From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 04:47:10 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA06136; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:44:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:44:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:43:54 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex-l rules Message-ID: <20020301124354.GB30031 genius.tao.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Karthauser , vortex-l eskimo.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Resent-Message-ID: <"mrXHp2.0.dV1.lUtVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46372 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:43:19AM -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: > ************************************************************************** > Vortex-L Rules: >=20 > 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. If it's costing too much to run, I'm happy to support it for free. Joe --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjx/d4kACgkQXVIcjOaxUBZYJgCfZz0PQHHqwmfrpVzedLVZF5Rb QWUAn2mo1Crtz5vXwjvVnCs5vxHYE4q6 =BGzG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 06:27:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16155; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:27:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:27:04 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:30:43 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Fractal methane storage Resent-Message-ID: <"NiCRr1.0.Ly3.t-uVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46373 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The following work may have a bearing on the future of hydrogen and methane storage, as well as well as ramifications to Les Case's work. Perhaps activation of olive pits is (or is not) similar to the activation of cocoanut shells! Begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 578 February 27, 2002 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon FRACTAL CARBON NANOPORE NETWORK. Activated carbon, porous materials not unlike the charcoal used for barbecuing, performs important industrial functions such as filtering air, removing toxic vapors, and purifying our food and beverages (e.g., sugar, molasses, vodka). For that reason, a far- flung collaboration of scientists (the Universities of Missouri and New Mexico, the CNRS lab in France, the Universidad de Alicante in Spain, the Air Force Research Lab, and Los Alamos) set out to learn more about the internal structure of the material. To their surprise they discovered a fractal network of uniform channels, what is perhaps the first documented pore fractal. The researchers (contact Peter Pfeifer, pfeiferp missouri.edu, 573-882-2335) take simple olive pits, "char" them (burn them into charcoal), and then treat them in steam at 750 C. How ironic that in this case water, normally used to put out fire, here sustains combustion by providing oxygen to burn with surface carbon. What happens is not the removal of layer after layer or the carving of holes of various sizes but instead the local etching and collapse of pore walls to form channels of uniform size, about 2 nm wide. This oxidation process will then abruptly branch in a new direction. When it's all over the solid is riddled with a maze governed by a fractal geometry. Scattering x rays from the material establishes a "fractal dimension" of nearly 3, meaning that surface of the internal pore network practically fills all the inside space. The fractal nature of solid shapes has been measured many times, but this might be the first time a fractal mapping has been performed for the empty space inside a void, namely the nanopore network. (For comparison of pore, surface, and solid fractals, see the figure at www.aip.org/mgr/png.) The surface area of this great inland realm works out to about 1000 square meters (or one football field) per gram. The researchers expect that methane and other fuels could be stored in this kind of structure (the molecules are readily taken up into the branching alleyways by the weak attraction of induced electric dipole "van der Waals" forces), and at pressures much less than the 200 atm needed to store methane in steel cylinders. Gas separation can also be accomplished because the narrow channels are negotiated more easily by some molecular species than others. Electricity storage might be accomplished by building capacitors enhanced by intermediate layers of activated carbon networks filled with an ionic conducting fluid. (Pfeifer et al., Physical Review Letters, 18 March 2002) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 06:29:29 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16187; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:27:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:27:06 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:30:46 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters Resent-Message-ID: <"HXbZD3.0.ny3.v-uVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46374 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:02 PM 2/28/2, Edmund Storms wrote: > >I suggest the lack of publications exploring the use of U in >a P-F cell is because >U is unstable in a P-F cell. While at LANL. we tried U and >found that it was >converted to U3O8 which deposited on the anode. What is U308? Do you mean U238? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 06:34:34 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19364; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:34:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:34:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:37:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters Resent-Message-ID: <"dBF5z.0.Uk4.X5vVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46375 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:02 PM 2/28/2, Edmund Storms wrote: > >I suggest the lack of publications exploring the use of U in >a P-F cell is because >U is unstable in a P-F cell. While at LANL. we tried U and >found that it was >converted to U3O8 which deposited on the anode. What is U308? Do you mean U238? Ohhh! (Slaps Forehead.) Now that I have typed it, I see the difference between an "O" and a "0". 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 06:36:05 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19845; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:35:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:35:26 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:27:42 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002001c1c12d$3fd81760$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <013f01c1c0b9$e1534ca0$8837fea9 computer> <3C7F0892.E42EB378@ix.netcom.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"o24yh2.0.yr4.k6vVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46376 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Edmund Storms" > The issue here is to use uranium in a CF environment, not in H2 at 2000°. None of the configurations used in the ROVER engine have any bearing on the subject. Given that the research that I originally quoted from was the use of U as a cathode in a D2 gas environment, how did the issue suddenly switch to U in a wet CF environment? But even so, you seem to be saying that the use of U cathodes in CF is prohibited because of hydriding. Is that what you are saying? I believe hydriding can be prevented with the proper alloying, whether it be with W, Nb, Z, Pt, Pd or whatever. Are you saying that this preventative approach is not accurate, and that hydriding can't be prevented with proper alloying? I'm not trying to be argumentative, Ed, but if you agree that hydriding can be prevented with proper alloying, why wasn't that pursued at LANL in the earlier testing? Is U not a good candidate material for other reasons? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 06:39:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA20955; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:37:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:37:37 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:29:52 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002601c1c12d$8d80c480$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"__sRz.0.L75.m8vVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46377 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Horace Heffner" > What is U308? Do you mean U238? You've heard of "Yellowcake" ? The "O" is for oxygen. It is not an isotope number. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 06:55:38 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA25581; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:50:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:50:35 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:42:51 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Fractal methane storage To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <004101c1c12f$5d5ec480$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"khXej3.0.YF6.wKvVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46378 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Horace Heffner" Is this *2nm* dimension Coincidental? : > What happens is not the removal of layer after layer or the carving > of holes of various sizes but instead the local etching and collapse > of pore walls to form channels of uniform size, about 2 nm wide. AFAIK - this 2 nm dimension is also the normal diameter of the carbon structure, C60, commonly known as buckyballs or fullerenes (in honor of Bucky Fuller) and also about the axial diameter of carbon nanotubes. Several companies are now entering in to mass production of fullerenes and C nanotubes and hopefully the price will fall soon - as it is a candidate material for a CF matrix. They uses a manufacturing process of starved combustion. Perhaps the technique referred to in the article is similar. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 07:55:48 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA27875; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:52:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:52:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3C7F96FD.74F6F94 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:58:11 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters References: <013f01c1c0b9$e1534ca0$8837fea9 computer> <3C7F0892.E42EB378@ix.netcom.com> <002001c1c12d$3fd81760$8837fea9@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mBVdA.0.Tp6.HFwVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46379 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > From: "Edmund Storms" > > > The issue here is to use uranium in a CF environment, not in H2 at 2000°. > None of the configurations used in the ROVER engine have any bearing on the > subject. > > Given that the research that I originally quoted from was the use of U as a > cathode in a D2 gas environment, how did the issue suddenly switch to U in a wet > CF environment? > > But even so, you seem to be saying that the use of U cathodes in CF is > prohibited because of hydriding. Is that what you are saying? I believe > hydriding can be prevented with the proper alloying, whether it be with W, Nb, > Z, Pt, Pd or whatever. > > Are you saying that this preventative approach is not accurate, and that > hydriding can't be prevented with proper alloying? > > I'm not trying to be argumentative, Ed, but if you agree that hydriding can be > prevented with proper alloying, why wasn't that pursued at LANL in the earlier > testing? Is U not a good candidate material for other reasons? Well, Jones, let me restate the problem. Uranium was proposed to fission when exposed to a CF environment. A CF environment is created when deuterium is caused to saturate the lattice of a metal, especially Pd. This saturation process can be done using various methods including electrolysis, gas loading, ion bombardment and others. The problem is to expose U to a CF environment. First of all, pure U can not be exposed to water or to hydrogen gas. Consequently, if U is be employed, it must be alloyed with Pd. The problem then becomes, can a Pd-U alloy be made nuclear-active by saturation with D2? Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 08:01:50 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02088; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:01:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:01:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:53:33 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <009201c1c139$3dee2b40$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <013f01c1c0b9$e1534ca0$8837fea9 computer> <3C7F0892.E42EB378@ix.netcom.com> <002001c1c12d$3fd81760$8837fea9 computer> <3C7F96FD.74F6F94@ix.netcom.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ip_fB2.0.YW.CNwVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46380 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Edmund Storms" > Well, Jones, let me restate the problem. Uranium was proposed to fission when exposed to a CF environment. OK. Now I understand where you were starting from. In the older Japanes research that was on the web in short abstract form, they were apparanetly not looking for, nor suspecting, actual fission. They found the kind of transmutation (if you believe them) that was somewhat like that "thorium remediation" thing of several years back. I guess it went nowhere in Japan either. I would be instructive to know why it went nowhere, but I guess there were some lawsuits here with the "Cincinattai" group or whatever they called it, and unhappy investors, so we may never know why > The problem then becomes, can a Pd-U alloy be made > nuclear-active by saturation with D2? Do you have any thoughts on that issue? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 08:03:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03213; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:03:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:03:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301105322.00a74008 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:01:25 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Miles comments on reproducibility Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"z5P2Q.0.vn.2PwVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46381 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I asked Mel Miles whether he agrees with me that his research made cold fusion reproducible. Attached is his response, with my message to him at the end. He says that reproducibility improved toward the end of his study, and he's confident high reproducibility could be achieved today if funding were available. This is similar to the tritium results achieved by Fritz Will and his team at the NCFI. Reproducibility was poor at the beginning of the project, but in the final phases it was very good. That is progress, and it is the whole point of research. Some skeptics point to results at the beginning of a research project, or they point to overall statistics from the entire project, the way James Beene cited "28 out of 94" experiments, to make the results look inconclusive or irreproducible. In this case, the 28 successful results were clustered at the end of the project, and they were achieved almost exclusively with specific types of cathode material, which worked 100% of the time, or 88% of the time. These numbers "28 out of 94," taken in isolation out of context, are deceptive. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "Melvin H. Miles" To: "Jed Rothwell" Subject: Re: What was your final conclusion regarding reproducibility? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:16:47 -0600 Jed, Regarding my Navy report, reproducibility was a major problem during this program. The NRL materials did not give excess heat until the Pd-B was given to me towards the end of the program. Today I think I know which materials to use in order to get much better reproducibility. I showed this in Japan where nearly every experiment gave excess heat. If I had funding today and selected the proper materials, I think I could get excess heat in a high percentage of experiments. I think a lot has been learned in the past 13 years regarding which materials to select for these experiments. Also, the co-deposition experiments give good reproducibility. If research funding were available, I think good progress could be made today. Thanks for your interest. Mel Miles ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:31 PM Subject: What was your final conclusion regarding reproducibility? > Hello Mel. > > I'm having a debate with some fellow about your book, NAWCWPNS TP 8302. In > the introduction you write: "Reproducibility continues to be the major > problem in this controversial research area. Based on our experiments, this > lack of reproducibility stems from unknown variables in the palladium metal." > > It seems to me, however, that your final conclusion is that reproducibility > is difficult but achievable. The statistics in Table 10 prove that with the > right cathode materials and careful electrochemistry, excess heat from cold > fusion will be observed in every test, albeit at different power levels. > > In other words, reproducibility does continue to be a major problem, but it > would not be if researchers mastered electrochemistry, and if > Johnson-Matthey would fabricate more of their old "Type A" hydrogen filter > palladium, or if Imam were to make more supplies of the Pd-B material that > worked in seven out of eight tests listed in Table 10. I would say the > problems are more political than technical. > > What do you think? Do you consider you results 100% reproducible -- with > the caveats I list here? > > - Jed > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 08:45:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30134; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:43:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:43:09 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:42:57 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters In-Reply-To: <3C7F96FD.74F6F94 ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6SytB3.0.dM7.S-wVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46382 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Edmund Storms wrote: > Well, Jones, let me restate the problem. Uranium was proposed to fission when > exposed to a CF environment. A CF environment is created when deuterium is caused > to saturate the lattice of a metal, especially Pd. This saturation process can be > done using various methods including electrolysis, gas loading, ion bombardment and > others. The problem is to expose U to a CF environment. First of all, pure U can > not be exposed to water or to hydrogen gas. Consequently, if U is be employed, it > must be alloyed with Pd. The problem then becomes, can a Pd-U alloy be made > nuclear-active by saturation with D2? I thought that they did experiments in the late 60's to see if they could use deuterium as a moderator for uranium fission reactions. There's something in "Metal Hydrides" editied by Muller on this. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 09:38:19 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA05337; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:35:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:35:35 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:39:16 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters Resent-Message-ID: <"OUHkL1.0.IJ1.dlxVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46383 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:29 AM 3/1/2, Jones Beene wrote: >From: "Horace Heffner" > >> What is U308? Do you mean U238? > >You've heard of "Yellowcake" ? The "O" is for oxygen. It is not an isotope >number. Yes, I have already posted the mistake. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 10:09:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA08627; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:02:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:02:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:52:45 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Miles comments on reproducibility To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <00ae01c1c149$e5303640$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301105322.00a74008 pop.mindspring.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"khyqB1.0.h62.F9yVy" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46384 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Old notions die hard. And ah, the ghost of Bill Clinton lives on: " I didn't know anything about it until I read it in the paper . . . I did not have sex with that woman . . . It depends on the meaning of 'is.' " > I asked Mel Miles whether he agrees with me that his research made cold > fusion reproducible. Miles response: > Regarding my Navy report, reproducibility was a major problem during this > program. The NRL materials did not give excess heat until the Pd-B was > given to me towards the end of the program. Note: The material Miles refers to is Pd-B, not Johnson-Matthey type A, which is the material falsely reputed to give perfect results. BTW I have been in touch with Johnson Matthey and am preparing an interesting posting that contains some devasting information for any individual still wallowing in the delusion of "100% reproducibility." This company is out to sell palladium, plain and simple, there is no conspiracy, no coverup no unusual verified results. Merely "sound and fury and nothing else..." > they point to overall statistics from the entire project, the way James Beene cited "28 out of 94" experiments And at least I will have the decency to get your name right. Jones Beene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 11:22:55 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01641; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:19:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:19:58 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301141517.00b09128 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:20:20 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Miles comments on reproducibility In-Reply-To: <00ae01c1c149$e5303640$8837fea9 computer> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301105322.00a74008 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"pkSHV3.0.TP.THzVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46385 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: >Miles response: > > Regarding my Navy report, reproducibility was a major problem during this > > program. The NRL materials did not give excess heat until the Pd-B was > > given to me towards the end of the program. > >Note: The material Miles refers to is Pd-B, not Johnson-Matthey type A, >which is the material falsely reputed to give perfect results. That is incorrect. Please review Table 10 more carefully. It shows the success rate for J-M Type A was 100%, as I stated before. Also please note that I said that in my note to Miles, and he did not contradict me. By the way, you have *read* the report, and Table 10, haven't you? You wouldn't be commenting on this based on the Abstract alone, I trust. >BTW I have been in touch with Johnson Matthey and am preparing an >interesting posting that contains some devasting information for any >individual still wallowing in the delusion of "100% reproducibility." This >company is out to sell palladium, plain and simple . . . They will not sell this type, ostensibly because it has been discontinued. They might sell the replacement type now used in filters. >. . . there is no conspiracy, no coverup no unusual verified results. >Merely "sound and fury and nothing else..." There is no proof of conspiracy, but many people who dealt with them are surprised at how unfriendly they are toward cold fusion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 11:54:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17133; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:52:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:52:03 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:44:16 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Miles comments on reproducibility To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <012701c1c159$79173a20$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301105322.00a74008 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020301141517.00b09128 pop.mindspring.