          -2[ |V|  |V'| cos(V,V') ] R }         (7)

Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is |V|.  The magnitude of
the component of V' in the direction of V is cos(V,V') |V'|.  Similarly the
magnitude of the component of R in the direction of V is cos(V,R) |R|.
Substituting into (7) to get the component of each term in the V direction,
i.e. the longitudinal direction, we then get an equation for the scalar
longitudinal force component Fl:

   Fl = k { |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) |V|
          + |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  cos(V,V') |V'|
          -2|V|  |V'| cos(V,V') cos(V,R)  |R| }    (8)


   Fl = k |V| |V'| |R| {cos(V',R) + cos(V,R) cos(V,V')
                                 -2 cos(V,V') cos(V,R) }    (9)

Noting that |R| = r, simplifying (9) we have:

   Fl = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2) |V| |V'| {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}   (10)

It is now clear that the one key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal
force lies in the understanding of the dimensionless scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (11)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at scalar
distance r we have from (10) and (11):

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (12)

Note that -2 < h < 2.

Equation (12) may be useful for a finite element analysis, and converts
readily into a form for current segment (ilB) Biot style analysis.
Equation (12) seems to indicate that Marinov's longitudinal force can be
related almost purely to the electrostatic attraction of the two charges, q
and q'!

Knowing the identity:

   u0 e0 = 1/c^2                 (13)

where e0 = 8.9x10^-12 coul^2/nt-m^2 is the permittivity constant of the
vacuum, we have:

   u0 = 1/(c^2 e0)               (14)

Substituting (14) into (12):

   Fl = v v' (h 1/(c^2 e0) q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (15)

Given the commonly accepted scalar electrostatic force between two charges:

   Fe = (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)                 (16)

We can rearrange (15) to show the scalar longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h)/2c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (17)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (18)


It is important to note that the vector longitudinal force was defined to
be in the direction of V, by definition of "longitudinal".

The units of Fe clearly represent a force (the electrostatic force), so the
term (h v v')/2c^2 in (18) should be dimensionless, which it clearly is.
At least the units appear to be correct.

This is a really bizarre notion of reality, that a longitudinal force
exists and is a function of the electrostatic force and velocity vectors
relative to the frame of reference where energy is extracted.  Due to the
critical energy producing regions being at velocities near c, a
relativistic analysis is warranted.  However, it is believed that practical
use may be made of devices operating at 0.1 c.  It is possible such a force
has not been readily observed or identified because it is so small unless
both v and v' are near c, and q' is large.

Given only the dimensionless directional scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (11)

and the scalar longitudinal force Fl in terms of the scalar electrostatic
force Fe:

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (18)

and knowing, -2 < h < 2, we can readily see that increasing v is
beneficial, but is bounded by c, the speed of light, so the majority of the
remaining limitation on Fl is the ratio v'/c. This sets an upper limit on
the size of the longitudinal force at v'/c Fe, which means the primary
limit to the force magnitude from a permanent magnet is determined by the
speed of the permanent magnet's orbital electrons v'.

The highest coefficient of power (COP) implementation then is a
longitudinal force accelerator using magnetic "coils" made from coiled long
mean free path discharge tubes.  Since the path of the accelerated
particles might be naturally spiraled by local magnetic fields, the
accelerator portion of the device might be made in a coil as well, and the
geometry of this coil such that the electrons in the field driver coils are
accelerated by the accelerator coil electrons.  The distinction then
between driver coils and accelerator coils might become dissolved, thus
creating a single fully auto-actuated accelerator.

One implication of the above is that there may exist a self-sustaining or
self enhancing discharge geometry to explian ball lightning.

If Marinov's equation is correct:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (4)

and the present derivation of that:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}          (11)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (18)

is correct, then one design influence is that what happens in wires is of
almost no consequence to a near light speed longitudinal force accelerator,
due to the glacially slow speed of electrons in conductors, less than 1
m/s.  For this reason, it should be possible to build and test the
longitudinal force (LF) principle derived here using segments constructed
from evacuated tubes.  Such accelerator tube segments could be hooked up in
parallel or in series, as it does not matter what happens in the adjoining
circuitry, except for the beam guiding influence of the magnetic fields.
The segments can be assembled in any geometry of utility and could all be
linear tubes.  It is possible to make a kind of LF accelerator erector set
from evacuated glass or quartz envelope tube diodes.  At last Ampere's
isolated current segment can have a reality of a kind, at least in regards
to energy conservation, or non-conservation.

In that longitudinal force is proportional to velocity v, the free energy
imparted is at least proportional to the average force squared.  This
implies that a near lightspeed current device compared to a current in wire
driven device should produce a factor of about 10^20 more free energy.  The
longitudinal force is similarly symmetrically proportional to the
energizing coil electron velocity v', so large gains are feasible there as
well.  As the velocities v and v' approach c, the factor (h v v')/2c^2
approaches unity, and the longitudinal force on an accelerated particle in
the generator approaches the enormous summation of the combination of
electrostatic potential energy between the accelerating particle and every
energizing particle. Note that this is a volume effect, unlike surface
charge forces utilized in a van deGraff accelerator.  Because Fl is a
function of both speeds v and v', the positive nuclei in permanent magnets,
for example, have no effect, because for them v' = 0, yet all the charges
with unbalanced motion, those responsible for B, are active in the
longitudinal force on every accelerated particle.

If all the above conclusions are correct, an unlimited, non-polluting, and
enormously robust and portable source of power is potentially available
from a longitudinal force based accelerator.

Let us see if we can now glean some understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (11)

so it can be applied to the longitudinal force equation:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (12)

repeated over a volume of a magnet, for example, to evaluate the force on a
particle in the vicinity.  If a convenient path can be found then a test
can be devised.

Let us assume we have a cubical magnet volume aligned to the x y and z
axes, consisting of atoms all magnetically aligned in the x direction.  If
we want to analyze the longitudinal force on a particle in space near the
magnet at point p with velocity V, we then can partition the magnet into
small cubic segments and compute the Fl at p for each magnet segment and
sum them.  For each segment we have a vector R from p to the segment.  We
can use q' as the sum of charges of electrons aligned with B in the
segment.  Atoms are small, so the lateral motion of the electrons, changing
R slightly as V' changes direction, can be ignored.

To account for electron orbiting in the magnet, we need to sum (integrate)
the force Fl for each V' over all the 360 degrees of rotation about the
local magnetic field intensity vector B (in the vicinity of q') that is
performed by each of the electrons in our charge q'.  For this reason, it
would be convenient to look at the special case where V is aligned with B,
so every V' is purpendicular to V and we thus have cos(V,V') = 0.

When:

   cos(V,V') = 0  for every V'              (19)

we have:

   cos(V,R) cos(V,V') = 0  for every V'        (20)

however, if every R is approximately aligned with B, then also:

   cos(V',R) ~ 1.0 for every V'             (21)

thus:

   h ~ 1.0                         (22)

for every segment in the example magnet.

This implies that there exists a longtitudinal force even in a longitudinal
portion of a permanent magnetic field directly in front of a magnetic pole:


         <-Lf--(e-)          N---S          (e-)--Lf->


This also means that one possible test of this theory is to do calorimetry
on a diode tube both with and without a magnet near the filament with a
nearby magnetic pole facing the filament from the back side:

           ------
           | N  |
           |    |
           |    |
           |    |
           | S  |
           ------


           |    |------------(-)
           |    |
           |    |
           \/\/\/


           ------
              |
              ------------- (+)


One alternative is to form a ring of discharge tubes in plane XY and place
on the z axis the vertical tubes - over the center of the ring:

               O +
               |
               |
               O -

           0---OO---O     <---- ring of discharge tubes in plane xy

               O -
               |
               |
               O +

The discharge tubes could be connected in series.  Wiring is not shown as
it is irrelevant to the longitudinal force for large high speed discharges.
Excess energy would show up primarily as heat and radiation at the +
terminals of the z axis tubes.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 12:15:05 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA30469;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:25 -0700
Message-ID: <397F37ED.13AFFD60 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:11:41 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
References: <v04011701b5a4d3cb3044 [207.8.127.222]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2Dugv1.0.xR7.LXpVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36364
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Mitchell,

If you think in a "extended frame of thinking" or do not tie yourself to mostly
experimentally confirmed and nearly complete theories of physics, all sort of 
conclusions can be obtained. I dont think the "pushing gravity" model can be
evaluated in the classical frame of thinking that I restrict my reasoning.

For example many physicists think that we live in a geometrically more than 
3 dimensional continuum, and obtain unification of gravity with electromagnetism
within this theoretical frame. It is discussed in this frame that law of 
conservation of energy does not exist or should be interpreted differently. 

Or, many physicists think the fundamental physics constants including light speed
changing with time. Possibly the generic law of CE is not applicable there and so on.

So I think I am right on within the frame of thinking I specified. :)
 

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino informing availability
> >of his new paper.
> >
> >It is again demonstrated modification on gravity or variation of inertial
> >mass / gravitational mass ratio require the conservation of energy law be
> >violated.
> >(At least in classical frame of thinking)
> 
> ***{This is incorrect. It depends on the theory of gravity that you accept.
> If, for example, we are being pushed toward the Earth by "ultramundane
> corpuscles" that are raining down on us from deep space, then it would be
> theoretically possible to harness them with a "water wheel" type of setup,
> in much the same way that the energy of a waterfall is harnessed to produce
> electricity. In such cases, there is no conservation law violation, because
> the incoming particles are transferring their energy to the "water wheel,"
> rather than creating energy out of nothing. --MJ}***
> 

Actually, CE have importance in local or closed systems, When one deal with the gravity it is hard to define a local or a isolated system. On non-local systems CE make little sense as it is assumed the energy of the universe is infinite.


Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 12:24:13 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23057;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000726152102.007a77b0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:21:02 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
In-Reply-To: <200007260121.VAA27738 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZDcui1.0.4e5.qepVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36365
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael T Huffman wrote:

>Looking at the specs of the various makes and models, it is obvious that the
>fuel celled models have a much larger range than the ones that use
>rechargable batteries, but the main point is that they all have electric
>motors.

There is a remarkable effusion of EV designs nowadays, reminiscent of the
personal computer business before the IBM PC. I think the best solution at
present is a gasoline ICE; a hybrid.

In a week or two I am hoping to get a chance to test drive a Toyota Prius
for a one-day picnic / excursion trip to nowhere. I expect it will feel
about the same as any other car.


>Just the developmental engineering for getting the
>electric motors into these vehicles properly is not exactly simple or
>costfree, and it won't have to be re-invented, fortunately.

Yes, there will be people skilled in engineering and marketing radically
different transportation technology. The EV industry is a fascinating test
case for CF.


  Being able to
>upgrade the powersupply later, might encourage people to buy now, even
>though the models are not as ideal as they might like.

I doubt the present models can be upgraded for anything as radical as
electricity from Mills superchemistry. The machine would have to be
re-engineered from scratch. But I think there is little chance Mills has
what he claims, and even less chance that he will ever get around to
selling it even if it does exist.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 12:36:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA07192;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:35:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:35:03 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace, Light Lepton String Particle  Interaction
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5a3984eb4a6 [12.21.211.202]>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000726123551.20283A-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bm9o33.0.Gm1.crpVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36366
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace
	Have you considered the inverse philosophy, that only fields
exist, and that charges are singularities in the fields.

Hank

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:

> At 7:49 AM 7/22/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> >IF a UV photon (~ 5.0 ev)creates a LL string circle particle pair, the LL- can
> >be taken up by a Proton or Deuteron.
> >
> >The total energy  (Et) of a LL- string about a Proton or Deuteron is the sum
> >of the potential and kinetic (relativistic) energy given to the LL-.
> >
> >Et = - kq^2/r + kq^2/2r = - kq^2/2r
> 
> This is all too complex for me.  I am still plodding along trying to
> understand more basic questions, like whether magnetic fields exist in any
> real sense at all, or are merely the collective secondary relativistic
> effects of many charges.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 12:42:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA10502;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:41:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:41:40 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210100b5a4ef529c11 [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <E2876ZYOMH129O*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
References: <E2876ZYOMH129O*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:41:32 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Power lift wing?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"BhYEx2.0.0a2.pxpVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36367
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill -

How about spanwise blowers or "sternwheelers"?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

>All,
>
>A couple of years back I saw an article about a special wing-engine 
>combination
>that created a lot of lift over a smaller area.
>
>What they did is put a specially shaped cowling around half of a spinning
>propeller, I can't remember if it was above or below.
>
>Does anyone have any references to this?
>
>Bill
>webriggs concentric.net
>Briggs XLNsystems.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 13:04:33 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17096;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:56:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:56:59 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a4f0841d95 [12.21.209.36]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:59:15 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace, Light Lepton String Particle  Interaction
Resent-Message-ID: <"OXoc92.0.zA4.AAqVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36368
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:37 PM 7/26/0, hank scudder wrote:
>Horace
>        Have you considered the inverse philosophy, that only fields
>exist, and that charges are singularities in the fields.
>
>Hank


That can not be, that electrons are singularities, can it?  If an electron
were a singularity then it would contain infinite energy and mass, true?
Thus we have the classical radius of the electron, as described in
Feynman's *Lectures on Physics*.  Still, assuming the classical radius, the
electron mass is all field, thus I have never really considered the
possibility that it is other than field, that it has mass that consists of
other than its field.  I therefore feel that the electron's mass provides
an argument that the Coulombic field exists.  Further, if you accept
special relativity, then there are circumstances where the Coulombic field
alone accounts for the Lorentz force.  Since we do not observe twice the
Lorentz force, and in fact, to high accuracy, only one times the Lorentz
force, it follows that the magnetic field hypothesized to produce the
Lorentz force does not exist at all.

It is further interesting that if the energy of the electron's field
accounts for both the mass and the charge of the electron, that Fred
Sparber's light leptons should really only have about 1/136th the charge.
"Rest" charge that is!  8^)  They may therefore be much more difficult to
detect than thought.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 13:07:12 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22139;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:05:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:05:37 -0700
Message-ID: <002a01bff73d$21291730$0c6cd626 varisys.com>
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000726152102.007a77b0 pop.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:07:30 -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: <"AlHDm3.0.oP5.GIqVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36369
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed wrote: 
> But I think there is little chance Mills has
> what he claims, and even less chance that he will ever get around to
> selling it even if it does exist.
-
If Mills is not lying about his experimental results, there is no question
about his having discovered a major new practical energy source.
His recent plasma experiments are very significant and he has been
very open in discussing the work. The energy source exists based on
the experimental results and does not require that Mills' GUTCQM be even 
partially correct.
I tend to agree with your second criticism. Mills has perhaps spent too
long trying to find the optimum implementation of the technology when
a brute force heat source implementation would already have resulted
in useful products and more resources being devoted to the improvement 
of the technology. This is a common failing of inventors, and one which
I certainly share. 
-
George Holz                george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems     1924 US Hwy 22 East
Bound Brook, NJ          08805


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 13:24:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28633;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:21:15 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:21:15 -0700
Message-ID: <397F497D.8F438DDC ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:26:41 -0700
From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com>
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: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
References: <v04011701b59e346ad9b7 [207.8.127.68]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rNB3e3.0.J_6.wWqVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36371
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>

Mitchell, I would like answers to several questions.

1. Do you assert that the Principle of Continuity applies to all things, both
subatomic particles as well as our macro world?  If you answer yes, I'm afraid we
will never agree because we do not share a basic understanding of reality.  As I
have noted before, I'm willing to agree that the Principle of Continuity appears
to operate in a selected part of our world, but not in all parts.

2. When you say, "particles jump from nothing" what do you mean by "nothing?  If
you mean that particles jump from a part of reality we do not yet understand, the
Principle of Continuity simply becomes a restatement of this definition and, as
such, is not a unique idea.  On the other hand, if you believe the particles jump
from a condition described by only imagination rather than by physical
observation, again we will never reach agreement because I do not trust the
imagination, neither yours nor mine.

Your efforts to prove the Principle of Continuity by your method rests on answers
to these questions.  As you can see, your method proves nothing to me because my
answers are in direct conflict with your conclusion.  You might well conclude that
I'm irrational. Nevertheless or because of, I do not see us making any more
progress.  I think by now we both understand each other's viewpoint and I'm
grateful for the chance to discuss the subject in great detail.  Unless you can
think of a new approach, I suggest we call it quits until another subject comes
up.

Regards,
Ed



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 13:27:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA28420;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530502b5a4f91c226d [12.21.211.70]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:26:19 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Power lift wing?
Resent-Message-ID: <"EAQhb2.0.qx6.gZqVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36372
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:53 AM 7/26/0, Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 wrote:
>All,
>
>A couple of years back I saw an article about a special wing-engine combination
>that created a lot of lift over a smaller area.
>
>What they did is put a specially shaped cowling around half of a spinning
>propeller, I can't remember if it was above or below.


Sorry, I don't know anything about this cowling.  However, [warning!
rampant speculation to follow] if the motor were wing mounted, then a
cowling under the wing and behind the prop would deflect the prop wash and
reduce the air velocity under the wing and thus provide more lift, but only
1/2 the thrust.  Such a cowling, if variable, might be useful for high
power landings and take-offs. However, raising the engine above the wing
would provide more thrust/horsepower and more lift as well, but there are
stability trade-offs.

Perhaps creating (longitudinal) vortices under the wing would increase
pressure, and thus lift.  This thought possibly leads to an unusual wing
design.  A panel imposed into each of the trailing wing vortecies,
deflecting them downward, might provide extraordinay extra lift at low
drag.    This would produce a very unusual looking U shaped wing.  Lift
from such an approach would have to be protected by shielding the vortex
from side gusts using a side panel.  This method might be used to reduce
wing size and increase gas milage, nbut would not help with landings and
take-offs.  Deflecting a vortex produced by a cowling, however, might help
in that arena.

Perhaps a similar tip vortex deflection method could be used to increase
thrust of propellers or helicopter roters.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 13:30:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA27143;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501b5a4f3ebea58 [12.21.211.70]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:21:51 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Power lift wing?
Resent-Message-ID: <"V48_N2.0.0e6.nVqVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36370
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:53 AM 7/26/0, Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 wrote:
>All,
>
>A couple of years back I saw an article about a special wing-engine combination
>that created a lot of lift over a smaller area.
>
>What they did is put a specially shaped cowling around half of a spinning
>propeller, I can't remember if it was above or below.


Sorry, I don't know anything about this cowling.  However, [warning!
rampant speculation to follow] if the motor were wing mounted, then a
cowling under the wing and behind the prop would deflect the prop wash and
reduce the air velocity under the wing and thus provide more lift, but only
1/2 the thrust.  Such a cowling, if variable, might be useful for high
power landings and take-offs. However, raising the engine above the wing
would provide more thrust/horsepower and more lift as well, but there are
stability trade-offs.

Perhaps creating (longitudinal) vortices under the wing would increase
pressure, and thus lift.  This thought possibly leads to an unusual wing
design.  A panel imposed into each of the trailing wing vortecies,
deflecting them downward, might provide extraordinay extra lift at low
drag.    This would produce a very unusual looking U shaped wing.  Lift
from such an approach would have to be protected by shielding the vortex
from side gusts using a side panel.


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 13:43:45 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03489;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:42:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:42:01 -0700
Message-ID: <00c701bff741$e2111b10$901a010a argis.com>
From: "Craig Haynie" <cchaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530501b5a4f3ebea58 [12.21.211.70]>
Subject: Nitenol
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:41:26 -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: <"vBfSR3.0.Rs.OqqVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36373
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Does anyone know anything about nitenol?

It was around 1980 when I first heard of it. It is a metal which can be
adjusted so that it will 'act' at a specific temperature. When the
temperature is warmer than the set temperature, the metal will be flexible
and easily bendable. When the temperature is below the set temperature, the
metal will immediately become RIGID and straight.

I saw an example of a motor built with this metal. Several metal pieces were
formed around a central hub, like a wheel, and the wheel was inserted into a
container with two chambers. One chamber had warm water. The other chamber
had cold water, and when the wheel was inserted, it started spinning wildly
in the container, throwing the water all over the place.

It was thought that this metal could be used to develop energy plants, in
places where discrepancies in temperature could be found. One idea was to
put an energy plant in the ocean and have wheels which would function due to
differences in water temperature at different depths.

It might have been just an idea which never got off the ground, but does
anyone have any knowledge of what happened to nitenol?

Craig Haynie (Houston)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 14:07:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA13289;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:04:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:04:59 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.25]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:04:22 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F31xc1o8yfogkJXrRjb0000130f hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2000 21:04:23.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[12DFE390:01BFF745]
Resent-Message-ID: <"iK7F1.0.VF3.w9rVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36374
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Nearly complete theories of physics.

"It has to be 1.75" said Einstein.  Books were written, statues were made, 
degrees were handed out.  The world waited.  Great anticipation.
..............Drum Roll.  1.64.  Pause.  Close enough.  All hail Einstien 
anyway.

Bunk on bunk.  Theory on theory.  Till the voodoo hit the fan.

>From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:11:41 +0300
>
>Hi Mitchell,
>
>If you think in a "extended frame of thinking" or do not tie yourself to 
>mostly
>experimentally confirmed and nearly complete theories of physics, all sort 
>of
>conclusions can be obtained. I dont think the "pushing gravity" model can 
>be
>evaluated in the classical frame of thinking that I restrict my reasoning.
>
>For example many physicists think that we live in a geometrically more than
>3 dimensional continuum, and obtain unification of gravity with 
>electromagnetism
>within this theoretical frame. It is discussed in this frame that law of
>conservation of energy does not exist or should be interpreted differently.
>
>Or, many physicists think the fundamental physics constants including light 
>speed
>changing with time. Possibly the generic law of CE is not applicable there 
>and so on.
>
>So I think I am right on within the frame of thinking I specified. :)
>
>
>Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino informing 
>availability
> > >of his new paper.
> > >
> > >It is again demonstrated modification on gravity or variation of 
>inertial
> > >mass / gravitational mass ratio require the conservation of energy law 
>be
> > >violated.
> > >(At least in classical frame of thinking)
> >
> > ***{This is incorrect. It depends on the theory of gravity that you 
>accept.
> > If, for example, we are being pushed toward the Earth by "ultramundane
> > corpuscles" that are raining down on us from deep space, then it would 
>be
> > theoretically possible to harness them with a "water wheel" type of 
>setup,
> > in much the same way that the energy of a waterfall is harnessed to 
>produce
> > electricity. In such cases, there is no conservation law violation, 
>because
> > the incoming particles are transferring their energy to the "water 
>wheel,"
> > rather than creating energy out of nothing. --MJ}***
> >
>
>Actually, CE have importance in local or closed systems, When one deal with 
>the gravity it is hard to define a local or a isolated system. On non-local 
>systems CE make little sense as it is assumed the energy of the universe is 
>infinite.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 14:31:50 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20487;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:22:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:22:42 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Lajoie <lajoie eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Nitenol
In-Reply-To: <00c701bff741$e2111b10$901a010a argis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000726142155.16607A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"e_ojd3.0.105.XQrVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36375
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


see 
http://www.robotstore.com/bin2/hazel.exe?client=81149302&action=serve&item=shape_memory.html

I hope this helps. You can buy it, and they have an engineer book on it. 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Craig Haynie wrote:

> Does anyone know anything about nitenol?
> 
> It was around 1980 when I first heard of it. It is a metal which can be
> adjusted so that it will 'act' at a specific temperature. When the
> temperature is warmer than the set temperature, the metal will be flexible
> and easily bendable. When the temperature is below the set temperature, the
> metal will immediately become RIGID and straight.
> 
> I saw an example of a motor built with this metal. Several metal pieces were
> formed around a central hub, like a wheel, and the wheel was inserted into a
> container with two chambers. One chamber had warm water. The other chamber
> had cold water, and when the wheel was inserted, it started spinning wildly
> in the container, throwing the water all over the place.
> 
> It was thought that this metal could be used to develop energy plants, in
> places where discrepancies in temperature could be found. One idea was to
> put an energy plant in the ocean and have wheels which would function due to
> differences in water temperature at different depths.
> 
> It might have been just an idea which never got off the ground, but does
> anyone have any knowledge of what happened to nitenol?
> 
> Craig Haynie (Houston)
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 14:32:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA23669;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:30:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:30:59 -0700
Message-ID: <397F59C8.3571F663 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:36:08 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Is This Water?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"iUHQl2.0.ln5.JYrVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36376
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

It's a big file, but at the bottom of this image there appears to
be evidence of recent flowing water.  Indeed, the sand looks wet!

See:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0204035.gif

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 15:06:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA01728;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:03:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:03:30 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:00:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Ben Thomas <k4zep yahoo.com>
cc: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Aquino field, shield and effect
In-Reply-To: <20000723031813.29751.qmail web115.yahoomail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000726175533.19544B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"jZMxJ2.0.qQ.n0sVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36377
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

n
	
	Dear Ben,

	I am not building a Fran type device.

	According to his papers, he and everyone else, that is
posting, has missed a key point.

	Background;

	According to the paper :

	The effect depends on this 'slowing of some property of the EM
wave' and this is to be achieved by the use of a ferromagnetic material
surrounding an "emitter".

	This is well and fine and such a "slowing" is not unknown.

	BUT:  The slowing happens ONLY within the confines of the
ferromagnetic material.  As soon as the EM emerges into the air, the
properites speed up again.
	

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 15:14:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05850;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:13:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:13:40 -0700
Message-ID: <397F63CB.6BD1D6B7 bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:18:51 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"N8kkt1.0.FR1.JAsVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36378
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

An alternative to Concorde?

http://www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.html

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 15:22:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08875;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:19:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:19:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000726181924.007a2e00 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:19:24 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
In-Reply-To: <002a01bff73d$21291730$0c6cd626 varisys.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000726152102.007a77b0 pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"0bE_E1.0.bA2.oFsVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36379
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:

>If Mills is not lying about his experimental results, there is no question
>about his having discovered a major new practical energy source.

I do not think he is lying about his experiments! That would be very
surprising. However, he has not been independently replicated yet, and it
is extraordinarily easy for a person to fool himself about this kind of
thing. So as yet we have no real reason to believe any of his chemical
claims. He has been making these claims for years now, and as far as I
know, there have been no independent tests of the chemicals. After a long
while, when results are not replicated and no effort is made to replicate
them, I assume that the researcher has made a mistake which he is unwilling
to admit to himself. I have seen that happen countless times, both in favor
and against O-U energy. The people at Harwell, for example, accidentally
demonstrated the existence of CF. That was not their intention, and they
will never admit they did it. Many Italian researchers are convinced that
electromigration is an effective means of loading a metal hydride, and that
loading, in turn, is critical to achieving the cold fusion effect. I do not
see much evidence for either claim. I do not trust their calorimetry. On
the large scale, with meters of thin wire, it was horribly complicated. On
the microscopic scale it is based on a gigantic, improbable extrapolation
(a tiny heat flux divided by a minute amount of mass). These people are
asking for trouble. Although they are brilliant, hardworking people, I
suspect they may have gone off on a tangent. I predict that no one outside
their group will replicate the results, which will gradually fade away,
along with the Italian taxpayer's money, unfortunately.

I am pretty sure Mills' other claims, for excess energy from
electrochemical systems, are correct because they are similar to many CF
experiments. He must be seeing the same phenomenon observed by McKubre,
Mizuno, Storms and many others, except that Mills uses Ni instead of Pd, Au
or Pt. It seems extremely unlikely to me that Mills has discovered an
unrelated energy producing phenomenon which happens to work in
electrochemical cells. As far as I know, CF is a nuclear reaction that
produces helium in the same proportion as conventional plasma fusion. That
has now been established beyond any doubt. CF transmutes elements and fuses
deuterons (or hydrogen atoms, I guess). It does not shrink hydrogen atoms
below the ground state. Whether that can or cannot happen is something I am
not qualified to judge, but I am sure it does not need to happen in this
case. Nuclear reactions do occur and they account for all of the observed
energy.


>His recent plasma experiments are very significant and he has been
>very open in discussing the work.

Openly "discussing" things is not enough. We must see independent
measurements of energy in other labs. The Italians are more open than
Mills, but they are probably mistaken. Others who have looked for heat and
high loading in electromigration have not found it, as far as I know. The
Japanese NHE program was open in some ways, but it was a misguided waste of
money. They thought they were doing things correctly, but when they allowed
a closer examination during the last year of the project by independent
experts, it turned out they were making fundamental mistakes. There are
only two ways to establish credibility:

1. The academic model. An open, peer-reviewed scientific research project,
where other scientists are encouraged to come into the lab and replications
are assisted. That's what Bockris and Mizuno do.

2. The commercial model. A secret, closed project. You cannot judge this
until prototype samples are sent out to customers. That's what AT&T did
with the transistor, and what Intel does with each generation of
microprocessors. There is nothing unethical with this model, but until the
product ships the default assumption is Failure. Only a few tadpoles grow
into frogs; only a few high-risk commercial R&D projects pan out.

Anything in between those two models, like the NHE program, is probably a
mistake. Anyway, you can never tell.


>The energy source exists based on
>the experimental results and does not require that Mills' GUTCQM be even 
>partially correct.

I do not believe the experimental results. I never believe ANY results that
have not been observed independently by 5 or 10 labs at high S/N ratios.


>I tend to agree with your second criticism. Mills has perhaps spent too
>long trying to find the optimum implementation of the technology when
>a brute force heat source implementation would already have resulted
>in useful products and more resources being devoted to the improvement 
>of the technology.

It is usually a two-step process. The "brute force" or impractical
implementation would probably not result in a "useful product." It would
serve to excite widespread interest, and this, in turn, would soon bring
about refinements, improvements, and finally a practical implementation. As
I have often said, the sample semiconductors that AT&T shipped out in 1951
were not useful products, and they were never intended to be. They were
sent to places like Los Alamos and Texas Instruments. The stated purpose
was to give other scientists and engineers a chance to familiarize
themselves with the devices. AT&T wanted an educated customer base for the
practical products that would emerge a few years later.

There are dozens of EV implementations vying for market share right now.
Most of them do not look "practical" to me. The Toyota and Honda hybrid
cars are subsidized by the companies; they cost $40,000 to make, and they
sell for $20,000. That isn't practical! Nobody in his right mind would buy
a experimental hybrid Toyota for $40,000, and no sane company will go on
selling products at such a huge loss for long.

The healthy competition and this effusion of impractical designs and may
result in rapid progress which may lead to practical EV cars that take away
a large share of the conventional ICE market. You cannot expect an optimum
EV design in the first round. You cannot start off with a practical design.
Almost all new technology starts out impractical and it is almost always
subsidized by either private industry, or government, or both. Ocean going
steam ships circa 1840 were subsidized by the government; railroads were
subsidized at a huge loss by government and stockholders from 1860 to 1870;
aviation was a losing proposition from 1910 to 1935. Computers were
subsidized by the military and NASA until around 1962. The Internet and
e-commerce, at the moment, is subsidized by corporations and stockholders,
who are writing off billions of dollars, in hopes of future profit. In the
first stages of the transcontinental railroad construction in California,
the Union Pacific laid rails heading eastward into a mountain wilderness,
to places where not 20 people a year had any reason to go. They did this
year after year, going deeply into debt, borrowing more money from banks
and steel mills than anyone in history had ever borrowed before. They sold
off big chunks of the company to sustain the effort, and they paid enormous
bribes to Congress to keep the tax subsidies flowing. That would be an
insane thing to do, except that they knew that another line was being built
from the east toward them. Amazon.com sells books below cost; Toyota and
Honda subsidize hybrid cars. That would be a crazy thing to do -- like
building a rail line into the wilderness -- but it makes sense as a
strategy for the early stages of business. Still, it is risky. We cannot be
sure there is a "rail line" (a permanent customer base) heading west to
hook up with Amazon.com! Toyota is betting that in a few years they will
gain experience, increase market share, expand production, and lower the
cost of enough so that customers will want to buy unsubsidized models.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 15:41:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16376;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:40:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:40:59 -0700
Message-ID: <397F62B7.862B689E verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:14:15 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
References: <F31xc1o8yfogkJXrRjb0000130f hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"W5QeT.0.n_3.wZsVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36380
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

David Dennard wrote:
> 
> Nearly complete theories of physics.
> 
> "It has to be 1.75" said Einstein.  Books were written, statues were made,
> degrees were handed out.  The world waited.  Great anticipation.
> ..............Drum Roll.  1.64.  Pause.  Close enough.  All hail Einstien
> anyway.

Did you sketched is the historical star light bending by the sun observation at 1919
at solar eclipse? I do not recall the exact figures. What was the error margin of 
measurements was made? Is the correct density of distribution of the sun are used?

If this was, I think later experiments and observations gave more closer figures to
support theory? Isn't it? Or there are systematic deviations between theoretical and
experimental figures?


> 
> Bunk on bunk.  Theory on theory.  Till the voodoo hit the fan.
>

Sorry, I did not understand it. I hope it is not offensive.


BTW, if one read the paper could tell me the motor run at 0.6 Hz or 36 RPM? If so it is very hard to figure to obtain 160 Kw mechanical power. What a huge tork is calculated?

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 15:47:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18289;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:44:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:44:27 -0700
Message-ID: <397F69BF.4806977B verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:44:15 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Is This Water?
References: <397F59C8.3571F663 bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qg9IB3.0.ZT4.9dsVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36381
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Yes, indeed. The contrast is remarkable. Could be colored?

Regards,

hamdi ucar


Terry Blanton wrote:
> 
> It's a big file, but at the bottom of this image there appears to
> be evidence of recent flowing water.  Indeed, the sand looks wet!
> 
> See:
> 
> http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0204035.gif
> 
> Terry

-- 
- It's a feature, not a bug!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 16:03:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA23290;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:01:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:01:22 -0700
Message-ID: <397F6D96.5A6029AE verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:00:38 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Aquino field, shield and effect
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000726175533.19544B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9Jb8u2.0.Th5._ssVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36382
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
> n
> 
>         Dear Ben,
> 
>         I am not building a Fran type device.
> 
>         According to his papers, he and everyone else, that is
> posting, has missed a key point.
> 
>         Background;
> 
>         According to the paper :
> 
>         The effect depends on this 'slowing of some property of the EM
> wave' and this is to be achieved by the use of a ferromagnetic material
> surrounding an "emitter".
> 
>         This is well and fine and such a "slowing" is not unknown.
> 
>         BUT:  The slowing happens ONLY within the confines of the
> ferromagnetic material.  As soon as the EM emerges into the air, the
> properites speed up again.
> 
 Ok, but there is a difference here. Ferromagnetic material ensure the
 efficiency and reduced wavelengh of the ELF. Once the antenna produce
 the ELF, you may absorb as you wish. The absorbing medium is the
 iron pipe and the wavelength again is reduced I assume. 

In the System-G there is no air gap between the emitter and the absorber.

The main difficulty on the design, antenna do not show low-impedance as mentioned on the paper unless a short circuit trough conductor painting is occured. As I know J.Naudin  fail to drive the antenna.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 16:06:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24224;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:03:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:03:25 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.47]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:02:52 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F98vU4m6fZOhsjiGCw400005404 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2000 23:02:53.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0BC0260:01BFF755]
Resent-Message-ID: <"OQEa91.0.Qw5.yusVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36383
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

My info says 1.75 has never been met.  The error bar has always used as an 
excuse but the exact measurment has never been met.  This is and has been 
"The Great Lie" of physics.

All curved void space theory is based on that.  Einstein said everything 
"hinged" on that.  (Quote Lincoln Barnett)

But now we know, space is flat.  And all evidence points to a fluid 
whirlpool universe.  Whirlpower will explain why NASA just recently reported 
their space probes are not where they are suppposed to be, that there must 
be a tug coming from the Sun they do not understand.  I think most of you 
saw the report.

Whirlpower will give us abundant clean infinite energy, IMHO.

Why sciece does not have the common sense to see that if a whirlpool has 
never been built by man in all recorded history it needs to be done is 
impossible for me to understand

And don't anyone think John built and tested a whirlpool in a scientific 
manner.  He has never shown he has even the slightest understanding of 
Whirlpower.  He has been invited to my list time and time again if he wants 
to actually build a whirlpool and has always refused.  He has tried to 
misrepresent everything I have ever tried to say.  It seems to me if someone 
was serious and really wanted to test Whirlpower they would join my list and 
work with my team.

We have built the first whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded 
history.  They look just like little hurricanes.  The are not tornado type, 
drain type, bathroom flusher type, Schauberger type, Chaos Theory type, 
vorticies.

David


>From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:14:15 +0300
>
>David Dennard wrote:
> >
> > Nearly complete theories of physics.
> >
> > "It has to be 1.75" said Einstein.  Books were written, statues were 
>made,
> > degrees were handed out.  The world waited.  Great anticipation.
> > ..............Drum Roll.  1.64.  Pause.  Close enough.  All hail 
>Einstien
> > anyway.
>
>Did you sketched is the historical star light bending by the sun 
>observation at 1919
>at solar eclipse? I do not recall the exact figures. What was the error 
>margin of
>measurements was made? Is the correct density of distribution of the sun 
>are used?
>
>If this was, I think later experiments and observations gave more closer 
>figures to
>support theory? Isn't it? Or there are systematic deviations between 
>theoretical and
>experimental figures?
>
>
> >
> > Bunk on bunk.  Theory on theory.  Till the voodoo hit the fan.
> >
>
>Sorry, I did not understand it. I hope it is not offensive.
>
>
>BTW, if one read the paper could tell me the motor run at 0.6 Hz or 36 RPM? 
>If so it is very hard to figure to obtain 160 Kw mechanical power. What a 
>huge tork is calculated?
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 16:20:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29507;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:17:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:17:12 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011700b5a514440dfa [207.8.127.222]>
In-Reply-To: <397F497D.8F438DDC ix.netcom.com>
References: <v04011701b59e346ad9b7 [207.8.127.68]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:14:30 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: "Quantum Mechanical Entanglement" vs. Classical Determinism
Resent-Message-ID: <"_w2o32.0.pC7.q5tVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36384
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>
>
>Mitchell, I would like answers to several questions.
>
>1. Do you assert that the Principle of Continuity applies to all things, both
>subatomic particles as well as our macro world?

***{The entire chain of reason-based belief--i.e., knowledge--begins with
the statement: "I am a thing that exists." The existence of other things is
defined in terms of that base--to wit: any thing capable of affecting a
thing that exists, exists. And the principle of continuity applies to all
of the existents so defined: "No thing may come into existence out of
nothing or vanish into nothing." --MJ}***

If you answer yes, I'm afraid we
>will never agree because we do not share a basic understanding of reality.

***{If we were in agreement, there would be nothing for us to be arguing
about. The purpose of arguing is to test one's ideas--which means: to
gather information which one can use to improve one's understanding. It is,
however, a voluntary process: each person participating in an argument
decides on a moment-by-moment basis whether to continue, or to go off by
himself and think about the information he has obtained, or to turn to
something else. If you have reached that point, therefore, no explanation
is necessary. --MJ}***

  As I
>have noted before, I'm willing to agree that the Principle of Continuity
>appears
>to operate in a selected part of our world, but not in all parts.

***{My proof applies to all things that exist, as defined above. --MJ}***

>
>2. When you say, "particles jump from nothing" what do you mean by "nothing?

***{Entities can change their forms, as follows:

(1) Former entities can disappear because they merged together with other
entities and/or because they divided into separate parts.

(2) New entities can appear as a result of mergers with and/or separations
from other entities.

What the principle of continuity denies is that new entities can appear or
disappear in any manner other than (1) or (2), above. Thus to appear "out
of nothing" or to disappear "into nothing" merely means to appear or
disappear in a manner not based on a rearrangement of pre-existing parts.

--Mitchell Jones}***

If
>you mean that particles jump from a part of reality we do not yet
>understand, the
>Principle of Continuity simply becomes a restatement of this definition
>and, as
>such, is not a unique idea.  On the other hand, if you believe the
>particles jump
>from a condition described by only imagination rather than by physical
>observation, again we will never reach agreement because I do not trust the
>imagination, neither yours nor mine.

***{My meaning is not complicated. Entities appear and disappear only by
the rearrangement of pre-existing parts. Thus the principle of continuity
simply places limits on the forms that visualizable mental models can take,
if they are to have any hope of corresponding with reality. That's all
there is to it. --MJ}***

>
>Your efforts to prove the Principle of Continuity by your method rests on
>answers
>to these questions.  As you can see, your method proves nothing to me
>because my
>answers are in direct conflict with your conclusion.  You might well
>conclude that
>I'm irrational. Nevertheless or because of, I do not see us making any more
>progress.  I think by now we both understand each other's viewpoint and I'm
>grateful for the chance to discuss the subject in great detail.  Unless
>you can
>think of a new approach, I suggest we call it quits until another subject
>comes
>up.

***{As noted above, arguing is a voluntary process, and if you are ready to
do something else, it is entirely your call. As always, I appreciate your
input, and the gentlemanly manner in which you conducted yourself. --MJ}***

>
>Regards,
>Ed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 16:37:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA03398;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:36:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:36:02 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:35:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200007262335.TAA21611 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: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Resent-Message-ID: <"sDm2v2.0.0r.YNtVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36385
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed writes:
>I doubt the present models can be upgraded for anything as radical as
>electricity from Mills superchemistry. The machine would have to be
>re-engineered from scratch. But I think there is little chance Mills has
>what he claims, and even less chance that he will ever get around to
>selling it even if it does exist.
>
>- Jed

I thought that Mills had discovered a process for making the materials for a
superbattery.  I suppose that I am thinking of a battery in the packaging or
form that we see them today, but I guess that doesn't have to be the case.
In any event, any improvements in battery technology that fits the present
packaging conventions will make all EV's that are bought today, upgradeable
in the future.  The motors should last for decades with periodic greasing of
the bearings as the only maintenance that is necessary.  The cost benefits
of that alone, are pretty compelling if you have looked at a car repair
bill, lately.

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 Jul 26 16:49:54 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29267;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.63]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Aquino field, shield and effect
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:47:41 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F137yLzONLrxRvNl8Mo00001e18 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2000 23:47:41.0634 (UTC) FILETIME=[E33F8A20:01BFF75B]
Resent-Message-ID: <"iVoOq3.0.C97._YtVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36386
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Anytime density is displaced, be it by heat, electromagnetic field, or in 
the frame dragging wobble effect of Whirlpower, gravity will do everything 
it is power to move that displaced density space to its density threshold or 
shut it down.  Lightning is the perfect example.    This is the bubble 
action that showed energy in cold fusion tests.  This is what causes 
evaportion.  This is what causes the speed of light in a flat fluid 
universe.

It's the fizz in the physics"

Bubble Up!!

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc

"the hardest working man in Dreamland"


>From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Aquino field, shield and effect
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:00:38 +0300
>
>John Schnurer wrote:
> >
> > n
> >
> >         Dear Ben,
> >
> >         I am not building a Fran type device.
> >
> >         According to his papers, he and everyone else, that is
> > posting, has missed a key point.
> >
> >         Background;
> >
> >         According to the paper :
> >
> >         The effect depends on this 'slowing of some property of the EM
> > wave' and this is to be achieved by the use of a ferromagnetic material
> > surrounding an "emitter".
> >
> >         This is well and fine and such a "slowing" is not unknown.
> >
> >         BUT:  The slowing happens ONLY within the confines of the
> > ferromagnetic material.  As soon as the EM emerges into the air, the
> > properites speed up again.
> >
>  Ok, but there is a difference here. Ferromagnetic material ensure the
>  efficiency and reduced wavelengh of the ELF. Once the antenna produce
>  the ELF, you may absorb as you wish. The absorbing medium is the
>  iron pipe and the wavelength again is reduced I assume.
>
>In the System-G there is no air gap between the emitter and the absorber.
>
>The main difficulty on the design, antenna do not show low-impedance as 
>mentioned on the paper unless a short circuit trough conductor painting is 
>occured. As I know J.Naudin  fail to drive the antenna.
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 16:50:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29458;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a5281d4d43 [12.21.209.17]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:51:26 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Is This Water?
Resent-Message-ID: <"hs64M.0.9C7.rZtVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36387
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:36 PM 7/26/0, Terry Blanton wrote:
>It's a big file, but at the bottom of this image there appears to
>be evidence of recent flowing water.  Indeed, the sand looks wet!
>
>See:
>
>http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0204035.gif
>
>Terry


Looks like the light colored high elevation places are glaciers.  The
overall galacial shapes are a bit strange, but the areas of tiny ridges
look like characteristic water erosion ridges, possibly due to being in
locations exposed to early or bright sun there.

Also, there are radial dark markings around what looks like a very new
rough sided crater near the bottom of the photo.  That "crater" may be
caused by subsurface melting.  Similar characteristics are shown in this
photo of the Tasman Glacier:

  <http://tvl1.geo.uc.edu/ice/Image/icpro/643-17.html>


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 17:20:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05375;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <397F7F7D.A37BED4D verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:17:01 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
References: <397F63CB.6BD1D6B7 bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zlogz3.0.kJ1.20uVv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36388
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


I wonder why the author of article realized the submarine travels few km's down. As the pressure increase, is it more difficult to obtain cavitation? Am I wrong?

hamdi ucar

Terry Blanton wrote:
> 
> An alternative to Concorde?
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.html
> 
> Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 18:37:54 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10211;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:36:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:36:37 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:36:28 -0400
Message-Id: <200007270136.VAA08293 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: Another chemical fuel tragedy
Resent-Message-ID: <"_cpKX3.0.TV2.b8vVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36389
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed writes:
>Chemical fuel causes most pollution and many horrifying accidents on
>highways, in the air, and with things like gas line explosions in
>buildings. I hope that a generation from now people will look back at these
>machines and wonder how we put up with them.
>
>- Jed

Below is what Mokhiber and Weissman think about the subject.  Plane
manufacturers should probably be included in the list of criminals.  Al Gore
recently made the statement that he wanted to see the internal combustion
engine phased out completely in the *next 20 years*.  Now that's what I call
real ambition.  Coming from someone who owns so much stock in Occidental
Petroleum, it will be difficult, if not impossible for our anyone in our
country to succeed with any alternative energy vehicle or heating plan if Al
Gore is elected as President.  He and Clinton have already shown their true
colors with regards to oil in Columbia, Indonesia, and Iraq.  George W. Bush
is, for all practical purposes, an oil and weapons company's dream come true
as well.

I think that it may take the united efforts of many countries working
through the UN to make any real changes in US energy policy.

*******************
Taken for a Ride
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

The automobile companies are criminal outlaws.
 
That's one conclusion you can easily come to after reading Jack Doyle's
new book -- Taken for a Ride: Detroit's Big Three and the Politics of
Pollution (Four Walls Eight Windows Press, 2000).
 
Given the spectacular advances in clean automobile technology over the
century, there is just no reason -- other than pure criminality -- why
we have been forced to live and die today with gas-guzzling, polluting
automobiles.
 
In the late 1960s, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles had the same take
and opened a grand jury investigation into the automobile industry for
conspiring to defeat clean automobile technology.
 
Rising out of the smog capital of the world, Justice Department
attorneys wanted to indict the auto companies and their executives, for
conspiring to ensure that the internal combustion engine would reign
supreme over cleaner air devices -- and that thousands of Americans
would be poisoned as a result.
 
The auto industry knew that the case would be won in Washington, D.C.,
not Los Angeles, and hired Lloyd Cutler, who then was an aspiring
corporate fix-it man.
 
With Cutler's help, the grand jurors were dismissed, replaced by a
spineless civil consent decree that had little impact -- as you can
clearly see -- on our pollution and global warming woes.
 
Clean air advocates, including Los Angeles City Attorney Kenneth Hahn,
protested, to no avail.
 
"The presidents of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler should be brought
to trial right here in Los Angeles," Hahn wrote in 1968. "The big
manufacturers all conspired. If one wouldn't put the devices on, the
others wouldn't either. This case is the most important legal battle in
the history of the air pollution fight."
 
The foreman of the grand jury, Martin Walsbren, was quite angry over
the Justice Department's sell-out to Cutler's gang. He told the Los
Angeles Times that there was much more to the case than the consent
decree suggested, but there wasn't much he could say "unless I wish to
risk going to jail."
 
Then California Congressman Phil Burton got a hold of the original
Justice Department criminal memo in the case. The memo shows an
auto industry conspiring to defeat pollution control equipment even
while lying to public officials about how they were going all out to
develop those technologies.
 
This wasn't the industry's first run-in with criminal prosecutors. In the
late 1940s, General Motors and a number of oil, chemical and tire
companies were convicted for going around to the major cities and
replacing clean, efficient inner city electric trolley systems with
polluting diesel buses.
 
This was perhaps the most egregious corporate crime in history.
General Motors and the other convicted companies were fined $5,000. The
executives were fined $1 each.
 
There have been attempts to outlaw the internal combustion engine -- again
to no avail, showing once again how corporate criminals have the ability
to define the laws under which they live.
 
Take the case of Nicholas Petris. Petris was a California state
Senator. In 1969, Petris introduced legislation, SB 778, a
bill that would prohibit the sale of all diesel- and gasoline-powered
internal combustion engines in California by January 1, 1975.
 
The auto industry thought Petris' bill was a joke. They all laughed at
it. But the laughter stopped in July 1969, when the California Senate
approved Petris' bill by a vote of 26-5 and sent it to the California
Assembly.
 
"People are demanding that we move rapidly to reverse this trend of
polluting our air and water in the whole environment," said Petris upon
passage of the bill.
 
The auto industry straightened up and got serious. With future
President and then California Governor Ronald Reagan threatening a veto,
the industry laid down the law, and the bill died in the California
assembly.
 
Even before Nick Petris launched his attempt to ban the internal
combustion engine, there was one Congressional attempt that came at the
issue by way of public health.
 
In 1957, Paul Schenck, R-Ohio, introduced a bill that would prohibit
the sale of vehicles discharging hydrocarbons in levels found dangerous
by the Surgeon General.
 
"Here is a Republican from the Midwest introducing a bill that calls
the Surgeon General to play a public health role," Doyle told us
recently. "If this technology was found to be a threat to public health,
then the Surgeon General would be empowered to prohibit the sale of the
internal combustion engine."
 
The bill never made it through Congress in that form. Still, it was a
powerful statement at the time about the growing national concern over
auto pollution. In 1959, President Eisenhower signed a modified Schenck
Act. That law directed the Surgeon General to study the relationship
between auto pollution and public health.
 
California law now requires that 10 percent of a car company's fleet be
zero emission vehicles by 2003. The inside betting is that, instead of
meeting the challenge, the auto industry will work its will in Sacramento
and defeat that 2003 standard.
 
There are some, like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who
believe that the automobile industry can be persuaded to mass produce a
hyper car that can make it across our country on one tank of gas. Lovins
was in Washington, D.C. recently, the guest of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, invited to make his pitch.
 
But in his book, Doyle argues that for 50 years the companies have had
the business opportunity to produce a clean car and they've blown it.
 
"The automakers' own internal cost accounting, recall record and
warranty repairs will show that they squandered billions while trying to
convince Congress that clean air and better fuel economy were too
expensive," Doyle says.
 
Perhaps Lovins can persuade the stick in the mud auto executives to
change their ways. But even Bill Ford, who has espoused an environmental
vision for his family's auto company, was seen recently in Washington,
D.C. lobbying against repeal of the loophole in fuel economy standards
that lets Ford make millions on his Explorer, a beast of a sports
utility vehicle with single digit gas mileage.
 
What Doyle's book makes clear is that when it comes to Detroit, the
carrot just doesn't work. Isn't it time to try a little stick?


Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor. Mokhiber and Weissman are co-authors of Corporate
Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe,
Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999, http://www.corporatepredators.org)

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman



_______________________________________________

Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or 
repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on 
a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us 
(russell essential.org or rob@essential.org).

Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve 
corp-focus lists.essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail 
message to corp-focus-request lists.essential.org with the text: subscribe

Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
<http://www.corporatepredators.org>.

Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to 
comment on the columns, send a message to russell essential.org or 
rob essential.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  Wed Jul 26 18:41:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA12329;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:39:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:39:52 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000726213931.007b19b0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:39:31 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
In-Reply-To: <200007262335.TAA21611 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XlEuM1.0.Z03.eBvVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36390
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael T Huffman wrote:

>I thought that Mills had discovered a process for making the materials for a
>superbattery.  I suppose that I am thinking of a battery in the packaging or
>form that we see them today . . .

Oh, in that case I stand corrected. If he can package something with
compatible outputs, I suppose it could be subsituted, at least in some
applications. I suppose there are a great variety of batteries on the
market now, with different chemistry but similar outputs.

I still don't believe the product will materialize, but I'll be as pleased
as anyone if it does.

The Lafree bicycle engineers are looking into replacements for their
lead-acid batteries, such as Li based batteries. They told me the Li
batteries store maybe 30% more energy and they are lighter, but they cost
five times more! That would be about $600 retail. I told them I did not
think it was worth it. An optional battery with 3 times greater range which
recharged faster might be worth $600 to some customers. The lead-acid
battery takes 4 to 5 hours to recharge.


>In any event, any improvements in battery technology that fits the present
>packaging conventions will make all EV's that are bought today, upgradeable
>in the future.

I think it would be harder to satisfy automobile and truck EV
compatibility. They have to design the recharging circuits, cooling, and
the battery space and the battery holders carefully, to avoid accidents,
imballanced loads or batteries moving around.

As I said before, the EV industry has a lot to teach people who want to
implement CF someday. The problems and promise of EVs are similar to those
of CF.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 18:45:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA14234;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:43:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:43:17 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000727093641.00a0a850 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:36:41 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
In-Reply-To: <397F1A7B.6813671D verisoft.com.tr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PFwS42.0.GU3.qEvVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36391
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi wrote:
>I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino ...

Hey Hamdi, what makes you think this guy (girl?) is a professor?

He cannot possibly be a professor because he hasn't a single
publication to his name (I did a search of the Inspec database).
There is no way that one can gain the office of professor without
publishing something - in fact it is rather difficult even to gain
a PhD (ie Dr.) without publishing anything (in the scientific
literature I mean - not on the web or in the newspaper).

In fact what makes you think his "work" is anything more than
a big joke being played on free energy enthusiasts ?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 18:54:24 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA18935;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:51:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:51:42 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:51:34 -0400
Message-Id: <200007270151.VAA15032 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: Another chemical fuel tragedy
Resent-Message-ID: <"jVGC53.0.jd4.kMvVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36392
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

Here is another bright idea from yet another insane industry that we can't
seem to get to do anything right.  Read down to the part about putting this
stuff in airplanes, and ask yourself, "What happens to the plastic when the
plane catches fire?"  The answer of course is that it melts or burns like
everything else, leaving the area not only littered with charred bodies, but
also a fantastic income opportunity for Superfund Site contractors.  This is
probably the stupidist thing I've seen come down the pike in years.

                    PATENTED PROCESS PACKS DEPLETED URANIUM IN
                    PLASTIC

                    UPTON, New York, July 19, 2000 (ENS) - Scientists at the
U.S.
                    Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory
                    have been awarded a patent for a process that encapsulates
                    depleted uranium oxides in thermoplastic polymers. The
process
                    converts depleted uranium to a form the researchers say
is stable
                    and safe for long term disposal or reuse. The encapsulated
                    uranium could be used in the production of radiation
shielding
                    and counter weights for airplanes, helicopters and
ships, the
                    scientists said. Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product of
                    enriching uranium ore to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Storing
                    DU requires labor intensive and expensive maintenance. The
                    Brookhaven Lab process converts uranium oxide powder from a
                    reactive form through chemical processing, and combines
it with a
                    thermoplastic binder. The final product can be formed
into shapes
                    and is cooled to form a dense solid. 

                    BNL's patented process for encapsulation requires
simultaneous
                    heating and mixing of depleted uranium powders and
                    non-biodegradable thermoplastic polymers such as
polyethylene
                    or polypropylene. Virgin or recycled polymers can be
used. The
                    result is a mixture of depleted uranium and molten
thermoplastic
                    polymer, which can be molded into any shape. The final
form emits
                    very low levels of radioactivity, and the dense material
would
                    make good shielding against gamma or neutron radiation, the
                    scientists said. "By creating safe, secondary end use
products from
                    these materials, we are addressing health and safety,
                    environmental protection, and waste reduction issues,"
said Paul
                    Kalb, senior research engineer Brookhaven's Environmental
                    Research and Technology Division. 

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 Jul 26 19:25:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA29895;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:19:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:19:58 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:19:53 -0400
Message-Id: <200007270219.WAA26851 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: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Resent-Message-ID: <"TZFjm1.0.1J7.EnvVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36393
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>An alternative to Concorde?
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.html
>
>Terry

Well, you can see where all the funding for cavitation has gone.  It is
pretty amazing, but what about us?

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 Jul 26 19:35:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA02254;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:32:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:32:20 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000726223156.007bd4e0 pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:31:56 -0400
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Subject: Re: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
In-Reply-To: <200007270219.WAA26851 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WoZzN.0.4Z.qyvVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36394
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael T Huffman wrote:

>>An alternative to Concorde?
>>
>>http://www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.html
>>
>>Terry

This is an article about a potential supersonic submarine. The technology
might be possible (I can't judge), but the idea is insane. It would destroy
the ocean ecology! It would kill millions of fish, tons of plantlife, and
ram through whales and sharks. It is bad enough that aircraft destroy birds
and other species close to the ground, and ships dropping anchor are
destroying coral reefs.

I find it appalling that this problem is not mentioned in the article,
especially in the New Scientist. If it was Mechanics Illustrated I would
expect them to overlook that problem . . . The surface layers of the ocean
are teaming with life which is vital our survival. The oceans, bays and
gulf of Mexico are already suffering terrible damage from human activity.
It is incredible that anyone would seriously consider running a huge, hot
body through the water at high speed.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 20:03:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10493;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:02:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:02:07 -0700
Message-ID: <397FA618.9CF7291E verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:01:44 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
References: <3.0.6.32.20000727093641.00a0a850 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3v1Vn.0.tZ2.lOwVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36395
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



John Winterflood wrote:
> 
> Hamdi wrote:
> >I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino ...
> 
> Hey Hamdi, what makes you think this guy (girl?) is a professor?
> 
Maybe my memory deceived me. Last year when I encountered his paper on lanl archive I had referenced him as "Dr." initially on antigrav egroups.com list.

So, I dont recall why I changed to "Prof.". May there were a reference for doing so. Anyway referencing a Dr. as Prof. is not bad than the contrary.

Historically, it was me who introduced De Aquino works to our forums. I noticed his paper on daily scanning of lanl archive. There is no plot here.

Below is the search result of De Aquino papers on LANL archive. If you take a look to these papers you will have impression that he is serious researcher. There is no reason to think alternate unless an expert say it was bogus or contain full of errors.


gr-qc/0007069 [abs, pdf] :

     Title: How to Extract Energy Directly from a Gravitational Field
     Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
     Comments: 4 pages(1 figure), PDF.Optional e-mail address for comments:
     deaquino elo.com.br

gr-qc/0005107 [abs, pdf] :

     Title: Possibility of Control of the Gravitational Mass by means of 
     Extra-Low Frequencies Radiation
     Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
     Comments: 6 pages(2 figures,1 table), PDF

gr-qc/9910036 [abs, ps] :

     Title: Gravitation and Electromagnetism ; Correlation and Grand Unification
     Authors: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
     Comments: Added Appendix B. Optional e-mail address for comments: deaquino elo.com.br

gr-qc/9905050 [abs, src, ps, other] :

     Title: Gravitation, Electromagnetism and Superparticles in the Initial Universe
     Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
     Comments: 7 pages, E-mail : deaquino elo.com.br

physics/9905003 [abs, src, ps, other] :

     Title: The Correlation Between Gravitation and Electromagnetism, Inertia
     and Unification
     Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
     Comments: 9 pages, E-mail : deaquino elo.com.br
     Subj-class: General Physics

physics/9904018 [abs, src, ps, other] :

     Title: The Gravitational Spacecraft
     Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
     Comments: 15 pages, 1 figure
     Subj-class: General Physics
     Journal-ref: Electric Spacecraft Journal 27,(1998) 6-13



> He cannot possibly be a professor because he hasn't a single
> publication to his name (I did a search of the Inspec database).
> There is no way that one can gain the office of professor without
> publishing something - in fact it is rather difficult even to gain
> a PhD (ie Dr.) without publishing anything (in the scientific
> literature I mean - not on the web or in the newspaper).
> 
> In fact what makes you think his "work" is anything more than
> a big joke being played on free energy enthusiasts ?

May the Scott's undelivered mail caused by an unfortunate error at Brasil network because the mail that I received yesterday from him have the same address with the abstact of that paper. Such as network errors occurs frequently in "developing countries" 
like I reside. :)

It may worth to retry.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 20:54:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26908;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:53:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:53:34 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.56]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:53:00 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F5kK5LqN33HFnwpGR8800001ce4 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2000 03:53:00.0562 (UTC) FILETIME=[2869B720:01BFF77E]
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cd2Q63.0.Ha6.z8xVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36396
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I think he is real.  I've talked to him off board.

But a degree does not make anyone more or less credible.  That's what is 
wrong with science.  It all about big shots, and scientists with fragile 
egos trying to say my degree is better than your's is.

Proof of flat space disposes of almost everything we know of as science.  It 
was all based on Einstein's curved void concept.  Never proven.  Now it and 
everything based on it is bunk, plain and simple.  the sooner you figure 
that out the faster you will be able to remove the veil of illusion from 
your mind and see why all the flat space teams from Princeton to Berkeley 
are saying we are returning to the cosmological constant.

Einstein did his most brilliant work as a poor nodody dropout.  Once he 
became a big shot he was hypnotized and brainwashed of all common sense.  If 
you don't think it happens you are living in a very sheltered existance or 
you were hypnotized and never even knew it.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes!!!

They had all been hypnotized.

David


>From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:01:44 +0300
>
>
>
>John Winterflood wrote:
> >
> > Hamdi wrote:
> > >I am forwarding the letter of Prof. Fran De Aquino ...
> >
> > Hey Hamdi, what makes you think this guy (girl?) is a professor?
> >
>Maybe my memory deceived me. Last year when I encountered his paper on lanl 
>archive I had referenced him as "Dr." initially on antigrav egroups.com 
>list.
>
>So, I dont recall why I changed to "Prof.". May there were a reference for 
>doing so. Anyway referencing a Dr. as Prof. is not bad than the contrary.
>
>Historically, it was me who introduced De Aquino works to our forums. I 
>noticed his paper on daily scanning of lanl archive. There is no plot here.
>
>Below is the search result of De Aquino papers on LANL archive. If you take 
>a look to these papers you will have impression that he is serious 
>researcher. There is no reason to think alternate unless an expert say it 
>was bogus or contain full of errors.
>
>
>gr-qc/0007069 [abs, pdf] :
>
>      Title: How to Extract Energy Directly from a Gravitational Field
>      Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
>      Comments: 4 pages(1 figure), PDF.Optional e-mail address for 
>comments:
>      deaquino elo.com.br
>
>gr-qc/0005107 [abs, pdf] :
>
>      Title: Possibility of Control of the Gravitational Mass by means of
>      Extra-Low Frequencies Radiation
>      Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
>      Comments: 6 pages(2 figures,1 table), PDF
>
>gr-qc/9910036 [abs, ps] :
>
>      Title: Gravitation and Electromagnetism ; Correlation and Grand 
>Unification
>      Authors: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
>      Comments: Added Appendix B. Optional e-mail address for comments: 
>deaquino elo.com.br
>
>gr-qc/9905050 [abs, src, ps, other] :
>
>      Title: Gravitation, Electromagnetism and Superparticles in the 
>Initial Universe
>      Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
>      Comments: 7 pages, E-mail : deaquino elo.com.br
>
>physics/9905003 [abs, src, ps, other] :
>
>      Title: The Correlation Between Gravitation and Electromagnetism, 
>Inertia
>      and Unification
>      Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
>      Comments: 9 pages, E-mail : deaquino elo.com.br
>      Subj-class: General Physics
>
>physics/9904018 [abs, src, ps, other] :
>
>      Title: The Gravitational Spacecraft
>      Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)
>      Comments: 15 pages, 1 figure
>      Subj-class: General Physics
>      Journal-ref: Electric Spacecraft Journal 27,(1998) 6-13
>
>
>
> > He cannot possibly be a professor because he hasn't a single
> > publication to his name (I did a search of the Inspec database).
> > There is no way that one can gain the office of professor without
> > publishing something - in fact it is rather difficult even to gain
> > a PhD (ie Dr.) without publishing anything (in the scientific
> > literature I mean - not on the web or in the newspaper).
> >
> > In fact what makes you think his "work" is anything more than
> > a big joke being played on free energy enthusiasts ?
>
>May the Scott's undelivered mail caused by an unfortunate error at Brasil 
>network because the mail that I received yesterday from him have the same 
>address with the abstact of that paper. Such as network errors occurs 
>frequently in "developing countries" like I reside. :)
>
>It may worth to retry.
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 21:11:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA02509;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:11:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:11:03 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:10:57 -0400
Message-Id: <200007270410.AAA03191 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: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Resent-Message-ID: <"19vCb2.0.7d.NPxVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36397
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>
>I wonder why the author of article realized the submarine travels few km's
down. As the pressure increase, is it more difficult to obtain cavitation?
Am I wrong?
>
>hamdi ucar

Well, it started off as a means of shooting torpedoes, which are generally
shot at floating craft so depth would not be a problem.  The bullet idea
isn't bad either, for clearing mines, and evidently that can even be done
from the air.  The idea of a submarine came along, and the vision of using
it for commercial travel was mentioned, but that really isn't in the cards
until they can steer the crazy thing.  The idea of a whale coming by or
anything else of any size for that matter would tend to rule out any serious
consideration of actually using it as a submarine at all, at least until the
oceans have been cleared of all wildlife of any size.  They are working on
that too, I think.  This is the US Navy we are talking about, after all.

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 Jul 26 21:38:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA10014;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:37:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:37:10 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:37:00 -0400
Message-Id: <200007270437.AAA11128 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: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Resent-Message-ID: <"squVl2.0.HS2.snxVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36398
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:

  They are working on
>that too, I think.  This is the US Navy we are talking about, after all.

I also forgot to mention, the Navy doesn't fool around with rolling up
depleted Uranium into little plastic boogers, either.  They just dump it raw
onto Puerto Rico when they do target practice.  Now the Airforce on the
other hand, shoots it at Iraqi citizens in return for oil, and then we just
give away quite a lot of it to other countries that we like, so that they
can shoot it at insurgents who don't like us drilling for oil on their land.

Basically, the world is being run by inbred, hillbilly madmen.

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 Jul 26 22:13:05 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA22760;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:11:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:11:59 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000727130524.00a0c310 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:05:24 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
In-Reply-To: <397FA618.9CF7291E verisoft.com.tr>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000727093641.00a0a850 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z6Wpg3.0.YZ5.TIyVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36399
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi wrote:
>Below is the search result of De Aquino papers on LANL archive.
>If you take a look to these papers you will have impression
>that he is serious researcher.

It would initially appear that way - until you find that he
has not a single paper published in a real (referreed) journal.
I could find no references to "Electric Spacecraft Journal"
at any libraries around here and it is not indexed by Inspec
(which as far as I know indexes all science and engineering
periodicals of any standing).

Publishing on the web (ie via LANL archive) counts for nothing.
In fact unreferreed publishing counts for almost nothing - the
reason being that often only a peer working in the same field
is in a position to be able to criticise or find errors in a
highly technical paper.  Other people would just have to skip
over but be impressed with the maths and jargon and assume
that the guy writing the paper knows a lot more than they do.

My opinion is, since he is not keeping his stuff secret, and
not publishing in refereed journals, he is not a "serious
researcher".  Maybe he is a hobbyist/enthusiast/whatever, but
he is not a Dr/Prof researcher associated with the academic
world - their productivity/worth is generally measured by their
peer reviewed publications - and he has none in the area of
science & engineering.

>There is no reason to think alternate unless an expert say it
>was bogus or contain full of errors.

I don't think you need to be an expert to say his work is
bogus.  He basically has an open circuit inductor (using
iron filings instead of the usual laminated core and paint
instead of the usual enamel) and says that he gets hundreds
of amps to flow through it with only a few tens of volts
to push it!

What do you reckon the chances that a transformer with a
broken winding will still conduct hundreds of amps ?
Zero I reckon!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Jul 26 23:26:30 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA10372;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:25:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:25:17 -0700
Message-ID: <397FD5BF.B89776F9 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:25:03 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freenrg <freenrg-l eskimo.com>, vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Time is changing?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UtGCy2.0.-X2.CNzVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36400
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Title of news at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,37691,00.html

"Heat Is On for Free Energy
   LAS VEGAS -- The highest ranking U.S. federal government official
   responsible for renewable energy believes that renewable
   technologies have a brilliant future."

Full article is located at

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jul2000/2000L-07-25-03.html

Dan Reicher's Renewable Energy Forecast

..
Reicher's long term vision is that people would pay no energy bill at
all. "We have a vision that we could be looking at cost effective, zero
net energy buildings in this country, that link renewable technologies
- whether they're solar, ground source heat pumps or biomass based
or geothermal - to high efficiency building technologies. We could
essentially net out at the end of the year for people having no
energy bill." 

"We're some distance away from that, but we think this is an
important vision to strive for," he said.
..

I wonder if he will be happy if somebody introduce him an inexpensive box
delivering all his energy needs, anywhere. A different vision?

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 00:05:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA17239;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:04:53 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:04:53 -0700
Message-ID: <397FDEAF.2B9ED9EA verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:03:11 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
References: <3.0.6.32.20000727093641.00a0a850 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.20000727130524.00a0c310@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HYYVM3.0.FD4.IyzVv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36401
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



John Winterflood wrote:
> 
> 
> >There is no reason to think alternate unless an expert say it
> >was bogus or contain full of errors.
> 
> I don't think you need to be an expert to say his work is
> bogus.  He basically has an open circuit inductor (using
> iron filings instead of the usual laminated core and paint
> instead of the usual enamel) and says that he gets hundreds
> of amps to flow through it with only a few tens of volts
> to push it!
> 
> What do you reckon the chances that a transformer with a
> broken winding will still conduct hundreds of amps ?
> Zero I reckon!

Yes, this was my point also, I did not believed the circuit was left open. 
I wrote to J. Naudin who try to replicate it. But He said that De Aquino
confirmed the circuit is an open dipole. Result was eventually a failure. 
>From my letter dated April, 2000 to J. Naudin:

"Maybe more incredible than the weight loss, is the low impedance of the dipole
antenna is to me. It appears that Aquino passed 300 A with 37V means 0.1 Ohm. 
What is your current measured impedance at 50 Hz? anything low than 100K will
surprise me."

But there are many weird things occurring in electronics circuits in reality.
For example I once obtained 150 MHz strong harmonics on single transistor 
oscillator running with TIP3055 (ft < 3 MHz). Maybe In some circumstances
De Aquino circuit was worked. This may be a (Murphy) rule: 

  = A circuit may find a way to consume all the power available. =

:)

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 01:25:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA30601;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:25:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:25:18 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000727161837.00a0c530 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:18:37 +0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
In-Reply-To: <397FDEAF.2B9ED9EA verisoft.com.tr>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000727093641.00a0a850 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
 <3.0.6.32.20000727130524.00a0c310 cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hQ1tz1.0.zT7.i7_Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36402
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hamdi wrote:
>Yes, this was my point also, I did not believed the circuit was left open. 
>I wrote to J. Naudin who try to replicate it. But He said that De Aquino
>confirmed the circuit is an open dipole. Result was eventually a failure. 
>>From my letter dated April, 2000 to J. Naudin:
>
>"Maybe more incredible than the weight loss, is the low impedance of
>the dipole antenna is to me. It appears that Aquino passed 300 A with
>37V means 0.1 Ohm. What is your current measured impedance at 50 Hz?
>anything low than 100K will surprise me."

There were many other obvious errors also, some of which I pointed
out.  For instance with 300A flowing, the temperature is bound to
rise.  If it rises say 30 degrees then the resistance increases
10%.  If the voltage stays the same (from his ridiculous mains
transformer) then the current will drop 10%.  So how can he
measure current to 5 significant figures (300.01A was it) while
it is drifting from 300 to 270 amps ?

Once you start to notice the errors it becomes plain that the
whole thing is bogus.  At that point it is best not to waste
any more time and excitement on it - since that is what gives
hoaxers their fun.  If you ignore them they soon give up.

I remember reading about a joker who spent thousands of dollars
to airlift a heap of old car tyres to a spent volcano crater and
lit them.  Unfortunately not a single person noticed the smoke!
The joke ended up being on him.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 01:37:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA00365;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:37:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:37:06 -0700
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:37:05 PST7BST 
Message-ID: <yam8243.292.17489952 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: 50Hz to 60Hz Pwr Cnvrtr?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"9xQ-B1.0.U5.iI_Vv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36403
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi, Gang, 

  I'm looking for a place to get started looking for something
that'll do <250 VA that'll power my system in Jakarta and 50 Hz
joints (locations) like that?

TIA,
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
http://www.futurehealth.org/roshi.htm
http://www.post-trauma.com/roshi.html
http://www.neurofeedback-dribric.com/
http://www.austin-biofeedback.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 03:00:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA14062;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:59:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:59:20 -0700
Message-ID: <002401bff7b9$65d91840$7e8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <IronEagle@ainop.com>
Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity Force
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:56:52 -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: <"VSw2I2.0.ZR3.tV0Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36404
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

 The Electrostatic Force between two electrons at 1.0 meter separation:

Fes = kq^2 = 2.304E-28 (newtons)

Fg = 6.67E-11*(9.1E-31)^2  = 5.523E-71 (newtons)

Relativistic time dilation  or gamma = (2.304E-28/5.523E-71)^1/2 = 2.04E21

Frequency = c/2(pi)r =  3.0E8/1.76E-14 = 1.7E22 (Hz)

Gravitational Frequency = 1.7E22/2.04E21 =  8.28 (Hz)

  The Electrostatic Force between two Proton Subunits of 1.66E-27/3 kg each,
and opposite charge q at 1.0 meter separation:

Fes = kq^2 = 2.304E-28 (newtons)

Fg = 6.67E-11*(1.67E-27/3)^2 = 2.066E-65 (newtons)

Relativistic time dilation or gamma = (2.304E-28/2.066E-65)^1/2 =  3.33E18 

Frequency =  c/2(pi)r = 3.0E8/2.83E-17 = 1.06E25 (Hz)

Gravitational Frequency =  1.06E25/3.33E18 = 3.18E6  (Hz)

Do you still believe in magnetism, Horace?   :-)

Regards,    Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 03:09:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA16619;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:08:48 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:08:48 -0700
Message-ID: <03ff01bff7b2$b0dd5d80$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <200007270410.AAA03191 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:08:59 -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: <"YHO5z.0.b34.me0Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36405
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

What kind of noise pollution would such a device cause for underwater sea
life?  Certainly with underwater propogation of sound this would jam up the
communication lines for the whales.  What kind of statistics have been run
to see exactly what the chances are of hitting a whale with one of these?

> Well, it started off as a means of shooting torpedoes, which are generally
> shot at floating craft so depth would not be a problem.  The bullet idea
> isn't bad either, for clearing mines, and evidently that can even be done
> from the air.  The idea of a submarine came along, and the vision of using
> it for commercial travel was mentioned, but that really isn't in the cards
> until they can steer the crazy thing.  The idea of a whale coming by or
> anything else of any size for that matter would tend to rule out any
serious
> consideration of actually using it as a submarine at all, at least until
the
> oceans have been cleared of all wildlife of any size.  They are working on
> that too, I think.  This is the US Navy we are talking about, after all.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 03:11:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA17812;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:11:06 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:11:06 -0700
Message-ID: <040301bff7b3$02b53560$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <200007270437.AAA11128 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:11:17 -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 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Resent-Message-ID: <"KiVMI3.0.EM4.wg0Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36406
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

No the world is being run by a bunch of uninformed or uncaring consumers -
convince everyone to trade their SUV's in on a bicycle and you will see
massive changes quickly.  The marketplace decides.  How do you get around?

> I also forgot to mention, the Navy doesn't fool around with rolling up
> depleted Uranium into little plastic boogers, either.  They just dump it
raw
> onto Puerto Rico when they do target practice.  Now the Airforce on the
> other hand, shoots it at Iraqi citizens in return for oil, and then we
just
> give away quite a lot of it to other countries that we like, so that they
> can shoot it at insurgents who don't like us drilling for oil on their
land.
>
> Basically, the world is being run by inbred, hillbilly madmen.
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 04:22:41 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA09417;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:22:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:22:02 -0700
Message-ID: <004401bff7c4$f1a471c0$7e8e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Function Generators For Gravity-Antigravity Experiments
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:19:24 -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: <"d6nPJ.0.3J2.Qj1Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36407
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

For the adventurous types, Radioshack Online www.radioshack.com  carries a
0.3 Hz to 3.0 Megahertz Function Generator Cat # 910-5364 for $189.00, with
several wave shape and duty cycle options.

This would cover the  ~ 8.5 Hz Electron Gravity Frequency and the ~3.1 Megahertz
Nuclear Gravity Frequency.

With one of these driving a power MOSFET feeding pulses into a current loop
sitting on a balance, who knows?

Regards,   Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 08:20:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23166;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:17:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:17:30 -0700
Message-ID: <004e01bff7dc$83533f40$9b2e9fca xplornote>
From: "xplorer" <xplorer indo.net.id>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <yam8243.292.17489952 mail.earthlink.net>
Subject: a Volt ?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:08:19 +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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MGP8h1.0.df5.9A5Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36408
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Stupid question, I realize.

But exactly what is a volt ?

After 30 years of tossing micro-amperes
 and maga-hertz around like candy,
 I just hit my mid-childhood crisis llike a brick wall
 and realized I still don't know what a 'volt' really is.

Kaye and Laby
 describe it in terms of the Josephson constant.
This is analogous to describing sunshine in terms
 of shadows.

just dazed and confused....




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 12:41:47 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09009;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <39809083.243D6CD2 bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:41:55 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Is This Water?
References: <v01530500b5a5281d4d43 [12.21.209.17]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9WZEs1.0.dC2.Kz8Wv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36409
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> At 5:36 PM 7/26/0, Terry Blanton wrote:
> >It's a big file, but at the bottom of this image there appears to
> >be evidence of recent flowing water.  Indeed, the sand looks wet!
> >
> >See:
> >
> >http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/maps/M0204035.gif
> >
> >Terry
> 
> Looks like the light colored high elevation places are glaciers.  The
> overall galacial shapes are a bit strange, but the areas of tiny ridges
> look like characteristic water erosion ridges, possibly due to being in
> locations exposed to early or bright sun there.
> 
> Also, there are radial dark markings around what looks like a very new
> rough sided crater near the bottom of the photo.  That "crater" may be
> caused by subsurface melting.  Similar characteristics are shown in this
> photo of the Tasman Glacier:
> 
>   <http://tvl1.geo.uc.edu/ice/Image/icpro/643-17.html>

I see the similarity.  Now that would be truly remarkable to have
surface ice!

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 12:44:38 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22959;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:42:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:42:43 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:47:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Function Generators For Gravity-Antigravity Experiments
In-Reply-To: <004401bff7c4$f1a471c0$7e8e1d26 fjsparber>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000727154645.20977F-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"mgOq53.0.ec5.p29Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36410
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Folks,

	I think B and K instruments carries a function generator from sub
cps to about 2.5 million cps andhas a counter on it so you can see the
frequency of the output.  It is about the same price.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Frederick Sparber wrote:

> For the adventurous types, Radioshack Online www.radioshack.com  carries a
> 0.3 Hz to 3.0 Megahertz Function Generator Cat # 910-5364 for $189.00, with
> several wave shape and duty cycle options.
> 
> This would cover the  ~ 8.5 Hz Electron Gravity Frequency and the ~3.1 Megahertz
> Nuclear Gravity Frequency.
> 
> With one of these driving a power MOSFET feeding pulses into a current loop
> sitting on a balance, who knows?
> 
> Regards,   Frederick
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 13:40:37 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08933;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:37:45 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:37:45 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fodder for Horace, Light Lepton String Particle  Interaction
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b5a4f0841d95 [12.21.209.36]>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000727133147.7276C-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"b29522.0.RB2.Os9Wv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36412
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace
	I think it could have a finite mass and Energy, all due to its
field, but an infinite mass and energy density. I was thinking of
singularites like Dirac delta functions. The integral of a delta function
over any size interval containing it is 1.0, and is zero if the interval
does not contain the point. In advanced EM theory, there is just a single
electro-magnetic field 4x4 tensor, whose components are both electric
field and magnetic field, depending on the special relativity coordinate
system we are talking about.

Hank



On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Horace Heffner wrote:

> At 12:37 PM 7/26/0, hank scudder wrote:
> >Horace
> >        Have you considered the inverse philosophy, that only fields
> >exist, and that charges are singularities in the fields.
> >
> >Hank
> 
> 
> That can not be, that electrons are singularities, can it?  If an electron
> were a singularity then it would contain infinite energy and mass, true?
> Thus we have the classical radius of the electron, as described in
> Feynman's *Lectures on Physics*.  Still, assuming the classical radius, the
> electron mass is all field, thus I have never really considered the
> possibility that it is other than field, that it has mass that consists of
> other than its field.  I therefore feel that the electron's mass provides
> an argument that the Coulombic field exists.  Further, if you accept
> special relativity, then there are circumstances where the Coulombic field
> alone accounts for the Lorentz force.  Since we do not observe twice the
> Lorentz force, and in fact, to high accuracy, only one times the Lorentz
> force, it follows that the magnetic field hypothesized to produce the
> Lorentz force does not exist at all.
> 
> It is further interesting that if the energy of the electron's field
> accounts for both the mass and the charge of the electron, that Fred
> Sparber's light leptons should really only have about 1/136th the charge.
> "Rest" charge that is!  8^)  They may therefore be much more difficult to
> detect than thought.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 13:42:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18002;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: Jed Rothwell <JedRothwell infinite-energy.com>
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000726152102.007a77b0 pop.mindspring.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000727130454.7276A-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"7d4Vw.0.8P4.Nd9Wv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36411
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed
	If you or anyone else on Vortex-L ever get to LA, I will be glad
to give you a ride in my
Tropica EV. It looks like a cross between a Cobra and a Corvette. It is a
real "sheep in wolf's clothing" as it has two 10HP electric motors belt
driving the rear wheels. But it gets me to school and back most of the
time, relatively cheaply. You can see it's sister at
http://people.qualcomm.com/sck/ev/SCK
Currently it is down, for new batteries, which will be arriving soon.
It uses tweleve 6V USA 125 batteries, nominally 72 V. 

Hank


On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Michael T Huffman wrote:
> 
> >Looking at the specs of the various makes and models, it is obvious that the
> >fuel celled models have a much larger range than the ones that use
> >rechargable batteries, but the main point is that they all have electric
> >motors.
> 
> There is a remarkable effusion of EV designs nowadays, reminiscent of the
> personal computer business before the IBM PC. I think the best solution at
> present is a gasoline ICE; a hybrid.
> 
> In a week or two I am hoping to get a chance to test drive a Toyota Prius
> for a one-day picnic / excursion trip to nowhere. I expect it will feel
> about the same as any other car.
> 
> 
> >Just the developmental engineering for getting the
> >electric motors into these vehicles properly is not exactly simple or
> >costfree, and it won't have to be re-invented, fortunately.
> 
> Yes, there will be people skilled in engineering and marketing radically
> different transportation technology. The EV industry is a fascinating test
> case for CF.
> 
> 
>   Being able to
> >upgrade the powersupply later, might encourage people to buy now, even
> >though the models are not as ideal as they might like.
> 
> I doubt the present models can be upgraded for anything as radical as
> electricity from Mills superchemistry. The machine would have to be
> re-engineered from scratch. But I think there is little chance Mills has
> what he claims, and even less chance that he will ever get around to
> selling it even if it does exist.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 14:01:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA17669;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:58:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:58:38 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Craig Haynie <cchaynie ix.netcom.com>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Nitenol
In-Reply-To: <00c701bff741$e2111b10$901a010a argis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000727161346.20977M-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"7LPmV.0._J4.-9AWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36413
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Developed by Navy.  Nickle-Titanium   .. Ni  Ti ... get it?

	Alloy that was  SUPPOSED to be very tough... and it is.... BUT it
also has other peculiar properites of which only one is:

	It can be alloyed to go through a memory phase change at near room
temperatures.  This allows it to change shape, and other properties,
abruptly at a give critical temperature.  
	Used as robot 'muscles'... by hobbiests and in a few applications
such as opening greenhouse window vents at a given temperature, as
thermally stabilized valves and so on.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Craig Haynie wrote:

> Does anyone know anything about nitenol?
> 
> It was around 1980 when I first heard of it. It is a metal which can be
> adjusted so that it will 'act' at a specific temperature. When the
> temperature is warmer than the set temperature, the metal will be flexible
> and easily bendable. When the temperature is below the set temperature, the
> metal will immediately become RIGID and straight.
> 
> I saw an example of a motor built with this metal. Several metal pieces were
> formed around a central hub, like a wheel, and the wheel was inserted into a
> container with two chambers. One chamber had warm water. The other chamber
> had cold water, and when the wheel was inserted, it started spinning wildly
> in the container, throwing the water all over the place.
> 
> It was thought that this metal could be used to develop energy plants, in
> places where discrepancies in temperature could be found. One idea was to
> put an energy plant in the ocean and have wheels which would function due to
> differences in water temperature at different depths.
> 
> It might have been just an idea which never got off the ground, but does
> anyone have any knowledge of what happened to nitenol?
> 
> Craig Haynie (Houston)
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 14:59:57 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09834;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:57:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:57:03 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Another chemical fuel tragedy
In-Reply-To: <200007270151.VAA15032 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000727145559.7276D-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"yXgC42.0.WP2.j0BWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36414
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Knuke	
	I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you against using
depleted Uranium at all? It is a very useful sheilding material for X-rays
and gamma rays, and its residual radioactivity is quite low. I don't think
it should be shipped around my airplanes either, but UPS ground should be
OK.

Hank

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 15:16:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18756;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:15:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:15:12 -0700
Message-ID: <008901bff818$4ae44280$0c6cd626 varisys.com>
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.20000726152102.007a77b0 pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000726181924.007a2e00@pop.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:16:20 -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: <"FeQRE2.0.xa4.lHBWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36415
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I do not think he is lying about his experiments! That would be very
> surprising. However, he has not been independently replicated yet, and it
> is extraordinarily easy for a person to fool himself about this kind of
> thing. 
-
Sometimes a result is so overwhelming in magnitude that belief, for
me, does not really require replication. Low temperature low energy
plasmas is a field with which I have considerable experience. I posed
several questions to Mills that were things that I would have had to check
in order to be sure of his reported results. Mills answers showed that the
proper tests had in fact been done to adequately answer my questions.
The same discharge light output intensity that required 250 volts with
hydrogen and sodium in the cell was obtained with 2 volts and 4,000 times
less power when strontium replaced the sodium. A discharge in
hydrogen at 2 volts should be impossible even with zero workfunction
electrodes, 2 volts cannot ionize hydrogen. There were only two electrodes 
in the cell so that no supported discharge or crosstalk was possible!
Cold fusion has solid experimental results, but nothing to compare
with the clear impact of this experiment!

> As far as I know, CF is a nuclear reaction that
> produces helium in the same proportion as conventional plasma fusion. That
> has now been established beyond any doubt. CF transmutes elements and fuses
> deuterons (or hydrogen atoms, I guess). It does not shrink hydrogen atoms
> below the ground state. Whether that can or cannot happen is something I am
> not qualified to judge, but I am sure it does not need to happen in this
> case. Nuclear reactions do occur and they account for all of the observed
> energy.
-
What you may be missing is that strontium and some other catalysts 
apparently immediately create much smaller (n=8) hydrinos than potassium,
making nuclear reactions which were already present in Mills' K and D2O
experiments much more probable. It looks to me as though Hydrinos could 
go far toward explaining most or all of the cold fusion experiments.
I have many doubts about Mills' GUTCQM, but the experimental
evidence for sub ground state hydrogen that matches Mills predictions
is becoming overwhelming.
- 
> I do not believe the experimental results. I never believe ANY results that
> have not been observed independently by 5 or 10 labs at high S/N ratios.
-
Is high S/N ratio even relevant here? Unfortunately, I think there is actually 
some possibility of creating near nuclear size explosive events with variations
that Mills has not yet tried. This effect is becoming huge and obvious,
and requires only order of magnitude measurements to verify anomalous
behavior.
-
George Holz                george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems     1924 US Hwy 22 East
Bound Brook, NJ          08805



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 15:56:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02473;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:55:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:55:05 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity Force
In-Reply-To: <002401bff7b9$65d91840$7e8e1d26 fjsparber>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000727155604.7276G-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Rse133.0.Lc.8tBWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36416
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick
	Please expand on what you are saying here. I don't see how it all
fits togegther.

Hank

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Frederick Sparber wrote:

>  The Electrostatic Force between two electrons at 1.0 meter separation:
> 
> Fes = kq^2 = 2.304E-28 (newtons)
> 
> Fg = 6.67E-11*(9.1E-31)^2  = 5.523E-71 (newtons)
> 
> Relativistic time dilation  or gamma = (2.304E-28/5.523E-71)^1/2 = 2.04E21
> 
> Frequency = c/2(pi)r =  3.0E8/1.76E-14 = 1.7E22 (Hz)
> 
> Gravitational Frequency = 1.7E22/2.04E21 =  8.28 (Hz)
> 
>   The Electrostatic Force between two Proton Subunits of 1.66E-27/3 kg each,
> and opposite charge q at 1.0 meter separation:
> 
> Fes = kq^2 = 2.304E-28 (newtons)
> 
> Fg = 6.67E-11*(1.67E-27/3)^2 = 2.066E-65 (newtons)
> 
> Relativistic time dilation or gamma = (2.304E-28/2.066E-65)^1/2 =  3.33E18 
> 
> Frequency =  c/2(pi)r = 3.0E8/2.83E-17 = 1.06E25 (Hz)
> 
> Gravitational Frequency =  1.06E25/3.33E18 = 3.18E6  (Hz)
> 
> Do you still believe in magnetism, Horace?   :-)
> 
> Regards,    Frederick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 16:03:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA07760;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:01:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:01:38 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
In-Reply-To: <004e01bff7dc$83533f40$9b2e9fca xplornote>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000727151425.19981A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pp2rz.0.8v1.IzBWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36417
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, xplorer wrote:

> Stupid question, I realize.
> 
> But exactly what is a volt ?


How is the international standard "volt" determined?   Or are you asking:
"what does the term 'Electric Potential' mean?"


> Kaye and Laby
>  describe it in terms of the Josephson constant.

That's how the 1-volt standard is determined, but that won't tell you
anything about the meaning of "voltage".  (Analogy: if you want to know
what "mass" means, don't ask questions about the Standard Kilogram, or
you'll get bogged down in endless discussions about a metal block hidden
away in somebody's lab in Europe.) 


Light and radio waves are ripples in the electric potential and the
magnetic potential of the vacuum.  If light is a kind of vibratory
"stuff", then charged objects are surrounded by the same kind of "stuff," 
although it's not vibrating.  This stuff is made of photons.  This "stuff" 
can be described in two different ways: in terms of vector fields, or in
terms of potential difference in space.  But these are the maps, not the
territory.  What is voltage?  It's frozen, non-vibrating light. 
Zero-frequency photons.  Wave your hand around the sphere of a VandeGraaff
machine, and you'll feel the hair on your fingers responding. The metal
sphere seems to be surrounded by a cloud of invisible "stuff".  The stuff
is voltage.  It's the same "stuff"  that appears in all electric circuits,
although in circuits the effect is too weak to feel directly.  Voltage is
the cause of current.  Voltage occupies the space between wires (it's a
misconception that the voltage is only on the surface of the wires.) 

The word Electromagnetism would be clearer if it said voltagemagnetism,
since EM is not a matter of electricity and magnetism.  Instead, EM is
made of magnetic fields and voltage fields in empty space.  What is
voltage?  It's one facet of EM, the other being magnetism.

Voltage carries energy.  An inductor stores energy in its magnetic field,
while a capacitor stores energy in the voltage-field between its plates.
Voltage is the "stuff" that fills the space between the parallel plates of
a vacuum capacitor.

When an A-bomb explodes, the overall intensity of voltage-fields
surrounding around the fragments of uranium nucleii is decreasing as their
kinetic energy is increasing.  The energy stored in heavy nucleii is
mostly stored as mutual repulsion, as e-fields, so an A-bomb really is a
voltage bomb. 

Why don't we learn much about voltage in school?  Because voltage is a
major part of electrostatics, and nobody teaches electrostatics because we
have mislabled it as "electricity at rest."  Electrostatics is dusty old
obsolete "Ben Franklinish" stuff, right?  Hardly.  Electrostatics is
voltage without current.  By getting rid of electrostatics, we get rid of
the whole science of Voltage, and Voltage is relagated to being little
more than a side-effect of Ohm's law.  This might simplify things so that
technicians won't have to learn any physics, but in the long run it's
corrosive, and even the physicists end up with a weak understanding of
voltage.

  VOLTAGE
  http://www.amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html

  MANY ELECTRICITY RANTS
  http://www.amasci.com/ele-edu.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 Jul 27 17:11:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05534;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:10:02 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:10:02 -0700
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: John Schnurer <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:10:03 PST7BST 
Message-ID: <yam8243.193.17235960 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000727165219.20977S-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: 50Hz to 60Hz Pwr Cnvrtr?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"U1Ui12.0.OM1.PzCWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36419
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 27-Jul-00, John Schnurer, wrote:


>What kind of system?

>Use transformer if you just want to change voltage.

 Yes, I understand that part, John. I was hoping for 
 60 Hz conversion, too. Long story, short; in my EEG
 front-end, there's a *60 Hz* notch filter :*\

Arrrg!
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
http://www.futurehealth.org/roshi.htm
http://www.post-trauma.com/roshi.html
http://www.neurofeedback-dribric.com/
http://www.austin-biofeedback.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 17:11:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05398;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:09:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:09:47 -0700
Message-ID: <3980CEB8.48EEAE3C verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:07:20 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, freenrg <freenrg-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------5F88CF98CCE4DBE38E9635DB"
Resent-Message-ID: <"XPrTg3.0.8K1.BzCWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36418
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.
--------------5F88CF98CCE4DBE38E9635DB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

The attached table is taken from "Intelligence Community Overview For Japanese Visitors  Public Security Investigation Agency" titled document at http://www.openpgp.net/censorship/psia/cia-ico.html from cryptome.org released secret CIA documents.

I am pointing out that the Department Of Energy is a member of national security / intelligence groups the same as the army and the DOD. This may reflect the strategic role of the energy department on national security.

(Below is my opinion on world order, changing moral values and free energy.)

Unfortunately, world circumstances are forcing population to be controlled. Population is under control of nations, by governments. It may be a good thing that people would be governed in the proper sense of "government". Literally, the word "governing" i
s not the same thing as "controlling". The difference between governing and controlling is the (degree of) freedom.

But as governments choose to control population instead of governing, they use any tools, such as politics, religions, economics, education, communication, transport, resources, armed forces, secret forces and sometime directly by laws, for regulating peo
ple restricting their freedom, restricting them on choosing the way they live. In the past, populations are mostly controlled by religions and armed forces directly, but
now it is preferred to use more sophisticated tools which are apparently compatible with democracy. So that nothing is really changed for thousands of years. Still population is controlled but not governed (if not directly under command order). There may 
have been some truly self-governed societies in the past, maybe the American Indians, was one of them. Maybe there were many such unnamed societies on all continents, but all these societies are destroyed by the invaders or being destroyed now by those wh
o
want to take control of resources and populations.

The Communication (which is used keep people under control) is on the verge of freedom by Internet revolution, and will be no longer used to control people effectively. Many tools used in the past to control population become incompatible with developing 
democracy and human rights or become obsolete with  increasing knowledge, so controlling resources still is an efficient way of keeping control of the population.

 Air, water supplies, energy are resources. If governments are technically able to control the oxygen in the air, the sunlight, they will. In the movie "Total Recall" Mars population is controlled by the fresh air availability.

So the industrial and consumer grade energy is one of the key tools for controlling population, economics and overall the world.

Free energy will not be permitted and will be avoided by all costs to keep on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake made. The "free energy" in this context is the energy, which is not produced or controlled by governments. But if there will be 
a cheap or totally free way to produce energy practically, this not only ceases its status of controlled resources but may kill many other resource control schemes. Energy to be converted to food, to transport, to many goods, including precious metals, ma
terials directly and even to intelligence or intellectual productions (The brain is one of the
most energy consuming organs in humans and animals, and this is why animals choose to route (assign) their limited energy sources to improve physical abilities rather than mental abilities.)

More than this, free energy does more than break the government controlling schemes and give humans unrestricted access to Earth and space resources. With our average conscience and auto control this would be disastrous for nature. I hate to use "environm
ent" keyword (on nature conservation context) since it is anthropocentric and imply all of nature (resources) is for our use. I think that nature and natural resources are not made solely for humans despite that many religions imply as much.

In my opinion in order to use cheap practical or totally free energy, our population must gain more conscience and gain more self-regulation capabilities and should be ready to be governed with full freedom rather than keeping it under control of regimes.


Gaining access to free energy would be achieved in steps. Maybe the fist step is changing the economic system so that it is not based energy and other material resources but on intellectual resources, which are currently in transition for 5 or 10 years.

The next step would be decentralization of the energy and finding cheap sources. This would improve the overall quality of life and increase the intellectual productivity. This would also permit people stop fighting for energy and other restricted resourc
es.

People need to learn to live without external regulations and gain conscience enough to not destroy the Earth in a while (by the power of the free energy). 


Currently, I am observing locally and globally that the level of conscience or moral of humans has receded in many ways by the influence of economic regimes and mainly by the influence of (commercial) companies, I believe. Companies have no morals and the
ir reason for existence is mainly to make a profit. They have no obligation to the real world in which we live.  Actually companies are organs of the economic system. Economic system integrated worldwide is currently one of the most powerful systems that 
govern the world. This is wrong because the economic system was not designed to integrated to nature and gets feedback from it. It is not possible model the world with all its aspects, values with financial arguments. So from engineering point of view the
 system is incomplete and unstable. What is happening here, is mapping the nature, the humanity into the economic system by stripping all their values but assigning a monetary value.

Back to company element of the economic system, conflicts can be clearly seen. Company is critical node of isolation of financial values with human/nature values.

A one-way firewall on purpose stops everything passing from real word to the company except financial ones. As a consequence, an employee of a company has to accept the policy of the company overriding his own belief and ethics. Profit and good morals are
 hardly compatible. So if a wood company buys a forest overseas and destroys it with all its inhabitants, there would nothing wrong here if the operation is financially feasible. If human morals are forced to fit into a company policy, something is very s
eriously wrong here, and very hard to fix it. It is sad to see how populations comfortably adapting themselves to these conditions.

Actually, I can say replacing human values with commercial values is the unnamed new religion widely accepted worldwide. See, the Internet is already commercialized, the majority of people think the Internet is nothing more than a market place or a place 
to earn some money. Such a wonderful place for freedom is getting ruled (and ruined) by commercial arguments, what a huge pressure!

I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well to this world.

Regards,

hamdi ucar
--------------5F88CF98CCE4DBE38E9635DB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii;
 name="table.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="table.html"

<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <!-- Created with AOLpress/2.0 -->
  <TITLE>Intelligence Community Overview</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<P>
<CENTER>
  <TABLE BORDER =1 CELLPADDING="2" ALIGN="center">
    <TR>
      <TD COLSPAN=7><H2 ALIGN=center>
	  US Intelligence Community<BR>
	</H2>
      </TD>
    </TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	DCI<BR>
	DDCI</P>
	</TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
    </TR>
    <TR>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	National Foreign<BR>
	Intelligence Board</P>
	 </TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	National <BR>
	Intelligence<BR>
	Council</P>
	</TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center></P>
      </TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	DDCI/CM</P>
	</TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
    </TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	EXDIR/ICA
	<P ALIGN=center>
	CMS<BR>
	(IC Principals<BR>
	and Deputies<BR>
	Committee)</P>
	</TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	ADCI/Collection<BR>
	(NICB)</P>
	</TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	ADCI/Analysis<BR>
	&amp; Production<BR>
	(NIPE)</P>
	</TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	Senior<BR>
	Acquisition<BR>
	Executive</P>
	</TD>
    </TR>
    <TR>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">National<BR>
	Reconnaissance<BR>
	Office</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">National<BR>
	Security<BR>
	Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">National<BR>
	Imagery and<BR>
	Mapping<BR>
	Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="red">Central<BR>
	Intelligence<BR>
	Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">Defense<BR>
	Intelligence<BR>
	Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="teal">Department<BR>
	of State<BR>
	IMP</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="teal">Department<BR>
	of Justice<BR>
	FBI</FONT></P></TD>
    </TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="teal">Department<BR>
	of<BR>
	Treasury</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="teal">Department<BR>
	of<BR>
	Energy</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">United<BR>
	States<BR>
	Army</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">United<BR>
	States<BR>
	Navy</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">United<BR>
	States<BR>
	Air Force</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">United<BR>
	States<BR>
	Marine<BR>
	Corps</FONT></P></TD>
    </TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="blue">DoD<BR>
	Components</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="red">Independent<BR>
	Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD><P ALIGN=center>
	<FONT COLOR="teal">Departments with<BR>
	Intelligence<BR>
	Components<BR>
	(other than DoD)</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
    </TR>
  </TABLE>
</CENTER>
<P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
</BODY></HTML>

--------------5F88CF98CCE4DBE38E9635DB--


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 17:14:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08799;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:12:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:12:39 -0700
Message-ID: <000701bff830$99cb0100$308e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Sam Haines" <ironeagle ainop.com>
References: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000727155604.7276G-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity Force
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:10:13 -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: <"yyHqM2.0.O92.t_CWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36420
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity Force

Hank Scudder wrote:


> Frederick
> Please expand on what you are saying here. I don't see how it all
> fits togegther.

Bottom line, Hank? :-) 

The constant 1/4(pi)eo (k) * q^2  = kq^2 = 2.304E-28  crops up
all over the place.  Particle radius, r = kq^2/Energy,
Electrostatic Force between charges, Fes  = kq^2/r^2 ,
the magnetostatic force between two current loops (4.8E-11 Ampere-Meters)
ie., q*f *2(pi)r for any particle or String-Circle or "quark" gives the
the magnetostatic force between two current loops:

Fmag = 1.0E-7 * (4.8E-11)^2 / (1.0meter)^2 = 2.304E-28 nt  =  kq^2 
indicating that there is no fundamental difference between magnetism and charge.

The main point was that two particles in space in their own reference frame
moving so close to c (gamma of 3.3E18 to 2.0E21)that the magnetostatic force
that is the result of this time dilation is the gravitational force.

Big G , 6.67E-11 can be factored out to magnetostatic forces:

(6.67E-11/1.0E-7)^1/2 = 0.02583 Ampere-Meters/Kg

IOW, Fg = 1.0E-7 * 0.02583*M1 * 0.02583*M2/R^2  (newtons)

>From this the time dilation  magnetostatic/gravitational force can be found also.

How's that for expansion?  :-)

Regards,     Frederick


> 
> Hank
> 
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> 
> >  The Electrostatic Force between two electrons at 1.0 meter separation:
> > 
> > Fes = kq^2 = 2.304E-28 (newtons)
> > 
> > Fg = 6.67E-11*(9.1E-31)^2  = 5.523E-71 (newtons)
> > 
> > Relativistic time dilation  or gamma = (2.304E-28/5.523E-71)^1/2 = 2.04E21
> > 
> > Frequency = c/2(pi)r =  3.0E8/1.76E-14 = 1.7E22 (Hz)
> > 
> > Gravitational Frequency = 1.7E22/2.04E21 =  8.28 (Hz)
> > 
> >   The Electrostatic Force between two Proton Subunits of 1.66E-27/3 kg each,
> > and opposite charge q at 1.0 meter separation:
> > 
> > Fes = kq^2 = 2.304E-28 (newtons)
> > 
> > Fg = 6.67E-11*(1.67E-27/3)^2 = 2.066E-65 (newtons)
> > 
> > Relativistic time dilation or gamma = (2.304E-28/2.066E-65)^1/2 =  3.33E18 
> > 
> > Frequency =  c/2(pi)r = 3.0E8/2.83E-17 = 1.06E25 (Hz)
> > 
> > Gravitational Frequency =  1.06E25/3.33E18 = 3.18E6  (Hz)
> > 
> > Do you still believe in magnetism, Horace?   :-)
> > 
> > Regards,    Frederick
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 17:24:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA03326;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.79]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:22:13 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F31msfGdMNFmWAFsTmI00001d40 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2000 00:22:13.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[E06DE7F0:01BFF829]
Resent-Message-ID: <"4HIpg3.0.up.59DWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36421
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I like this.  All electricity is static in Whirlpower Theory.  All heat is 
static.  All electromagnetic field is static.  I disagre however that 
voltage has no vibration.  The vibration is internal.

The vacuum is fluid in Whirlpower Theory.  The static electromagnetic heat 
photon is gravity driven.  The photon is less dense than fluid space.  
Gravity pulls/pushes, same difference in the Cosmological Constant, the more 
dense space beneath the less photon moving it to its density threshold.  
This is why light has both a wave and particle nature.  It is excited 
particles vibrating, which makes it less dense, much like the H20 molecule 
is excited particles made less dense by heat.  Both evaporation and light 
speed are caused by gravity.  This is "The Pearl of Wisdom" in Whirlpower 
Theory.

A photon is not thrusting itself through the fluid vacuum.

An excieted H20 molecule is not thrusting itself up to the clouds.

A bubble is not thrusting it self up.

The Cosmological Constant.

Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, and she really can't stand a void.

It's the fizz in the physics.

Bubble Up!

David Dennard
The Pearl of Wisdom
The Cosmological Constant
The Paradigm Shift
http://www.whirlpower.cc


>From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: a Volt ?
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, xplorer wrote:
>
> > Stupid question, I realize.
> >
> > But exactly what is a volt ?
>
>
>How is the international standard "volt" determined?   Or are you asking:
>"what does the term 'Electric Potential' mean?"
>
>
> > Kaye and Laby
> >  describe it in terms of the Josephson constant.
>
>That's how the 1-volt standard is determined, but that won't tell you
>anything about the meaning of "voltage".  (Analogy: if you want to know
>what "mass" means, don't ask questions about the Standard Kilogram, or
>you'll get bogged down in endless discussions about a metal block hidden
>away in somebody's lab in Europe.)
>
>
>Light and radio waves are ripples in the electric potential and the
>magnetic potential of the vacuum.  If light is a kind of vibratory
>"stuff", then charged objects are surrounded by the same kind of "stuff,"
>although it's not vibrating.  This stuff is made of photons.  This "stuff"
>can be described in two different ways: in terms of vector fields, or in
>terms of potential difference in space.  But these are the maps, not the
>territory.  What is voltage?  It's frozen, non-vibrating light.
>Zero-frequency photons.  Wave your hand around the sphere of a VandeGraaff
>machine, and you'll feel the hair on your fingers responding. The metal
>sphere seems to be surrounded by a cloud of invisible "stuff".  The stuff
>is voltage.  It's the same "stuff"  that appears in all electric circuits,
>although in circuits the effect is too weak to feel directly.  Voltage is
>the cause of current.  Voltage occupies the space between wires (it's a
>misconception that the voltage is only on the surface of the wires.)
>
>The word Electromagnetism would be clearer if it said voltagemagnetism,
>since EM is not a matter of electricity and magnetism.  Instead, EM is
>made of magnetic fields and voltage fields in empty space.  What is
>voltage?  It's one facet of EM, the other being magnetism.
>
>Voltage carries energy.  An inductor stores energy in its magnetic field,
>while a capacitor stores energy in the voltage-field between its plates.
>Voltage is the "stuff" that fills the space between the parallel plates of
>a vacuum capacitor.
>
>When an A-bomb explodes, the overall intensity of voltage-fields
>surrounding around the fragments of uranium nucleii is decreasing as their
>kinetic energy is increasing.  The energy stored in heavy nucleii is
>mostly stored as mutual repulsion, as e-fields, so an A-bomb really is a
>voltage bomb.
>
>Why don't we learn much about voltage in school?  Because voltage is a
>major part of electrostatics, and nobody teaches electrostatics because we
>have mislabled it as "electricity at rest."  Electrostatics is dusty old
>obsolete "Ben Franklinish" stuff, right?  Hardly.  Electrostatics is
>voltage without current.  By getting rid of electrostatics, we get rid of
>the whole science of Voltage, and Voltage is relagated to being little
>more than a side-effect of Ohm's law.  This might simplify things so that
>technicians won't have to learn any physics, but in the long run it's
>corrosive, and even the physicists end up with a weak understanding of
>voltage.
>
>   VOLTAGE
>   http://www.amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html
>
>   MANY ELECTRICITY RANTS
>   http://www.amasci.com/ele-edu.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
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 17:50:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA22524;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:48:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:48:51 -0700
From: dtmiller midiowa.net (Dean T. Miller)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: 50Hz to 60Hz Pwr Cnvrtr?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:49:18 GMT
Organization: Miller and Associates
Reply-To: dtmiller midiowa.net
Message-ID: <3983d859.81023465 mail.midiowa.net>
References: <yam8243.193.17235960 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <yam8243.193.17235960 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
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 RAA22482
Resent-Message-ID: <"s4Kpn1.0.rV5.oXDWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36423
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:10:03 PST7BST , Chuck Davis
<roshicorp roshi.com> wrote:

>On 27-Jul-00, John Schnurer, wrote:
>
>
>>What kind of system?
>
>>Use transformer if you just want to change voltage.
>
> Yes, I understand that part, John. I was hoping for 
> 60 Hz conversion, too. Long story, short; in my EEG
> front-end, there's a *60 Hz* notch filter :*\

Maybe a small computer UPS would work?  I don't know how they would
react to a 50 Hz input.

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines  (CDP, KB0ZDF)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 17:50:15 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA08617;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.59]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:45:39 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F180Y6iR9mzLnwsV57d00002779 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2000 00:45:39.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[2692B9B0:01BFF82D]
Resent-Message-ID: <"gs0C71.0.Z62.0XDWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36422
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I agree.  I have had no luck with the DOE.  My work was taken to the DOE 
hard copy by the March for Peaceful Energy.  No reply.  I wrote, all I got 
was a form letter.  But then I don't have much luck with the new energy 
community in general either.  My stuff is so clean and simple and unique it 
makes everything else obsolete.  :)

As the DOE is to the new energy community the new energy community is to me.

As water is to air, air is to space.

But since the whirlpool is unknown to science and now backed up 
independently at http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html, and with lots of 
votes on the Whirlpower Declartion calling for a whirlpool to be built in a 
scientific manner, I think the breakthough is near.  My old physics teacher 
in college is in communication now, and interested, just a kid like me back 
then but he is the big shot now.

And I'm making the move on Ralph Nader, now.  Giving him "The Wild Card" and 
the chance to lead The Grass Roots Energy Revolution.  I bet he can get a 
whirlpool built and tested pretty quickly if he sees the light.  You guys 
could help more too.  More votes on the Declaration the better.  All it 
states is that you too have the common sense to recognize that if a 
whirlpool has never been built by man before in all recorded history it 
needs to be done.  Our whirlpools look just like little hurricanes.  PSB 
just announced, "almost everything thought to be true about the vortex has 
just been shown to be wrong, and scientists need to go back to the drawing 
board and start all over."  Our whirlpools look just like sprial galaxies, 
%90 energy of motion unaccounted for in Dr. Vera Rubin's studies.  She 
states, "scientists are going to have to give up their most precious 
beliefs".
Flat space has been proven.  That disposes of all science based on curved 
space.

Folks, I don't know for sure Whirlpower will work, but you can bet your 
bottom dollar I will not quit till I see it tested in a scientific manner or 
die trying.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc




>From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, freenrg <freenrg-l@eskimo.com>
>Subject: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:07:20 +0300
>
>Hi,
>
>The attached table is taken from "Intelligence Community Overview For 
>Japanese Visitors  Public Security Investigation Agency" titled document at 
>http://www.openpgp.net/censorship/psia/cia-ico.html from cryptome.org 
>released secret CIA documents.
>
>I am pointing out that the Department Of Energy is a member of national 
>security / intelligence groups the same as the army and the DOD. This may 
>reflect the strategic role of the energy department on national security.
>
>(Below is my opinion on world order, changing moral values and free 
>energy.)
>
>Unfortunately, world circumstances are forcing population to be controlled. 
>Population is under control of nations, by governments. It may be a good 
>thing that people would be governed in the proper sense of "government". 
>Literally, the word "governing" is not the same thing as "controlling". The 
>difference between governing and controlling is the (degree of) freedom.
>
>But as governments choose to control population instead of governing, they 
>use any tools, such as politics, religions, economics, education, 
>communication, transport, resources, armed forces, secret forces and 
>sometime directly by laws, for regulating people restricting their freedom, 
>restricting them on choosing the way they live. In the past, populations 
>are mostly controlled by religions and armed forces directly, but
>now it is preferred to use more sophisticated tools which are apparently 
>compatible with democracy. So that nothing is really changed for thousands 
>of years. Still population is controlled but not governed (if not directly 
>under command order). There may have been some truly self-governed 
>societies in the past, maybe the American Indians, was one of them. Maybe 
>there were many such unnamed societies on all continents, but all these 
>societies are destroyed by the invaders or being destroyed now by those who
>want to take control of resources and populations.
>
>The Communication (which is used keep people under control) is on the verge 
>of freedom by Internet revolution, and will be no longer used to control 
>people effectively. Many tools used in the past to control population 
>become incompatible with developing democracy and human rights or become 
>obsolete with  increasing knowledge, so controlling resources still is an 
>efficient way of keeping control of the population.
>
>  Air, water supplies, energy are resources. If governments are technically 
>able to control the oxygen in the air, the sunlight, they will. In the 
>movie "Total Recall" Mars population is controlled by the fresh air 
>availability.
>
>So the industrial and consumer grade energy is one of the key tools for 
>controlling population, economics and overall the world.
>
>Free energy will not be permitted and will be avoided by all costs to keep 
>on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake made. The "free energy" 
>in this context is the energy, which is not produced or controlled by 
>governments. But if there will be a cheap or totally free way to produce 
>energy practically, this not only ceases its status of controlled resources 
>but may kill many other resource control schemes. Energy to be converted to 
>food, to transport, to many goods, including precious metals, materials 
>directly and even to intelligence or intellectual productions (The brain is 
>one of the
>most energy consuming organs in humans and animals, and this is why animals 
>choose to route (assign) their limited energy sources to improve physical 
>abilities rather than mental abilities.)
>
>More than this, free energy does more than break the government controlling 
>schemes and give humans unrestricted access to Earth and space resources. 
>With our average conscience and auto control this would be disastrous for 
>nature. I hate to use "environment" keyword (on nature conservation 
>context) since it is anthropocentric and imply all of nature (resources) is 
>for our use. I think that nature and natural resources are not made solely 
>for humans despite that many religions imply as much.
>
>In my opinion in order to use cheap practical or totally free energy, our 
>population must gain more conscience and gain more self-regulation 
>capabilities and should be ready to be governed with full freedom rather 
>than keeping it under control of regimes.
>
>Gaining access to free energy would be achieved in steps. Maybe the fist 
>step is changing the economic system so that it is not based energy and 
>other material resources but on intellectual resources, which are currently 
>in transition for 5 or 10 years.
>
>The next step would be decentralization of the energy and finding cheap 
>sources. This would improve the overall quality of life and increase the 
>intellectual productivity. This would also permit people stop fighting for 
>energy and other restricted resources.
>
>People need to learn to live without external regulations and gain 
>conscience enough to not destroy the Earth in a while (by the power of the 
>free energy).
>
>
>Currently, I am observing locally and globally that the level of conscience 
>or moral of humans has receded in many ways by the influence of economic 
>regimes and mainly by the influence of (commercial) companies, I believe. 
>Companies have no morals and their reason for existence is mainly to make a 
>profit. They have no obligation to the real world in which we live.  
>Actually companies are organs of the economic system. Economic system 
>integrated worldwide is currently one of the most powerful systems that 
>govern the world. This is wrong because the economic system was not 
>designed to integrated to nature and gets feedback from it. It is not 
>possible model the world with all its aspects, values with financial 
>arguments. So from engineering point of view the system is incomplete and 
>unstable. What is happening here, is mapping the nature, the humanity into 
>the economic system by stripping all their values but assigning a monetary 
>value.
>
>Back to company element of the economic system, conflicts can be clearly 
>seen. Company is critical node of isolation of financial values with 
>human/nature values.
>
>A one-way firewall on purpose stops everything passing from real word to 
>the company except financial ones. As a consequence, an employee of a 
>company has to accept the policy of the company overriding his own belief 
>and ethics. Profit and good morals are hardly compatible. So if a wood 
>company buys a forest overseas and destroys it with all its inhabitants, 
>there would nothing wrong here if the operation is financially feasible. If 
>human morals are forced to fit into a company policy, something is very 
>seriously wrong here, and very hard to fix it. It is sad to see how 
>populations comfortably adapting themselves to these conditions.
>
>Actually, I can say replacing human values with commercial values is the 
>unnamed new religion widely accepted worldwide. See, the Internet is 
>already commercialized, the majority of people think the Internet is 
>nothing more than a market place or a place to earn some money. Such a 
>wonderful place for freedom is getting ruled (and ruined) by commercial 
>arguments, what a huge pressure!
>
>I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well to this world.
>
>Regards,
>
>hamdi ucar
><< table.html >>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 18:58:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA13994;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <002901bff83f$3dda2d80$308e1d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Sam Haines" <ironeagle ainop.com>
Subject: Re: Time Dilation and Communicating Reference Frames
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:54:03 -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: <"xS1kc1.0.SQ3.8YEWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36424
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Perhaps this will clarify my point, Hank.

Two manned rockets start out at subsonic velocity (v)each with a
blinky light so that one can see the other in deep dark space that is
on for one second and off for one second.

Their initial relativistic gamma, [1 - v^2/c^2)}^ -1/2] is initially nil, but, as their 
velocity (v) gets close to c they see their own blinky light come on for one second and
off for one second.

However, as the gammas increase to say 3600, each sees the other's blinky
light come on for one hour and off for one hour, not to mention
the fact that their radio communication becomes useless.  True or False?

Now, if you have two string-circle particles (electron wave circles) with radius,
 r = kq^2/E = 2.81E-15 meters for the electrons.
Or, wavelength Lambda = 2(pi)r = 1.765E-14 meters with a rotation frequency, 
f = 2(pi)r/c = 1.7E22 Hz.
Since current = q*f  =  2,720 amperes the ampere-meters = 1.765E-14*2,720
equal 4.8E-11 ampere-meters (a constant for any particle treated non-relativisically).

However, if the gamma is 2.0E21 the apparent current to a particle in a different
frame drops by a factor of 2.0E21 and the magnetostatic current drops from
2,720 amperes to 2,720/2.0E21 = 1.36E-18 amperes and the 4.8E-11 ampere-meters
drops to ~ 2.4E-32 ampere-meters as each electron sees the other as a magnetostatic
gravitational force.

Thus the gravitational force between two electrons at 1.0 meter separation:

Fg = 1.0E-7 * (~ 2.4E-32)^2 = 5.5E-71 newtons = 6.67E-11* (9.1E-31)^2 newtons.

What's your GUT feeling about this, Hank?    :-)

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 19:43:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA01541;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:42:11 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:42:11 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b5a61712020a [207.8.127.237]>
In-Reply-To: <004e01bff7dc$83533f40$9b2e9fca xplornote>
References: <yam8243.292.17489952 mail.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:40:04 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
Resent-Message-ID: <"kwfA71.0._N.2CFWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36425
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Stupid question, I realize.
>
>But exactly what is a volt ?
>
>After 30 years of tossing micro-amperes
> and maga-hertz around like candy,
> I just hit my mid-childhood crisis llike a brick wall
> and realized I still don't know what a 'volt' really is.

***{When an object is moved to a location, the amount of work done is equal
to the component of force in the direction of the displacement, times the
distance moved. The potential of a charge at a point is defined as the work
that must be done against the Coulomb force to move a positive test charge
there from infinity, divided by the number of units of charge moved. If the
point charge is positive, then the test charge must be pushed toward it,
and by convention the force, and hence the potential, receives a positive
sign. If the point charge is negative, then the test charge must be held
back during its approach, and the sign given to the force is negative.
Electric potential is measured in volts, with the volt being defined as 1
joule per coulomb of charge moved. --MJ}***

>
>Kaye and Laby
> describe it in terms of the Josephson constant.
>This is analogous to describing sunshine in terms
> of shadows.
>
>just dazed and confused....

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 19:49:04 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA04805;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:47:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:47:44 -0700
Message-ID: <3980F592.F96FB3B3 csrlink.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:53:07 -0400
From: Michael Johnston <enki csrlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
References: <yam8243.292.17489952 mail.earthlink.net> <004e01bff7dc$83533f40$9b2e9fca@xplornote>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"N9jvK.0._A1.EHFWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36426
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

volt=the electromotive force necessary to cause one amp of current to
flow through one ohm of resistance.
MJ

xplorer wrote:

> Stupid question, I realize.
>
> But exactly what is a volt ?
>
> After 30 years of tossing micro-amperes
>  and maga-hertz around like candy,
>  I just hit my mid-childhood crisis llike a brick wall
>  and realized I still don't know what a 'volt' really is.
>
> Kaye and Laby
>  describe it in terms of the Josephson constant.
> This is analogous to describing sunshine in terms
>  of shadows.
>
> just dazed and confused....

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 19:55:33 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA08147;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:54:08 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:54:08 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:53:55 -0400
Message-Id: <200007280253.WAA21712 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: Another chemical fuel tragedy
Resent-Message-ID: <"om4BR3.0.D_1.GNFWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36427
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hank writes:

>Knuke	
>	I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you against using
>depleted Uranium at all? It is a very useful sheilding material for X-rays
>and gamma rays, and its residual radioactivity is quite low. I don't think
>it should be shipped around my airplanes either, but UPS ground should be
>OK.
>
>Hank

Hi Hank,

No, the article that I posted said this: " The encapsulated uranium could be
used in the production of radiation shielding and counter weights for
airplanes, helicopters and ships, the scientists said."  To me, it almost
reads like they are promoting it to be used as ballast material in the
vehicles themselves, not just as a cargo, but actual structural components.

The thing about this stuff is that it is fine if it is properly stored and
handled.  The radioactivity is low enough that it qualifies as being usable
in certain conditions, however, if you touch it, the daughter products,
which you can look up yourself, come off, and are quite hazardous.  Those
daughter products will not stay bound within the material, either.  They
come to the surface like some sort of quantum popcorn, and adhere to it, but
will not be an actual part of any material lattice.  A simple wiping with a
rag, for example, will bring them off.  I've done it, I know.

If a very small amount of it is used as a coating inside of an electrical
case for X-ray shielding purposes, that is only to be opened by a fully
trained, competent technician, who has the proper facilities and equipment
to safely and effectively deal with the hazard, then it is OK by me.  If it
is allowed to burn however, and the R material goes into the atmosphere,
then it is not OK.  In its powdered form or as a particulate of smoke, it is
especially hazardous because it can blow around and be ingested.  Once it is
into the body, it gets lodged in the lungs, or any mucocutaneous surface
really, and you are carrying around the stuff for the rest of your life.  It
gets into the water, onto crops and it affects all the rest of the food
chain.  Cancer from this type of exposure is almost certain.

While the proposed use of this material in vehicles that are generally also
full of flammable material is insane enough, that is not really what has
international  environmental and health authorities worried.  I've reported
this fact several times before, but US arms manufacturers have been using
depleted Uranium as a coating for exploding shells and armor piercing
bullets for quite a long time.  These arms have been and continue to be sold
all over the world, and are used on a daily basis in many countries right
now.  They are even used during non-essential operations like wargames and
for target practice.

They have been used extensively in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq, and are still
being used in areas such as Puerto Rico, Indonesia, Columbia and even here
in the US.  In Iraq, for example, the estimated number of deaths directly
due to the bombing itself in the last two years is between 1 and 2 million
people, nearly all of them civilian.  The estimated number of deaths due to
cancer from depleted Uranium exposure in those areas however, will be around
10 million people.  A similar situation exists in Kosovo, where extensive
bombing occurred, and in areas of Kuwait.

Even after accidently killing Puerto Rican civilians during training
exercises, the US Navy resumed bombing there as soon as they possible could,
and they also continue even to rent out the area to foreign navies who
purchase US arms for the same purpose.  They refused to stop the bombing,
even after a UN call to do so, and they also refused to stop using and clean
up the depleted Uranium.  This is despite the mass protest demonstrations by
the Puerto Rican people that have been as large as 100,000 people at times.

We cannot ignore this situation any longer, nor can we allow it to continue.
The idea of any real justice being carried out would be mindboggling, but
one thing we have to stop denying and to face first is this.  The US
military has become an arrogant, ignorant, genocidally maniacal killer on a
scale that has never been experienced by the inhabitants of this planet in
all of history.  They have done it at the behest of the energy companies for
the purpose of controlling us, and the rest of the world. 

The rest of the world already knows this all too well now,  and enough of
our own citizenry have finally been made aware of the extent of the
situation that they now know the real price of their actions and inactions.
The question is what are we going to do about it?  The continued lies and
phoney promises by our energy and arms industry public relations firms, and
our military and political leaders simply will no longer suffice.  It has to
stop - now.

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 Jul 27 21:32:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA07839;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:31:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:31:29 -0700
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: xplorer <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:29:35 PST7BST 
Message-ID: <yam8243.1789.17235960 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <004e01bff7dc$83533f40$9b2e9fca xplornote>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"avQLG3.0.Hw1.XoGWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36428
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 27-Jul-00, xplorer, wrote:
>Stupid question, I realize.

>But exactly what is a volt ?

>After 30 years of tossing micro-amperes
> and maga-hertz around like candy,
> I just hit my mid-childhood crisis llike a brick wall
> and realized I still don't know what a 'volt' really is.

>Kaye and Laby
> describe it in terms of the Josephson constant.
>This is analogous to describing sunshine in terms
> of shadows.

>just dazed and confused....



The guys on the list seem to given the textbook answer ;)
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
http://www.futurehealth.org/roshi.htm
http://www.post-trauma.com/roshi.html
http://www.neurofeedback-dribric.com/
http://www.austin-biofeedback.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 22:24:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA01736;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.94]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:22:14 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F123TrBoe2U8QVjp3b600002833 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2000 05:22:14.0691 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA22B730:01BFF853]
Resent-Message-ID: <"GFSzp3.0.2R.fYHWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36429
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Chuck writes:

The guys on the list seem to given the textbook answer ;)

    .-.         Hey, don't call my comments textbook.  :)
   /   \           .-.   David                         .-.
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\----
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \
            \   /        `-'                     `-'         \
             `-'                                              `-'



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 22:57:07 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA32667;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:55:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:55:49 -0700
Message-ID: <01BFF81E.3EBBB6E0 istf-2-38.ucdavis.edu>
From: Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Nitenol
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:47:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BFF81E.3EBD3D80"
Resent-Message-ID: <"hWWOW2.0.L-7.a1IWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36430
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BFF81E.3EBD3D80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This may have interesting energy-related applications, depending on the =
details...
Does the phase change occur via absorbing/releasing heat? Seems like =
that could be utilized to convert heat to mechanical motion... for =
example, simplistically stated, take heat from a source (the air), =
create motion (turn fan to move cooled air).

Dan Quickert

-----Original Message-----
From:	John Schnurer=20
Sent:	Thursday, July 27, 2000 1:17 PM
To:	Craig Haynie
Cc:	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject:	Re: Nitenol



	Developed by Navy.  Nickle-Titanium   .. Ni  Ti ... get it?

	Alloy that was  SUPPOSED to be very tough... and it is.... BUT it
also has other peculiar properites of which only one is:

	It can be alloyed to go through a memory phase change at near room
temperatures.  This allows it to change shape, and other properties,
abruptly at a give critical temperature. =20
	Used as robot 'muscles'... by hobbiests and in a few applications
such as opening greenhouse window vents at a given temperature, as
thermally stabilized valves and so on.

------ =_NextPart_000_01BFF81E.3EBD3D80
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BFF81E.3EBD3D80--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Jul 27 23:02:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA01566;
	Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:58:47 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:58:47 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a6d19dc664 [12.21.208.244]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:01:05 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: You still there Larry?
Resent-Message-ID: <"bMMoZ1.0.OO.N4IWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36431
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:57 AM 7/24/0, Larry Wharton wrote:

>I have a
>computer program that solves the problem of an electron moving around
>a closed loop of wire in 3 dimensions.  The velocity dependent
>electric field and the acceleration electric field are calculated and
>they combine together to produce an electric field that is identical
>to the simple Coloumb field.  It is written in an unusual language
>"Gauss" but would not be very hard to convert to Mathematica.  I
>could post it if there is any interest.


Could you please post the Gauss program?  Thanks.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 03:19:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA09875;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:18:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:18:27 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:18:21 -0400
Message-Id: <200007281018.GAA04586 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: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Resent-Message-ID: <"8uvgY2.0.AQ2.ptLWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36432
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Jed
>	If you or anyone else on Vortex-L ever get to LA, I will be glad
>to give you a ride in my
>Tropica EV. It looks like a cross between a Cobra and a Corvette. It is a
>real "sheep in wolf's clothing" as it has two 10HP electric motors belt
>driving the rear wheels. But it gets me to school and back most of the
>time, relatively cheaply. You can see it's sister at
>http://people.qualcomm.com/sck/ev/SCK
>Currently it is down, for new batteries, which will be arriving soon.
>It uses tweleve 6V USA 125 batteries, nominally 72 V. 
>
>Hank

Hank, that is a really cool looking car!

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 Jul 28 04:50:08 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA27301;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:49:34 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:49:34 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:49:29 -0400
Message-Id: <200007281149.HAA26595 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: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Resent-Message-ID: <"dXBu1.0.Vg6.DDNWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36433
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bill writes:
>No the world is being run by a bunch of uninformed or uncaring consumers -
>convince everyone to trade their SUV's in on a bicycle and you will see
>massive changes quickly.  The marketplace decides.  How do you get around?

The marketplace does decide Bill, but you are forgetting that the simple
marketplace is comprised of two components - the buyer and the seller.  If
the seller becomes so large that it has the ability to destroy all
competiton, or if it conspires with other sellers to destroy certain types
of competition, then the buyer has nothing to choose from, other than what
is offered by the seller.  The buyer's only alternative to that would be to
build his own whatever, and in the case of a mass produced item like an
automobile for example, this is more than the average person can do.

If you read my previous post concerning the auto industry's historic control
over the marketplace, then you can't really blame the consumer at all.
There have been numerous legislative and consumer efforts to get an
alternative fueled vehiclee, orr even a more efficient gas powered
automobile mass produced, but the big automakers and the oil companies have
always crushed them by brute force.

As for how I "get around", I don't much anymore really, at least not since
I've been in Florida.  There is nothing here that I want to "get around" to,
anyway.  I hate this place.  Before I went to Europe, I rode a bicycle for a
couple of years, almost exclusively.  Back then, I could do 100 mile days
with camping gear on my Fuji with no problem.  That was a great bike.  In
Europe and North Africa, I sailed a bit, rode a bike a lot, hitchhiked even
more, and took the public transportation system, which is excellent over
there, and quite a good value.  In Seattle, I did the same.  I haven't owned
a car for about 23 years now.  I did this by choice, as a matter of
conscience and as a personal challenge.  There isn't any public
transportation where I live now, and I don't have a bike, so I just walk to
the store to get food, and come home.  It's about a mile each way, and great
exercise.

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 Jul 28 06:49:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24243;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:45:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:45:37 -0700
Message-ID: <008601bff899$6a5fa100$28627dc7 computer>
From: "Ed Wall" <ewall infinite-energy.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3980CEB8.48EEAE3C verisoft.com.tr>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:33:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007C_01BFF876.E4CC8020"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"g9KnR2.0.Zw5.1wOWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36434
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_007C_01BFF876.E4CC8020
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Intelligence Community OverviewHamdi,

I find your comments to be insightful.  I would like to know your basis =
for certain opinions.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: hamdi ucar=20
  To: vortex ; freenrg=20
  Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:07 PM
  Subject: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Hi,

The attached table is taken from "Intelligence Community Overview For =
Japanese Visitors  Public Security Investigation Agency" titled document =
at http://www.openpgp.net/censorship/psia/cia-ico.html from cryptome.org =
released secret CIA documents.

I am pointing out that the Department Of Energy is a member of national =
security / intelligence groups the same as the army and the DOD. This =
may reflect the strategic role of the energy department on national =
security.

(Below is my opinion on world order, changing moral values and free =
energy.)

Unfortunately, world circumstances are forcing population to be =
controlled. Population is under control of nations, by governments. It =
may be a good thing that people would be governed in the proper sense of =
"government". Literally, the word "governing" is not the same thing as =
"controlling". The difference between governing and controlling is the =
(degree of) freedom.

But as governments choose to control population instead of governing, =
they use any tools, such as politics, religions, economics, education, =
communication, transport, resources, armed forces, secret forces and =
sometime directly by laws, for regulating people restricting their =
freedom, restricting them on choosing the way they live. In the past, =
populations are mostly controlled by religions and armed forces =
directly, but
now it is preferred to use more sophisticated tools which are apparently =
compatible with democracy. So that nothing is really changed for =
thousands of years. Still population is controlled but not governed (if =
not directly under command order). There may have been some truly =
self-governed societies in the past, maybe the American Indians, was one =
of them. Maybe there were many such unnamed societies on all continents, =
but all these societies are destroyed by the invaders or being destroyed =
now by those who
want to take control of resources and populations.

{The change from a governed to a ruled or controlled society occurs when =
education becomes replaced with indoctrination and psychological =
warfare, in modern times.  The growth of the 'science' and use of =
psychological warfare is very well documented in _The Science of =
Coercion_, by Chris Simpson (professor of Communications Studies), a =
scholarly work that won praise from Science magazine, among others, for =
its documentation of the origins of the subject of Communications =
Studies, which was an outgrowth of the intelligence communities =
experimentation with torture and propaganda.  The decline in =
self-regulated behavior standards is evident, and would seem to justify =
such a draconian shift, but we must ask, why does individual behavior =
deteriorate?  Many causes find common root in cultural collapse, which =
is often engineered for power considation purposes.  A proven method to =
move political power from decentralized structures to centralized is to =
simply cause social chaos within the sub-structures.  Desperate people =
will seek relief in raw power, and they see obvious, coercive power in =
brutality.  Hitler is the classic example, but hardly the only one.  =
Some people seem to make a strong case for the drugging of the =
population for similar ends:  =
http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html (see the bibliography of =
this rather large page)-- EW} =20

The Communication (which is used keep people under control) is on the =
verge of freedom by Internet revolution, and will be no longer used to =
control people effectively. Many tools used in the past to control =
population become incompatible with developing democracy and human =
rights or become obsolete with  increasing knowledge, so controlling =
resources still is an efficient way of keeping control of the =
population.

{This seems a bit optomistic, but basically true.  People first must =
realize the debased state of what they have come to think of as reliable =
facts or theories before new information will result in any net =
improvement in conditions.  Otherwise, the misuses of such information =
make the wisdom of some of its dissemination questionable.  -- EW}

 Air, water supplies, energy are resources. If governments are =
technically able to control the oxygen in the air, the sunlight, they =
will. In the movie "Total Recall" Mars population is controlled by the =
fresh air availability.

So the industrial and consumer grade energy is one of the key tools for =
controlling population, economics and overall the world.

Free energy will not be permitted and will be avoided by all costs to =
keep on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake made. The "free =
energy" in this context is the energy, which is not produced or =
controlled by governments. But if there will be a cheap or totally free =
way to produce energy practically, this not only ceases its status of =
controlled resources but may kill many other resource control schemes. =
Energy to be converted to food, to transport, to many goods, including =
precious metals, materials directly and even to intelligence or =
intellectual productions (The brain is one of the most energy consuming =
organs in humans and animals, and this is why animals choose to route =
(assign) their limited energy sources to improve physical abilities =
rather than mental abilities.)

{I would particularly like to know the source of the information about =
brain metabolic rates. -- EW}

More than this, free energy does more than break the government =
controlling schemes and give humans unrestricted access to Earth and =
space resources. With our average conscience and auto control this would =
be disastrous for nature. I hate to use "environment" keyword (on nature =
conservation context) since it is anthropocentric and imply all of =
nature (resources) is for our use. I think that nature and natural =
resources are not made solely for humans despite that many religions =
imply as much.

{Stewardship of resources is a strong theme in Christian doctine, but =
there are various interpretations. -- EW}

In my opinion in order to use cheap practical or totally free energy, =
our population must gain more conscience and gain more self-regulation =
capabilities and should be ready to be governed with full freedom rather =
than keeping it under control of regimes.

{Conscience is a outcome of a good understanding of logic, which is =
underemphasized in education. -- EW}

Gaining access to free energy would be achieved in steps. Maybe the fist =
step is changing the economic system so that it is not based energy and =
other material resources but on intellectual resources, which are =
currently in transition for 5 or 10 years.

{There is much popular rhetoric about information-based economy.  We =
have had information based government since the dawn of government. =
Information is as, if not more, valuable than ever, but controls are =
becoming weaker.  The economics change, as institutional distortions of =
information become more difficult to manage.  Information based =
government seems a worthy goal, that would be dispensing any and all =
information to people, once they have exhibited the capacity to properly =
handle it, by the standard of maximal survivability and benefit. -- EW}

The next step would be decentralization of the energy and finding cheap =
sources. This would improve the overall quality of life and increase the =
intellectual productivity. This would also permit people stop fighting =
for energy and other restricted resources.

People need to learn to live without external regulations and gain =
conscience enough to not destroy the Earth in a while (by the power of =
the free energy).=20

{Indeed, but well self-regulating individuals do not just happen by =
chance.  They are the product of cultures and societies which imbue =
traits, abilities and knowledge that serve such ends.  The problem is =
not that people don't want a better world.  Most are too desperate to be =
able to think in such grandiose terms. -- EW}

Currently, I am observing locally and globally that the level of =
conscience or moral of humans has receded in many ways by the influence =
of economic regimes and mainly by the influence of (commercial) =
companies, I believe. Companies have no morals and their reason for =
existence is mainly to make a profit. They have no obligation to the =
real world in which we live.  Actually companies are organs of the =
economic system. Economic system integrated worldwide is currently one =
of the most powerful systems that govern the world. This is wrong =
because the economic system was not designed to integrated to nature and =
gets feedback from it. It is not possible model the world with all its =
aspects, values with financial arguments. So from engineering point of =
view the system is incomplete and unstable. What is happening here, is =
mapping the nature, the humanity into the economic system by stripping =
all their values but assigning a monetary value.

{Capalism makes use of the negative tendency of virtually everyone, =
greed, to benefit the greatest number.  It is hardly perfect, because =
people are far from perfect.  The alternative systems demonstrated by =
totalitarian regimes have hardly proven themselves to be a good =
substitute, particularly in terms of wasted resources, human and =
natural. -- EW}

Back to company element of the economic system, conflicts can be clearly =
seen. Company is critical node of isolation of financial values with =
human/nature values.

{The company is where the micro-social structure meets the macro-social =
structure.  There is much room for improvement, but this is based on =
more people making less stupid choices. -- EW}

A one-way firewall on purpose stops everything passing from real word to =
the company except financial ones. As a consequence, an employee of a =
company has to accept the policy of the company overriding his own =
belief and ethics. Profit and good morals are hardly compatible. So if a =
wood company buys a forest overseas and destroys it with all its =
inhabitants, there would nothing wrong here if the operation is =
financially feasible. If human morals are forced to fit into a company =
policy, something is very seriously wrong here, and very hard to fix it. =
It is sad to see how populations comfortably adapting themselves to =
these conditions.

Actually, I can say replacing human values with commercial values is the =
unnamed new religion widely accepted worldwide. See, the Internet is =
already commercialized, the majority of people think the Internet is =
nothing more than a market place or a place to earn some money. Such a =
wonderful place for freedom is getting ruled (and ruined) by commercial =
arguments, what a huge pressure!

{I agree with you in your central points.  I am an advocate of =
self-regulation in order to improve chances of survival and true =
prosperity.  In a seeming contradiction, self-control equals freedom.  =
The universe is not a playground.  It is a very logical place that =
demands appropriate skills to survive. -- EW}

I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well to this world.

{The struggles we face are not that different from historical ones.  The =
stakes are much higher, however. -- EW}

Regards,

hamdi ucar


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----



        US Intelligence Community
      =20
         DCI
        DDCI
         =20
        National Foreign
        Intelligence Board
       National=20
        Intelligence
        Council
       =20
       DDCI/CM
        =20
         EXDIR/ICA=20

        CMS
        (IC Principals
        and Deputies
        Committee)
       ADCI/Collection
        (NICB)
       ADCI/Analysis
        & Production
        (NIPE)
       Senior
        Acquisition
        Executive
      =20
        National
        Reconnaissance
        Office
       National
        Security
        Agency
       National
        Imagery and
        Mapping
        Agency
       Central
        Intelligence
        Agency
       Defense
        Intelligence
        Agency
       Department
        of State
        IMP
       Department
        of Justice
        FBI
      =20
       Department
        of
        Treasury
       Department
        of
        Energy
       United
        States
        Army
       United
        States
        Navy
       United
        States
        Air Force
       United
        States
        Marine
        Corps
      =20
        DoD
        Components
       Independent
        Agency
       Departments with
        Intelligence
        Components
        (other than DoD)
        =20





------=_NextPart_000_007C_01BFF876.E4CC8020
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Intelligence Community Overview</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hamdi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I find your comments to be =
insightful.&nbsp; I=20
would like to know your basis for certain opinions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: =
<A=20
title=3Dhamdix verisoft.com.tr =
href=3D"mailto:hamdix verisoft.com.tr">hamdi ucar</A>=20
</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dvortex-l eskimo.com=20
  href=3D"mailto:vortex-l eskimo.com">vortex</A> ; <A =
title=3Dfreenrg-l eskimo.com=20
  href=3D"mailto:freenrg-l eskimo.com">freenrg</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 27, 2000 =
8:07=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> DOE, Free Eenergy and =
World=20
  Order</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>Hi,<BR><BR>The attached table is taken from "Intelligence =
Community=20
Overview For Japanese Visitors&nbsp; Public Security Investigation =
Agency"=20
titled document at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.openpgp.net/censorship/psia/cia-ico.html">http://www.o=
penpgp.net/censorship/psia/cia-ico.html</A>=20
from cryptome.org released secret CIA documents.<BR><BR>I am pointing =
out that=20
the Department Of Energy is a member of national security / intelligence =
groups=20
the same as the army and the DOD. This may reflect the strategic role of =
the=20
energy department on national security.<BR><BR>(Below is my opinion on =
world=20
order, changing moral values and free energy.)<BR><BR>Unfortunately, =
world=20
circumstances are forcing population to be controlled. Population is =
under=20
control of nations, by governments. It may be a good thing that people =
would be=20
governed in the proper sense of "government". Literally, the word =
"governing" is=20
not the same thing as "controlling". The difference between governing =
and=20
controlling is the (degree of) freedom.<BR><BR>But as governments choose =
to=20
control population instead of governing, they use any tools, such as =
politics,=20
religions, economics, education, communication, transport, resources, =
armed=20
forces, secret forces and sometime directly by laws, for regulating =
people=20
restricting their freedom, restricting them on choosing the way they =
live. In=20
the past, populations are mostly controlled by religions and armed =
forces=20
directly, but<BR>now it is preferred to use more sophisticated tools =
which are=20
apparently compatible with democracy. So that nothing is really changed =
for=20
thousands of years. Still population is controlled but not governed (if =
not=20
directly under command order). There may have been some truly =
self-governed=20
societies in the past, maybe the American Indians, was one of them. =
Maybe there=20
were many such unnamed societies on all continents, but all these =
societies are=20
destroyed by the invaders or being destroyed now by those who<BR>want to =
take=20
control of resources and populations.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>{The change from a governed to a ruled =
or=20
controlled society occurs when education becomes replaced with =
indoctrination=20
and psychological warfare, in modern times.&nbsp; The growth=20
of&nbsp;the&nbsp;'science' and use of psychological warfare is very well =

documented in _The Science of Coercion_, by Chris Simpson (professor of=20
Communications Studies), a scholarly&nbsp;work that won praise from =
Science=20
magazine, among others, for its documentation of the origins of the =
subject of=20
Communications Studies, which was an outgrowth of the intelligence =
communities=20
experimentation with torture and propaganda.&nbsp; The decline in =
self-regulated=20
behavior standards is&nbsp;evident, and would seem to justify such a =
draconian=20
shift, but we must ask, why&nbsp;does individual behavior =
deteriorate?&nbsp;=20
Many causes find common root in cultural collapse, which is often =
engineered for=20
power considation purposes.&nbsp; A proven method to move political =
power from=20
decentralized structures to centralized is to simply cause social chaos =
within=20
the sub-structures.&nbsp; Desperate people will&nbsp;seek relief in raw =
power,=20
and they see obvious, coercive power in brutality.&nbsp; Hitler is the =
classic=20
example, but hardly the only one.&nbsp; Some people seem to make a =
strong case=20
for the drugging of the population for similar ends:&nbsp; <A=20
href=3D"http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html">http://www.angel=
fire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html</A>&nbsp;(see=20
the bibliography of this rather large page)-- EW}&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The Communication (which =
is used keep=20
people under control) is on the verge of freedom by Internet revolution, =
and=20
will be no longer used to control people effectively. Many tools used in =
the=20
past to control population become incompatible with developing democracy =
and=20
human rights or become obsolete with&nbsp; increasing knowledge, so =
controlling=20
resources still is an efficient way of keeping control of the=20
population.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>{This&nbsp;seems a bit =
optomistic, but=20
basically true.&nbsp; People first must realize the debased state of =
what they=20
have come to think of as reliable facts or theories before new =
information will=20
result in any net improvement in conditions.&nbsp; Otherwise, the =
misuses of=20
such information make the wisdom of some of its dissemination=20
questionable.&nbsp;&nbsp;-- EW}</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>&nbsp;Air, water supplies, energy are resources. If =
governments=20
are technically able to control the oxygen in the air, the sunlight, =
they will.=20
In the movie "Total Recall" Mars population is controlled by the fresh =
air=20
availability.<BR><BR>So the industrial and consumer grade energy is one =
of the=20
key tools for controlling population, economics and overall the=20
world.<BR><BR>Free energy will not be permitted and will be avoided by =
all costs=20
to keep on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake made. The =
"free=20
energy" in this context is the energy, which is not produced or =
controlled by=20
governments. But if there will be a cheap or totally free way to produce =
energy=20
practically, this not only ceases its status of controlled resources but =
may=20
kill many other resource control schemes. Energy to be converted to =
food, to=20
transport, to many goods, including precious metals, materials directly =
and even=20
to intelligence or intellectual productions (The brain is one of the =
most energy=20
consuming organs in humans and animals, and this is why animals choose =
to route=20
(assign) their limited energy sources to improve physical abilities =
rather than=20
mental abilities.)</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{I would particularly like to know the source of the =
information=20
about brain metabolic rates. -- EW}<BR><BR>More than this, free energy =
does more=20
than break the government controlling schemes and give humans =
unrestricted=20
access to Earth and space resources. With our average conscience and =
auto=20
control this would be disastrous for nature. I hate to use "environment" =
keyword=20
(on nature conservation context) since it is anthropocentric and imply =
all of=20
nature (resources) is for our use. I think that nature and natural =
resources are=20
not made solely for humans despite that many religions imply as =
much.<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{Stewardship of resources&nbsp;is a strong theme in =
Christian=20
doctine, but there are various interpretations.&nbsp;-- EW}</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>In my opinion in order to use cheap practical or =
totally free=20
energy, our population must gain more conscience and gain more =
self-regulation=20
capabilities and should be ready to be governed with full freedom rather =
than=20
keeping it under control of regimes.</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{Conscience is a outcome of a good understanding of =
logic, which is=20
underemphasized in education. -- EW}<BR><BR>Gaining access to free =
energy would=20
be achieved in steps. Maybe the fist step is changing the economic =
system so=20
that it is not based energy and other material resources but on =
intellectual=20
resources, which are currently in transition for 5 or 10 years.</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{There is much popular rhetoric about information-based=20
economy.&nbsp; We have had information based government since the dawn =
of=20
government.&nbsp;Information is&nbsp;as, if not more,&nbsp;valuable than =
ever,=20
but controls are becoming weaker.&nbsp; The economics&nbsp;change, as=20
institutional distortions of information become more difficult to =
manage.&nbsp;=20
Information based government&nbsp;seems a worthy goal, that would be =
dispensing=20
any and all information to people, once they have exhibited the capacity =
to=20
properly handle it, by the standard of maximal survivability&nbsp;and=20
benefit.&nbsp;-- EW}<BR><BR>The next step would be decentralization of =
the=20
energy and finding cheap sources. This would improve the overall quality =
of life=20
and increase the intellectual productivity. This would also permit =
people stop=20
fighting for energy and other restricted resources.<BR><BR>People need =
to learn=20
to live without external regulations and gain conscience enough to not =
destroy=20
the Earth in a while (by the power of the free energy). </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{Indeed, but well&nbsp;self-regulating individuals do not =
just=20
happen by chance.&nbsp; They are the product of cultures and societies =
which=20
imbue traits, abilities and knowledge that serve such ends.&nbsp; The =
problem is=20
not that people don't want a better world.&nbsp; Most&nbsp;are too =
desperate to=20
be able to think in such grandiose terms.&nbsp;-- EW}<BR><BR>Currently, =
I am=20
observing locally and globally that the level of conscience or moral of =
humans=20
has receded in many ways by the influence of economic regimes and mainly =
by the=20
influence of (commercial) companies, I believe. Companies have no morals =
and=20
their reason for existence is mainly to make a profit. They have no =
obligation=20
to the real world in which we live.&nbsp; Actually companies are organs =
of the=20
economic system. Economic system integrated worldwide is currently one =
of the=20
most powerful systems that govern the world. This is wrong because the =
economic=20
system was not designed to integrated to nature and gets feedback from =
it. It is=20
not possible model the world with all its aspects, values with financial =

arguments. So from engineering point of view the system is incomplete =
and=20
unstable. What is happening here, is mapping the nature, the humanity =
into the=20
economic system by stripping all their values but assigning a monetary=20
value.<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{Capalism makes use of the negative tendency of virtually =
everyone,=20
greed, to benefit the greatest number.&nbsp; It is hardly perfect, =
because=20
people are far from perfect.&nbsp; The alternative systems demonstrated =
by=20
totalitarian regimes have hardly proven themselves to be a good =
substitute,=20
particularly in terms of wasted resources, human and natural. -- =
EW}</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>Back to company element of the economic system, =
conflicts can=20
be clearly seen. Company is critical node of isolation of financial =
values with=20
human/nature values.</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{The company is where the micro-social structure meets =
the=20
macro-social structure.&nbsp; There is much room for improvement, but =
this is=20
based on more people making less stupid choices.&nbsp;-- EW}<BR><BR>A =
one-way=20
firewall on purpose stops everything passing from real word to the =
company=20
except financial ones. As a consequence, an employee of a company has to =
accept=20
the policy of the company overriding his own belief and ethics. Profit =
and good=20
morals are hardly compatible. So if a wood company buys a forest =
overseas and=20
destroys it with all its inhabitants, there would nothing wrong here if =
the=20
operation is financially feasible. If human morals are forced to fit =
into a=20
company policy, something is very seriously wrong here, and very hard to =
fix it.=20
It is sad to see how populations comfortably adapting themselves to =
these=20
conditions.<BR><BR>Actually, I can say replacing human values with =
commercial=20
values is the unnamed new religion widely accepted worldwide. See, the =
Internet=20
is already commercialized, the majority of people think the Internet is =
nothing=20
more than a market place or a place to earn some money. Such a wonderful =
place=20
for freedom is getting ruled (and ruined) by commercial arguments, what =
a huge=20
pressure!<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{I agree with you in your central points.&nbsp; I am an =
advocate of=20
self-regulation in order to improve chances of survival and true=20
prosperity.&nbsp; In a seeming contradiction, self-control equals =
freedom.&nbsp;=20
The universe is not a playground.&nbsp; It is a very logical place that =
demands=20
appropriate skills to survive. -- EW}</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well to =
this=20
world.<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>{The struggles we face are not that different from =
historical=20
ones.&nbsp; The stakes are much higher, however. --&nbsp;EW}</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>hamdi ucar</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <P></P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>
  <HR>

  <P></P><!-- Created with AOLpress/2.0 -->
  <P>
  <CENTER>
  <TABLE cellPadding=3D2 align=3Dcenter border=3D1>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
      <TD colSpan=3D7>
        <H2 align=3Dcenter>US Intelligence Community<BR></H2></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>DCI<BR>DDCI</P></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>National Foreign<BR>Intelligence =
Board</P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>National <BR>Intelligence<BR>Council</P></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>DDCI/CM</P></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>EXDIR/ICA=20
        <P align=3Dcenter>CMS<BR>(IC Principals<BR>and=20
      Deputies<BR>Committee)</P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>ADCI/Collection<BR>(NICB)</P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter>ADCI/Analysis<BR>&amp; =
Production<BR>(NIPE)</P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P =
align=3Dcenter>Senior<BR>Acquisition<BR>Executive</P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
        =
color=3Dblue>National<BR>Reconnaissance<BR>Office</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
        color=3Dblue>National<BR>Security<BR>Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT color=3Dblue>National<BR>Imagery=20
        and<BR>Mapping<BR>Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
        color=3Dred>Central<BR>Intelligence<BR>Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
        color=3Dblue>Defense<BR>Intelligence<BR>Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT color=3Dteal>Department<BR>of=20
      State<BR>IMP</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT color=3Dteal>Department<BR>of=20
        Justice<BR>FBI</FONT></P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
      color=3Dteal>Department<BR>of<BR>Treasury</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
color=3Dteal>Department<BR>of<BR>Energy</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT =
color=3Dblue>United<BR>States<BR>Army</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT =
color=3Dblue>United<BR>States<BR>Navy</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT color=3Dblue>United<BR>States<BR>Air=20
      Force</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT=20
        =
color=3Dblue>United<BR>States<BR>Marine<BR>Corps</FONT></P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT =
color=3Dblue>DoD<BR>Components</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT =
color=3Dred>Independent<BR>Agency</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD>
        <P align=3Dcenter><FONT color=3Dteal>Departments=20
        with<BR>Intelligence<BR>Components<BR>(other than =
DoD)</FONT></P></TD>
      <TD></TD>
      <TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
  <P>
  <P><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_007C_01BFF876.E4CC8020--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 07:15:22 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA01678;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:12:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:12:10 -0700
Message-ID: <03bc01bff89d$dc0da960$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <200007281149.HAA26595 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:12:23 -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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"lLalL3.0.8Q.vIPWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36435
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> The marketplace does decide Bill, but you are forgetting that the simple
> marketplace is comprised of two components - the buyer and the seller.  If
> the seller becomes so large that it has the ability to destroy all
> competiton, or if it conspires with other sellers to destroy certain types
> of competition, then the buyer has nothing to choose from, other than what
> is offered by the seller.

True but you do have a choice though as well as practically every other
consumer.  A bicycle or an SUV - which one are you choosing?   The gas
companies have not limited my ability to buy a bicycle - Wal Mart - K Mart -
there are lots of places to buy a bicycle.  You can get skateboards and
rollerskates there too.

  The buyer's only alternative to that would be to
> build his own whatever, and in the case of a mass produced item like an
> automobile for example, this is more than the average person can do.

Walmart has a lot of bicycles - but if you want a recumbent like me you can
mailorder from many companies.

> If you read my previous post concerning the auto industry's historic
control
> over the marketplace, then you can't really blame the consumer at all.

But I do - because the poor helpless consumer is far more powerful than
that.   The consumers choose the gas guzzling SUV's over the bicycle.
(kudos Jed) And the poor politicians sit around wondering why everyone is
buying SUV's at the same time always complaining about how expensive travel
is and how much pollution there is - I pity a politician.

> There have been numerous legislative and consumer efforts to get an
> alternative fueled vehiclee, orr even a more efficient gas powered
> automobile mass produced, but the big automakers and the oil companies
have
> always crushed them by brute force.

I still do not understand how the bicycle industry has been crushed?  They
are all over!!

> As for how I "get around", I don't much anymore really, at least not since
> I've been in Florida.  There is nothing here that I want to "get around"
to,
> anyway.  I hate this place.  Before I went to Europe, I rode a bicycle for
a
> couple of years, almost exclusively.  Back then, I could do 100 mile days
> with camping gear on my Fuji with no problem.  That was a great bike.  In
> Europe and North Africa, I sailed a bit, rode a bike a lot, hitchhiked
even
> more, and took the public transportation system, which is excellent over
> there, and quite a good value.  In Seattle, I did the same.  I haven't
owned
> a car for about 23 years now.  I did this by choice, as a matter of
> conscience and as a personal challenge.  There isn't any public
> transportation where I live now, and I don't have a bike, so I just walk
to
> the store to get food, and come home.  It's about a mile each way, and
great
> exercise.

I agree - too bad more buying consumers do not make your choice - for I feel
they are a very powerful force indeed and changing their habits and their
perceptions are going to be the greatest challenges - not fighting the gas
companies in legal battles.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 08:44:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03942;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:40:14 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:40:14 -0700
Message-ID: <03fe01bff8aa$24e0bc20$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3980CEB8.48EEAE3C verisoft.com.tr> <008601bff899$6a5fa100$28627dc7@computer>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:40:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03FB_01BFF888.9BA6BDE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hid28.0.Wz.TbQWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36436
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.

------=_NextPart_000_03FB_01BFF888.9BA6BDE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Intelligence Community Overview
{The change from a governed to a ruled or controlled society occurs when =
education becomes replaced with indoctrination and psychological =
warfare, in modern times.  The growth of the 'science' and use of =
psychological warfare is very well documented in _The Science of =
Coercion_, by Chris Simpson (professor of Communications Studies), a =
scholarly work that won praise from Science magazine, among others, for =
its documentation of the origins of the subject of Communications =
Studies, which was an outgrowth of the intelligence communities =
experimentation with torture and propaganda.  The decline in =
self-regulated behavior standards is evident, and would seem to justify =
such a draconian shift, but we must ask, why does individual behavior =
deteriorate?  Many causes find common root in cultural collapse, which =
is often engineered for power considation purposes.  A proven method to =
move political power from decentralized structures to centralized is to =
simply cause social chaos within the sub-structures.  Desperate people =
will seek relief in raw power, and they see obvious, coercive power in =
brutality.  Hitler is the classic example, but hardly the only one.  =
Some people seem to make a strong case for the drugging of the =
population for similar ends:  =
http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html (see the bibliography of =
this rather large page)-- EW} =20

** are we really centralizing more power - in the US - states have a lot =
of power the federal government does not have - I may can gamble in one =
state - but not another  - perhaps we are centralizing power - but as =
the world population increases it becomes more efficient to develop =
standards and make a homogenous system - if the world was full of =
unlimited resources perhaps this would not be a concern and we could be =
wasteful - but since our resources are limited we should find the most =
efficient way to use them eh? **
  The Communication (which is used keep people under control) is on the =
verge of freedom by Internet revolution, and will be no longer used to =
control people effectively. Many tools used in the past to control =
population become incompatible with developing democracy and human =
rights or become obsolete with  increasing knowledge, so controlling =
resources still is an efficient way of keeping control of the =
population.
  ** Communication and information can be easily be created and copied - =
but it is not easy to create energy eh? *

   Air, water supplies, energy are resources. If governments are =
technically able to control the oxygen in the air, the sunlight, they =
will. In the movie "Total Recall" Mars population is controlled by the =
fresh air availability.
  ** I believe in a borg type society in our future - there will more =
more homogenous society then there is now - more standards - more =
conformity - water - air - energy is limited - at least clean air or =
water - I vote for a world system for nuclear energy - I do not want to =
see an accident in Russia affect my air quality in the US because people =
wanted a heterogeneous world and not a homogenous one lacking global =
control and global standards.  Sometimes being a cog in the wheel is =
really good if you have a great wheel! **


  Free energy will not be permitted and will be avoided by all costs to =
keep on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake made.

  ** you can get free energy now - the sun give you lots of free energy =
- and the more solar panels you have the more of it you can capture - if =
you don't want a solar panel you can grow some plants that will store =
the suns energy through chemical changes and growth to concentrate the =
power - do you have grass in your yard?  Did you pay for the sunshine =
that makes it grow?  No it is free!! Perhaps if you believe we were =
evolved or were created  from somewhere else and a meteor carried DNA =
info to this planet -from the civilization that our dna came from plants =
were developed to be the most efficient energy collectors for bodies =
that orbited suns - the biological equivalent of our solar collectors - =
imagine if you had a vehicle that could run off of grass which grows =
free from the sun!!  It is called a horse!!!   And your roads were =
covered with grass - called prairies - not concrete!!! Just imagine if =
cars could run off of concrete and the concrete replaced itself with =
energy from the sun - that is a horse and grasslands!!!  **

  More than this, free energy does more than break the government =
controlling schemes and give humans unrestricted access to Earth and =
space resources. With our average conscience and auto control this would =
be disastrous for nature. I hate to use "environment" keyword (on nature =
conservation context) since it is anthropocentric and imply all of =
nature (resources) is for our use. I think that nature and natural =
resources are not made solely for humans despite that many religions =
imply as much.

  ** Agreed I think it is horrendous we would launch a cavitating missle =
under the water and kill so many other creatures in that eco system not =
to mention the amount of noise pollution it would be causing under water =
for the creatures to communicate **

  Gaining access to free energy would be achieved in steps. Maybe the =
fist step is changing the economic system so that it is not based energy =
and other material resources but on intellectual resources, which are =
currently in transition for 5 or 10 years.
  ** energy is the economy of the near future I believe - soon perhaps =
we will have an economy like star trek - but it is going to take a lot =
of social change to get there and it will not be fast or easy **

  institutional distortions of information become more difficult to =
manage.  Information based government seems a worthy goal, that would be =
dispensing any and all information to people, once they have exhibited =
the capacity to properly handle it, by the standard of maximal =
survivability and benefit. -- EW}

  * agreed - not good for a raving psychotic to know how to pollute the =
water or create nuclear weapons - why do we tolerate the buildup of =
weapons of mass destruction in some of these smaller countries?  **

  The next step would be decentralization of the energy and finding =
cheap sources.

  ** you can grow bamboo or hemp anywhere there is sun - you can put =
solar panels anywhere there is sun - you can put windmills anywhere =
there is wind - you can put waterwheels anywhere there is moving water - =
you can even stick some wires in a potato or a grapefruit and you can =
grow them all over!! **

   This would improve the overall quality of life and increase the =
intellectual productivity. This would also permit people stop fighting =
for energy and other restricted resources.

  ** part of this problem is that living in a technological society we =
have a much greater intelligence of the systems we use - thrust this =
upon a tribe in the desert and perhaps there are too many =
social-political-spiritual changes to overcome for them to quickly adapt =
to what we percieve as a better way **  ** the battle for water rights =
is going to be very important in the future - which societies are going =
to get the easily obtainable clean and cheap water for citizens and =
crops and such? **

  {Indeed, but well self-regulating individuals do not just happen by =
chance.  They are the product of cultures and societies which imbue =
traits, abilities and knowledge that serve such ends.  The problem is =
not that people don't want a better world.  Most are too desperate to be =
able to think in such grandiose terms. -- EW}

  ** Yes absolutely agree - why do we continue to breed children in =
areas that cannot give them a good quality of life and then feel =
obligated to pay them welfare?  You would not do this if you were =
breeding dogs or horses just so they can starve or be hurt or be in pain =
- that is just cruel!!!  **

  {Capalism makes use of the negative tendency of virtually everyone, =
greed, to benefit the greatest number.  It is hardly perfect, because =
people are far from perfect.  The alternative systems demonstrated by =
totalitarian regimes have hardly proven themselves to be a good =
substitute, particularly in terms of wasted resources, human and =
natural. -- EW}

  Back to company element of the economic system, conflicts can be =
clearly seen. Company is critical node of isolation of financial values =
with human/nature values.

  {The company is where the micro-social structure meets the =
macro-social structure.  There is much room for improvement, but this is =
based on more people making less stupid choices. -- EW}

  ** it always comes back to the consumers in the marketplace and =
changing their perceptions and habits - I wish more people understood =
this **

  A one-way firewall on purpose stops everything passing from real word =
to the company except financial ones. As a consequence, an employee of a =
company has to accept the policy of the company overriding his own =
belief and ethics. Profit and good morals are hardly compatible. So if a =
wood company buys a forest overseas and destroys it with all its =
inhabitants, there would nothing wrong here if the operation is =
financially feasible. If human morals are forced to fit into a company =
policy, something is very seriously wrong here, and very hard to fix it. =
It is sad to see how populations comfortably adapting themselves to =
these conditions.

  Actually, I can say replacing human values with commercial values is =
the unnamed new religion widely accepted worldwide. See, the Internet is =
already commercialized, the majority of people think the Internet is =
nothing more than a market place or a place to earn some money. Such a =
wonderful place for freedom is getting ruled (and ruined) by commercial =
arguments, what a huge pressure!

  {I agree with you in your central points.  I am an advocate of =
self-regulation in order to improve chances of survival and true =
prosperity.  In a seeming contradiction, self-control equals freedom.  =
The universe is not a playground.  It is a very logical place that =
demands appropriate skills to survive. -- EW}

  ** if you cannot police yourself the state will police you - many =
people cannot police themself to conform to what those in power or the =
majority thinks is the proper way - we share many views EW - but those =
that disagree with us - what do you do if they refuse to adopt the =
changes you think they should?  Wait for them to launch a nuke?  **

  I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well to this world.

  {The struggles we face are not that different from historical ones.  =
The stakes are much higher, however. -- EW}

------=_NextPart_000_03FB_01BFF888.9BA6BDE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Intelligence Community Overview</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>{The change from a =
governed to a ruled=20
or controlled society occurs when education becomes replaced with =
indoctrination=20
and psychological warfare, in modern times.&nbsp; The growth=20
of&nbsp;the&nbsp;'science' and use of psychological warfare is very well =

documented in _The Science of Coercion_, by Chris Simpson (professor of=20
Communications Studies), a scholarly&nbsp;work that won praise from =
Science=20
magazine, among others, for its documentation of the origins of the =
subject of=20
Communications Studies, which was an outgrowth of the intelligence =
communities=20
experimentation with torture and propaganda.&nbsp; The decline in =
self-regulated=20
behavior standards is&nbsp;evident, and would seem to justify such a =
draconian=20
shift, but we must ask, why&nbsp;does individual behavior =
deteriorate?&nbsp;=20
Many causes find common root in cultural collapse, which is often =
engineered for=20
power considation purposes.&nbsp; A proven method to move political =
power from=20
decentralized structures to centralized is to simply cause social chaos =
within=20
the sub-structures.&nbsp; Desperate people will&nbsp;seek relief in raw =
power,=20
and they see obvious, coercive power in brutality.&nbsp; Hitler is the =
classic=20
example, but hardly the only one.&nbsp; Some people seem to make a =
strong case=20
for the drugging of the population for similar ends:&nbsp; <A=20
href=3D"http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html">http://www.angel=
fire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html</A>&nbsp;(see=20
the bibliography of this rather large page)-- EW}&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>** are we really centralizing more power - in the US =
- states=20
have a lot of power&nbsp;the&nbsp;federal government does not have - I =
may can=20
gamble in one state - but not another &nbsp;- perhaps&nbsp;we are =
centralizing=20
power - but as the world population increases it becomes more efficient =
to=20
develop standards and make a homogenous system&nbsp;- if the world was =
full of=20
unlimited resources perhaps this would not be a concern and we could be=20
wasteful&nbsp;- but since our resources are limited we should find the =
most=20
efficient way to use them eh? **</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The Communication (which is =
used keep=20
  people under control) is on the verge of freedom by Internet =
revolution, and=20
  will be no longer used to control people effectively. Many tools used =
in the=20
  past to control population become incompatible with developing =
democracy and=20
  human rights or become obsolete with&nbsp; increasing knowledge, so=20
  controlling resources still is an efficient way of keeping control of =
the=20
  population.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20
  face=3DArial size=3D2>** Communication and information can be easily =
be created=20
  and copied - but it is not easy to create energy eh? *
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;Air, water =
supplies,=20
  energy are resources. If governments are technically able to control =
the=20
  oxygen in the air, the sunlight, they will. In the movie "Total =
Recall" Mars=20
  population is controlled by the fresh air =
availability.</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
  face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20
  face=3DArial size=3D2>** I believe in a borg type society in our =
future - there=20
  will more more homogenous society&nbsp;then there is now - more =
standards -=20
  more conformity - water - air - energy is limited - at least clean air =
or=20
  water - I vote for a world system for nuclear energy - I do not want =
to see an=20
  accident in Russia affect my air quality in the US because people =
wanted a=20
  heterogeneous world and not a homogenous one lacking global control =
and global=20
  standards.&nbsp; Sometimes being a cog in the wheel is really good if =
you have=20
  a great wheel! **
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR><BR>Free energy will not be permitted and will be =
avoided by=20
  all costs to keep on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake=20
  made.</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** you can get free energy now - the sun give you lots =
of free=20
  energy - and the more solar panels you have the more of it you can =
capture -=20
  if you don't want a solar panel you can grow some plants that will =
store the=20
  suns energy through chemical changes and growth to concentrate the =
power - do=20
  you have grass in your yard?&nbsp; Did you pay for the sunshine that =
makes it=20
  grow?&nbsp; No it is free!! Perhaps if you believe we were evolved or =
were=20
  created&nbsp; from somewhere else and a meteor carried DNA info to =
this planet=20
  -from the civilization that our dna came from plants were developed to =
be the=20
  most efficient energy collectors for bodies that orbited suns - the =
biological=20
  equivalent of our solar collectors - imagine if you had a vehicle that =
could=20
  run off of grass which grows free from the sun!!&nbsp; It is called a=20
  horse!!!&nbsp;&nbsp; And your roads were covered with grass - called =
prairies=20
  - not concrete!!! Just imagine if cars could run off of concrete and =
the=20
  concrete replaced itself with energy from the sun - that is a horse =
and=20
  grasslands!!!&nbsp; **</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>More than this, free energy does more than break =
the=20
  government controlling schemes and give humans unrestricted access to =
Earth=20
  and space resources. With our average conscience and auto control this =
would=20
  be disastrous for nature. I hate to use "environment" keyword (on =
nature=20
  conservation context) since it is anthropocentric and imply all of =
nature=20
  (resources) is for our use. I think that nature and natural resources =
are not=20
  made solely for humans despite that many religions imply as =
much.</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** Agreed I think it is horrendous we would launch a =
cavitating=20
  missle under the water and kill so many other creatures in that eco =
system not=20
  to mention the amount of noise pollution it would be causing under =
water for=20
  the creatures to communicate **<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>Gaining access to free energy would be achieved in =
steps. Maybe=20
  the fist step is changing the economic system so that it is not based =
energy=20
  and other material resources but on intellectual resources, which are=20
  currently in transition for 5 or 10 years.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** energy is the economy of the near future I believe - =
soon=20
  perhaps we will have an economy like star trek - but it is going to =
take a lot=20
  of social change to get there and it will not be fast or easy **</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>institutional distortions of information become more =
difficult to=20
  manage.&nbsp; Information based government&nbsp;seems a worthy goal, =
that=20
  would be dispensing any and all information to people, once they have=20
  exhibited the capacity to properly handle it, by the standard of =
maximal=20
  survivability&nbsp;and benefit.&nbsp;-- EW}</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>* agreed - not good for a raving psychotic to know how =
to pollute=20
  the water or create nuclear weapons - why do we tolerate the buildup =
of=20
  weapons of mass destruction in some of these smaller countries?&nbsp;=20
  **<BR><BR>The next step would be decentralization of the energy and =
finding=20
  cheap sources.</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** you can grow bamboo or hemp anywhere there is sun - =
you can=20
  put solar panels anywhere there is sun - you can put windmills =
anywhere there=20
  is wind - you can put waterwheels anywhere there is moving water - you =
can=20
  even stick some wires in a potato or a grapefruit and&nbsp;you can =
grow them=20
  all over!! **</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;This would improve the overall quality of life =
and increase=20
  the intellectual productivity. This would also permit people stop =
fighting for=20
  energy and other restricted resources.<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** part of this problem is that living in a =
technological society=20
  we have a much greater intelligence of the systems we use - thrust =
this upon a=20
  tribe in the desert and perhaps there are too many =
social-political-spiritual=20
  changes to overcome for them to quickly adapt to what we percieve as a =
better=20
  way **&nbsp; ** the battle for water rights is going to be very =
important in=20
  the future - which societies are going to get the easily obtainable =
clean and=20
  cheap water for citizens and crops and such? **</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>{Indeed, but well&nbsp;self-regulating individuals =
do not=20
  just happen by chance.&nbsp; They are the product of cultures and =
societies=20
  which imbue traits, abilities and knowledge that serve such =
ends.&nbsp; The=20
  problem is not that people don't want a better world.&nbsp; =
Most&nbsp;are too=20
  desperate to be able to think in such grandiose terms.&nbsp;-- =
EW}</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** Yes absolutely agree - why do we continue to breed =
children in=20
  areas that cannot give them a good quality of life and then feel =
obligated to=20
  pay them welfare?&nbsp; You would not do this if you were breeding =
dogs or=20
  horses just so they can starve or be hurt&nbsp;or be in pain - that is =
just=20
  cruel!!!&nbsp; **<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>{Capalism makes use of the negative tendency of =
virtually=20
  everyone, greed, to benefit the greatest number.&nbsp; It is hardly =
perfect,=20
  because people are far from perfect.&nbsp; The alternative systems=20
  demonstrated by totalitarian regimes have hardly proven themselves to =
be a=20
  good substitute, particularly in terms of wasted resources, human and =
natural.=20
  -- EW}</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>Back to company element of the economic system, =
conflicts can=20
  be clearly seen. Company is critical node of isolation of financial =
values=20
  with human/nature values.</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>{The company is where the micro-social structure meets =
the=20
  macro-social structure.&nbsp; There is much room for improvement, but =
this is=20
  based on more people making less stupid choices.&nbsp;-- EW}<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** it always comes back to the consumers in the =
marketplace and=20
  changing their perceptions and habits - I wish more people understood =
this=20
  **<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>A one-way firewall on purpose stops everything passing =
from real=20
  word to the company except financial ones. As a consequence, an =
employee of a=20
  company has to accept the policy of the company overriding his own =
belief and=20
  ethics. Profit and good morals are hardly compatible. So if a wood =
company=20
  buys a forest overseas and destroys it with all its inhabitants, there =
would=20
  nothing wrong here if the operation is financially feasible. If human =
morals=20
  are forced to fit into a company policy, something is very seriously =
wrong=20
  here, and very hard to fix it. It is sad to see how populations =
comfortably=20
  adapting themselves to these conditions.<BR><BR>Actually, I can say =
replacing=20
  human values with commercial values is the unnamed new religion widely =

  accepted worldwide. See, the Internet is already commercialized, the =
majority=20
  of people think the Internet is nothing more than a market place or a =
place to=20
  earn some money. Such a wonderful place for freedom is getting ruled =
(and=20
  ruined) by commercial arguments, what a huge pressure!<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>{I agree with you in your central points.&nbsp; I am an =
advocate=20
  of self-regulation in order to improve chances of survival and true=20
  prosperity.&nbsp; In a seeming contradiction, self-control equals=20
  freedom.&nbsp; The universe is not a playground.&nbsp; It is a very =
logical=20
  place that demands appropriate skills to survive. -- EW}</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>** if you cannot police yourself the state will police =
you - many=20
  people cannot police themself to conform to what those in power or the =

  majority thinks is the proper way - we share many views EW - but those =
that=20
  disagree with us - what do you do if they refuse to adopt the changes =
you=20
  think they should?&nbsp; Wait for them to launch a nuke?&nbsp; =
**</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well =
to this=20
  world.<BR></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>{The struggles we face are not that different from =
historical=20
  ones.&nbsp; The stakes are much higher, however.=20
--&nbsp;EW}</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_03FB_01BFF888.9BA6BDE0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 12:37:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA30041;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:23:31 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:23:31 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:23:17 -0400
Message-Id: <200007281923.PAA04732 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: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Resent-Message-ID: <"tsGli3.0.CL7.lsTWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36437
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill Wallace writes:
>  ** Yes absolutely agree - why do we continue to breed children in areas
that cannot give them a good quality of life and then feel obligated to pay
them welfare?  You would not do this if you were breeding dogs or horses
just so they can starve or be hurt or be in pain - that is just cruel!!!  **

Bill, we don't breed children in the US.  It is against the law.  That
practice stopped after the Civil War gave all people the right to have
children or not to have them as they wished.  You rural, South Georgia boys
seem to keep forgetting about things like this, and that is why I hate
living in the South.

I'll attend to the rest of your madness later when I have time, but that
much, I just couldn't put off saying.

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 Jul 28 13:23:36 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA18199;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:20:13 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:20:13 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: The Gravitational Motor
In-Reply-To: <397FDEAF.2B9ED9EA verisoft.com.tr>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000728162424.3961B-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"33Nhk3.0.CS4.yhUWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36438
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Hamdi,

	I took the measureof current to be as follows:

	A measure of current was made on the PRIMARY ... and any secondary
current measures were extrapolated as to what they should be if "xxx" held
true.

	

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, hamdi ucar wrote:

> 
> 
> John Winterflood wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >There is no reason to think alternate unless an expert say it
> > >was bogus or contain full of errors.
> > 
> > I don't think you need to be an expert to say his work is
> > bogus.  He basically has an open circuit inductor (using
> > iron filings instead of the usual laminated core and paint
> > instead of the usual enamel) and says that he gets hundreds
> > of amps to flow through it with only a few tens of volts
> > to push it!
> > 
> > What do you reckon the chances that a transformer with a
> > broken winding will still conduct hundreds of amps ?
> > Zero I reckon!
> 
> Yes, this was my point also, I did not believed the circuit was left open. 
> I wrote to J. Naudin who try to replicate it. But He said that De Aquino
> confirmed the circuit is an open dipole. Result was eventually a failure. 
> >From my letter dated April, 2000 to J. Naudin:
> 
> "Maybe more incredible than the weight loss, is the low impedance of the dipole
> antenna is to me. It appears that Aquino passed 300 A with 37V means 0.1 Ohm. 
> What is your current measured impedance at 50 Hz? anything low than 100K will
> surprise me."
> 
> But there are many weird things occurring in electronics circuits in reality.
> For example I once obtained 150 MHz strong harmonics on single transistor 
> oscillator running with TIP3055 (ft < 3 MHz). Maybe In some circumstances
> De Aquino circuit was worked. This may be a (Murphy) rule: 
> 
>   = A circuit may find a way to consume all the power available. =
> 
> :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> hamdi ucar
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 13:26:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20933;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:25:20 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:25:20 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:29:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
cc: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>, Schnurer <herman@antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Apology
In-Reply-To: <397FDEAF.2B9ED9EA verisoft.com.tr>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000728162537.3961C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cILIR3.0.y65.lmUWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36439
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear vo.,

	My apologies if I have seemed abrasive or curt.  Please let me
know, off line or on line, if you feel I have missed any important issues,
due to any perception on your part that I have ignored and-or
otherwise passed by some information.

	Please know I do NOT have free access to www.  I am also NOT
able to see, use, read, decode or save Gifs, attachments of nearly
any kind, of, anything but ASCII for the most part.

	Some people have been kind enough to either mail me printed
materials, decode other than ASCII, such as Octet bit streams, and so 
on.

		John Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 13:43:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03423;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3981F020.BF062679 bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:42:08 -0400
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Apology
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000728162537.3961C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"b4S5.0.Or.mxUWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36440
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
>         Dear vo.,
> 
>         My apologies if I have seemed abrasive or curt.  Please let me
> know, off line or on line, if you feel I have missed any important issues,
> due to any perception on your part that I have ignored and-or
> otherwise passed by some information.
> 
>         Please know I do NOT have free access to www.  I am also NOT
> able to see, use, read, decode or save Gifs, attachments of nearly
> any kind, of, anything but ASCII for the most part.
> 
>         Some people have been kind enough to either mail me printed
> materials, decode other than ASCII, such as Octet bit streams, and so
> on.


John,

My local library offers free access to the web on the computers
used for the card catalog.

They block the pornography sites.  :-)

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 14:03:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06463;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:00:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:00:57 -0700
Message-ID: <3981F45C.B51A0D77 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:00:12 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order - Ed
References: <3980CEB8.48EEAE3C verisoft.com.tr> <008601bff899$6a5fa100$28627dc7@computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"NVNdV3.0.va1.8IVWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36441
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


> Ed Wall wrote:
> 
> > (The brain is one of the most energy consuming organs in humans and animals, and this is why animals choose to route (assign) their limited energy sources to improve physical abilities rather than mental abilities.)
> 
> {I would particularly like to know the source of the information about brain metabolic rates. -- EW}
> 
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the complementary notes. I did not recall where I gathered the information above, maybe from a TV documentary. I did a web search and found below:

http://www.psy.sunysb.edu/banderson/psy561/metabolism/

	Importance of Oxygen and Glucose to Brain (Sokoloff)

	Brain is one of the organs with the highest metabolic rates 
	3.5 ml oxygen/100 g brain/min is consumed brain takes 49 ml/oxygen/min 
	Whole body takes 250 ml/oxygen/min 
	brain is 2% body weight but takes 20% of total body oxygen consumption 
	(children ~4-6 yrs use 50% of total body oxygen). 
	Thus the brain needs a constant supply of oxygen and glucose 


> I find your comments to be insightful.  I would like to know your basis for certain opinions.

Actually, I wrote a compilation from my ordinary life experience as a reaction. If I had read books on economics and social issues I would have more clear and structured knowledge on what is happening.

> The universe is not a playground.  It is a very logical place that demands appropriate skills to
survive. -- EW}

Yes, I saw this. I wonder how people have a complete confidence about the future while many thing are going seriously wrong. Nature is insane. It dont care whether if the bottom or the top of the evolution will survive. I think radiation hardened microorg
anism have more chance than humans. :)


> > I am afraid our free energy dreams do not fit well to this world.
> {The struggles we face are not that different from historical ones.  The stakes are much higher,
however. -- EW}

Yes, you are right. I did dramatized things a bit.

I am still evaluating your comments and notes.

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 15:15:06 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA03888;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:12:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:12:50 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.37]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Apology
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:12:16 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F99AENA9FUDGyIXYev6000007cc hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2000 22:12:17.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3F796C0:01BFF8E0]
Resent-Message-ID: <"ul-cp3.0.Yy.YLWWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36442
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Apology
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:42:08 -0400

John Schnurer wrote:
Dear vo.,
My apologies if I have seemed abrasive or curt.  Please let me know, off 
line or on line, if you feel I have missed any important issues,
due to any perception on your part that I have ignored and-or otherwise 
passed by some information.
Please know I do NOT have free access to www.  I am also NOT able to see, 
use, read, decode or save Gifs, attachments of nearly any kind, of, anything 
but ASCII for the most part.
Some people have been kind enough to either mail me printed materials, 
decode other than ASCII, such as Octet bit streams, and so on.

John,

My local library offers free access to the web on the computers
used for the card catalog.

They block the pornography sites.  :-)

Terry


And don't report whirlpools built you never built.
Quit trying to misrepresent everything I say.
Say it straight, apology accepted.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 16:20:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32222;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:18:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:18:29 -0700
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: David Dennard <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:18:30 PST7BST 
Message-ID: <yam8244.1505.17235960 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <F123TrBoe2U8QVjp3b600002833 hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"-8_yW1.0.Ot7.5JXWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36443
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 28-Jul-00, David Dennard, wrote:
>Chuck writes:

>The guys on the list seem to given the textbook answer ;)

>    .-.         Hey, don't call my comments textbook.  :)
>   /   \           .-.   David                         .-.
>  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \
>-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\----
>    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \
>            \   /        `-'                     `-'         \
>             `-'                                              `-'

OK, Davie baby. But you don't look so good, imbedded into
my signature ;^)

Anyway, I was refering to Bill Beaty's description ;^)

ChuckD....

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 16:37:04 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA16785;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1ED87F1F8B1DD411B84E00D0B74D72F40BA60A MAILSERVER>
From: "Florek, Steven" <Steven.Florek omnikron.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Renshaw RCM theory
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:16:22 -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: <"IApGb2.0.764.kYXWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36444
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Vortexians,

While it may be a moldy idea to many of you, I recently came across Curt
Renshaw's radiation continuum (RCM) theory for the first time.  I found it
to be a fairly clever challenge to SR.  The basic idea is to postulate that
light actually propagates at a continuum of speeds, but only photons which
are traveling at c relative to a given particle of matter can be absorbed.
Thus, only light traveling at c is observed because our detectors are made
of matter.  Light is always *observed* to be c, but objects in motion
interact with different components of the radiation due to their relative
velocities--ultimately the need for SR (or aether for that matter) goes
away.

During the well-known history of the development of SR, Einstein concluded
that either c must be variable or space-time must undergo what is now known
as Lorentz length contractions in relativistic frames.  As experiment has
indicated that c is constant, one is forced to conclude that SR holds.  It
is also my understanding that a loophole exists whereby SR and an arbitrary
variable-light-speed theory cannot necessarily be distinguished by SR-type
experiments involving measurements of length/time contractions and so forth
(please correct me if I am wrong).  But because other experiments have found
no variations in c we think it's more plausible to assume Lorentz
contraction.  Renshaw's hypothesis creates a loophole out of this latter
class of experiments.

Now there are some obvious downsides--RCM tends to be "not even wrong"
because photons at velocities other than c are unobservable, and much of
Renshaw's argument left me unpersuaded.  Nevertheless it has shaken my faith
in special relativity a bit.  I was wondering if any of you could restore my
faith.

Of course there's a vanity web site:

http://renshaw.teleinc.com

-Steve

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 17:11:55 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA15664;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:10:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:10:29 -0700
Message-ID: <3982201F.51D93D08 earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:06:55 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Allahverdyan & Nieuwenhuizen: new possibilies in quantum thermodynamics 
 7.17.00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QDwKo1.0.gq3.r3YWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36445
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Subject:   update.494
   Date:    Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
   From:   AIP listserver <physnews aip.org>
    To:      physnews-mailing aip.org

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 494  July 17, 2000   by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

NEW FRONTIERS OF THERMODYNAMICS.  The science of heat
flow might have begun in the 19th century, as a way of maximizing
engine efficiency, but thermodynamics is still a forefront discipline,
especially when it attempts to maximize information flow in
computers.  Typical of the new work is a pair of articles which arrive
at some surprising conclusions.  In the first paper, Armen
Allahverdyan of, CEA Saclay (France)/University of Amsterdam
(Netherlands)/Yerevan Physics Institute (Armenia),
aarmen spht.saclay.cea.fr, and Theo Nieuwenhuizen of the
University of Amsterdam (nieuwenh wins.uva.nl, 011-31-20-525-
6332) state that there may be a new, previously overlooked work-
producing process in classical heat engines.  All heat engines are
driven by a temperature difference between two reservoirs or "baths."
Usually the hot and cold reservoirs are isolated from each other--they
interact via an intermediary, namely the "working substance" such as
a gas which receives heat from the hot bath, pushes a piston, and
sends unused heat to the cold bath.       Now, the researchers suggest
that putting the hot and cold baths in direct contact for relatively
short
amounts of time may result in useful work, if the baths have very
different relaxation times, the amount of time that each takes
individually to come to thermal equilibrium.  One could accomplish
this, for example, by putting together a very large bath and a very
small bath.  Traditional treatments of thermodynamics assume that
direct interactions between the hot and cold reservoirs result in the
dissipation of energy and nothing else.  But these treatments make the
simplifying assumption that the baths interact very feebly or for
infinitely long times.

   The authors show that allowing the two reservoirs to interact for
short windows of time (relative to the time in which two reservoirs
arrive at an equal temperature) may bring about a transfer of energy
that can be converted to work, in cases where the final common
temperature of the baths is lowered by their direct interaction.  If
verified experimentally, this proposal may lead to new engine designs
and perhaps revise estimates of the maximum efficiency of a heat
engine.  (Physical Review Letters, 10 July 2000.)

     In the second paper, the same research team suggests that a
quantum particle (such as an electron) interacting strongly with a
reservoir of particles may violate the Clausius inequality--one
formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that it
is impossible to do work without losing heat.  What the researchers
term "appalling behavior" can be traced to the quantum mechanical
property of entanglement, in which a quantum particle (such as an
electron) is so strongly interlinked with another particle or group of
particles that the resulting behavior cannot be treated by standard
thermodynamic approaches.  In this paper, the Amsterdam scientists
study the entanglement of a particle with a "quantum thermal bath," a
reservoir of particles with which the first particle can exchange
energy and momentum.  According to the researchers, entanglement
prevents the quantum bath from observing the normal requirements
for a heat bath.  Therefore, thermodynamics simply cannot say
anything useful about the system.

     Standard thermodynamics dictates that the bath be in thermal
equilibrium and not interact strongly with an external object. To the
contrary, the bath strongly interacts with something external to it (the

entangled particle) and it cannot reach equilibrium, since it constantly

exchanges energy and momentum with the particle.  At low
temperatures where entanglement could be easily preserved, the
researchers state that this system can apparently violate the Clausius
inequality--in which the heat gained by the particle must be less than
or equal to the temperature multiplied by the change in its entropy (or
disorder).  Near absolute zero temperatures, a situation which would
ordinarily require the particle to lose heat, the researchers show that
the particle could gain heat, by the Clausius relation.  According to
this scenario, applying a cyclic parameter such a periodically varying
external magnetic field can cause the entangled particle to extract
work from the bath--something forbidden in a classical system.
Further, the researchers say that this phenomenon could be said to
constitute a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.  However,
they are quick to point out that the particle can only extract
reasonable--but not limitless--amounts of work, as the bath must
maintain a minimum ground-state energy rather than be completely
exhausted.  (Second paper: Phys. Rev. Lett. 7 August 2000; Select
Articles.)
****************************************************


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 17:29:27 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA21216;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:27:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:27:07 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle revie
In-Reply-To: <200007281018.GAA04586 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.94.1000728172500.2888A-100000 newton.csun.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"MBLTd1.0.QB5.RJYWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36446
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Knuke
She seduced me, but she is only somewhat faithful. I am still learning how
to properly love her.

Hank

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Michael T Huffman wrote:

> >Jed
> >	If you or anyone else on Vortex-L ever get to LA, I will be glad
> >to give you a ride in my
> >Tropica EV. It looks like a cross between a Cobra and a Corvette. It is a
> >real "sheep in wolf's clothing" as it has two 10HP electric motors belt
> >driving the rear wheels. But it gets me to school and back most of the
> >time, relatively cheaply. You can see it's sister at
> >http://people.qualcomm.com/sck/ev/SCK
> >Currently it is down, for new batteries, which will be arriving soon.
> >It uses tweleve 6V USA 125 batteries, nominally 72 V. 
> >
> >Hank
> 
> Hank, that is a really cool looking car!
> 
> 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 Jul 28 17:36:28 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA24245;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:33:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:33:10 -0700
Message-ID: <05ea01bff8f4$9c552e40$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <200007281923.PAA04732 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:33:23 -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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"K1Mzx2.0.lw5.6PYWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36447
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Bill, we don't breed children in the US.  It is against the law.  That
> practice stopped after the Civil War gave all people the right to have
> children or not to have them as they wished.

So let me make sure I understand your position clearly - you advocate that
ALL people should have AS MANY children as they WISH?  And if they have 8
children and only earn an income of 8,000 dollars annually - they should be
allowed to continue to have children because they wish more even though at
this point it is your tax dollars paying for their children and not their
own income?  Is that what you are saying Knuke?  Or perhaps you are saying
that a retarded woman with aids should be allowed to have 8 children or more
as she wishes - so her lovely little children can have such a joyous short
or limited life in the world?  Is that what you are saying Knuke?  You are a
cruel person with no heart if you truly believe this - aren't you concerned
for the quality of life of a 9 child family on welfare - why should they be
allowed to continue to have children without being able to support them?
Human benevolence dictates as long as the system can sustain a burden it
should do so - do things have to deteriorate to the state they reached in
the early 80's in China before we take action however.  I suppose there are
reactive people in the world and proactive people - which one are you?   I
believe the way RIGHTS work in this country or at least the spirit of RIGHTS
is that your rights end where someone elses begin.
America is going to suffer social upheaval because of the inability of a
lesser population to support the retirement needs of a greater population.
If there had been more controls and an even population throughout the
generations - this imbalance that is a result of the limited thinking you
advocate would not be present today and many old people would not have to
worry about the poverty they are currently just barely surviving in - as
their benefits are constantly cut and they matter less and less to people
because their costs become more and more and they become a greater burden on
the system.  You have more children than you can support Knuke - I
personally will not and am sad to see that you advocate such an inhumane
policy.

>  You rural, South Georgia boys

Where do your false assumptions to classify me with this group arise?  I
assume from rural south georgia boy you are referring to someone born and
bred in south ga?  For your clarification I was born in germany and spent
most of my childhood in various parts of europe.

> seem to keep forgetting about things like this, and that is why I hate
> living in the South.

Again as I told you before in the private correspondance you never bothered
responding to - why continue to live somewhere you hate - sounds foolish to
me - certainly a happy knuke is better than a hateful knuke.  I suggest you
move if you hate where you live - seems to me only a fool would stay
somewhere he hates?

> I'll attend to the rest of your madness later when I have time, but that
> much, I just couldn't put off saying.

Yes please do - I enjoy your comments and all the biases that come with
them.  :-)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 17:49:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA28740;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:48:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:48:33 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.49]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:48:00 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F49gXunLiYoORwVhsFY00003f42 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 00:48:00.0631 (UTC) FILETIME=[A52A2870:01BFF8F6]
Resent-Message-ID: <"B9-sZ1.0.w07.XdYWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36448
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I tried to straighten out your wave. I see you got it right this
time.  Sig removed.  :)

Yeah, Bill still thinks space is void.

David


>From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: David Dennard <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: a Volt ?
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:18:30 PST7BST
>
>On 28-Jul-00, David Dennard, wrote:
> >Chuck writes:
>
> >The guys on the list seem to given the textbook answer ;)
>
> >    .-.         >   /   \           .-.                                 
>.-.
> >  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \
> >-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\----
> >    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \
> >            \   /        `-'                     `-'         \
> >             `-'                                              `-'
>
>OK, Davie baby. But you don't look so good, imbedded into
>my signature ;^)
>
>Anyway, I was refering to Bill Beaty's description ;^)
>
>ChuckD....
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 18:00:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA32604;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:58:51 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:58:51 -0700
Message-ID: <398223D7.D6CAD2DA ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:22:47 -0700
From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Jul 28, 2000]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"XpPpq3.0.Mz7.BnYWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36449
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 Jul 28, 2000
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org>
To: aki ix.netcom.com

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 28 Jul 00   Washington, DC

1. NMD: 31 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS URGE CLINTON TO DELAY DECISION.
Secretary Cohen boasted to the Senate Armed Services Committee on
Tuesday that, "we have successfully demonstrated the bulk of the
system's critical engagement functions."  He explained that the
July 7 test (WN 14 Jul 00), while not successful, "does not show,
as some have claimed, that the system is not technologically
feasible."  He did not elaborate on what it would take to show
that.  Unpersuaded, 31 Senators, led by Dorgan (D-ND) and Durbin
(D-IL), warned President Clinton that a decision now "would
imperil, not improve our national security."  For Clinton, it's a
question of whether he wants his legacy to be: The President that
began the deployment process of Star Wars.  For readers of WN,
it's a question of whether they would like to express their views
to the President in an e-mail.  Background material to help get
you started will be on the APS home page on Monday www.aps.org .

2. SPEED LIMIT: WHO HYPED THE SPEED OF LIGHT STORY?  The letter
in Nature seemed to say no revolutionary physics was involved,
describing the result as: "a direct consequence of classical
interference between different frequency components in an
anomalous dispersion region."  But I doubt if many journalists
read it in Nature (WN 21 Jul 00).  As far as I know, only the
Dallas Morning News got it right.  The NEC press release used a
rather different tone: "[researchers] have proven that light can
travel faster than its acknowledged speed in vacuum."  One can
only speculate on the objectives of the press release, but it's
the first time I've ever seen a press release on basic research
that had the company's Nasdaq trading symbol in the first line. 

3. ADVENTURES ON MIR: THERE'S A FUNGUS AMONG US.  The view from
the world's most expensive tourist destination is being obscured
by living scum spreading over the windows.  Courageous cosmonauts
must now live with fast-multiplying microorganisms.  After years
of relative dormancy, these stowaways from planet Earth appear to
be rapidly mutating from solar radiation.  Some 250 species of
bacteria and fungi inhabit Mir--and they've turned aggressive,
munching on anything organic, including electrical insulation.  
Ecotourists can now have a, ugh, microbiology experience. 

4. KANSAS: EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM IN TUESDAY'S REPUBLICAN
PRIMARY.  Should the stork theory of babies be given equal time?

CORRECTION: Charles Platt points out that CryoCare is not "out of
business," as WN reported (21 Jul 00).  It is "unable to provide
service at this time," having "overestimated the potential growth
and profitability of cryonics."  It should also be noted that Mr.
Platt reviewed Robert Park's "Voodoo Science" for the Wash Post. 

(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 Jul 28 18:04:49 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01820;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:02:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:02:40 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.49]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Allahverdyan & Nieuwenhuizen: new possibilies in quantum thermodynamics 7.17.00
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:02:08 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F157vvMSaQz8xckA1Qc00005c17 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 01:02:08.0550 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E905460:01BFF8F8]
Resent-Message-ID: <"TYCnf1.0.MS.mqYWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36450
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

One tiny step closer.

Ka-Boom!!!  When an explosion happens (Ka) the void is opened.  This is a 
static event.  Almost instantly gravity slams the void shut (Boom) this is a 
dynamic event that drives the piston.  Motors are not thermodynamic.  
Thermodynamic is classic Maya, the veil of illusion, surface apprearance, 
the sound of one hand clapping.

This is another example of why we are returning to the cosmological 
constant.  Einstein had it right to start of with as Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. 
Bachall cited in the Cosmic Triangle report.  All the flat space teams 
concurr.  The only real proof of anything.

Same thing when lightning strikes.

Hear the thunder.

Feel "The Force".

David "Skywalker" Dennard

"That lightning is striking again and again and again and again"


>From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-L eskimo.com
>Subject: Allahverdyan & Nieuwenhuizen: new possibilies in quantum 
>thermodynamics 7.17.00
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:06:55 -0600
>
>Subject:   update.494
>    Date:    Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
>    From:   AIP listserver <physnews aip.org>
>     To:      physnews-mailing aip.org
>
>PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
>The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
>Number 494  July 17, 2000   by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
>
>NEW FRONTIERS OF THERMODYNAMICS.  The science of heat
>flow might have begun in the 19th century, as a way of maximizing
>engine efficiency, but thermodynamics is still a forefront discipline,
>especially when it attempts to maximize information flow in
>computers.  Typical of the new work is a pair of articles which arrive
>at some surprising conclusions.  In the first paper, Armen
>Allahverdyan of, CEA Saclay (France)/University of Amsterdam
>(Netherlands)/Yerevan Physics Institute (Armenia),
>aarmen spht.saclay.cea.fr, and Theo Nieuwenhuizen of the
>University of Amsterdam (nieuwenh wins.uva.nl, 011-31-20-525-
>6332) state that there may be a new, previously overlooked work-
>producing process in classical heat engines.  All heat engines are
>driven by a temperature difference between two reservoirs or "baths."
>Usually the hot and cold reservoirs are isolated from each other--they
>interact via an intermediary, namely the "working substance" such as
>a gas which receives heat from the hot bath, pushes a piston, and
>sends unused heat to the cold bath.       Now, the researchers suggest
>that putting the hot and cold baths in direct contact for relatively
>short
>amounts of time may result in useful work, if the baths have very
>different relaxation times, the amount of time that each takes
>individually to come to thermal equilibrium.  One could accomplish
>this, for example, by putting together a very large bath and a very
>small bath.  Traditional treatments of thermodynamics assume that
>direct interactions between the hot and cold reservoirs result in the
>dissipation of energy and nothing else.  But these treatments make the
>simplifying assumption that the baths interact very feebly or for
>infinitely long times.
>
>    The authors show that allowing the two reservoirs to interact for
>short windows of time (relative to the time in which two reservoirs
>arrive at an equal temperature) may bring about a transfer of energy
>that can be converted to work, in cases where the final common
>temperature of the baths is lowered by their direct interaction.  If
>verified experimentally, this proposal may lead to new engine designs
>and perhaps revise estimates of the maximum efficiency of a heat
>engine.  (Physical Review Letters, 10 July 2000.)
>
>      In the second paper, the same research team suggests that a
>quantum particle (such as an electron) interacting strongly with a
>reservoir of particles may violate the Clausius inequality--one
>formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that it
>is impossible to do work without losing heat.  What the researchers
>term "appalling behavior" can be traced to the quantum mechanical
>property of entanglement, in which a quantum particle (such as an
>electron) is so strongly interlinked with another particle or group of
>particles that the resulting behavior cannot be treated by standard
>thermodynamic approaches.  In this paper, the Amsterdam scientists
>study the entanglement of a particle with a "quantum thermal bath," a
>reservoir of particles with which the first particle can exchange
>energy and momentum.  According to the researchers, entanglement
>prevents the quantum bath from observing the normal requirements
>for a heat bath.  Therefore, thermodynamics simply cannot say
>anything useful about the system.
>
>      Standard thermodynamics dictates that the bath be in thermal
>equilibrium and not interact strongly with an external object. To the
>contrary, the bath strongly interacts with something external to it (the
>
>entangled particle) and it cannot reach equilibrium, since it constantly
>
>exchanges energy and momentum with the particle.  At low
>temperatures where entanglement could be easily preserved, the
>researchers state that this system can apparently violate the Clausius
>inequality--in which the heat gained by the particle must be less than
>or equal to the temperature multiplied by the change in its entropy (or
>disorder).  Near absolute zero temperatures, a situation which would
>ordinarily require the particle to lose heat, the researchers show that
>the particle could gain heat, by the Clausius relation.  According to
>this scenario, applying a cyclic parameter such a periodically varying
>external magnetic field can cause the entangled particle to extract
>work from the bath--something forbidden in a classical system.
>Further, the researchers say that this phenomenon could be said to
>constitute a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.  However,
>they are quick to point out that the particle can only extract
>reasonable--but not limitless--amounts of work, as the bath must
>maintain a minimum ground-state energy rather than be completely
>exhausted.  (Second paper: Phys. Rev. Lett. 7 August 2000; Select
>Articles.)
>****************************************************
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 18:20:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08802;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:18:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:18:50 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.49]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:18:16 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F62ETbP2Tf9B45h1aTd0000010f hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 01:18:16.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF739670:01BFF8FA]
Resent-Message-ID: <"DrwD2.0.S92.w3ZWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36451
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The real problem is the rich don't pay their fair share due to all the tax 
loop holes.  The IRS only collects %19 percent of what could be collected if 
everyone paid their fair share. (quote PBS)

Less than %10 percent have over %90.  Yet that %10 only pay %60 and complain 
about that.

It is wefare for the rich in this country.  And stats are about the same in 
all the rich countries.

If the rich just paid the same % as the poor and did not cook the books we 
could have had all new schools, new roads, 5 space stations, ended povery 
and homelessness, plenty of money for the children (bless their hearts) and 
probably a hotel on the Moon by now.  And the rich would never really have 
noticed any lose due to a greater more enlightened civilization.  The money 
changers have taken over the Temple.

I'm going to go get my whip.

David


>From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:33:23 -0400
>
> > Bill, we don't breed children in the US.  It is against the law.  That
> > practice stopped after the Civil War gave all people the right to have
> > children or not to have them as they wished.
>
>So let me make sure I understand your position clearly - you advocate that
>ALL people should have AS MANY children as they WISH?  And if they have 8
>children and only earn an income of 8,000 dollars annually - they should be
>allowed to continue to have children because they wish more even though at
>this point it is your tax dollars paying for their children and not their
>own income?  Is that what you are saying Knuke?  Or perhaps you are saying
>that a retarded woman with aids should be allowed to have 8 children or 
>more
>as she wishes - so her lovely little children can have such a joyous short
>or limited life in the world?  Is that what you are saying Knuke?  You are 
>a
>cruel person with no heart if you truly believe this - aren't you concerned
>for the quality of life of a 9 child family on welfare - why should they be
>allowed to continue to have children without being able to support them?
>Human benevolence dictates as long as the system can sustain a burden it
>should do so - do things have to deteriorate to the state they reached in
>the early 80's in China before we take action however.  I suppose there are
>reactive people in the world and proactive people - which one are you?   I
>believe the way RIGHTS work in this country or at least the spirit of 
>RIGHTS
>is that your rights end where someone elses begin.
>America is going to suffer social upheaval because of the inability of a
>lesser population to support the retirement needs of a greater population.
>If there had been more controls and an even population throughout the
>generations - this imbalance that is a result of the limited thinking you
>advocate would not be present today and many old people would not have to
>worry about the poverty they are currently just barely surviving in - as
>their benefits are constantly cut and they matter less and less to people
>because their costs become more and more and they become a greater burden 
>on
>the system.  You have more children than you can support Knuke - I
>personally will not and am sad to see that you advocate such an inhumane
>policy.
>
> >  You rural, South Georgia boys
>
>Where do your false assumptions to classify me with this group arise?  I
>assume from rural south georgia boy you are referring to someone born and
>bred in south ga?  For your clarification I was born in germany and spent
>most of my childhood in various parts of europe.
>
> > seem to keep forgetting about things like this, and that is why I hate
> > living in the South.
>
>Again as I told you before in the private correspondance you never bothered
>responding to - why continue to live somewhere you hate - sounds foolish to
>me - certainly a happy knuke is better than a hateful knuke.  I suggest you
>move if you hate where you live - seems to me only a fool would stay
>somewhere he hates?
>
> > I'll attend to the rest of your madness later when I have time, but that
> > much, I just couldn't put off saying.
>
>Yes please do - I enjoy your comments and all the biases that come with
>them.  :-)
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 19:47:32 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA03116;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:46:29 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:46:29 -0700
Message-Id: <200007290246.WAA17790 granger.mail.mindspring.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:41:00 -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: <"exL_A1.0.Xm.4MaWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36452
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> You rural, South Georgia boys
> seem to keep forgetting about things like this, and that is why I hate
> living in the South.

As someone who lives in the south, Mississippi to be precise, I find the
above statement a little unnerving. The fact that I (and others on this
list) live in the southern US has no bearing on this discussion. 

Personally, I believe population control is necessary for the long term
survival of our race. I would rather like to avoid the Calcutta effect.
And, should I be required to pay taxes that support a family who does not
work, (even though they could) and bums money off of the government only to
turn around and reproduce rapidly and consume resources wastefully? I think
not. It puts a drain on our resources.

Not a flame, just my opinion.

--Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 20:03:18 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA10125;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:02:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:02:22 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.41]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:01:48 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F17FT3kMUVfNIJWNDIT00002f66 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 03:01:48.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[566A6B60:01BFF909]
Resent-Message-ID: <"e0aBh.0.3U2.-aaWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36454
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The number of people who get away with anything with gov money is a pittance 
compared to the rich that get welfare through tax loopholes, built into the 
tax code written by the rich.

Attacks on the poor for whatever tiny misuse is the scapegoat of the issue.  
Population is not the issue, the greed of the rich is.

David


>From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:41:00 -0500
>
> > You rural, South Georgia boys
> > seem to keep forgetting about things like this, and that is why I hate
> > living in the South.
>
>As someone who lives in the south, Mississippi to be precise, I find the
>above statement a little unnerving. The fact that I (and others on this
>list) live in the southern US has no bearing on this discussion.
>
>Personally, I believe population control is necessary for the long term
>survival of our race. I would rather like to avoid the Calcutta effect.
>And, should I be required to pay taxes that support a family who does not
>work, (even though they could) and bums money off of the government only to
>turn around and reproduce rapidly and consume resources wastefully? I think
>not. It puts a drain on our resources.
>
>Not a flame, just my opinion.
>
>--Kyle R. Mcallister
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 20:03:37 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA08489;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:00:42 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:00:42 -0700
Message-ID: <39824885.51EF835C verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:59:17 +0300
From: hamdi ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order - B.W.
References: <3980CEB8.48EEAE3C verisoft.com.tr> <008601bff899$6a5fa100$28627dc7@computer> <03fe01bff8aa$24e0bc20$4e8ba8cf@surfsouth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dF7eO3.0.X42.PZaWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36453
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Bill Wallace` wrote:
> 

> ** are we really centralizing more power - in the US - states have a lot of power the federal government does not have - I may can gamble in one state - but not another -

It needs a distinction between "governing" efforts and "controlling" efforts between federal and local governments. I think law system as part of governing and may differ state to state. I have no argument against governing efforts unless they are undemoc
ratic. But on the _dark_ controlling part, methods and tools could be universal like the economic system (although authorities may take advantage from some regional characteristics)


  - perhaps we are centralizing power - but as the world population increases it becomes more efficient to develop standards and make a homogenous system - if the world was full of unlimited resources perhaps this would not be a concern and we could be wa
steful - but since our resources are limited we should find the most efficient way to use them eh? **

I think the consequence of availability of limited power is better than unlimited power currently. This is my point. For example if unlimited power is freely available to underdeveloped countries, direct consequence would be an exponential population grow
th without developing a substructure. This would occurs because currently their population is controlled by insufficient living conditions and high mortality.

> 
>      The Communication (which is used keep people under control) is on the verge of freedom by Internet revolution, and will be no longer used to control people effectively.

> 
>      ** Communication and information can be easily be created and copied - but it is not easy to create energy eh? *
> 

He he, I mean prohibiting, limiting and monitoring the communication between people (plus disinformation and propaganda). 25 years ago here in Turkey, it was forbidden any personal wireless communication and there were only (1) national TV and (3) radio c
hannels. Media is strictly controlled. It is always suspected the phones are tapped and many times the foreign letters are received open with an official stamp stating it was read. This is the communication control that I saw.

 
>      Free energy will not be permitted and will be avoided by all costs to keep on going the "controlling" regime, unless a mistake made.
> 
>      ** you can get free energy now - the sun give you lots of free energy - and the more solar panels you have the more of it you can capture - if you don't want a solar panel you can grow some plants that will store the suns energy through chemical ch
anges and growth to concentrate the power - do you have grass in your yard?  Did you pay for the sunshine that makes it grow?  No it is free!! 

Yeah. but it need initial investment not less than your 2-4 years of consummation. And they require some maintenance costs. Plus practically these are limited production. Sun power works best for water heater in summer time.  having a garden is also an in
vestment in Turkey, because maybe 95% of people, in cites or in relatively country side reside on multistage buildings having no yard. Living in a independent house with a garden is a great luxury.

>Perhaps if you believe we were evolved or were created  from somewhere else and a meteor carried DNA info to this planet -from the civilization that our dna came from plants were developed to be the most efficient energy collectors for bodies that orbite
d suns - the biological equivalent of our solar collectors - imagine if you had a vehicle that could run off of grass which grows free from the sun!!  It is called a horse!!!   And your roads were covered with grass - called prairies - not concrete!!! Jus
t imagine if cars could run off of concrete and the concrete replaced itself with energy from the sun - that is a horse and grasslands!!!  **

Plus the horse shit.:) Shit is mandatory on the grass. Otherwise grass efficiency drop by the absence of the fertilizer.:)


>      The next step would be decentralization of the energy and finding cheap sources.
> 
>      ** you can grow bamboo or hemp anywhere there is sun - you can put solar panels anywhere there is sun - you can put windmills anywhere there is wind - you can put waterwheels anywhere there is moving water - you can even stick some wires in a potat
o or a grapefruit and you can grow them all over!! **

And why we should need the electrical power at all? Everything here works by themselves self-powered. maybe some rechargeable batteries suffice for all our needs. Especially if you like to listen your pocket radio at night (it is observed that potatoes in
troduce some static on radios).

Regards,

hamdi ucar

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 23:13:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA12206;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:12:03 -0400
Message-Id: <200007290612.CAA15105 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: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Resent-Message-ID: <"S8we33.0.d-2.zMdWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36456
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bill Wallace writes:
>So let me make sure I understand your position clearly - you advocate that
>ALL people should have AS MANY children as they WISH?  And if they have 8
>children and only earn an income of 8,000 dollars annually - they should be
>allowed to continue to have children because they wish more even though at
>this point it is your tax dollars paying for their children and not their
>own income?  Is that what you are saying Knuke?  Or perhaps you are saying
>that a retarded woman with aids should be allowed to have 8 children or more
>as she wishes - so her lovely little children can have such a joyous short
>or limited life in the world?  Is that what you are saying Knuke?  You are a
>cruel person with no heart if you truly believe this - aren't you concerned
>for the quality of life of a 9 child family on welfare - why should they be
>allowed to continue to have children without being able to support them?
>Human benevolence dictates as long as the system can sustain a burden it
>should do so - do things have to deteriorate to the state they reached in
>the early 80's in China before we take action however.  I suppose there are
>reactive people in the world and proactive people - which one are you?   I
>believe the way RIGHTS work in this country or at least the spirit of RIGHTS
>is that your rights end where someone elses begin.
>America is going to suffer social upheaval because of the inability of a
>lesser population to support the retirement needs of a greater population.
>If there had been more controls and an even population throughout the
>generations - this imbalance that is a result of the limited thinking you
>advocate would not be present today and many old people would not have to
>worry about the poverty they are currently just barely surviving in - as
>their benefits are constantly cut and they matter less and less to people
>because their costs become more and more and they become a greater burden on
>the system.  You have more children than you can support Knuke - I
>personally will not and am sad to see that you advocate such an inhumane
>policy.

Don't go totally rabid, Bill. You said that we were breeding people and you
made the comparison to horses and dogs, and I said that we were not breeding
people, and that it was against the law.  Here are your exact words to that
effect.

>  ** Yes absolutely agree - why do we continue to breed children in areas
that cannot give them a good quality of life and then feel obligated to pay
them welfare?  You would not do this if you were breeding dogs or horses
just so they can starve or be hurt or be in pain - that is just cruel!!!  **

  Basically, in my response, I was referring to the fact that at one time in
the South, it was the common practice to forceably breed and use people like
cattle, and that the mentality that existed then, still exists amongst
people in many areas of the South..  I may be wrong about the fact that the
US is not breeding people somewhere, but I am pretty sure that it is
currently against the law.  It wouldn't surprise me if the US were breeding
people in secret however, especially for use by the military.  I don't know.
I do know that the military has put money into that sort of thing.

Also for the record, BTW, many people feel that we should take better care
of people that can't take care of themselves instead of forcing them to
suffer, and they actually do something about it besides complain about the
cost.  We don't consider it a burden at all.  It's been a great experience.
My father was on the board of directors of a moderate sized children's home,
and a home for unwed mothers for many years.  He was the chairman of the
board of both places at various times, and both the positions were unpaid.
No federal or state money was taken, as they were supported by private
donations. Right now, he is on the board of directors for a group that is
organizing aid for the displaced Croation families.  In my overall family,
we have 7 adopted family members, and we're taking care of them just fine,
thanks.  For myself personally, I haven't had any children, so I don't know
how you can think that I have too many children to support.

Basically, we think that people have the right to have children as they
wish.  It is considered unwise to have too many, but that happens in some
instances.  If you look at the number of children born to educated families
and the number born to uneducated people, the number for the uneducated
people is higher.  If you compare the educational standings of the world,
you will find that the US is ranked at around number 7 right now, I think.
If you compare the educational standings within the US, the Southern states
of Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and Florida are among the worst.
The European countries all take care of their people very well.  They are
also much better educated.  I think that with better education here in the
US, people will make better choices about having children.  Until then, we
need to take care of the ones that we have better.  There are currently 30
million people in the US that don't get enough to eat, and this is the
richest country in the world.  It is not that there isn't enough money here,
it is that some people (like yourself, for example) are so cruel that they
will starve people to death rather than give it up for food or education.

>
>>  You rural, South Georgia boys
>
>Where do your false assumptions to classify me with this group arise?  I
>assume from rural south georgia boy you are referring to someone born and
>bred in south ga?  For your clarification I was born in germany and spent
>most of my childhood in various parts of europe.

According to your private e-mail to me, you currently live in rural, South
Georgia.  Is that right, or not?  As for your upbringing, allow me to make a
guess.  US military brat, probably not Navy because there isn't much of a
naval presence in Germany, and probably not Army or Marines, if you lived in
other parts of Europe.  There is a large Army presence in Germany, but not
so much in the other countries.  That would leave the Air Force, the State
Department, or a private contractor.  Am I right?  That would also mean that
you would have been "educated" in one of the most expensive, and least cost
effective, taxpayer-paid schooling systems on Earth, namely the overseas, US
military school system... such as it is.  And you talk about welfare babies!
These are just guesses of course, and I'm sure you will correct me if I am
wrong.

>Again as I told you before in the private correspondance you never bothered
>responding to - why continue to live somewhere you hate - sounds foolish to
>me - certainly a happy knuke is better than a hateful knuke.  I suggest you
>move if you hate where you live - seems to me only a fool would stay
>somewhere he hates?

You are right, and as soon as I can, I will get the heck out of here, but
for right now, I'm stuck in Bubbaville, and I am not enjoying it at all.  I
didn't respond to your private e-mail BTW, because I was quite busy at the
time, and the e-mail itself was so disrespectful and appalling that I didn't
really know what to say.

>> I'll attend to the rest of your madness later when I have time, but that
>> much, I just couldn't put off saying.
>
>Yes please do - I enjoy your comments and all the biases that come with
>them.  :-)

No problem, and I'm glad you are enjoying this. I've got a million biases,
just like everybody else.

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 Jul 28 23:18:03 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA11738;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20000729060954.5742.qmail web2101.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Schaffer <schaffermj yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"Aw-KO2.0.It2.uKdWv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36455
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- xplorer <xplorer indo.net.id> wrote:
 
> But exactly what is a volt ?


A volt is a unit of potential energy in an electric field. Moving a charge of
one coulomb across an electric potential difference of one volt requires one
joule of energy (or does one joule of work, depending on the direction of the
displacement and the sign of the charge).

=====
Michael J. Schaffer



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Jul 28 23:19:48 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA24453;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:18:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:18:38 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5a82468f9df [12.21.209.46]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:20:59 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Question to Larry Wharton and others
Resent-Message-ID: <"K7DH9.0._z5.zSdWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36457
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Earlier I wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In *Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity,* Plenum Press, 1968, W. G.
V. Rosser develops (p. 272 ff) a proof that the field from a closed
circuit, ignoring radiation fields, is zero.   Rosser develops the
following SR based equations for his proof:

   E = Ev + Ea

   Ev = q/(4 Pi e0 s^3) [r - r u/c][1 - v^2/c^2]

   Ea = q/(4 Pi e0 s^3 c^2) {r x ([r - r u/c] x [a])}

   s = [r - (r dot u)/c]

where r, u, and a are vectors.

However, the above formlae are only based on first order approximation,
assuming v/c is small.  Also, Rosser only actually proves his case for a
specific circuit which has sharp bends, but assumes the bends are not
significnt because the accelerations involved are not large (due to the
fact the electron velocity is slow in wires I assume.)  This strikes me as
a flawed approach and also as immaterial to high velocity situations, like
those found in stars.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote.

I would like to make some corrections to the above.  Earlier in the text
(p. 252) Rosser credits the above equations to Frisch and Wilets (Amer. J.
Phys. 24(1956) p.574.)  The above equations are not approximations and are
consistent with the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.  It is later in his proof
that Rosser introduces his approximations.  Note also that the above
equations referance forces intitated from retarded charge postiions, not
the current position, as does the relativistic Coulomb field pancaking
equation from Shadowitz.  This should make no difference at all with regard
to a planar circular DC current.

I wonder what happened to Larry Wharton?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 00:37:23 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA04008;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:36:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:36:28 -0700
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 03:36:22 -0400
Message-Id: <200007290736.DAA28133 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: Supersonic Supercavitating Submarine
Resent-Message-ID: <"ltIsq1.0.T-.ybeWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36458
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bill writes:
>True but you do have a choice though as well as practically every other
>consumer.  A bicycle or an SUV - which one are you choosing?   The gas
>companies have not limited my ability to buy a bicycle - Wal Mart - K Mart -
>there are lots of places to buy a bicycle.  You can get skateboards and
>rollerskates there too.

I already told you Bill, I walk everywhere.  I enjoy walking, but my range
is pretty limited.  I couldn't commute forty miles each way to work on foot
or on a bicycle for example, and many people have to do that these days.  In
the Northern states, weather is also a major factor for the majority of the
year.

>I still do not understand how the bicycle industry has been crushed?  They
>are all over!!

It hasn't been crushed.  The automobile industry has effectively limited our
choices to the bicycle, rollerskates, pogosticks or a car as vehicles.  When
consumers ask for an electric car, they just say no.  When consumers ask for
a higher mileage car, they just say no.  When consumers ask for public
transportation, the auto and oil industries make sure that it is oil powered
or if at all possible, they just say no.  This is a matter of historical
record.  They have dictated to us what we will use for transportation, not
the other way around.

>I agree - too bad more buying consumers do not make your choice - for I feel
>they are a very powerful force indeed and changing their habits and their
>perceptions are going to be the greatest challenges - not fighting the gas
>companies in legal battles.

The oil companies are a cartel that needs to be shut down to allow other
forms of energy generation to emerge.  The nuclear power industry is the
same.  Both are very aggressively protective of their respective markets and
seek to expand them, as per the normal behavior of any corporate endeavor.
The legal battles are too costly, but are the only recourse unless you want
to consider nationalizing them or doing a buyout.  Left on their own, they
will simply continue to merge together, dominate and expand their markets as
they have in the past.

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 Jul 29 04:15:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA05069;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:14:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:14:30 -0700
Message-ID: <06fd01bff94e$347c7440$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <3980CEB8.48EEAE3C verisoft.com.tr> <008601bff899$6a5fa100$28627dc7@computer> <03fe01bff8aa$24e0bc20$4e8ba8cf@surfsouth.com> <39824885.51EF835C@verisoft.com.tr>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order - B.W.
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:14:43 -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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"IaMXB1.0.7F1.LohWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36459
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Yeah. but it need initial investment not less than your 2-4 years of
consummation. And they require some maintenance costs. Plus practically
these are limited production. Sun power works best for water heater in
summer time.  having a garden is also an investment in Turkey, because maybe
95% of people, in cites or in relatively country side reside on multistage
buildings having no yard. Living in a independent house with a garden is a
great luxury.

**  Well lets keep producing humans until we are all crammed in together
like a huge chicken farm - personally I like going to a beach not blanketed
as far as the eye can see with people.  I like riding a bike down a less
travelled road.   Is there anyone that actually would ENJOY living as people
do in say Japan as compared to an area with more space like here in the US?
Perhaps I am in the minority **

> Plus the horse shit.:) Shit is mandatory on the grass. Otherwise grass
efficiency drop by the absence of the fertilizer.:)

** HAHA - very true! A self sustaining transportation system (directly
affected by the sun) - something we would have with horses and grass and
horse shit and not have with cars and concrete which consumes vast energy
and is very wasteful and polluting.  How many drunk horse riders kill people
compared to drunk car drivers?   **

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 04:22:16 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA06533;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:21:38 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:21:38 -0700
Message-ID: <070301bff94f$339ca620$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <F17FT3kMUVfNIJWNDIT00002f66 hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:21:51 -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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"e7pdb1.0._b1.1vhWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36460
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> The number of people who get away with anything with gov money is a
pittance
> compared to the rich that get welfare through tax loopholes, built into
the
> tax code written by the rich.

For once you said something that seemed intelligent David - Kudos!  Yes the
abuse of the system by those with money and power is far and wide reaching -
population instability - exploitation of the system by those who can do so -
what are you doing to get us closer to the star trek society where money and
abuse of the system is not what drives humanity?  You have to remove
incentives that create for an unhealthy environment - exploiting the greed
of people have brought many wonderful things to the masses. It seems now we
have reached a point where we have turned in on ourselves though and
innovation based on greed may not be the best model anymore.  Are you
independently wealthy or does lack of financial freedom still make you
suspect of bias?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 05:04:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA11323;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:02:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:02:04 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.16]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:01:23 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F67fdhNzW3l1GM3h3vL0000090e hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 12:01:24.0044 (UTC) FILETIME=[B779B8C0:01BFF954]
Resent-Message-ID: <"JKu2J1.0.rm2.xUiWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36461
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The problem is they they broke the Constitution and took the gold and silver 
out of the poor folks pockets, against the law.

This leading up to a world where there is no money and the gov will controll 
it all and no person will be able to buy or sell with out the mark of the 
beast.  The mark is a person's ID.  Let he who hath wisdom count the number 
of the beast, and that number is 666, the same as the number of a man.  
MasterCard.

What I have said is common sense.  The lack of any scientific knowledge on 
whirlpools needs to be looked at seriously.

The ruse on gold and silver was there is not enough.  That's a lie, there is 
plenty of gold and silver to mint currency.  It is just the rich don't want 
it in the poor person pockets.  The King always wants all the gold.  America 
was set up against The King.

Breaking the law of the Constitution set up the system so everyone has to 
keep their money in a bank just to maintain value against inflation.  Saving 
money piggy bank way is gone.  That was what made America great.  The money 
changers have taken over now.

Our forefathers were no fools.  They knew all about paper money.  It was 
never intended for each paper dolar to have a gold dollar in the bank.  
Another lie to pull the wool over an ignorant public.  They did a good job.

David


>From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
>Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:21:51 -0400
>
> > The number of people who get away with anything with gov money is a
>pittance
> > compared to the rich that get welfare through tax loopholes, built into
>the
> > tax code written by the rich.
>
>For once you said something that seemed intelligent David - Kudos!  Yes the
>abuse of the system by those with money and power is far and wide reaching 
>-
>population instability - exploitation of the system by those who can do so 
>-
>what are you doing to get us closer to the star trek society where money 
>and
>abuse of the system is not what drives humanity?  You have to remove
>incentives that create for an unhealthy environment - exploiting the greed
>of people have brought many wonderful things to the masses. It seems now we
>have reached a point where we have turned in on ourselves though and
>innovation based on greed may not be the best model anymore.  Are you
>independently wealthy or does lack of financial freedom still make you
>suspect of bias?
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 06:00:21 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA20328;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:58:30 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:58:30 -0700
Message-ID: <070701bff95c$ba197040$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <200007290612.CAA15105 smtp-2u-1.atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:58:40 -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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tga2G.0.Xz4.sJjWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36462
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Don't go totally rabid, Bill. You said that we were breeding people and
you

Poor choice of words - my apologies Knuke - I meant having children

> cattle, and that the mentality that existed then, still exists amongst
> people in many areas of the South..  I may be wrong about the fact that
the

I currently live in the south and although can agree there is still a
division of racial lines in many social groups I can't honestly believe
there are that many people - even the most racist - that have a mentality
that slavery is OK and treating people like their own personal property to
abuse as they please is fine.

> currently against the law.  It wouldn't surprise me if the US were
breeding
> people in secret however, especially for use by the military.  I don't
know.
> I do know that the military has put money into that sort of thing.

If genetic research is going on with embryos and perhaps even new born
babies do you view this as an infringement on their rights?  What of the
ethical dilemma that an embryo is not a person and the benefits to the
masses of this research is more important?

> Also for the record, BTW, many people feel that we should take better care
> of people that can't take care of themselves instead of forcing them to
> suffer, and they actually do something about it besides complain about the
> cost.

Agreed - human benevolence dictates the system (in our case our society)  to
assume as many burdens as it can before breaking.  I don't view the
breakdown of society and civilization as a good thing however and feel
proactive steps should be taken to ensure that the wheel we are all cogs of
does not go flat.  People that feel a sense of injustice or being used for
no return often feel the system has let them down and do not wish to be a
part of it.  Steady population numbers and controlling births would not have
allowed large differences in population numbers between the generations - a
lesser population would not be supporting the retirement needs of a greater
population or do you view this as good?  Much time and money and resources
and politics has been - is being - and will be spent on just this one
problem.

>  We don't consider it a burden at all.  It's been a great experience.

You do not feel it is costly - and perhaps that is true for many people -
but there are many people that do not share your views and feel a family of
9 on welfare should not be allowed to have more children.  You disagree?
Instead of approaching this from the financial aspect of it being a burden
on others - what of the quality of life for these children - do we really
need to be so densely populated and strain resources to the point of
breaking and put everyone in misery?  Again though perhaps I am in the
minority when I like riding a bike down a quiet less travelled road or going
on a beach that is not blanketed with people as far as the eye can see or
having a pleasant meal in a restaurant without massive noise pollution.

> My father was on the board of directors of a moderate sized children's
home,
> and a home for unwed mothers for many years.  He was the chairman of the
> board of both places at various times, and both the positions were unpaid.

Did your father have independent wealth then?  Looking at maslows
hierarchy - if he lived in a cardboard box and went hungry every night it
would probably be very difficult for him to perform 100% for the charity he
donated his time and efforts to.

> No federal or state money was taken, as they were supported by private
> donations.

Again how did you father pay for his home and his food and take care of his
children?  One day a star trek society that removes the profit and greed
motive from our citizens may be achieved - but certainly your father was not
going home to a cardboard box while he let the unwed mothers and unwanted
children live in his own house - certainly he was not eating half a box of
crackers while he gave the chicken and steak to the charities - certainly he
was not walking or riding the bike while he gave all his cars and money to
those of less ability?  Or was he?

 Right now, he is on the board of directors for a group that is
> organizing aid for the displaced Croation families.

Wonderful people - one of my good friends is from there - he always claimed
he was from the resort side of the country and not the goatherder side of
the country - HAHA!  He knew little about tesla though and had never visited
the museum over there for him.  Avoiding mines while walking down the beach
was certainly a much greater concern I am sure.  He worked with the croatia
house in atlanta during the olympics - no cost was spared and he claimed the
rich and powerful of croatia do not really concern themselves as much with
their own poor as they do with western companies investing so they can get
money.  How wonderful for your father to be more concerned with poor croats
than the croats rich and powerful are.  My friend hated that he was a
croat - he much rather preferred he had been born bosnian or some nation
hostile to the US so he could defect and live here but being friendly with
the US he always viewed as a disadvantage.  And for racism I always got the
impression that most croats were HIGHLY racist - far more so than the good
ole boy southerners you have insulted here.

 In my overall family,
> we have 7 adopted family members, and we're taking care of them just fine,
> thanks.  For myself personally, I haven't had any children, so I don't
know
> how you can think that I have too many children to support.

Do whatever you can afford - but when we have a 9 child family on welfare do
you think having more children should be allowed? Is this not straining the
resources of the system - is this not being concerned with the quality of
life of the child?  The world is not made of unlimited resources - our
living space is limited - why is a planet densely populated with people a
desirable thing exactly?  There are many negatives to such a world.
Perhaps though I am in the minority believing this.

> Basically, we think that people have the right to have children as they
> wish.  It is considered unwise to have too many, but that happens in some
> instances.

How unwise?  And how much foolishness does it take before some external
entity must step in and implement controls?

>  If you look at the number of children born to educated families
> and the number born to uneducated people, the number for the uneducated
> people is higher.

Dysgenics may be the current paradigm for birth in this country - are you
saying this is bad?  Must remove incentives that foster bad outcomes.

> also much better educated.  I think that with better education here in the
> US, people will make better choices about having children.  Until then, we

Education is a costly thing though - in our profit and greed driven society
it consumes many resources - I don't know too many teachers that would live
in a cardboard box and eat crackers and walk to school everyday to put up
with the stress of teaching a bunch of unruly kids.  Perhaps if we had more
people like you that looked at that situation as desirable and not something
that was stressful the world would be a better place.

> need to take care of the ones that we have better.  There are currently 30
> million people in the US that don't get enough to eat, and this is the
> richest country in the world.  It is not that there isn't enough money
here,

Money has never been the problem -not for a long time - distribution and
logistics and good people that are effective in those areas and willing to
give their time is a much greater problem.  If we had a bunch of people that
could work at 100% efficiency while living in a cardboard box - eating
crackers - and walking around the city - and viewed this as a desirable
positive thing that was stress free - certainly many more hungry would not
starve.

> it is that some people (like yourself, for example) are so cruel that they

Again with the personal attacks and bias - very well - if you must reduce
yourself to this level so be it - I will get down in the sandbox and sling
mud with you. NA NAH!

> will starve people to death rather than give it up for food or education.

I am sorry Knuke - perhaps it is my lack of benevolence - but if I were
asked to give up my computer and virtual communities I share in because of
it and my home and nice meals and my bike and asked to live in a cardboard
box and eat crackers and not be stressed out I do not think I could comply.
Again though perhaps I am in the minority with my selfish thinking.

> According to your private e-mail to me, you currently live in rural, South
> Georgia.  Is that right, or not?

Yes I do live there - is that how you classify a good ole boy racist closed
minded ignorant bubba?  (the seeming insult you were trying to levy) Then
yes I am a good ole boy bubba based on your definition - the funny thing is
that since you are living in the south too - based on your definition  you
are a good ole boy bubba too - GOLLLIEEE! Howdy neighbor!  Where is lulu?
Go tell dat slave to fry us up some chikin!  :-)

> guess.  US military brat, probably not Navy because there isn't much of a

Yes Army - your fathers taxes subsidized my familys travel all over europe -
thanks - my uncle stopped talking to my father 20 years ago because he said
it was not fair for him to pay taxes for us to live overseas and he had to
stay in the US.  The uncle chose to work in a grocery store and not join the
military. My education was funded by the US taxpayers - my parents current
retirement is also funded by the taxpayers.  Were you not educated in a
public school system Knuke?  The analogy you are trying to draw however
between my parents who worked and were not under the poverty level and a
family that does not work and their rights to have more children does not
seem equal to me.  I am happy to be a cog in the wheel - but if my parents
were not providing some benefit to that wheel and only consumed from it with
no return - I do not feel they should have been allowed to give birth to me.

> You are right, and as soon as I can, I will get the heck out of here, but

What is limiting your ability to get out of somewhere you hate?  Is it
finances Knuke?  Certainly you could make such a good impact with your noble
ideals on all those poor good ole boy bubbas in the south.  Why not try to
positively influence and change the environment you live in - change the way
people think.  What good is a holy man on a mountain?  He has to get out
there and mix it up - Jesus did not run from the sinners - he tried to make
them good people - why are you wanting to run from the closed minded crooks
when you could try and change them and make the world a better place?  You
have the ability to make a much greater impact there than to move to a
community of like minded people don't you?

> for right now, I'm stuck in Bubbaville, and I am not enjoying it at all.
I
> didn't respond to your private e-mail BTW, because I was quite busy at the
> time, and the e-mail itself was so disrespectful and appalling that I
didn't
> really know what to say.

So lets say nothing - instead of trying to foster dialogue and communication
in the hopes of changing viewpoints - lets stick our heads in the sand or
run away?

> No problem, and I'm glad you are enjoying this. I've got a million biases,
> just like everybody else.

Don't we all - and through communication and personal interaction perhaps we
can make those more homogenous and efficient - which I believe is the
future - but if we stop talking and run away from those most needing our
influence - what good are we?  I guess when it really comes down to it you
are like me and not willing to live in the cardboard box and eat crackers
and tolerate a bunch of people you don't want to be around - perhaps I am
not in the minority after all.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 06:23:11 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA25170;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:21:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:21:50 -0700
Message-ID: <072101bff95f$fcc15040$4e8ba8cf surfsouth.com>
From: "Bill Wallace`" <btech surfsouth.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <F67fdhNzW3l1GM3h3vL0000090e hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DOE, Free Eenergy and World Order
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:22:00 -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 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Resent-Message-ID: <"_AJpd3.0.A96.kfjWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36463
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> The problem is they they broke the Constitution and took the gold and
silver
> out of the poor folks pockets, against the law.

Ah the fiat money system - yes Jefferson had many things to say about that.
In a greed free society where everyone has the same hieghtened levels of
luxury - you remove a lot of that incentive and then humans can get down to
what is really important for most of us - having some fun!  Maybe one day we
will have a star trek system - it is hard for me to understand why Paul
McCartney needs more money and charging for his music at this point only
keeps poor people from enjoying his creativity - ala napster.

> This leading up to a world where there is no money and the gov will
controll
> it all and no person will be able to buy or sell with out the mark of the
> beast.

Where is this mark that lets me do away with all those various cards and
checking accounts and different bills - etc etc - I want to sign up for the
more efficient system!  Those things take time I would rather be spending
having fun - give me the mark!!

  The mark is a person's ID.  Let he who hath wisdom count the number
> of the beast, and that number is 666, the same as the number of a man.
> MasterCard.

Sorry I do not share your religious views - and having a world monetary
system will be efficient and I see it coming in our future - already so many
economies are based on the US dollar - the fiat money system that it is.

> What I have said is common sense.  The lack of any scientific knowledge on
> whirlpools needs to be looked at seriously.

But I already sent a link to the list where the ancient egyptians and their
magic pyramid pump had a whirlpool - didn't you get it?  Here it is again -
http://www.thepump.org/howpumpworks.html

Check out Item F the VORTEX INITIATOR and item I the WHIRLPOOL CONE - seems
you are a few thousands years behind in your research David!

> The ruse on gold and silver was there is not enough.  That's a lie, there
is
> plenty of gold and silver to mint currency.  It is just the rich don't
want
> it in the poor person pockets.  The King always wants all the gold.
America
> was set up against The King.

We all want certain levels of luxury - I know few people that would be happy
living in a cardboard box eating crackers - for a long time greed had to be
used as the incentive for progress - what is greed - maybe just the desire
for the power to improve ones situation.  I agree though that Paul McCartney
wanting more money and not allowing poor people access to his music because
he won't give it away for free seems very greedy.

> Our forefathers were no fools.  They knew all about paper money.

Sure they did - but in reality what is even gold or silver - just a token
representing some exchange value - and because they were rare they were
chosen as the token representing money - we could have chosen seashells as
tokens but that would have been hard to limit the supply of!

Still you did not address my original questions -

> >what are you doing to get us closer to the star trek society where money
> >and
> >abuse of the system is not what drives humanity?  You have to remove
> >incentives that create for an unhealthy environment - exploiting the
greed
> >of people have brought many wonderful things to the masses. It seems now
we
> >have reached a point where we have turned in on ourselves though and
> >innovation based on greed may not be the best model anymore.  Are you
> >independently wealthy or does lack of financial freedom still make you
> >suspect of bias?
> >


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 07:18:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03903;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:17:25 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:17:25 -0700
Message-ID: <3982D491.198DB3DF ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:56:56 +1200
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
References: <20000729060954.5742.qmail web2101.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Q4fI.0.ry.rTkWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36464
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

A volt is electrical pressure. Just like the analogy of a circuit of water.
Voltage is the pressure difference between two points.
It is just that simple...



Michael Schaffer wrote:

> --- xplorer <xplorer indo.net.id> wrote:
>
> > But exactly what is a volt ?
>
> A volt is a unit of potential energy in an electric field. Moving a charge of
> one coulomb across an electric potential difference of one volt requires one
> joule of energy (or does one joule of work, depending on the direction of the
> displacement and the sign of the charge).
>
> =====
> Michael J. Schaffer
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 08:01:52 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12392;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:00:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:00:58 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.52]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Whirlpools and Vorticies
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:00:25 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F730Puz63Bma4RCIlWr000022c1 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 15:00:25.0294 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9C266E0:01BFF96D]
Resent-Message-ID: <"MNIX72.0.W13.f6lWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36465
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I don't think you will like the gov having total control and knowing 
everywhere you go, everything you buy, and evrything you do.  But no doubt 
it's coming.  And all freedom will be lost.  We have disgraced our 
forefather's legacy.

You are wrong about the whirlpool.

The Pharoah's Pump is about the torndao type vortex not whirlpools.  I have 
had extensive conversation on my list with Steve Meyers.  I have the book 
and checked it all all totally, no whirlpools.  A cone relates to the 
tornado type vortex, not a whirlpool, the word whirlpool is used even in the 
dictionary the same as vortex but a whirlpool is not a tornado type, 
bathroom flusher type, sink drain type, Schauberger type, Chaos Theory type 
vortex.  See Anatomy of a Whirlpool posted below.

Whirlpools are unknown to science, ignored, unrecognized, no tests, no data, 
independently backed up at;
http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html

We have built the first whirlpools ever built by man in all recorded 
history.

And concurred by all the vortex experts on the Whirlpower Declaration.



                      Anatomy of a Whirlpool


Here is the anatomy of a whirlpool compared to a tornado type vortex.  This 
gives a clue to why some can't see the difference.

The toroid flow (') extends into the water surrounding the vortex opening.
The torus donut (") is tiney is a tornado type vortex just under the upper 
lip.

        __      __
         "\    /"
        <' \  / '>
            \/


The torus donut (") only appears large in the whirlpool and has a slight 
inward spin.



____________E______________     ________________E_____________
            >              \   /               <
                         <' \ / '>
     ^      "      v         \          v      "      ^

            <                                   >

The energy spiral (E) is the dual radial arm pattern of the whirlpool due to 
the frame dragging wobble effect.

A gapping, high speed, tornado type vortex can have a similar appearance.


       ____                                         ____
        "  ---                                   ---  "
              ''''''....              ....''''''
                        ''''\    /''''
                   <'        \  /        '>
                              \/
                               \
                               /

This torroid flow (') has a very similar appearance and donut shape to the 
torus donut (") in a whirlpool but in a gapping high speed tornado type 
vortex the torus donut is still very small just under the upper lip of the 
vortex.  The torus donut is about the dual radial arm pattern on the 
horizontal and only apppears large in a whirlpool.

The above gapping tornado type vortex is like the toilet flusher, multiplied 
input, corkscrew, Russell, Schaugerger, and a host of others.  A toilet 
flusher is not a whirlpool.

This is the difference in Whirlpower and all previous vortex
science.  And in a whirlpool the tornado central vortex does not even have 
to open for the whirlpool to be dragging a good size torus donut.  Many 
large river eddies form without opening the central tornado type vortex.  Of 
course the bigger the better the more powerful.  But tornado type vortex 
science is not Whirlpower science.  The big debate has been an attempt to 
say a tornado is the same thing as a hurricane, that Whirlpower science is 
the same thing as Schauberger, Russell, ect. science.  I have always said no 
it is not, very different.

THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES!!!

The had all been hip-mo-tized.

David Dennard
The Phoenix
"in sackcloth and ashes"
http://www.whirlpower.cc





________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 08:05:20 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA13835;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:04:17 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:04:17 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.52]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:03:44 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F73MGSWvaeXlYmYOv3c000022c2 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 15:03:44.0889 (UTC) FILETIME=[30BA2E90:01BFF96E]
Resent-Message-ID: <"iW3C-.0.5O3.n9lWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36466
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

And all pressure comes from gravity.  Just like I said earlier, the 
cosmological constant.  It's just that simple.

Victory!!!

David


>From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: a Volt ?
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:56:56 +1200
>
>A volt is electrical pressure. Just like the analogy of a circuit of water.
>Voltage is the pressure difference between two points.
>It is just that simple...
>
>
>
>Michael Schaffer wrote:
>
> > --- xplorer <xplorer indo.net.id> wrote:
> >
> > > But exactly what is a volt ?
> >
> > A volt is a unit of potential energy in an electric field. Moving a 
>charge of
> > one coulomb across an electric potential difference of one volt requires 
>one
> > joule of energy (or does one joule of work, depending on the direction 
>of the
> > displacement and the sign of the charge).
> >
> > =====
> > Michael J. Schaffer
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> > http://invites.yahoo.com/
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 10:58:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA03057;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:55:33 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:55:33 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5a8bafe3506 [12.21.211.101]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:57:51 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity Force
Cc: "Sam Haines" <ironeagle ainop.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"nLaP92.0.hl.LgnWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36467
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:10 PM 7/27/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 3:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity
>Force
>
>Hank Scudder wrote:
>
>
>> Frederick
>> Please expand on what you are saying here. I don't see how it all
>> fits togegther.


I still don't have a clear picture.  The more you learn about this stuff
the more conflict and viewpoints there appear to be.


>
>Bottom line, Hank? :-)
>
>The constant 1/4(pi)eo (k) * q^2  = kq^2 = 2.304E-28  crops up
>all over the place.  Particle radius, r = kq^2/Energy,
>Electrostatic Force between charges, Fes  = kq^2/r^2 ,
>the magnetostatic force between two current loops (4.8E-11 Ampere-Meters)
>ie., q*f *2(pi)r for any particle or String-Circle or "quark" gives the
>the magnetostatic force between two current loops:
>
>Fmag = 1.0E-7 * (4.8E-11)^2 / (1.0meter)^2 = 2.304E-28 nt  =  kq^2
>indicating that there is no fundamental difference between magnetism and
>charge.


The magnetic (dipole) force is 1/r^3.  How do you get a 1/r^2 force here,
or do you?  Obviously they will be equal at SOME point.


>
>The main point was that two particles in space in their own reference frame
>moving so close to c (gamma of 3.3E18 to 2.0E21)that the magnetostatic force
>that is the result of this time dilation is the gravitational force.
>
>Big G , 6.67E-11 can be factored out to magnetostatic forces:
>
>(6.67E-11/1.0E-7)^1/2 = 0.02583 Ampere-Meters/Kg
>
>IOW, Fg = 1.0E-7 * 0.02583*M1 * 0.02583*M2/R^2  (newtons)
>
>From this the time dilation  magnetostatic/gravitational force can be
>found also.
>
>How's that for expansion?  :-)


Clear as mud!  But interesting.

I am interested in what string theory has to say about exactly what
"vibrates" in a photon.  What in fact IS a photon in string theory?  The EM
force is carried by the virtual photon, which presumably also has similar
characteristic frequencies.  The problem as I see it, be it applied to
virtual or real photons, boils down to what oscillates and how does it
oscillate?

Perhaps tensors can shed some light on this, as Hank suggests, but I don't
see how if the magnetic field itself does not exist.  Various texts derive
the magnetic force exacty for the current between two long parallel wires,
using solely the Coulombic field and special relativity.  The
(relativistic) source of the Lorentz force is the increase in current
density rho due to the fact the reference frome for any (relatively) moving
particles is contracted by 1/gamma. One source of my concern is the problem
that, if the magnetic force is fully accounted for by frame contraction,
then the magnetic force as normally calculated  must not exist at all -
i.e. it can not be simultaneously the result of electrostatics due to frame
contraction (rho increase) and also the result of the Lorentz force due to
the existence of the magnetic field as summed via Biot-Savart.  If you
apply BOTH theories you obtain twice the force observed.  Further, if you
throw out the magnetic field as a non-real merely calculated artifact of
group charge motion, then you also throw out the photon.

Further difficulty arises due to the fact that time dilation is at a limit
in a photon's reference frame.  Its clock is stopped for its entire
journey.  If a photon's clock is stopped, how can anything oscillate in the
photon's journey, say for a distance of 1000 of the photon's wavelengths?

I just don't get it.  If there is nothing to oscillate, and there is no
time to oscillate, what exactly IS a photon anyway?  What is there that can
carry a force from point A to point B, and also appear to oscillate in its
journey?

Since the electrostatic field can be derived from the magnetic and vice
versa, using relativity, one viewpoint is that they are covariant, part and
parcel of the same thing.  This sounds nice but does not provide an
explanation to the relativistic equivalent to the magnetic force beteen the
parallel wires.

My fealing is that at least part of the error lies in the relativistic
analysis of the force between parallel wires.  There must be a missing
factor that wipes out, or nearly wipes out, the relativistic increase in
charge density.  I think consideration of the momentum change of the force
carrying virtual photons due to Doppler shift may provide pat of the
answer.  However, how the photon oscillates at all, while its own clock is
stopped, is beyond me.  Perhaps there is a clear comprehensive and
believable explanation to all this according to standard electrodynamics
(i.e. without resorting to untested or barely tested and uncomfirmed
hypotheses and theories, which exist in abundance, like the Doppler-related
one I just suggested immediately above) of which I am just not aware?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 11:20:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10856;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:19:52 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:19:52 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: mjones pop.jump.net
Message-Id: <v04011701b5a8c7d6937a [207.8.127.210]>
In-Reply-To: <20000729060954.5742.qmail web2101.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:17:17 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Jones <mjones jump.net>
Subject: Re: a Volt ?
Resent-Message-ID: <"n6D4g.0.Xf2.61oWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36468
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>--- xplorer <xplorer indo.net.id> wrote:
>
>> But exactly what is a volt ?
>
>
>A volt is a unit of potential energy in an electric field.

***{It isn't a unit of potential energy. It is a unit of *potential*, which
is not the same thing. If it were a unit of potential energy, that would
mean the potential at a point would tell us how much energy--joules per
coulomb--we would get back (in the form of kinetic energy) if we placed a
charge at that point and released it. However, that is not always the case.
If we move a positive charge q2 to a location P near a positive charge q1
where the potential is X volts, then when q2 is released, it will
accelerate away from q1 and, at infinity, will have a maximum kinetic
energy of X(q2). In this situation, "potential" is a measure of potential
energy. However, if instead we move a positive charge q2 to a location P
near a *negative* charge q1 where the potential is X volts, then when q2 is
released, it will *not* accelerate away from q1 toward infinity, but rather
will accelerate toward q1, and will possess an utterly unknown maximum
kinetic energy when it reaches q1. Result: in this case, the potential at P
tells you *nothing whatsoever* about the potential energy that was
available at the point P. Hence "potential" is *not* in general equivalent
to the "potential energy in an electric field." It is, instead, a measure
of the work done in moving q2 from infinity to the point P, as I said the
other day. --MJ}***

Moving a charge of
>one coulomb across an electric potential difference of one volt requires one
>joule of energy (or does one joule of work, depending on the direction of the
>displacement and the sign of the charge).
>
>=====
>Michael J. Schaffer
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
>http://invites.yahoo.com/

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Jul 29 11:29:46 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA13976;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:28:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:28:12 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.33]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity Force
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:27:38 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F164WTgZu6WY9IuXZ2y00005040 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2000 18:27:38.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACCF67E0:01BFF98A]
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Rzra3.0.IQ3.x8oWv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36469
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

A photon vibrates, just like an atom vibrates, or a molecule vibrates.  A 
photon is probably an electron vibrating back and forth at        
lightspeed.  This make a space of much less density that an electron by 
itself and a space of less density that fluid space composed of subatomic 
fluid made of particles much smaller that an electron.  Subatomic particles 
even have sub sub atomic particles, and so on into infinity, IMO.

So light is mass, times lightspeed (vibration), times lightspeed (gravity 
driven relative density displacement), equals energy.

It's real simple once you realize gravity causes evaporaton and lightspeed.  
Heat excites matter making it less dense, a static event. Gravity blances 
the scales of density, a dynamic event.

That's the cosmological constant.  Logically.

David




>From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>CC: "Sam Haines" <ironeagle ainop.com>
>Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs Gravity 
>Force
>Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:57:51 -0800
>
>At 6:10 PM 7/27/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: hank scudder <hjscudde newton.csun.edu>
> >To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 3:57 PM
> >Subject: Re: Relativistic Time Dilation and Electrostatic Force vs 
>Gravity
> >Force
> >
> >Hank Scudder wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Frederick
> >> Please expand on what you are saying here. I don't see how it all
> >> fits togegther.
>
>
>I still don't have a clear picture.  The more you learn about this stuff
>the more conflict and viewpoints there appear to be.
>
>
> >
> >Bottom line, Hank? :-)
> >
> >The constant 1/4(pi)eo (k) * q^2  = kq^2 = 2.304E-28  crops up
> >all over the place.  Particle radius, r = kq^2/Energy,
> >Electrostatic Force between charges, Fes  = kq^2/r^2 ,
> >the magnetostatic force between two current loops (4.8E-11 Ampere-Meters)
> >ie., q*f *2(pi)r for any particle or String-Circle or "quark" gives the
> >the magnetostatic force between two current loops:
> >
> >Fmag = 1.0E-7 * (4.8E-11)^2 / (1.0meter)^2 = 2.304E-28 nt  =  kq^2
> >indicating that there is no fundamental difference between magnetism and
> >charge.
>
>
>The magnetic (dipole) force is 1/r^3.  How do you get a 1/r^2 force here,
>or do you?  Obviously they will be equal at SOME point.
>
>
> >
> >The main point was that two particles in space in their own reference 
>frame
> >moving so close to c (gamma of 3.3E18 to 2.0E21)that the magnetostatic 
>force
> >that is the result of this time dilation is the gravitational force.
> >
> >Big G , 6.67E-11 can be factored out to magnetostatic forces:
> >
> >(6.67E-11/1.0E-7)^1/2 = 0.02583 Ampere-Meters/Kg
> >
> >IOW, Fg = 1.0E-7 * 0.02583*M1 * 0.02583*M2/R^2  (newtons)
> >
> >From this the time dilation  magnetostatic/gravitational force can be
> >found also.
> >
> >How's that for expansion?  :-)
>
>
>Clear as mud!  But interesting.
>
>I am interested in what string theory has to say about exactly what
>"vibrates" in a photon.  What in fact IS a photon in string theory?  The EM
>force is carried by the virtual photon, which presumably also has similar
>characteristic frequencies.  The problem as I see it, be it applied to
>virtual or real photons, boils down to what oscillates and how does it
>oscillate?
>
>Perhaps tensors can shed some light on this, as Hank suggests, but I don't
>see how if the magnetic field itself does not exist.  Various texts derive
>the magnetic force exacty for the current between two long parallel wires,
>using solely the Coulombic field and special relativity.  The
>(relativistic) source of the Lorentz force is the increase in current
>density rho due to the fact the reference frome for any (relatively) moving
>particles is contracted by 1/gamma. One source of my concern is the problem
>that, if the magnetic force is fully accounted for by frame contraction,
>then the magnetic force as normally calculated  must not exist at all -
>i.e. it can not be simultaneously the result of electrostatics due to frame
>contraction (rho increase) and also the result of the Lorentz force due to
>the existence of the magnetic field as summed via Biot-Savart.  If you
>apply BOTH theories you obtain twice the force observed.  Further, if you
>throw out the magnetic field as a non-real merely calculated artifact of
>group charge motion, then you also throw out the photon.
>
>Further difficulty arises due to the fact that time dilation is at a limit
>in a photon's reference frame.  Its clock is stopped for its entire
>journey.  If a photon's clock is stopped, how can anything oscillate in the
>photon's journey, say for a distance of 1000 of the photon's wavelengths?
>
>I just don't get it.  If there is nothing to oscillate, and there is no
>time to oscillate, what exactly IS a photon anyway?  What is there that can
>carry a force from point A to point B, and also appear to oscillate in its
>journey?
>
>Since the electrostatic field can be derived from the magnetic and vice
>versa, using relativity, one viewpoint is that they are covariant, part and
>parcel of the same thing.  This sounds nice but does not provide an
>explanation to the relativistic equivalent to the magnetic force beteen the
>parallel wires.
>
>My fealing is that at least part of the error lies in the relativistic
>analysis of the force between parallel wires.  There must be a missing
>factor that wipes out, or nearly wipes out, the relativistic increase in
>charge density.  I think consideration of the momentum change of the force
>carrying virtual photons due to Doppler shift may provide pat of the
>answer.  However, how the photon oscillates at all, while its own clock is
>stopped, is beyond me.  Perhaps there is a clear comprehensive and
>believable explanation to all this according to standard electrodynamics
>(i.e. without resorting to untested or barely tested and uncomfirmed
>hypotheses and theories, which exist in abundance, like the Doppler-related
>one I just suggested immediately above) of which I am just not aware?
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 10:38:01 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12124;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 10:36:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 10:36:43 -0700
Message-ID: <001301bffa54$c9543880$4a441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:34:10 -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: <"MniD63.0.Mz2.hU6Xv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36470
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Vortex:

If the estimated pulse frequency of  ~3.1 Megahertz for coupling to the
gravity field of masses holds true, a current loop with ~3.1 Megahertz
pulses on it should exert a grav-antigrav force of ~ 379 Newtons (~85 pounds)
at the Earth's surface.

However, since there is a relativistic gamma due to near speed-of-light pulse
translation on the current loop the output pulse frequency of the pulse generator
needs to be increased by Gamma*~ 3.1 Megahertz. A 10.0 Megahertz pulse
train from a Function Generator might do it since the velocity of light on
the best two-wire line is about 95% of c which results in a gamma of ~ 3.7.

Gamma = 1/[1 - (v^2/c^2)]^1/2

The calculated force is 1.0E-7 * gamma* pulse current*0.02583*5.98E24/R^2 (newtons)

In this case R is the radius of the Earth (6.38E6 Meters)

Electronix Express www.elexp.com sells a BK Precision function generator which
can gate a MOSFET for under $350.00.

Good Luck!    :-)

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 11:24:56 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA28608;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:24:04 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:24:04 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530501b5aa1f2c324b [12.21.208.87]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 10:26:26 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Resent-Message-ID: <"gXC6I1.0.w-6.4B7Xv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36471
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:34 AM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>To Vortex:
>
>If the estimated pulse frequency of  ~3.1 Megahertz for coupling to the
>gravity field of masses holds true, a current loop with ~3.1 Megahertz
>pulses on it should exert a grav-antigrav force of ~ 379 Newtons (~85 pounds)
>at the Earth's surface.

The how do the photons carry the momentum, even if you do get them to
couple with the earth's hadrons?

Some starting point equations relating to photons and waves:


   E = h nu   (Planck)             (1)

   E = m c^2   (Einstein)          (2)

   lambda = c/nu                    (3)

   p = E/c = (h)(nu)/c = h/lambda    (4)

If photons are absorbed, i.e. 100 percent coupled, at rate n photons per
second for time t, then the total reaction force is given by:

   F = (n p)/t                      (5)

and the power absorbed by the earth is given by:

   P = (E n)/t                       (6)

It is of interest the amount of energy absorbed by the earth per unit of
momentum supplied to the ship is obtained by substituting (4) into E/p:

   E/p = E/(E/c) = c               (7)

Notice that the amount of energy per unit of momentum imparted to the ship
is *independent of the wavelength* of the photon.  In fact, it is
independent of anything else, as it is constant.  I suppose this is self
evident, especially considering equation (4), but it is  important to the
basic issues at hand.  As energy per photon goes up, so does momentum, and
vice versa. They have a linear relationship.

To determine the power absorbed by the earth per unit of thrust we devide
(6) by (5) to obtain:

   P/F = (n E)/(n p) = E/p      (8)

but from (7) E/p = c, so:

   P/F = c                     (9)

and we immediately see:

   P = c F                     (10)

We know that one kg-force is equalto 9.807 newtons, or 9.807 kg-m/s^2.  So
we now see that to produce thrust using photons of any energy we need the
earth to absorb a photonic power per kg of thrust of at least:

   P = (3x10^8 m/s)(9.807 kg-m/s^2) = 2.94x10^9 kg-m^2/s^3         (11)

   P = 2.94x10^9 watts                 (12)

This is why photonic rockets are not so great, except at near light speed.

Also, it is the same process whether the photons are absorbed or not, so
you have a have a photonic rocket, and thus a simple coil will not produce
the thrust, unless the photons reflect from the earth back to the coil in
large percentage, and in resonance so as to reinforce its current, thus
producing about 2.9x10^9 watts per kg thrust in the coil, and thus wiping
out the coil.  Your 85 lbs of thrust represents a photon beam carrying
about (85/2.2)(2.9x10^9 watts) = 1.1x10^11 watts.  That would take SOME
MOSFET.

Did I overlook something?


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 11:41:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00366;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:41:23 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:41:23 -0700
Message-ID: <000501bffa5d$d22e1080$db451d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530501b5aa1f2c324b [12.21.208.87]>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:38:58 -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: <"cd0H-3.0.a5.JR7Xv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36472
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft

Horace wrote:


> At 11:34 AM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> >To Vortex:
> >
> >If the estimated pulse frequency of  ~3.1 Megahertz for coupling to the
> >gravity field of masses holds true, a current loop with ~3.1 Megahertz
> >pulses on it should exert a grav-antigrav force of ~ 379 Newtons (~85 pounds)
> >at the Earth's surface.
> 
> The how do the photons carry the momentum, even if you do get them to
> couple with the earth's hadrons?

What photons, Horace?
> 
Snip the....
> 
> Did I overlook something?

Yes, basic magnetostatics.

Force = 1.0E-7 * Ampere-Meters (1) * Ampere-Meters (2)/R^2

Big G factors out to:  (6.67E-11/1.0E-7)^1/2 = 0.02583 Ampere-Meters/Kilogram

Stop Parroting physics you don't understand and do some thinking, Horace.

FJS


> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 12:30:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA12078;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:29:57 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:29:57 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530503b5aa32a1c499 [12.21.211.187]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:32:25 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Resent-Message-ID: <"fU2yL2.0.dy2.q88Xv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36473
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:34 AM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>The calculated force is 1.0E-7 * gamma* pulse current*0.02583*5.98E24/R^2
>(newtons)
>
>In this case R is the radius of the Earth (6.38E6 Meters)
[snip]


At 12:38 PM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>What photons, Horace?
>>
>Snip the....
>>
>> Did I overlook something?
>
>Yes, basic magnetostatics.
[snip]


Could you please explain how magnetostatics works at a distance of the
radius of the earth with a small coil?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 13:49:59 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA02943;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:48:54 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:48:54 -0700
Message-ID: <001501bffa6f$a196ed40$db451d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530503b5aa32a1c499 [12.21.211.187]>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:46:23 -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: <"riGJy.0.qj.sI9Xv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36474
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft

Horace wrote:


> At 11:34 AM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> [snip]
> >The calculated force is 1.0E-7 * gamma* pulse current*0.02583*5.98E24/R^2
> >(newtons)
> >
> >In this case R is the radius of the Earth (6.38E6 Meters)
> [snip]
> Could you please explain how magnetostatics works at a distance of the
> radius of the earth with a small coil?

I did, but you missed the point.
 
Big "G" the MEASURED GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT,6.67 E-11 
factors out to 0.02583 Ampere-Meters/Kilogram, thus 0.02583 Times
the Earth's mass of 5.98E24 Kilograms is EQUIVALENT to a Current Loop
of 0.02583*5.98E24 = 1.544E23 Ampere-Meters located at the Earth's
Center.

A 1.0 Ampere-Meter Current Loop at the Earth's Surface should feel a pull
(or push depending on polarity and direction of current flow) of:

1.0E-7 * 1.0* 0.02583*5.98E24/(6.38E6)^2 =  379 Newtons  or ~ 85 Pounds.

However, the Gravitational Current Loop consists of 3.1 megahertz pulses as
determined by a Relativistic Time Dilation, f' = fo/[1 - (v^2/c^2)]^1/2 wich is a
Gamma of ~ 3.3E18 derived from the dilation of the 1.0E25 Hertz frequency
of the "Quarks" or string circles that make up the nuclei.

Obviously, if you have two battery powered current loops of 1.0 Ampere-Meter
each, setting on the benchtop, separated by 1.0 meter with current flowing in the same
direction they will experience an attractive force of:

F = 1.0E-7 * (1)^2/ (1)^2 = 1.0E-7 Newtons. Do you get it?

IOW, ordinary magnetostatics works because the charge flows are in
the same Reference Frame, But it WILL NOT couple to the
Gravitational Reference Frame.

Thus the proposed experiment of feeding near velocity-of-light 3.1 megahertz
pulses around a loop of wire or a circularized two-wire transmission line
at a velocity, v = 1/(L*C)^1/2, where L and C are the lumped
Inductance and Capacitance of the wire or Xmission line, is an attempt to
see if magnetostatic coupling with the gravitational field is possible.

Regards,   Frederick
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 15:03:53 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18065;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:03:18 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:03:18 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530504b5aa50b7d5cd [12.21.211.187]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:05:45 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Resent-Message-ID: <"_Yfar3.0.AQ4.bOAXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36475
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thanks for trying to spell it out for me.

At 2:46 PM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:

>Obviously, if you have two battery powered current loops of 1.0 Ampere-Meter
>each, setting on the benchtop, separated by 1.0 meter with current flowing
>in the same
>direction they will experience an attractive force of:
>
>F = 1.0E-7 * (1)^2/ (1)^2 = 1.0E-7 Newtons. Do you get it?


If the distance is much larger the force drops as 1/R^3, not 1/R^2, right?


>
>IOW, ordinary magnetostatics works because the charge flows are in
>the same Reference Frame,


The relativistic explanations for magnetic force that I have read are based
on the fact that, for two sets of wires bearing current, there are
typically at least 3 reference frames involved.  If all the motion was in
the same reference frame then of course there would be no current.  The
most difficult part of the concept is that all the charges of a given
reference frame are affected, thus an apparent increase of only a few
electrons in one frame as viewed from a second relatively moving frame, can
produce large forces (exactly equal tothe Lorentz force) when summed on ALL
the charges moving in the second frame, while other charges in the same
wire as the charges in the second frame may feel nothing at all.



>But it WILL NOT couple to the
>Gravitational Reference Frame.
>
>Thus the proposed experiment of feeding near velocity-of-light 3.1 megahertz
>pulses around a loop of wire or a circularized two-wire transmission line
>at a velocity, v = 1/(L*C)^1/2, where L and C are the lumped
>Inductance and Capacitance of the wire or Xmission line, is an attempt to
>see if magnetostatic coupling with the gravitational field is possible.


This is the part that causes me problems in understanding.  I don't
understand how a 3.1 MHz field can be considered magnetostatic.  You are
saying the gravitational field is electromagnetic in origin, true?  When
you electromagnetically couple to it, you are therefore coupling to the 3.1
MHz photons carrying this field, true?

I would assume that these photons are not in phase, otherwise we could
readily tap this field as an electric energy source.  Even if not in phase,
however, it would seem that if the radiation from the earth carries enough
momentum to produce measureable thrust, that we could turn a piece of 96.7
m dia. piece of sheet metal into a flying carpet, simply because it should
easily reflect at 3.1 MHz.

I'm still in the dark.  8^(

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 16:39:58 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06216;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:39:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:39:12 -0700
Message-ID: <002701bffa87$6be59440$db451d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530504b5aa50b7d5cd [12.21.211.187]>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:36:39 -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: <"WoWzG3.0._W1.VoBXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36476
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft


> Thanks for trying to spell it out for me.
> 
> At 2:46 PM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> 
> >Obviously, if you have two battery powered current loops of 1.0 Ampere-Meter
> >each, setting on the benchtop, separated by 1.0 meter with current flowing
> >in the same
> >direction they will experience an attractive force of:
> >
> >F = 1.0E-7 * (1)^2/ (1)^2 = 1.0E-7 Newtons. Do you get it?
> 
> 
> If the distance is much larger the force drops as 1/R^3, not 1/R^2, right?

No, only dipole fields drop off as R^3.
> 
> 
> >
> >IOW, ordinary magnetostatics works because the charge flows are in
> >the same Reference Frame.

The non-relativistic force between two current loops (particles)should be
2.304E-28 Newtons ie., 1.0E-7*(4.8E-11)^2, but from factoring "Big G"
and getting 0.02583 ampere-meters/kg indicates that the time dilation
for the electron is 2.0E21 (0.02583*9.1E-31 = 2.35E-32 ampere-meters)

Then 4.8E-11/2.35E-32 = 2.04E21 the time dilation gamma factor.

For the heavier "Quarks" string-circles (0.02583*1.66E-27/3 = 1.43E-29)

Then 4.8E-11/1.43E-29 = 3.35E18 the time dilation gamma factor.

Then at 1.0 meter separation;

 Electrostatic force/Gravitation Force = 2.304E-28/6.67E-11* (9.1E-31)^2 = 4.167E42
indicating that it is dilation gamma squared = 2.04E21^2 or simply the "clocks" of
the particles have slowed down;  T = To/[1 - (v^2/c^2)]^1/2.
>  
> >But it WILL NOT couple to the
> >Gravitational Reference Frame.
> >
> >Thus the proposed experiment of feeding near velocity-of-light 3.1 megahertz
> >pulses around a loop of wire or a circularized two-wire transmission line
> >at a velocity, v = 1/(L*C)^1/2, where L and C are the lumped
> >Inductance and Capacitance of the wire or Xmission line, is an attempt to
> >see if magnetostatic coupling with the gravitational field is possible.
> 
> 
> This is the part that causes me problems in understanding.  I don't
> understand how a 3.1 MHz field can be considered magnetostatic.  You are
> saying the gravitational field is electromagnetic in origin, true?  When
> you electromagnetically couple to it, you are therefore coupling to the 3.1
> MHz photons carrying this field, true?

WHAT PHOTONS? You are/might be coupling a current loop that might "synch" with
the 3.1 megahertz particle-gravitational pulse frequency.

OTOH ?
> 
FJS
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Jul 30 19:10:14 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA06353;
	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:09:09 -0700
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:09:09 -0700
From: Tstolper aol.com
Message-ID: <67.78d4326.26b639a0 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:08:32 EDT
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
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: <"yJGG73.0.BZ1.5_DXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36477
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George,

Have you done any Mills-type strontium-catalyzed hydrogen plasma experiments 
yourself?

Tom Stolper

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 01:52:51 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA19910;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:51:50 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:51:50 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.46]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Whirlpools and Vorticies
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:51:11 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F640GPlrwAnekVgKMy5000049e5 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2000 08:51:11.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A0FC730:01BFFACC]
Resent-Message-ID: <"sIgtS3.0.ys4.ZuJXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36478
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The Challenge:

Since I saw no refute to my latest explaination of the dfference in 
whirlpools and vorticies, let me ask if any now agree or if anyone has the 
guts to debate the issue.

Try it, and I'll defeate you. :)

A tornado, is not a hurricane.

And a sink drain, a Chaos Theory vortex, a Schauberger vortex, a toilet 
flusher, is not a whirlpool.

Plain and simple.

David


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 03:02:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA27650;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:00:35 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:00:35 -0700
Message-ID: <004301bffade$35829fe0$db451d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Clock Paradox
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:57:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFFAA3.8182A7E0"
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: <"x2gmb3.0.vl6.0vKXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36479
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_000A_01BFFAA3.8182A7E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Go Figure, Horace. :-)


 http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR6.html

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFFAA3.8182A7E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="SR6.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="SR6.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR6.html

[DOC#18]
BASEURL=http://ln.doubleclick.net/adi/tr.ln/member;h=misc;sz=468x60;ord=187905928616438?

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR6.html
Modified=00D632C6DDFABF0165

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFFAA3.8182A7E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 05:35:26 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA20669;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:34:26 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:34:26 -0700
Message-ID: <005901bffaf3$b792a060$db451d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <IronEagle ainop.com>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:31:52 -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: <"RWOSb3.0.t25.I9NXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36480
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

More fodder, Horace:

The constant angular acceleration of a "Quark" or String Circle is c^2/r which
means an Accelerated Reference Frame (ARF!) which would account for
the Time Dilation, T = To/1/[1 - (v^2/c^2)]^1/2.

Thus the angular acceleration of an electron, Ae = c^2/2.81E-15 = 3.2E31 (meters/sec^2)

and the angular acceleration of a "Quark" or String Circle of mass 0.333Mp
(Mp = mass of a Proton)and angular acceleration, 
Ap  = c^2/4.5E-18 = 2.0E34 (meters/sec^2).

Then the time dilation ratio is directly proportional to the mass ratio:

0.333Mp/Me = 624    =   Ap/Ae = 2.0E34/3.2E31

Since the gravitational force between particles is reduced by a time dilation of
2.0E21 for an electron and 3.2E18 for a 0.333Mp particle,the dilation 
 ratio is inversely proportional to the 0.333Mp/Me mass ratio.

Now then, since Larry and Moe are constantly in an ARF wrt to us (Curly)  :-)
can we couple to their gravity field of 3.1 megahertz pulses with a current
loop with 3.1 megahertz pulses on it, synchronized to their pulse rate?

Regards,    Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 06:37:02 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA06448;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:36:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:36:01 -0700
Message-ID: <39858043.DF00F75F austininstruments.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:33:55 -0500
From: John Fields <jfields austininstruments.com>
Organization: Austin Instruments,Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <F640GPlrwAnekVgKMy5000049e5 hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PCckv2.0.ga1.13OXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36481
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

David Dennard wrote:
> 
> The Challenge:
> 
> Since I saw no refute to my latest explaination of the dfference in
> whirlpools and vorticies, let me ask if any now agree or if anyone has the
> guts to debate the issue.
> 
> Try it, and I'll defeate you. :)
> 
> A tornado, is not a hurricane.
> 
> And a sink drain, a Chaos Theory vortex, a Schauberger vortex, a toilet
> flusher, is not a whirlpool.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> David

---

David, I don't really think that your not receiving refutations to your
latest "explaination" is indicative of anything other than that no one
cares.

Instead of opinions and half-baked philosophy, why don't you publish
some hard scientific evidence which will lend some credibility to your
claims? 

---

John Fields

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 08:52:40 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA18887;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:50:44 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:50:44 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5aaa47c842a [12.21.211.187]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:53:07 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Resent-Message-ID: <"rNZKp.0.rc4.G1QXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36482
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 5:36 PM 7/30/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>> >F = 1.0E-7 * (1)^2/ (1)^2 = 1.0E-7 Newtons. Do you get it?
>>
>>
>> If the distance is much larger the force drops as 1/R^3, not 1/R^2, right?
>
>No, only dipole fields drop off as R^3.


Current loops ARE magnetic dipoles.  Unless you have a magnetic monopole
all magnetic force is dipole force at a sufficient distance, true?

I suppose I may have earlier shown that a counter exists to that notion, in
that apparent charge for a planar ring current changes depending on the
angle of view of the circular motion, thus the resulting force is 1/r^2.
Such a force would be carried by virtual photons however.  Also, I don't
see that you are invoking this concept in your speculation.



>>
>> This is the part that causes me problems in understanding.  I don't
>> understand how a 3.1 MHz field can be considered magnetostatic.  You are
>> saying the gravitational field is electromagnetic in origin, true?


Are you saying the gravitational field is electromagnetic in origin?


>>When
>> you electromagnetically couple to it, you are therefore coupling to the 3.1
>> MHz photons carrying this field, true?
>
>WHAT PHOTONS? You are/might be coupling a current loop that might "synch" with
>the 3.1 megahertz particle-gravitational pulse frequency.


If the gravitational field is electromagnetic in origin, and is 3.1
megahertz, then there have to be 96.7 m wavelength photons involved, true?
Or are you saying some special gravitational force particle (call it a
graviton) is emitted that has a frequency of 3.1 MHz and can somehow couple
to 3.1 MHz fields?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 08:53:19 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA19043;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:50:49 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:50:49 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5ab496fa82b [12.21.209.22]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:53:11 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The Clock Paradox
Resent-Message-ID: <"ONhC83.0.Sf4.O1QXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36483
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:57 AM 7/31/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>Go Figure, Horace. :-)
>
>
> http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR6.html


You might find it interesting that in his book *Retardation and
Relativity*, Jefimenko takes a different but interesting view of the
relativistic clock paradox.  He says the clock speed is a function of what
kind of clock is being obeserved in motion.  He calculates the speed of
various natural clocks.  Jefimenko's clocks consisted of:

1.  A charged particle oscillating in the x axis, the central axis, of an
oppositely charged ring.  Relative direction of motion of the clock is in
the x axis.

2.  Two (outer) particles A and B of the same charge located on the y axis
at points +-a, an inner particle C, oppositely charged, oscillates in the x
axis between the two particles and near the midpoint.  Relative direction
of motion of the clock is in the x axis.

3.  Same as 2, but the motion of C is in the y axis, the two like particles
A and B are located in the z axis.  Relative direction of motion of the
clock is in the x axis.

4.  The time delta t it takes for two charges to separate (in the y axis) a
small fixed distance d when initially separated by distance R. The ratio
d/r ~ 0. Relative direction of motion of the clock is in the x axis.  If
t_y is the time it takes for the same separation to occur in the y axis,
then t/t_y  = gamma.

5.  This clock is similar to clock 4, except one charge is replaced by a
long line of charge of uniform line density lambda, lying in the z axis and
having its midpoint at the origin.  The point charge of opposite sign is
placed on the y axis at initial distance R from the origin.  Relative
direction of motion of the clock is in the x axis.

6.  This clock is similar to to Clock 2, except charges A and B are
replaced with line charges in the yz plane parallel to the z axis.

All of the above clocks appear to run gamma times slower than the identical
stationary clock, so t_moving  = gamma * t_observer. All the following
clocks run at a different rate.

7.  This clock is the same as Clock 3, but A and B are placed at points +-a
on the x axis.  Charge C oscillates in the y axis.  Relative direction of
motion of the clock is in the x axis.  Here t_moving  = 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(5/4)
* t_observer, or gamma^(5/2) times the rate for the same stationary clock.

8.  This clock is similar to Clock 5, except the line charge is now placed
on the x axis with the midpoint at the origin.  Again, the point charge of
opposite sign is placed on the y axis at initial distance R from the
origin.  Relative direction of motion of the clock is in the x axis.  Here
t_moving  = 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/4) * t_observer, or gamma^(3/2) times the rate
for the same stationary clock.

9.  This clock is similar to Clock 3, except the two point charges A and B
are replaced with line charges that are parallel to the x axis and are at
distance +-a from the origin in the xz plane. The point charge C of
opposite sign oscillates about the origin in the y axis.  Relative
direction of motion of the clock is in the x axis.  Here t_moving  =
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/4) * t_observer, or gamma^(3/2) times the rate for the
same stationary clock.

10.  The time delta t it takes for a charge to separate from a plate of
surface charge density lambda, of the same polarity, lying in the xy plane
to separate (in the y axis) a small fixed distance d when initially
separated by distance R. The ratio d/r ~ 0. Relative irection of motion is
in the x axis.  If t_y is the time it takes for the same separation to
occur in the y axis, then t/t_y  = gamma. The point charge C of opposite
sign oscillates about the origin in the y axis.  Relative direction of
motion of the clock is in the x axis.  Here t_moving  = 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/4)
* t_observer, or gamma^(3/2) times the rate for the same stationary clock.

11.  The time delta t it takes for a charge to separate from a plate of
surface charge density lambda, of the same polarity, lying in the yz plane
to separate (in the x axis) a small fixed distance d when initially
separated by distance R. The ratio d/r ~ 0.  (This is similar to Clock 10,
but rotated so the particle moves in the x axis.)  Relative direction of
motion of the clock is in the x axis.  If t_y is the time it takes for the
same separation to occur in the y axis, then t/t_y  = gamma. The point
charge C of opposite sign oscillates about the origin in the y axis.
Relative direction of motion is in the x axis.  Here t_moving  =
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/4) * t_observer, or gamma^(3/2) times the rate for the
same stationary clock.

12.  This clock is similar to Clock 4, except rotated into the x axis.  The
time delta t it takes for two charges to separate (in the x axis) a small
fixed distance d when initially separated by distance R. The ratio d/r ~ 0.
Motion of the charges is in the x axis.  Relative direction of motion of
the clock is in the x axis.  This clock is similar to Clock 4, except
rotated into the x axis. Here t_moving  = 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(5/4) * t_observer,
or gamma^(5/2) times the rate for the same stationary clock.


His calculations for the twelve clocks were based on "the fundamental laws
of electromagnetism and mechanics with no input from relativity theory
(although we shall use the longitudinal and transverse masses, which may be
regarded as either experimentally obtained masses, or as relativistic
concepts)" (p. 237)

However, his EM equations, based on retardation, are similar to SR based
equations.  His view is interesting.  In the twin paradox, as viewed by
Jefimenko, perhaps the "young" twin may have varied aging effects,
depending on the mechanics of some specific chemical interactions.

There is something I do not understand about the twin paradox, and
relativity in general.  SR appears to be based solely on observational
differences, i.e. retardation.  This is true of Jefimenko's view also,
except possibly for relativistic mass changes.  However, in the case of the
returned twin, the two twins stand next to each other at the end.  They are
in the same reference frame.  If there is a difference in age between them
then that difference can not be simply a result of retardation.  If the
"permanent" clock difference effect is due to acceleration (GR effects),
and the journey consisted of only brief acceleration phases, followed by
long segments of uniform motion, then it  seems that the final clock
difference from a long journey would be the same as that of a short journey
with the same accelerations and no coasting.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 09:02:53 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23877;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:00:43 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:00:43 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.79]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:00:07 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F38mlLNE9jov5FCm6gU00001a9a hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2000 16:00:07.0810 (UTC) FILETIME=[65EE7620:01BFFB08]
Resent-Message-ID: <"aZHj63.0.yq5.hAQXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36484
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Fields writes:

>David, I don't really think that your not receiving refutations to your 
>latest "explaination" is indicative of anything other than that no one 
>cares.

I think not.  They just can't mount a sustainable arguement and it makes 
science in general look foolish not to have noticed this before.

>Instead of opinions and half-baked philosophy, why don't you publish
some hard scientific evidence which will lend some credibility to your 
claims?

Theorists propose, scientists dispose.  My only claim is whirlpools are 
unknown to science, no data, no tests, no nothin'.  Backed up by all the 
votes, from very knowledgeable folks, on the Whirlpower Declaration and now 
independently at;

http://www.the-strange.com/maelstrom.html

I propose, not claim, (I am not a scientist) by building whirlpools and 
testing them in a Scientific Method manner it will be discovered why science 
cannot explain the mysterious power of hurricanes, and explain the %90 
unaccounted for energy of motion in spiral galaxies in now proven flat, not 
curved, and I think, subatomic fluid space.  Plus we will find a brand new 
clean, infinite, simple, form of energy that will revolutionize our 
understanding of energy and prove the cosmological constant.  All the top 
scientists and flat space teams say that is the real thing, that Einstein 
was right in his original ideas on the subject of energy, as shown in the 
"Cosmic Triangle" report that came out before flat space was announced as 
proven as posted in this archive.

In all the new energy type proposals I see hard no scientific evidence that 
anyone has accepted as proof or accepted as credible.  Mainsteam science 
laughs at all of it.  Including cold fusion, electromagnetic overunity, and 
a host of others.  If there was proof of anything discussed on many of these 
lists it has not yet surfaced as credible proof of anything.  At least my 
work shows proof that there is event in nature that should be know that is 
unknown.

Like the story, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, seen but refusal to see, due 
to folks knowing admittance will be an admittance of ignorance, so refusal 
to see to save face is the only option.  What you call, don't care.

If anyone can supply any whirlpool data or tests showing where whirlpools 
have been built and tested in a scientific manner I will glady dispose of my 
Declaration.  Not withstanding, the Declaration stands as valid, as 
credible, as it has for years across 10,000 archived pages.

David Dennard
http://www.whirlpower.cc




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 10:10:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17678;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:07:07 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:07:07 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rick mail.highsurf.com
Message-Id: <v04210100b5ab619ec26e [192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <39858043.DF00F75F austininstruments.com>
References: <F640GPlrwAnekVgKMy5000049e5 hotmail.com>
 <39858043.DF00F75F austininstruments.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:06:51 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vquX32.0.8K4.x8RXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36485
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Fields wrote:

>
>David, I don't really think that your not receiving refutations to your
>latest "explaination" is indicative of anything other than that no one
>cares.
>
>Instead of opinions and half-baked philosophy, why don't you publish
>some hard scientific evidence which will lend some credibility to your
>claims?
>
>---
>
>John Fields

You're right about why no one bothers, but wrong thinking that 
Dennard might discuss anything logically, let alone scientifically. 
He's proven repeatedly over time that he cannot or will not. It's not 
worth the trouble trying to discuss anything with him, even though 
the subject matter itself certainly is.

I've been much happier with this list since I put him on filter, and 
only now and then become aware of his presence due to messages like 
yours. Good luck...

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 12:37:10 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA13253;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:29:12 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <003d01bffb25$e12d7e40$0c6cd626 varisys.com>
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <67.78d4326.26b639a0 aol.com>
Subject: Re: EVWorld publishes Jed's Lafree bicycle review
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:31:09 -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: <"kLbsb.0._E3.8ETXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36486
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Tom,
> 
> Have you done any Mills-type strontium-catalyzed hydrogen plasma experiments 
> yourself?
> 
No, I am currently spending most of my time on OU magnetics possibilities.
Also, strontium requires even higher temperatures than potassium
to achieve reasonable vapor pressure, making experiments inconvenient. 
I have noticed some very interesting resonant matches in the noble gases 
and would like to try some low temperature gas discharge experiments when
time permits. I think Mills may be overlooking some practical lower temperature
devices, or he may just not be reporting some of his most interesting results.
I don't have gas mixing capability on my present vacuum system and
this seemingly simple capability is actually quite difficult to achieve for
the heavier gasses like xenon. So doing Mills type experiments will
involve an investment of time and money.
-
George

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 12:46:17 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA20948;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:43:03 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:43:03 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01bffb2f$979321e0$0b441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:37:11 -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: <"AwS4K2.0.A75.6RTXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36487
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

You're a hard nut to crack, Horace, I have to keep going back to
the "armory" for more ammunition.    :-)

You will find that:

Fg = 6.67E-11*M1*M2/R^2 =  kq^2/gamma M1*gamma M2 *R^2

where kq^2 = 2.304E-28.

The question is, whether or not an artificial gravity loop can couple to
the ~ 8.5 hz time dilated electron frequency, and the ~3.1 Megahz 0.33Mp particle
whose dilated currents are ~1.36E-18 amperes and ~ 4.96E-13 amperes respectively,
which results in ~ 2.35E-32 ampere-meters for the electron and  ~1.40E-29 ampere-meters
for the 0.33Mp particle.

It's easy enough to put the pulses on a wire loop, but that means a c^2/r acceleration
that time dilates those pulses also(by a gamma of ~ 3.75 if the pulses are traveling
a about 0.95 c) which means you need ~ 11.0 megahertz pulses to generate dilated
3.1 Megahertz particles to synch with the gravity pulses.

OTOH since the loop velocity v =  1/(L*C)^1/2 increasing L or C could be
varied to change v. 

You still come out to ~ 379 newton (~ 85 pounds) levitation force with 
a 1.0 Ampere-Meter current loop at the Earth's surface (with two million ampere meters
you can levitate an aircraft carrier) if you can solve the relativistic gamma problem.   :-)

Regards,     Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 14:01:00 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA19893;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:53:05 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:53:05 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530500b5ab92ed2cd7 [12.21.209.191]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:55:31 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Resent-Message-ID: <"_-pOl3.0.hs4.nSUXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36488
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:37 PM 7/31/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>You're a hard nut to crack, Horace, I have to keep going back to
>the "armory" for more ammunition.    :-)
[snip]

Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't.  8^)

>You will find that:
>
>Fg = 6.67E-11*M1*M2/R^2 =  kq^2/gamma M1*gamma M2 *R^2
>
>where kq^2 = 2.304E-28.


Even the units are all botched up on the above.


>You still come out to ~ 379 newton (~ 85 pounds) levitation force with
>a 1.0 Ampere-Meter current loop at the Earth's surface (with two million
>ampere meters
>you can levitate an aircraft carrier) if you can solve the relativistic
>gamma problem.   :-)


Another problem may be torque?  Instead of taking off, the aircraft carrier
might simply flip over.

Perhps a big enough 3.1 MHz MASER would work?

It seems to me that problem as you framed it above is merely one of
reflection. If you can fully reflect the the earth's gravity beam then m1 =
m2 = m_earth and the sailors get a visit to flatland.   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 14:11:43 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21716;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <001f01bffb3b$9e0a9880$0b441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
References: <v01530500b5ab92ed2cd7 [12.21.209.191]>
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:06:38 -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: <"TrUWu.0.DJ5.shUXv" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36489
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft


> At 1:37 PM 7/31/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
> >You're a hard nut to crack, Horace, I have to keep going back to
> >the "armory" for more ammunition.    :-)
> [snip]
> 
> Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't.  8^)
> 
> >You will find that:
> >
> >Fg = 6.67E-11*M1*M2/R^2 =  kq^2/gamma M1*gamma M2 *R^2
> >
> >where kq^2 = 2.304E-28.
> 
> 
> Even the units are all botched up on the above.

How so? kq^2 =  2.304E-28 newtons of force between two unit charges
(1.6E-19 coulombs) at 1.0 Meter separation. Gamma is dimensionless and
M1 and M2 are the masses of the electron and 0.33Mp respectively.
> 
> 
> >You still come out to ~ 379 newton (~ 85 pounds) levitation force with
> >a 1.0 Ampere-Meter current loop at the Earth's surface (with two million
> >ampere meters
> >you can levitate an aircraft carrier) if you can solve the relativistic
> >gamma problem.   :-)
> 
> 
> Another problem may be torque?  Instead of taking off, the aircraft carrier
> might simply flip over.

As Robin van Spaandonk suggested you put a gyro on it, then you can torque
the gyro a set up "side skid" and take off  like a rabbit.
> 
> Perhps a big enough 3.1 MHz MASER would work?

Horse Puckey, or is it Horace  Puckey?   :-)

FJS
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 14:26:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA01832;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:24:01 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:24:01 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.53]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:23:28 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F140mxm5NXTIMe5tSvm00005043 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2000 21:23:28.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[91EAB5E0:01BFFB35]
Resent-Message-ID: <"j_nQo2.0.YS.nvUXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36490
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Like I said, this shows ignorance, refusal to see, not to be confused with 
stupid.  Rick has made such a to do about calling me names and not being 
able to discuss the issue in any kind of rational manner, using put down 
type language, his only choice is hide.  Classic, The Emperor Wears No 
Clothes.

I guess all you guys in new energy have gotten the same treatment for so 
long from establishment science it makes you all feel good to kick me for a 
while.  Hey, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, won't change a 
thing.  The truth is on my side.  And many here have said positive things, 
fewer than those who only use put down language, but that doesn't count for 
anything.  Only the facts count.

David


>From: Rick Monteverde <rick highsurf.com>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:06:51 -1000
>
>John Fields wrote:
>
>>
>>David, I don't really think that your not receiving refutations to your
>>latest "explaination" is indicative of anything other than that no one
>>cares.
>>
>>Instead of opinions and half-baked philosophy, why don't you publish
>>some hard scientific evidence which will lend some credibility to your
>>claims?
>>
>>---
>>
>>John Fields
>
>You're right about why no one bothers, but wrong thinking that
>Dennard might discuss anything logically, let alone scientifically.
>He's proven repeatedly over time that he cannot or will not. It's not
>worth the trouble trying to discuss anything with him, even though
>the subject matter itself certainly is.
>
>I've been much happier with this list since I put him on filter, and
>only now and then become aware of his presence due to messages like
>yours. Good luck...
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 15:33:34 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA32433;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:31:36 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:31:36 -0700
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: What are: Whirlpools and Vorticies of Mr. Dennard
In-Reply-To: <F640GPlrwAnekVgKMy5000049e5 hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000731180521.13213D-100000 college.antioch-college.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"KrVck1.0.dw7.8vVXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36492
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	The Inventor, Mr. Dennard, knows his own work the best and has put
a straightforward list forth for us all to consider.  Leet us do so.

	To set the basic ground references for discussion and-or debate
regarding the post below, it would be very helpful for all parties to be
able to know, in common terms the following, please:

	Respectfully,

	What, specifically are the differences and similarities of the 	
different terms as listed by Mr. Dennard, and further, to allow us ALL to
begin with common understanding and no further personalities.


	a]	whirlpools and vorticies

	b]	whirlpool

	c]	vortex

	d]	a sink drain,

	e]	a Chaos Theory vortex, 

	f]	a Schauberger vortex, 

	g]	a toilet flusher


	I have lost some recent E mail so I am un aware of a recent
explanation of the differences.

	Further, as it appears some of these terms are not standardized,
ie., "a sink drain" rectangular, circular, oval, depth, surface effects,
fluid, thermal effects, drain diameter, shape, type, disposition, is there
or are there any issues realeted to such variabilities?

	In mathmatics there are other criteria and the term " A Chaos
Theory vortex " opens another set of variables.  
	In the matter of a Chaos Theory Vortex there is-are physical
issues and mathmatical issues.  What, please, are the definition [s]
and-or standardizations.

	There has been A LOT of time and bandwidth spent on personalities
and a SPECIFIC set of definition [s] and criteria, parameters and a COMMON
set of terminology is a requirement to help to understand the new and
exciting science of D. Dennard.

	With personality left out, rhetoric put aside, let us all, and
formost the Principle Investigator, who best knows the art described by
himself, Mr Dennard, put forth the following in a straightforward manner:

	1]

	The above series of definitions and questions are addressed to the
Principle Investigator.  Once there are clear and unambiguous definitions
and clarifications, point by point, from him, we may begin.

	2]

	After the definitions and other specifics are tendered by the
investigator, to the best of his ability we may then begin to parallel
these with a series of dictionary specifics.
	If there are differences between the two, this is OK.  We will at
least have a starting point.  It is fine for The Principle Investigator to
use a lexicography of his, so long as it is know and understood to be able
to UNDERSTAND.
	We may THEN begin, if needed, to start with a table of TWO set of
descriptions.

	To date there has been no such simple beginning, by any party.

	SO:	Let us all defer to the Inventor, who can best describe
his own work and look to the simple list as described, above.

	It is possible I have missed asking for a certain definition or
definitions, and if so, please let both the Investigator and other parties
add to this list.


	____________

		Original Post


On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, David Dennard wrote:

> The Challenge:
> 
> Since I saw no refute to my latest explaination of the dfference in 
> whirlpools and vorticies, let me ask if any now agree or if anyone has the 
> guts to debate the issue.
> 
> Try it, and I'll defeate you. :)
> 
> A tornado, is not a hurricane.
> 
> And a sink drain, a Chaos Theory vortex, a Schauberger vortex, a toilet 
> flusher, is not a whirlpool.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> David
> 


_________________________________________________________________


	Can we please, respectfully wait until Mr. Dennard has answered
the simple list of terminologies, in order with no part left out so that
we may BEGIN without personalities, sidestepping or non applicable
information to understand.

	To reacap: The Investigator may have different meanings, and this
is fine, as long as they are known, and put down in a simple and COMPLETE
step-by-step fashion.

	The list casme from Mr. Dennard, let us all please examine his
complete and point by point description so there will be less or no
misunderstanding.


				J Schnurer

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 15:34:35 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA32236;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:30:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:30:46 -0700
MR-Received: by mta EUROPA; Relayed; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
MR-Received: by mta GOSIP; Relayed; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:15:16 -0400 (EDT)
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:57:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
In-reply-to: <v04210100b5ab619ec26e [192.168.0.2]>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-id: <E2887ZYORQFMPS*/R=ODNVMS/R=A1/U=MH2_BRIGGS/ MHS>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Posting-date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
UA-content-id: E2887ZYORQFMPS
X400-MTS-identifier: [;70928113700002/4934365 ODNVMS]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z6JBt.0.bt7.MuVXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36491
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick & John,

I don't think David realizes that he is his own worst enemy.

When he brings into the discussion all that new-age mysticism babel he gets 
himself classified as a flake to 99% of the people that happen to read his 
information.

Unfortunately, just as there are quiet drunks and noisy drunks, in that 1% 
flakedom part of the population, there are noisy flakes as well.

And in their deluded world they confuse having the other person walk away 
in disgust with having won an argument based on merit.

Suppose there is a race and the person who finished last was an hour behind 
everyone else.  The last place person could jump up and down & yell that 
they had won, and since everyone else had gone home already there isn't 
anyone to disagree with them, they may actually believe that they did win.

I could go on & on but since I would have to stop at some point eventually, 
I'll just walk away in disgust now so that David can chalk up another 
victory without my having to waste anymore time. ;^)

Delete before reading lists save a lot of time and wasted effort...

Bill
webriggs concentric.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 16:25:44 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA20066;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:21:46 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:21:46 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [168.150.192.86]
From: "David Dennard" <daviddennard hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:21:01 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F152HRQaXibm60wcP2d00009618 hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2000 23:21:01.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[FD72D620:01BFFB45]
Resent-Message-ID: <"BRje42.0.Rv4.AeWXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36493
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

New Age Mystics curse my name far more that you folks do.  Nothing about my 
work is New Age.  Aquarius has nothing to the with the hypnotists and 
hoaxters of the New Age movement.

The enemy is ignorance of a real event in nature science has refused to 
recognize, the whirlpool.

David


>From: Bill Briggs 614-752-0199 <MH2_BRIGGS ODNVMS.A1.Ohio.Gov>
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Subject: Re: Whirlpools and Vorticies
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:57:02 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Rick & John,
>
>I don't think David realizes that he is his own worst enemy.
>
>When he brings into the discussion all that new-age mysticism babel he gets
>himself classified as a flake to 99% of the people that happen to read his
>information.
>
>Unfortunately, just as there are quiet drunks and noisy drunks, in that 1%
>flakedom part of the population, there are noisy flakes as well.
>
>And in their deluded world they confuse having the other person walk away
>in disgust with having won an argument based on merit.
>
>Suppose there is a race and the person who finished last was an hour behind
>everyone else.  The last place person could jump up and down & yell that
>they had won, and since everyone else had gone home already there isn't
>anyone to disagree with them, they may actually believe that they did win.
>
>I could go on & on but since I would have to stop at some point eventually,
>I'll just walk away in disgust now so that David can chalk up another
>victory without my having to waste anymore time. ;^)
>
>Delete before reading lists save a lot of time and wasted effort...
>
>Bill
>webriggs concentric.net
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 20:08:09 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26092;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:06:58 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:06:58 -0700
Message-ID: <003a01bffb6d$9c08e960$0b441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Brainwaves and Accelerated Reference Frame (ARF)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:04:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFFB32.E35B20C0"
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: <"A_59m3.0.WN6.IxZXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36494
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_01BFFB32.E35B20C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Far out!   :-)

 http://www.vxm.com/Dejan.html

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFFB32.E35B20C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="21st Link-PROSPECTS FOR CONSCIOUS BRAIN-LIKE COMPUTERS BIOPHYSICAL ARGUMENTS-Human energy field.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="21st Link-PROSPECTS FOR CONSCIOUS BRAIN-LIKE COMPUTERS BIOPHYSICAL ARGUMENTS-Human energy field.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.vxm.com/Dejan.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.vxm.com/Dejan.html
Modified=80C2CF4A6DFBBF0183

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFFB32.E35B20C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 21:09:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14974;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:07:59 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:07:59 -0700
Message-ID: <006601bffb76$1fe865a0$0b441d26 fjsparber>
From: "Frederick Sparber" <fjsparber earthlink.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: GR & Accelerated Reference Frames
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:05:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BFFB3B.622E31A0"
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: <"8RFQ61.0.uf3.UqaXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36495
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_0006_01BFFB3B.622E31A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Untitled Document
      Lecture 8 - General Relativity



        Statement of Special Relativity

All bodies in reference frames K and K', which are moving with uniform =
linear motion relative to one another, are equivalent for the =
description of all natural phenomena in a Euclidian geometry.



        Problems of Special Relativity

It only holds for inertial reference frames. That is reference frames =
that are moving a constant velocity with respect to each other with no =
rotation. For example, Newton's First Law states that all objects will =
remain at rest or travel along straight lines unless acted upon by some =
external force. But, this only applies for reference frames in linear =
motion. If a reference frame is accelerated, this doesn't work.

It says that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. This =
arguably goes against Newton's Third Law (gravitation). If one moves a =
mass from one place to another, Newton's law says that its influence on =
all other matter is instantaneous. This doesn't fit notion of light =
being fastest and finite.



        Statement of General Relativity

All bodies in refernce frames K and K' are equivalent for the =
description of all natural phenomena no matter what their state of =
motion in a Gaussian (or Riemannian, non-Euclidian) geometry.

This theory will not work for Euclidean geometry. It does work for more =
general curvilinear coordinate systems called Gaussian or Riemannian =
geometries. These geometries can describe the universe and happen to be =
curved depending on wher mass in located.

In this statement, the effects we associate with gravity can be seen to =
be equivalent with the effects of uniform acceleration of our reference =
frame.



    Mr. Thompkin's first visit to the Land of Relativity

        (I - City Speed Limit)

Most of the activities which Mr. Thompkins (MT) sees during his first =
trip to the land of relativity can be explained by the Special Theory of =
Relativity. One sequence, however, must be explained by the General =
Theory of Relativity.

* At the train station MT sees a young man coming off the train meeting =
an old lady. It turns out the young man is the grandfather of the old =
lady. Man spends a lot of time travelling where time moves more slowly. =
Therefore he ages more slowly than people who live in town and do not =
travel much. [This can be explained by the Special Theory of Relativity, =
travel at relativistic speeds causes time to slow down. But, it can also =
be explained in terms of the General Theory of Relativity - see below.]

* Train engineer claims he is responsible for making people age more =
slowly on trains because he is brakeman. Suggests time slows down due to =
acceleration and decceleration. [ The Genral Theory of Relativity states =
that time slows down whenever acceleration (or decceleration) is =
occurring. So young man nay be young due to effects of either Special or =
General Theory of Relativity.



          Twin Paradox

The General Theory of Relativity also provides a more realistic =
explanation of the Twin Paradox. When we first visited the Twin Paradox, =
we stated that the space ship went away from the Earth at constant =
linear relativisitic speed, then turned around and came back. We =
attributed difference in age of twins to time spent at constant =
relativiistic speed (slower time). But, realistically, the space ship =
had to accelerate and deccelerate twice to really make the trip. Age =
difference could also be due to this.



      Perspectives on General Relativity

Example 1:=20

The reasoning which led to the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) =
included simple examples of how things behave in systems under =
acceleration. For example, consider a space ship at rest (of in constant =
liear motion) somewhere far from sources of gravitation. Inside the =
spaceship a man (or any object) will float in the air and a beam of =
light shone from one location will travel in a straight line. If the =
ship starts to accelerate, the person or any object will move in =
adirection opposite the direction of acceleration until there is contact =
witht he ship. Then theperson/object will move with the ship but feel =
the force of acceleration. A person would interpret this as gravity! =
This establishes the equivalence of acceleration andgravity in GTR.

Under acceleration, light shone from one location in the ship will no =
longer travel in a straight line, but rather a curved arc (unless light =
direction is exactly parallel to direction of acceleration). This =
suggests light rays can be bent by sources of gravity. This effect is =
visible as light from distant stars goe close to, but past, the Sun.



Example 2:

Another example (Mr. Thompkins, Chapter 4), is to imagine a =
merry-go-round which is walled off so that anyone on the merry-go-round =
can't see that they are rotating. Let the merry-go-round spin at a speed =
near the speed of light. (Remember, rotation even at constant velocity =
is a form of acceleration because the direction is always changing.) In =
this example, people of the merry-go-round will 'feel' a gravitation =
that is outward toward the edges ofthe merry-go-round. Speed in the =
merry-go-round will change from zero at the center to almost the speed =
of light at the edges.

Let a meter stick be used to measure the merry-go-round by laying the =
stick end-to-end from the center to the edge and then end-to-end around =
the circumference of the merry-go-round. In Euclidean space (inertial =
reference frames), the ratio of the radius to circumference is 2*pi, =
where pi is 3.14159... But, in the case of the merry-go-round, the ratio =
will be bigger. The reason is that the meter stick is always the same =
length as one progresses towar dthe edge ofthe merry-go-round because =
lengths only change in direction of motion (Lorentz transformations). =
But, masurement along the edge will align the meter stick with the =
direction of motion and it will change its length.

Also, if one tried to stretch a piece of string or rope from one place =
on the merry-go-round edge to another place, the string would prefer to =
'bend' toard the middle. This is because the shortest distance between =
two points in an accelerated reference frame is no longer a straight =
line. Euclidean geometry doesn't hold! What we have is a curvilinear =
non-Euclidean (Riemanian ) geomtry. This is the geometry of our =
Universe!

Last but not least, a clock placed at the center of the merry-go-round =
will be faster than a clock at the edge due to efects of acceleration.



  Key Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity

1) Light travelling from distant stars ar bent around the Sun as the =
light rays go closely past it.

2) Precession of all planetary orbits around the Sun. This precession is =
most easily measured for Mercury.



          Implications

The Universe is curvilinear in form and is a true space-time continuum.=20

The curvilinear nature can be attributed to location and size of masses =
in the Universe.

Planets can be viewed as moving along paths that are the shortest =
distance along a curved surface near a strong source of mass (gravity), =
the Sun.


Return to Index=20


------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BFFB3B.622E31A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Untitled Document</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://www-earth.usc.edu/~slund/inquiry/lecture8.html>
<META content=3D"Adobe PageMill 2.0 Mac" name=3DGENERATOR>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <P><B><FONT size=3D+2>Lecture 8 - General=20
    Relativity</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B>Statement of Special=20
  Relativity</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>All bodies in reference frames K and K', which are moving with =
uniform linear=20
motion relative to one another, are equivalent for the description of =
all=20
natural phenomena in a Euclidian geometry.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B>Problems of Special=20
  Relativity</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>It only holds for inertial reference frames. That is reference frames =
that=20
are moving a constant velocity with respect to each other with no =
rotation. For=20
example, Newton's First Law states that all objects will remain at rest =
or=20
travel along straight lines unless acted upon by some external force. =
But, this=20
only applies for reference frames in linear motion. If a reference frame =
is=20
accelerated, this doesn't work.</P>
<P>It says that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. This =
arguably=20
goes against Newton's Third Law (gravitation). If one moves a mass from =
one=20
place to another, Newton's law says that its influence on all other =
matter is=20
instantaneous. This doesn't fit notion of light being fastest and =
finite.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B>Statement of General=20
  Relativity</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>All bodies in refernce frames K and K' are equivalent for the =
description of=20
all natural phenomena no matter what their state of motion in a Gaussian =
(or=20
Riemannian, non-Euclidian) geometry.</P>
<P>This theory will not work for Euclidean geometry. It does work for =
more=20
general curvilinear coordinate systems called Gaussian or Riemannian =
geometries.=20
These geometries can describe the universe and happen to be curved =
depending on=20
wher mass in located.</P>
<P>In this statement, the effects we associate with gravity can be seen =
to be=20
equivalent with the effects of uniform acceleration of our reference =
frame.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <P><B>Mr. Thompkin's first visit to the Land of Relativity</B></P>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B>(I - City Speed=20
Limit)</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Most of the activities which Mr. Thompkins (MT) sees during his first =
trip to=20
the land of relativity can be explained by the Special Theory of =
Relativity. One=20
sequence, however, must be explained by the General Theory of =
Relativity.</P>
<P>* At the train station MT sees a young man coming off the train =
meeting an=20
old lady. It turns out the young man is the grandfather of the old lady. =
Man=20
spends a lot of time travelling where time moves more slowly. Therefore =
he ages=20
more slowly than people who live in town and do not travel much. [This =
can be=20
explained by the Special Theory of Relativity, travel at relativistic =
speeds=20
causes time to slow down. But, it can also be explained in terms of the =
General=20
Theory of Relativity - see below.]</P>
<P>* Train engineer claims he is responsible for making people age more =
slowly=20
on trains because he is brakeman. Suggests time slows down due to =
acceleration=20
and decceleration. [ The Genral Theory of Relativity states that time =
slows down=20
whenever acceleration (or decceleration) is occurring. So young man nay =
be young=20
due to effects of either Special or General Theory of Relativity.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><B>Twin=20
Paradox</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC=
KQUOTE>
<P>The General Theory of Relativity also provides a more realistic =
explanation=20
of the Twin Paradox. When we first visited the Twin Paradox, we stated =
that the=20
space ship went away from the Earth at constant linear relativisitic =
speed, then=20
turned around and came back. We attributed difference in age of twins to =
time=20
spent at constant relativiistic speed (slower time). But, realistically, =
the=20
space ship had to accelerate and deccelerate twice to really make the =
trip. Age=20
difference could also be due to this.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <P><B>Perspectives on General=20
Relativity</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><B>Example </B>1: </P>
<P>The reasoning which led to the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) =
included=20
simple examples of how things behave in systems under acceleration. For =
example,=20
consider a space ship at rest (of in constant liear motion) somewhere =
far from=20
sources of gravitation. Inside the spaceship a man (or any object) will =
float in=20
the air and a beam of light shone from one location will travel in a =
straight=20
line. If the ship starts to accelerate, the person or any object will =
move in=20
adirection opposite the direction of acceleration until there is contact =
witht=20
he ship. Then theperson/object will move with the ship but feel the =
force of=20
acceleration. A person would interpret this as gravity! This establishes =
the=20
equivalence of acceleration andgravity in GTR.</P>
<P>Under acceleration, light shone from one location in the ship will no =
longer=20
travel in a straight line, but rather a curved arc (unless light =
direction is=20
exactly parallel to direction of acceleration). This suggests light rays =
can be=20
bent by sources of gravity. This effect is visible as light from distant =
stars=20
goe close to, but past, the Sun.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P><B>Example </B>2:</P>
<P>Another example (Mr. Thompkins, Chapter 4), is to imagine a =
merry-go-round=20
which is walled off so that anyone on the merry-go-round can't see that =
they are=20
rotating. Let the merry-go-round spin at a speed near the speed of =
light.=20
(Remember, rotation even at constant velocity is a form of acceleration =
because=20
the direction is always changing.) In this example, people of the =
merry-go-round=20
will 'feel' a gravitation that is outward toward the edges ofthe =
merry-go-round.=20
Speed in the merry-go-round will change from zero at the center to =
almost the=20
speed of light at the edges.</P>
<P>Let a meter stick be used to measure the merry-go-round by laying the =
stick=20
end-to-end from the center to the edge and then end-to-end around the=20
circumference of the merry-go-round. In Euclidean space (inertial =
reference=20
frames), the ratio of the radius to circumference is 2*pi, where pi is=20
3.14159... But, in the case of the merry-go-round, the ratio will be =
bigger. The=20
reason is that the meter stick is always the same length as one =
progresses towar=20
dthe edge ofthe merry-go-round because lengths only change in direction =
of=20
motion (Lorentz transformations). But, masurement along the edge will =
align the=20
meter stick with the direction of motion and it will change its =
length.</P>
<P>Also, if one tried to stretch a piece of string or rope from one =
place on the=20
merry-go-round edge to another place, the string would prefer to 'bend' =
toard=20
the middle. This is because the shortest distance between two points in =
an=20
accelerated reference frame is no longer a straight line. Euclidean =
geometry=20
doesn't hold! What we have is a curvilinear non-Euclidean (Riemanian ) =
geomtry.=20
This is the geometry of our Universe!</P>
<P>Last but not least, a clock placed at the center of the =
merry-go-round will=20
be faster than a clock at the edge due to efects of acceleration.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P><B>Key Experimental Tests of the General Theory of=20
Relativity</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>1) Light travelling from distant stars ar bent around the Sun as the =
light=20
rays go closely past it.</P>
<P>2) Precession of all planetary orbits around the Sun. This precession =
is most=20
easily measured for Mercury.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          =
<P><B>Implications</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQ=
UOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>The Universe is curvilinear in form and is a true space-time =
continuum. </P>
<P>The curvilinear nature can be attributed to location and size of =
masses in=20
the Universe.</P>
<P>Planets can be viewed as moving along paths that are the shortest =
distance=20
along a curved surface near a strong source of mass (gravity), the =
Sun.<BR></P>
<P><A href=3D"index.html">Return to Index</A> </P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BFFB3B.622E31A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 21:56:42 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA00372;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:55:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:55:27 -0700
Message-Id: <v01530502b5abaee3be64 [12.21.209.10]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:14:39 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
Resent-Message-ID: <"q2A7n2.0.j5.-WbXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36496
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:06 PM 7/31/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net>
>To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
>Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Electrogravity Hovercraft
>
>
>> At 1:37 PM 7/31/0, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>> >You're a hard nut to crack, Horace, I have to keep going back to
>> >the "armory" for more ammunition.    :-)
>> [snip]
>>
>> Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't.  8^)
>>
>> >You will find that:
>> >
>> >Fg = 6.67E-11*M1*M2/R^2 =  kq^2/gamma M1*gamma M2 *R^2
>> >
>> >where kq^2 = 2.304E-28.
>>
>>
>> Even the units are all botched up on the above.
>
>How so?

The constant 6.67E-11 needs units, as does 2.304E-28.  Further, the expression:

 kq^2/gamma M1*gamma M2 *R^2

could use some parentheses for clarity, e.g.

   kq^2/(gamma M1*gamma M2 *R^2)
or
   (kq^2/(gamma M1*gamma M2)) *R^2
or
   (kq^2/gamma M1)*gamma M2 *R^2

The last one looks stupid to a physicist but is included anyway because it
is the way the eye of a computer guy tends to see it first.


>>kq^2 =  2.304E-28 newtons of force between two unit charges
>(1.6E-19 coulombs) at 1.0 Meter separation. Gamma is dimensionless and
>M1 and M2 are the masses of the electron and 0.33Mp respectively.


If you had included proper units in all your equations throughout perhaps
it would be easy to see you have either created a unified theory or just
confused a dipole loop for a monopole.



>>
>>
>> >You still come out to ~ 379 newton (~ 85 pounds) levitation force with
>> >a 1.0 Ampere-Meter current loop at the Earth's surface (with two million
>> >ampere meters
>> >you can levitate an aircraft carrier) if you can solve the relativistic
>> >gamma problem.   :-)
>>
>>
>> Another problem may be torque?  Instead of taking off, the aircraft carrier
>> might simply flip over.
>
>As Robin van Spaandonk suggested you put a gyro on it, then you can torque
>the gyro a set up "side skid" and take off  like a rabbit.


A rabbit chasing its tail, perhaps.  The torque would cause precession, not
side prolonged skid.


You still have not expressed exactly WHAT caries the 3.1 MHz gravity wave.
You can not simply say magnetostatics, because even just wiggling a static
magnetic field, which is comprised of inirtia bearing virtual photons,
makes it no longer static, but radiative.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Jul 31 22:02:25 2000
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA03518;
	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:00:55 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:00:55 -0700
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 01:00:48 -0400
Message-Id: <200008010500.BAA14140 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: Brainwaves and Accelerated Reference Frame (ARF)
Resent-Message-ID: <"vB7mL1.0.ts.7cbXv" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/36497
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts,
That whole site is pretty far out. ;)

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