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"GVWoD1.0.ZB4.XlzVy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46386 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Jed Rothwell" Absolutly amazing!! The words just don't mean what they obviously purport to, when someone so is lost in self-delusion that *they will not permit themself be wrong * no matter what: Miles response is clear and unambiguosus: > Regarding my Navy report, *reproducibility was a major problem* during this program. The NRL materials did not give excess heat until the *Pd-B* was given to me towards the end of the program. Miles said to nothing to Rothwell regarding TypeA, nor Table 10, nor an ancient report that should have been withdrawn - and please Note: The material Miles refers to is Pd-B, not Johnson-Matthey type A, which is the material Rothwell has over and over falsely claimed gives perfect results. > That is incorrect. Please review Table 10 more carefully. Forget Table 10 when you have the author Miles' response right in front of your nose and you wont heed the unambiguous words. He says very clearly and succintly with no need of parsing "The NRL materials did not give excess heat until the Pd-B was given to me towards the end of the program." He does not mince words, he does not refer to Type A nor does he refer to some Table 10 that he obvioulsly no longer supports. > success rate for J-M Type A was 100%, as I stated before. Wrong!! Never was, Never will be except in your imagination !! > I said that in my note to Miles, and he did not contradict me. What? You must be on some other planet with you messages being parsed by Bill Clinton's advisors, where the word "is" only means what you want it to mean! Of course, he implicitly contradicted you. Not only that - I think it is clear by now that you also have contacted both Cravens and McKubre on this very issue and they also refuse to support you. Enough already. Haven't you been humiliated enough... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 13:47:39 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10920; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:46:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:46:38 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301161430.00ac6cb8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:46:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Miles comments on reproducibility In-Reply-To: <012701c1c159$79173a20$8837fea9 computer> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301105322.00a74008 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020301141517.00b09128 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"L-pWd.0.Dg2.yQ_Vy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46388 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: >Miles response is clear and unambiguosus: > > Regarding my Navy report, *reproducibility was a major problem* during this >program. The NRL materials did not give excess heat until the *Pd-B* was >given to me towards the end of the program. > >Miles said to nothing to Rothwell regarding TypeA, nor Table 10 . . . He did not have to say anything about it. Table 10 says the success rate for Type A Pd is 100%. That is also clear and unambiguous, and it does not contradict what Miles wrote in the letter. >, nor an ancient report that should have been withdrawn . . . I do not see why it should have been withdrawn. Beene has not listed any reason. Ancient or new, truth is truth. Facts have no expiration date. This report will remain true, accurate and important until the end of time, even if CF is forgotten. >- and please Note: The material Miles >refers to is Pd-B, not Johnson-Matthey type A, which is the material Rothwell >has over and over falsely claimed gives perfect results. In this letter, Miles talks about Pd-B. In the report, in Table 10 and elsewhere, he also discusses J-M type A. Why is this controversial? Why does Beene doubt me? He can look at the table any time, or if he does not have a copy, I can send him one. I do not understand why he is carried away with emotion and writes "Absolutely amazing!!" There is nothing amazing or controversial about it, and no way I could be making this up. Many people in this forum have the paper, and the readers here have never been reticent about correcting my mistakes in the past. Someone would set me straight if I am misreading Table 10, or misrepresenting it. I think Beene either misunderstands or he is trolling. Once again, I strongly recommend that he re-read the report carefully, in its entirety, and contact the author if he has any questions. >He says very clearly and succintly with no need of parsing "The NRL >materials did not give excess heat until the Pd-B was given to me towards >the end of the program." That's right. The other NRL material shown in Table 10 have a very low success rate. In contrast, all types of J-M material worked well, and the J-M Type A worked perfectly. McKubre's table shows the very same thing, as I noted. I believe those Type A samples were also given to Miles by Fleischmann toward the end of the program. > > success rate for J-M Type A was 100%, as I stated before. > >Wrong!! Never was, Never will be except in your imagination !! Mr. Beene, LOOK AT THE TABLE, and tell me what you think it means. If I am wrong, explain how and why. These assertions without evidence or reference to the published paper add nothing to the discussion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 13:48:48 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA12144; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:48:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:48:15 -0800 Message-ID: <3C7FEA4B.2891750E ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:53:41 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Info. on Pd in catalytic converters References: <013f01c1c0b9$e1534ca0$8837fea9 computer> <3C7F0892.E42EB378@ix.netcom.com> <002001c1c12d$3fd81760$8837fea9 computer> <3C7F96FD.74F6F94@ix.netcom.com> <009201c1c139$3dee2b40$8837fea9@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YB4YH2.0.fz2.VS_Vy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46389 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > From: "Edmund Storms" > > > Well, Jones, let me restate the problem. Uranium was proposed to fission when > exposed to a CF environment. > > OK. Now I understand where you were starting from. > > In the older Japanes research that was on the web in short abstract form, they > were apparanetly not looking for, nor suspecting, actual fission. They found the > kind of transmutation (if you believe them) that was somewhat like that > "thorium remediation" thing of several years back. > > I guess it went nowhere in Japan either. I would be instructive to know why it > went nowhere, but I guess there were some lawsuits here with the "Cincinattai" > group or whatever they called it, and unhappy investors, so we may never know > why > > > The problem then becomes, can a Pd-U alloy be made > > nuclear-active by saturation with D2? > > Do you have any thoughts on that issue? Pd can dissolve up to 10 at% U without forming another phase. However, the region of solubility when the structure is saturated with D is probably much narrower. Nevertheless, this alloy would be very interesting to study. I would suggest starting at the 0.1 at % U level and work up or down in U content, depending on the sensitivity to crack formation. Ed > > > Regards, > > Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 13:49:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10430; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:46:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:46:08 -0800 Message-ID: <3C7FF5C0.B0E01395 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:42:24 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SYyIH.0.iY2.UQ_Vy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46387 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 Mar 01, 2002 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:07:31 -0500 (EST) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkan et al. observe 2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission correlated with sonoluminescence. Any neutron emission was many orders of magnitude too small to account for the tritium production reported by the first group. Although distinguished physicists, fearing a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco 13 years ago, advised against publication, the editor has apparently chosen not only to publish the work, but to do so with unusual fanfare, involving even the cover of Science. Perhaps Science magazine covets the vast readership of Infinite Energy magazine. 2. NUCLEAR TESTING: NUCLEAR WEAPONS DESIGN RESUMES. Since 1992, the policy has been to maintain existing weapons under a Science- Based Stockpile Stewardship Program. But the Bush Administration has announced plans to resume design work on new warheads. This is expected to undermine nuclear non-proliferation, and lead to a resumption of testing. Speaking of testing, last week WN put the nuclear test range 100 miles from the Yucca Mountain repository. Several readers corrected our geography. Actually, the Nevada Test Site lies adjacent to Yucca Mountain. The nearest site, Buggy, is only 12 miles from Yucca, plenty far enough to rule out seismic problems, but close enough to arouse public concern. 3. DOOMSDAY CLOCK: IT'S NOW TWO MINUTES CLOSER TO MIDNIGHT. The symbolic clock was reset to 11:53, the closest to midnight since 1998, after both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons (WN 12 Jun 98). Scientists on the panel that controls the hands said the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not the major factor in setting the clock closer to midnight. Rather, it was the lack of progress toward nuclear disarmament. If the U.S. actually resumes nuclear testing, the clock will presumably be set much closer. 4. FALLOUT: "EVERYONE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO FALLOUT FROM TESTING." So what? A wildly irresponsible study from the Center of Disease Control estimates that fallout from testing will result in 11,000 cancer deaths. Would you believe zero? Atmospheric testing was dumb, and any testing now is dumber. But the CDC study assumes a linear, no-threshold model, which is clearly wrong. There is no evidence that low levels cause cancer and some evidence that low radiation levels may stimulate the body's protective mechanisms. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 14:24:26 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA31360; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:21:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:21:52 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301171256.00ae2fa8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:22:15 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] In-Reply-To: <3C7FF5C0.B0E01395 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"hseoM1.0.mf7._x_Vy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46390 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bob Park wrote: >1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out >of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by >cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in >the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkan et al. observe >2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with >sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff >huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two >experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, >using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection >equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission >correlated with sonoluminescence. This is interesting news. I hope the results can be replicated. One failed attempt at replication does not mean the first experiment was wrong. Any scientist should know this. Perhaps this is obvious, but if all journals follow Park's advice, progress would come to a halt. If journals always held back publication of experiments that were not replicated after one attempt, or when no attempts to replicate have yet been made, new discoveries would never be published. No one would hear about a breakthrough, and it would never be replicated. I wonder if that has ever occurred to him? >Perhaps Science >magazine covets the vast readership of Infinite Energy magazine. We should be grateful to Park for this free advertising. He should realize that in the Internet age, when he mentions are named people can easily look us up. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 14:25:08 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA00959; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:24:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:24:44 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:16:57 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: 100% reproducibility finale To: vortex Message-id: <013d01c1c16e$cd6b2900$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"64Yuc3.0.uE.i-_Vy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46391 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is note of apology to Vortex for my part in the recent spate of hot air over the "100% reproducibility issue." You don't need the wasted bandwidth and I don't need the aggravation of dealing with a troll who absolutely refuses to read and understand the content of his own postings, much less admit glaring error. I would prefer not to be further involved in this kind of pre-dementia, so I will place Rothwell in my "kill file" and refrain from any further rhetoric on any issue that doesn't related to creative ideas and alternative energy experimentation. In the unlikely event that Rothwell does have another spark of creativity, as he almost showed us with the Catalytic Converter idea, I hope someone will forward it to me, as otherwise it is unlikely that he will recognize its importance, especially if it involves getting one's hand's dirty. As a matter of fact, I am off to the local junk yard with a couple of smiling green TJ's and hope to return with a newish CC and plenty of the right sized connectors to run a modified Les Case experiment using RF heating and a direct converter of an original design. As the song says "I'll fix your flat tire Merle / Don't you get your country-pickin' fingers all covered with erl..." BTW if you live in any big city you have probably noticed what appear to be numerous foreign nationals congregating around junk yards. If you take along a picture of what you want and flash some green, you can probably be outa there with a new toy faster than you can say "catalytica mas pequeno" Here is some parting advice for Mr Rothwell, Get out of denial, get some professional help and read the following: The "I Need to Be Right" Way of Thinking by Lynne Namka, Ed. D., © 1997 One of life's biggest set-ups is living with the erroneous belief that your way is the only way. Some people seem to have taken a life course called, How To Be Absolutely Sure of Everything! People who feel constantly threatened and angry when others question their actions live a limited life. Fear is the major dynamic operating in this condition. People who have the need to be right usually are very strong and are not usually afraid of the most common fears of physical pain, heights, snakes, public speaking, etc. Their hidden fear is feeling vulnerable, emotional and out of control. They have a low tolerance for emotional pain. They use the sense of being right as a narcotic for unruly feelings. Here is the gist of a question asked on "The Institute for Psychological Health website: Q: I am requesting information on "the need to be right." I am in a relationship where my partner has the need to be right all the time. Even when he is wrong, he tries to argue it right. What is this behavior? It's very frustrating. Dr. A.N: Some people do have this trait where they want to be right all the time and they rationalize their position. It is *not* prudent to argue with them at that point in time. But probably when they are in the receptive mood they need to be told that the difference between right and appropriate. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 14:35:38 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA07305; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:35:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:35:07 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301172804.03d33240 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:29:40 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301171256.00ae2fa8 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3C7FF5C0.B0E01395 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"y2XgM2.0.rn1.Q80Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46392 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: >We should be grateful to Park for this free advertising. He should realize >that in the Internet age, when he mentions are named people can easily >look us up. Meant: " . . . when he mentions our name . . ." Sorry. Late in the day voice input gets squirrely. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 14:35:40 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA07440; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:35:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:35:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301173409.03d16050 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:35:29 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: EPA regulator letter of resignation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"pfmtT.0.wp1.Y80Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46393 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A depressing energy story. See: http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/muck/muck030102.asp?source=daily - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 14:46:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA12832; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:43:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:43:58 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301173816.03cf4130 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:44:22 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: 100% reproducibility finale In-Reply-To: <013d01c1c16e$cd6b2900$8837fea9 computer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"UgnU43.0.L83.jG0Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46394 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: >This is note of apology to Vortex for my part in the recent spate of hot >air over the "100% reproducibility issue." You don't need the wasted >bandwidth and I don't need the aggravation of dealing with a troll who >absolutely refuses to read and understand . . . I think it is a mistake to personalize the discussion, and make it Beene versus Rothwell. I think Beene should read Table 10 carefully, and tell us what he thinks it means. It is a very simple table and frankly I cannot imagine how anyone could dispute what it means. (Type A Pd is listed as JM (F/P) Pd, as explained elsewhere.) If he disagrees with the paper, or he thinks Table 10 is a misrepresentation, he should direct his objections to the author, not me. As far as I can tell, Beene is the one who has "absolutely refused to read and understand" this table. Perhaps his emotional objections are form of cognitive dissonance? Or if does understand it, he refuses to share his understanding with us, and tell us why the numbers for "JM (F/F) Pd" do not mean what they say. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 15:24:52 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA32496; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:21:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:21:21 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301181657.03d16050 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:21:42 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Mitsubishi U CF experiments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"M3i8r2.0.Zx7.lp0Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46395 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed Storms said that uranium is not a good choice for cathode material, because it forms uranium oxide. I mentioned the tests Mitsubishi is presently conducting with uranium CF. These are gas loading, not electrochemical. Also, I think there is a thin film layer of Pd on top of the U. They are looking for transmutations in U. Members of the audience at JCF3 urge them to try radioactive species of U. They said management has had some safety concerns but they hoped it will allow this. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 16:14:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA30847; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:11:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:11:11 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:10:36 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <3C7FF5C0.B0E01395 ix.netcom.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020301171256.00ae2fa8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020301171256.00ae2fa8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 QAA30802 Resent-Message-ID: <"pa2501.0.sX7.UY1Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46396 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:22:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Bob Park wrote: > >>1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out >>of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by >>cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in >>the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkan et al. observe >>2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with >>sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff >>huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two >>experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, >>using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection >>equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission >>correlated with sonoluminescence. I'm not sure if this has been previously suggested on vortex, but just in case it hasn't, I'll present it now. In a sonoluminescence bubble, temperatures do get high enough to break up molecules, strip some electrons etc. So it wouldn't be too surprising if the Mills catalysts H, O, and or O++ were formed. These in turn could produce some hydrinos (deuterinos), and consequently lead to some fusion, even if the catalysts are not ideal. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 18:52:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA10583; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:49:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:49:25 -0800 From: "Matthew Rogers" To: Subject: PD Material Properties Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:49:15 -0800 Message-ID: <003301c1c194$d7c24c00$0501a8c0 kitty> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"GnVdd1.0.Hb2.rs3Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46397 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: V- I have been going over the last few weeks discussions, and a common thread of thought always comes up. The properties of a material under test effect the test. So in response, I ask what are the material properties of PD ? What is its crystalline lattice structure as a metal ? What is its malleability ? IE, can it be beaten and folded to produce ultra thin layers like Gold or soft iron ? Iron can be beaten, forged and quenched, and a single block can be folded over 200 times this way to produce molecule thick layers. In the presence of CO2, it produces a fine carbon steel that is so strong, it can be sharpened into a blade and cut steel. Gold and Silver can be beaten into layers so thin, you can see through them. This is how Gold foil used in artwork works. Then again gold and silver can be electroplated. My other question relates to vapor deposition in a vacuum. Thin film diamond's and semiconductor' industry use a combination of vapor deposition and chemical etching to produce materials that have completely different effects' The current thinking today surmises that the CF is happening at very small distances inside the crystallaine structure of the material. So my question is, Is there any work modeling by computer in 3d space the nature of the materials used ? Again, maybe I am in left field here, but the thoughts and reported experiments seem to show that until we can model what is happening at the atomic level in these circumstances, we cannot reproduce the material. For instance, In crystalline Ice ( H2-0 ) there are several different ways Ice can make crystals. In Carbon, we know it can be Cubic ( diamond ), Planar ( Graphite ) Spherical Geodesic (Buckyballs) and Linear Geodesic ( Buckytubes ), and Thin Film ordered cubic. With the presence of impurities in Diamond, we get different colors, and slightly different electrical properties. With Ceramic high temp super conductive materials, if everyone remembers, the FIRST report of the material listed one of the rare earths wrong, yet the people who made the reproduced experiment using a Different material. It turns out there are lots of different rare earth ceramics become super conductive at higher temperatures. Any Ideas along these lines ? Thanks, Matt -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:43 AM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: vortex-l rules ************************************************************************** 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. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 19:02:14 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA15078; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:01:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:01:18 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: MAGNETIC ORBITAL IONIZATION Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:00:45 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <96f08ucic32oo17oqicl4qdb0mc1h2mk8l 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 TAA15048 Resent-Message-ID: <"Lg_T03.0.Rh3.-14Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46398 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 Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:43:17 -0900: Hi, [snip] >We have had this discussion before? I don't think this argument applies to >stripping reactions in the stellerator, for example. I don't believe that >for each free neutron released that He3 is created by stripping. It is >also not reasonable that a proton can be absorbed from a low energy >interaction with a heavy nucleus, i.e. in the stellerator glass walls. If >that happens then there is still a big mystery as to how the energy >exchange happens between the heavy nucleus and the deuteron. [snip] I did a web search, but was unable to find any reference to low energy stripping reactions in stellarators. Could you provide a reference? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 1 23:27:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA00955; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:25:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:25:13 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: MAGNETIC ORBITAL IONIZATION Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:24:39 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <01ec01c1ba70$df893820$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <01ec01c1ba70$df893820$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 XAA00924 Resent-Message-ID: <"4l0WI2.0.pE.Pv7Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46399 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:44:08 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Two points. First, depending on the varieity of stripping, one of the >two nucleons is not always absorbed by the target. In fact, in the >case of "spallation stripping," where there is an actual photon >mediated exchange, it is rare that either particle is absorbed. But >spallation is a higher energy (thermal) form of stripping, and we are >talking about non-thermal stripping in regard to having much relevance >for CF. Once again I could find no reference to low energy stripping, though plenty of references to stripping involving high energy deuterons. In the latter case however the particles themselves have more than enough kinetic energy to provide the 2.2 MeV. >It the energy were >borrowed, i.e. QM "time shifting" the transfer would have to be >instantaneous, and this is sometimes not the case - but you are Could you provide a URL to an example where it isn't the case? >correct that at certain D polariztion levels, "borrowed" energy >appears to be the major mechanism for breaking the bond. > >The really interesting question in terms of maximizing the yield and >minimizing the threshold input is whether or not the QM stripping >reaction can be optimized so that there is no immediate absorption, I would still like to see a good reference for a "QM stripping reaction". [snip] >Stripping has been observed in plasmas of less than I ev, that's >right, less than one electron volt, and even disappears when the the This is the reference I would like to see more than all the rest. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 2 05:34:08 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA08332; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:31:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:31:06 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 08:30:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3C7FF5C0.B0E01395 ix.netcom.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZiRkD2.0.522.QGDWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46400 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 3/1/02 1:42 PM, "Akira Kawasaki" wrote: > Subject: What's New for Mar 01, 2002 > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:07:31 -0500 (EST) > From: "What's New" > To: aki ix.netcom.com > > WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Mar 02 Washington, DC > > 1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out > of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by > cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in > the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkan et al. observe > 2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with > sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff > huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two > experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, > using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection > equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission > correlated with sonoluminescence. Any neutron emission was many > orders of magnitude too small to account for the tritium > production reported by the first group. This is marvelous news since it mirrors the finding in previous cold fusion experiments that tritium, when found, is many orders of magnitude greater than neutron production in similar or the same experiments. I bet dollars to donuts that the authors of the positive report and any commentary in Science will make no reference to previous cold fusion work. We shall see. Park's unscientific pre-emptive attack shows how deeply he fears being wrong about cold fusion. The elevation of a cold-fusion-like process to the pages of Science magazine must give him a sinking feeling. >Although distinguished > physicists, fearing a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco 13 years > ago, advised against publication, So, Park is privy to the innermost doing at Science magazine as well as at the USPTO! As I said, that tree that took him down -- temporarily (too bad) -- was unfortunately not big enough. And, we hear that "PR" consequences of publication played a role in the "peer review" process. What a farce! >the editor has apparently > chosen not only to publish the work, but to do so with unusual > fanfare, involving even the cover of Science. Perhaps Science > magazine covets the vast readership of Infinite Energy magazine. Yes, this free advertising is quite welcome. Maybe some bright science journalists will draw a connection to CF -- and Park will have helped them do that! He would not have conducted this What's New tirade unless it was patently obvious that the process might have something to do with cold fusion. If anyone has access to a pre-print of the Science paper and any associated commentary, Infinite Energy would very much like it to appear on our fax machine before we get our copy of March 8 Science: 603-224-5975 --Gene Mallove www.infinite-energy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 2 08:58:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20036; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 08:55:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 08:55:52 -0800 Message-ID: <3C80F746.DA624A45 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:01:12 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oelS31.0.zu4.OGGWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46401 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: "Eugene F. Mallove" wrote: > On 3/1/02 1:42 PM, "Akira Kawasaki" wrote: > > > Subject: What's New for Mar 01, 2002 > > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:07:31 -0500 (EST) > > From: "What's New" > > To: aki ix.netcom.com > > > > WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Mar 02 Washington, DC > > > > 1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out > > of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by > > cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in > > the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkan et al. observe > > 2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with > > sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff > > huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two > > experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, > > using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection > > equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission > > correlated with sonoluminescence. Any neutron emission was many > > orders of magnitude too small to account for the tritium > > production reported by the first group. > > This is marvelous news since it mirrors the finding in previous cold fusion > experiments that tritium, when found, is many orders of magnitude greater > than neutron production in similar or the same experiments. I bet dollars to > donuts that the authors of the positive report and any commentary in Science > will make no reference to previous cold fusion work. We shall see. > > Park's unscientific pre-emptive attack shows how deeply he fears being wrong > about cold fusion. The elevation of a cold-fusion-like process to the pages > of Science magazine must give him a sinking feeling. It remains to be seen whether this observation has anything to do with cold fusion. Cold fusion is a nuclear process that occurs in an environment able to overcome the Coulomb barrier using a process not requiring the application of high energy. A collapsing bubble not only has very high energy, but it also does not have an environment considered by many models to be necessary. People doing this work have attributed the results to a variation on hot fusion. On the other hand, the CF reaction is proposed to occur within a metal lattice after a bubble collapses on its surface. This is a much different environment then when a bubble collapses within a liquid, as is being done in these studies. I think it premature for us in the cold fusion field to assume a relationship, Robert Park not withstanding. The question that must be answered is, "Do these studies have surfaces within the cell on which bubbles are collapsing, thereby producing a CF reaction which is being overlooked by the investigators?" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 2 10:50:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA00677; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:47:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:47:39 -0800 Message-ID: <008801c1c21a$e0890960$5236a6d8 ronscomputer> From: "Ron Marshall" To: References: <3C80F746.DA624A45@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 01, 2002] Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:53:56 -0600 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: <"4R8-c1.0.RA.AvHWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46402 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: "Edmund Storms" wrote: >> It remains to be seen whether this observation has anything to do with cold fusion. Cold fusion is a nuclear process that occurs in an environment able to overcome the Coulomb barrier using a process not requiring the application of high energy. A collapsing bubble not only has very high energy, but it also does not have an environment considered by many models to be necessary. People doing this work have attributed the results to a variation on hot fusion. On the other hand, the CF reaction is proposed to occur within a metal lattice after a bubble collapses on its surface. This is a much different environment then when a bubble collapses within a liquid, as is being done in these studies. I think it premature for us in the cold fusion field to assume a relationship, Robert Park not withstanding. The question that must be answered is, "Do these studies have surfaces within the cell on which bubbles are collapsing, thereby producing a CF reaction which is being overlooked by the investigators?" << Regardless of the cause it seems like the signature of cold fusion reactions, high tritium and low neutron count, is there. I wonder if excess heat was measured. Ron Marshall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 2 13:08:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA25889; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:06:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:06:08 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8131EE.3838D816 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:11:53 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: PD Material Properties References: <003301c1c194$d7c24c00$0501a8c0 kitty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FXWmR2.0.PK6.0xJWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46403 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Matthew Rogers wrote: > V- > I have been going over the last few weeks discussions, and a common thread > of thought always comes up. > The properties of a material under test effect the test. > > So in response, I ask what are the material properties of PD ? > > What is its crystalline lattice structure as a metal ? face-centered-cubic (fcc) > > What is its malleability ? Soft but will work harden. > IE, can it be beaten and folded to produce ultra > thin layers like Gold or soft iron ? Yes, with difficulty. > > Then again gold and silver can be electroplated. So can Pd. > > > My other question relates to vapor deposition in a vacuum. > > Thin film diamond's and semiconductor' industry use a combination of vapor > deposition and chemical etching to produce materials that have completely > different effects' > > The current thinking today surmises that the CF is happening at very small > distances inside the crystallaine structure of the material. > > So my question is, Is there any work modeling by computer in 3d space the > nature of the materials used ? Modeling has not been done. Besides, the surface composition with respect to D and impurity contents is unknown, as well as its structure. It is pointless to model what is not known. > > > Again, maybe I am in left field here, but the thoughts and reported > experiments seem to show that until we can model what is happening at the > atomic level in these circumstances, we cannot reproduce the material. True > > > For instance, > In crystalline Ice ( H2-0 ) there are several different ways Ice can make > crystals. > In Carbon, we know it can be Cubic ( diamond ), Planar ( Graphite ) > Spherical Geodesic (Buckyballs) and Linear Geodesic ( Buckytubes ), and Thin > Film ordered cubic. > > With the presence of impurities in Diamond, we get different colors, and > slightly different electrical properties. > > With Ceramic high temp super conductive materials, if everyone remembers, > the FIRST report of the material listed one of the rare earths wrong, yet > the people who made the reproduced experiment using a Different material. It > turns out there are lots of different rare earth ceramics become super > conductive at higher temperatures. Until the necessary resources become available, creation of the nuclear-actice-environment will have to be by trial and error. The necessary tools are available, but they are too expensive to be used by people working in CANR. Ed > > > Any Ideas along these lines ? > > Thanks, > Matt From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 2 13:38:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA05214; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:35:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:35:40 -0800 Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:43:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex Subject: BBGB LUTEC ? {spelling? } Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"hGjVD3.0.IH1.iMKWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46404 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., Can someone please let us know as a useful URL Or BBGB Blow By Grinding Blow ... What "LUTEC" is? I am not sure of the spelling. I am getting a few pointers toward posts on the topic, but they are almost all "He said-He Said" Yes-huh/nunh-HUH ... I am getting the idea it is-was may be a ?motor? ?generator? Thanks, J POSTSCRIPTS: (...and YES... I CAN borrow time on a browser based system to see URLs!) (not always, but sometimes) J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 2 17:19:29 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA16289; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:15:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:15:45 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [209.249.70.92] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BBGB LUTEC ? {spelling? } Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 15:14:55 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2002 23:14:55.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[10AAD090:01C1C240] Resent-Message-ID: <"E1_Gy3.0.K-3.XqLWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46405 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John, I believe this was a motor/generator patented internationally by a couple of Australians. It was supposedly over unity. Walter Rosenthal went to visit, and determined it was another case of inventor's delusion. They were measuring incorrectly. They had a web site briefly, but quickly pulled it. Mark >From: John Schnurer >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: Vortex >Subject: BBGB LUTEC ? {spelling? } >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:43:45 -0500 (EST) > > > Dear Vo., > > > Can someone please let us know as a useful URL > Or BBGB Blow By Grinding Blow ... > What "LUTEC" is? > > I am not sure of the spelling. > > I am getting a few pointers toward posts on the topic, but they >are almost all "He said-He Said" Yes-huh/nunh-HUH ... > > I am getting the idea it is-was may be a ?motor? ?generator? > > > Thanks, > > J > > > POSTSCRIPTS: > > (...and YES... I CAN borrow time on a browser based system to see URLs!) > (not always, but sometimes) > > J > > _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 04:58:08 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA05420 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 04:58:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 04:58:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 04:58:07 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 04:58:06 2002 Old-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:57:37 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex-l rules Message-ID: <20020303125737.GC80125 genius.tao.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Karthauser , vortex-l eskimo.com References: <20020301124354.GB30031@genius.tao.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CblX+4bnyfN0pR09" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020301124354.GB30031 genius.tao.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Resent-Message-ID: <"xUkHB2.0.GK1.UtXWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46406 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: --CblX+4bnyfN0pR09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 12:43:54PM +0000, Josef Karthauser wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:43:19AM -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: > > ***********************************************************************= *** > > Vortex-L Rules: > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > If it's costing too much to run, I'm happy to support it for free. >=20 Of course I'm not suggesting that people don't donate if they can afford it :). Joe --CblX+4bnyfN0pR09 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjyCHcEACgkQXVIcjOaxUBYvhgCeIfu0e3IezgMCgud/2nMSf/yR NBsAoLI3g7+DeuCzgdF/H/FHk3iotSZ4 =sfiY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CblX+4bnyfN0pR09-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 14:48:12 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03729; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:04:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:04:18 -0800 (PST) From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BBGB LUTEC ? {spelling? } Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:58:55 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id OAA03510 Resent-Message-ID: <"8krQY3.0.Aw.TtfWy" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46407 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, 2 Mar 2002 16:43:45 -0500: Hi John, [snip] > Can someone please let us know as a useful URL > Or BBGB Blow By Grinding Blow ... > What "LUTEC" is? [snip] You may wish to check out http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf . Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 14:59:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA24397 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:59:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:59:47 -0800 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:59:47 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 14:59:47 2002 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Old-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 16:57:54 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: William Thomas Interview Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"Ku2Kg3.0.vy5.ZhgWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46408 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: Last night Art interviewed a very interesting man. He was in bio hazards during the Gulf War, and his first book is Bringing the War Home. I assume that this talks about Gulf War Vets bringing some kind of contagion home and infecting their families. Most of last night's show was on Chem Trails. He was talking about the use of barium stearite which can be used as a lens. He thinks that they are using it to focus the energy from the HAARP device. Another mixture involves aluminium powder, quartz and carbon black. They have been spraying tanker plane loads of this stuff in an effort to modify the weather. He had interviewed a man in air traffic control who noticed that there was a degrading in his radar. He called other ATC centers and they told him that during these periods they had been told that the military was doing exercises. He also mentioned that Nicola Tesla's papers were taken to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. The official story is that they lost them. He says that the plan is to develop weapons based on this technology. Mr. Thomas's website is at http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/Willthomas/homepage.html -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 15:48:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA12290 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:48:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:48:58 -0800 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:48:58 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 15:48:58 2002 Old-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:57:04 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: URL does not load........ BBGB LUTEC ? {spelling? } In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"qZTYI2.0.p_2.gPhWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46409 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: Dear Robin, This URL is not loading........ More ideas, plea-as-? On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to John Schnurer's message of Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:43:45 -0500: > Hi John, > [snip] > > > Can someone please let us know as a useful URL > > Or BBGB Blow By Grinding Blow ... > > What "LUTEC" is? > [snip] > You may wish to check out > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf . > > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > > ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 16:09:49 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19469 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 16:09:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 16:09:49 -0800 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 16:09:49 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 16:09:49 2002 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:53:39 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: National Compact Stellerator Facility Resent-Message-ID: <"9VFgQ2.0._l4.DjhWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46410 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: Old fashion returns: a princeton tokamak is being replaced with a stellerator. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 17:44:26 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA20683 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:44:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:44:26 -0800 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:44:26 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 17:44:25 2002 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:53:42 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: MAGNETIC ORBITAL IONIZATION Resent-Message-ID: <"F7Fbt1.0.w25.v5jWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46411 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: At 2:00 PM 3/2/2, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:43:17 >-0900: >Hi, >[snip] >>We have had this discussion before? I don't think this argument applies to >>stripping reactions in the stellerator, for example. I don't believe that >>for each free neutron released that He3 is created by stripping. It is >>also not reasonable that a proton can be absorbed from a low energy >>interaction with a heavy nucleus, i.e. in the stellerator glass walls. If >>that happens then there is still a big mystery as to how the energy >>exchange happens between the heavy nucleus and the deuteron. >[snip] >I did a web search, but was unable to find any reference to low energy >stripping reactions in stellarators. Could you provide a reference? I have looked around a bit and can not find one either. I may have read about it in Scientific American many years ago, but I just don't remember for sure now. I think "Project Sherwood" (which included the stellerator at Princeton's Forrestal labs I think) is the thing to research for relevant information. It may in fact have been the Project Sherwood Pinch studies, along with Britain's ZETA etc., that actually dashed the hopes that the neutrons from the stellerator were from fusion. There ARE ref's to pinch studies showing anomalous amounts of neutrons, I think. A good ref. on Project Sherwood is: Bishop, A.S. 1958. Project Sherwood: The U.S. Program in Controlled Fusion, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, available for a few US bucks plus shipping on Abe's Books web site. About the stellerator, in that day, around 1958, it was mainly an issue of whether fusion was happening at all and not whether stripping was happening at low energies. However, the temperature the stellerator was operating at was in fact less than that required for fusion in significant quatities, which is about a mere 20 keV, far from the 2.22 MeV required to break the P-N bond in D. If I recall, this is why stripping was a such big surprise in the first place, but, at the moment I can't find an article to prove that. Certainly it SHOULD be a surprise that 20 keV collisons can free neutrons from D. Similarly, the fusor doesn not produce much out in the fusion range, and certainly does not produce an observable number of 2.22 MeV deuterons, yet it produces copius neutrons. There are lots of fusor refs on the web. Back to the main subject, but for a less mainstream ref. see: which is: "Three Decades of Cold Fusion Prior to Pons and Fleischmann by Peter Graneau and Neal Graneau" (Originally Published September-October, 1999 In Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #27) Of some interest is the statement by Graneau and Graneau about selected Project Sherwood results: "... neutron production was quenched by the application of a weak axial magnetic field (50 - 100 gauss), implying that collisions were dominated by electromagnetic rather than thermal forces." Quoting Bishop: "The deuterons, therefore, did not have random velocities, as required for true thermonuclear conditions. Instead, they had somehow acquired axial velocities greater than they would have achieved by being accelerated the entire length of the tube! For example, with only 20 kV applied across the tube, the deuterons responsible for producing the neutrons were found to have an average energy of the order of 50 kV." Of other note in the this article is of Haines and Robson investigation of current pulses through about 10 cm-long "frozen deuterium wires." Haines and Robson estimated that "the temperature might have been of the order of one million degrees whereas hot fusion requires at least 100 million degrees." A million degrees corresponds to about 86 volts, though there would of course be a very very small number of atoms out in the tail of the thermal distribution at 20 keV. There is no reason to believe an observable number of 2.22 MeV or even 1.11 MeV deuterons were produced. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 17:44:28 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA20724 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:44:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:44:28 -0800 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:44:28 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 3 17:44:28 2002 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 16:48:12 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: MAGNETIC ORBITAL IONIZATION Resent-Message-ID: <"Lt2bv2.0.W35.y5jWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46412 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: At 2:00 PM 3/2/2, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:43:17 >-0900: >Hi, >[snip] >>We have had this discussion before? I don't think this argument applies to >>stripping reactions in the stellerator, for example. I don't believe that >>for each free neutron released that He3 is created by stripping. It is >>also not reasonable that a proton can be absorbed from a low energy >>interaction with a heavy nucleus, i.e. in the stellerator glass walls. If >>that happens then there is still a big mystery as to how the energy >>exchange happens between the heavy nucleus and the deuteron. >[snip] >I did a web search, but was unable to find any reference to low energy >stripping reactions in stellarators. Could you provide a reference? I have looked around a bit and can not find one either. I may have read about it in Scientific American many years ago, but I just don't remember for sure now. I think "Project Sherwood" (which included the stellerator at Princeton's Forrestal labs I think) is the thing to research for relevant information. It may in fact have been the Project Sherwood Pinch studies, along with Britain's ZETA etc., that actually dashed the hopes that the neutrons from the stellerator were from fusion. There ARE ref's to pinch studies showing anomalous amounts of neutrons, I think. A good ref. on Project Sherwood is: Bishop, A.S. 1958. Project Sherwood: The U.S. Program in Controlled Fusion, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, available for a few US bucks plus shipping on Abe's Books web site. About the stellerator, in that day, around 1958, it was mainly an issue of whether fusion was happening at all and not whether stripping was happening at low energies. However, the temperature the stellerator was operating at was in fact less than that required for fusion in significant quatities, which is about a mere 20 keV, far from the 2.22 MeV required to break the P-N bond in D. If I recall, this is why stripping was a such big surprise in the first place, but, at the moment I can't find an article to prove that. Certainly it SHOULD be a surprise that 20 keV collisons can free neutrons from D. Similarly, the fusor doesn not produce much out in the fusion range, and certainly does not produce an observable number of 2.22 MeV deuterons, yet it produces copius neutrons. There are lots of fusor refs on the web. Back to the main subject, but for a less mainstream ref. see: which is: "Three Decades of Cold Fusion Prior to Pons and Fleischmann by Peter Graneau and Neal Graneau" (Originally Published September-October, 1999 In Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #27) Of some interest is the statement by Graneau and Graneau about selected Project Sherwood results: "... neutron production was quenched by the application of a weak axial magnetic field (50 - 100 gauss), implying that collisions were dominated by electromagnetic rather than thermal forces." Quoting Bishop: "The deuterons, therefore, did not have random velocities, as required for true thermonuclear conditions. Instead, they had somehow acquired axial velocities greater than they would have achieved by being accelerated the entire length of the tube! For example, with only 20 kV applied across the tube, the deuterons responsible for producing the neutrons were found to have an average energy of the order of 50 kV." Of other note in the this article is of Haines and Robson investigation of current pulses through about 10 cm-long "frozen deuterium wires." Haines and Robson estimated that "the temperature might have been of the order of one million degrees whereas hot fusion requires at least 100 million degrees." A million degrees corresponds to about 86 volts, though there would of course be a very very small number of atoms out in the tail of the thermal distribution at 20 keV. There is no reason to believe an observable number of 2.22 MeV or even 1.11 MeV deuterons were produced. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 04:13:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA08188; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 04:10:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 04:10:40 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 07:10:59 -0800 Subject: Sunday Times coverage of ORNL cold fusion-related process From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id EAA08156 Resent-Message-ID: <"qVedO3.0.s_1.0HsWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46413 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Cold fusion 'breakthrough' heralds clean nuclear power By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor The Sunday Times, UK Sunday, March 3, 2002 Nuclear scientists will this week announce they may have achieved a controlled form of cold fusion, a technology that potentially offers humanity a limitless source of clean energy. The researchers are to publish evidence suggesting they have successfully fused the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, so recreating the processes that take place within the sun. Until now the only way to achieve fusion has been through nuclear weapons or in vast experimental machines that cost billions of pounds. Both depend on generating extremely high temperatures. However, the latest research, by scientists at the American government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Michigan, was done on a laboratory bench using relatively simple and cheap equipment at room temperature. The study echoes the work of Professor Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who, in 1989, announced they had achieved cold fusion at Southampton University but were ridiculed when no one could repeat their work. Fleischmann and Pons made what many now see as a fatal mistake when they released their results at a press conference rather than having them scrutinised by other scientists before publication in an academic journal. It is understood that Rusi Taleyarkhan from Oak Ridge, Fred Becchetti from the University of Michigan and their collaborator, Robert Nigmatulin, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, have repeated their work and subjected it to extensive peer review. If confirmed, the discovery could rank among the most important since the dawn of the nuclear age. The scientists are, however, extremely cautious at this stage, saying only that they have detected all the signs of fusion rather than categorically confirming it. Their technique uses pressure waves to generate tiny bubbles in a solution of acetone that has been infused with deuterium, a ''heavy'' form of hydrogen extracted from sea water. At the heart of most hydrogen atoms is a nucleus comprising a single proton. Deuterium atoms, however, have an additional particle, a neutron. This makes them roughly twice as heavy and slightly unstable. Physicists have long known that smashing two deuterium atoms together can fuse them into tritium, a third form of hydrogen with a proton and two neutrons. This fusion releases vast amounts of energy. This was the principle used to create the hydrogen bomb in 1945, but ever since then scientists have been struggling to find a way to control the process. In the latest technique, the sound waves create bubbles that expand with explosive force. As the wave passes, the bubbles implode, generating extremely high temperatures. This process is known as sono-luminescence after the flashes of light emitted. Until recently scientists could generate only temperatures of tens of thousands of degrees, far short of the sun's 10m Celsius. This appears to have been solved by ''hitting'' the bubbles with another sound wave that compresses them so rapidly that temperatures soar and the deuterium fuses. An insider said the researchers had detected ''promising signs of fusion'' including the creation of tritium and, crucially, the emission of neutrons. The researchers believe the neutrons have energy levels consistent with those that would be emitted by deuterium fusion. This would enable them to escape the fate of Fleischmann and Pons, whose readings of neutrons enabled them to claim they had achieved fusion. It later emerged that these neutrons could have been the results of contamination. Neil Turok, professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University, said the results, if confirmed, were extremely exciting: ''Cold fusion has a bad history but these laboratories are among the best in the world and they will have taken every precaution to get it right.'' The research has major implications for other fusion projects. Britain already hosts the Jet project at Culham in Oxford, where a machine has been built to research sustainable nuclear fusion reactions. This weekend it emerged that Culham had scrapped its own research into sono-luminescence and other low-tech forms of fusion after a report from Thornton Greenland, a former senior scientist, suggesting it was unlikely ever to work. Greenland said: ''I thought there was too little evidence to show it would work, but this suggests I was wrong.'' Recently, Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, committed Britain to joining an international project to build a £2 billion fusion machine called Iter, Latin for ''the Way''. Even this, however, will be able to sustain fusion reactions for only 16 minutes. A proper fusion reactor capable of producing power is thought to be 30-50 years away. Fleischmann, who now lives near Salisbury, still believes his results were correct although he regrets allowing colleagues to press him into publicising them before he was ready. He said: ''I hope they have achieved it. If they have, I hope people are ready for it this time.'' *********************************************************** Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan (423)576-4735 zrt ornl.gov Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1 Bear Creek Road P.O. Box 2009 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8045 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2000/n01032000_20001011.html ‘Soldier, Set Your Weapon on Stun’ By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON -- There comes a time in many "Star Trek" episodes when the captain tells armed crewmen, "Set your phasers on stun." Don't you wish you could do that? U.S. service members may be able to dial in the stopping power of their weapons if a promising technology at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee proves effective. Rusi Taleyarkhan leads the Oak Ridge team that's examining the technology for the Department of Energy. DoD's Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate at Quantico, Va., is following the project. The Oak Ridge project centers on high-energy cartridges that contain water and aluminum as propellants. Taleyarkhan and his crew demonstrated the technology using a modified shotgun. Taleyarkhan’s background is in fusion technology and the variable speed bullet was an outgrowth of his research. That’s why the Energy Department is in charge of the program. The weapon works by electrically triggering the cartridge. The aluminum liquefies and vaporizes the water, generating the pressure that forces the round out the barrel. The projectile could be made of lead, steel or even a fluid. Unlike gunpowder, researchers say, the vapor "pulse" is scaleable, meaning shooters can precisely vary the force they want. They could set their weapons to "stun," "disable" or "destroy." The weapon would have a laser rangefinder/aiming system to compute the force needed for the projectile to have the desired effect whether the target is point-blank or hundreds of yards away. This would solve a problem law enforcement personnel and military peacekeepers have using today's rubber bullets. They're not effective at long ranges, but they can wound or kill at close ranges if they hit a person in the wrong place. The Energy Department has been working on the concept for about four years, said project manager Carl Pocratsky. It has cost about $800,000. Researchers have known about the vapor explosion phenomena for years, but scientists have only recently developed an electrical firing mechanism small enough to fit on a shotgun. The fist-sized electrical pulse generator works with a 1.5-volt battery. Pocratsky said a weapon should be ready for testing in about two years. *************************************************** http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/department/directory/bio.asp?ID=25 Physics Department Directory (photo) Fred Becchetti Professor Office: 2241 Randall University of Michigan Department of Physics 500 East University Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120 Email: fdb umich.edu becchetti@miphys.physics.lsa.umich.edu Phone: 313-764-1598 http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/twinsol/ Additional Information: Cell Phone: (734) 730-0664 Fax: 764-6843 Graduated from University of Minnesota in 1969. Research Field: Nuclear, Experiment Research Focus: radioactive ion beams, heavy ion collisions, nuclear instrumentation, medical physics Professor Becchetti and his group produce and study nuclear reactions with short-lived unstable nuclei, such as 6He, 8Li and 7Be. Studies of nuclear reactions involving these nuclei provide new, detailed information on the creation of the elements in the Big Bang and the present density and distribution of matter in the Universe. The latter is one of the critical questions in physics, as most of the matter in the Universe is not visible by normal observational methods. This work includes the development of large superconducting magnetic ion lens devices for unstable beam production, including a new 6 Tesla dual-magnetic system presently in use at the University of Notre Dame. The group's existing apparatus was one of the first to permit reliable scattering measurements using unstable nuclear beams. Such reactions have been proposed for development of gamma-ray lasers. Recently, Professor Becchetti's group has been developing techniques to provide magnetic confinement of the dose from ion and photon beams used in cancer therapy. Preliminary experiments have been encouraging and future experiments are planned in collaboration with the Radiation Oncology group at the UM Hospital. Randall Laboratory 500 E. University Ave. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1120 (734) 764-4437 -- Fax: (734) 763-9694 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 06:30:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA30154; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:27:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:27:46 -0800 Message-ID: <20020304142745.69370.qmail web11206.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:27:45 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Ford Subject: Re: Sunday Times coverage of ORNL cold fusion-related process To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Wjqz13.0.yM7.YHuWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46414 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --- "Eugene F. Mallove" wrote: > Cold fusion 'breakthrough' heralds clean nuclear power > By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor > The Sunday Times, UK > Sunday, March 3, 2002 > Verry cool! (no pun intended) > *********************************************************** > Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan (423)576-4735 zrt ornl.gov > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > 1 Bear Creek Road > P.O. Box 2009 > Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8045 > > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2000/n01032000_20001011.html > ‘Soldier, Set Your Weapon on Stun’ > By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service > WASHINGTON -- There comes a time in many "Star Trek" > episodes when the captain tells armed crewmen, "Set your > phasers on stun." Don't you wish you could do that? > > U.S. service members may be able to dial in the stopping > power of their weapons if a promising technology at the Oak > Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee proves effective. > Rusi Taleyarkhan leads the Oak Ridge team that's examining > the technology for the Department of Energy. DoD's Joint > Nonlethal Weapons Directorate at Quantico, Va., is > following the project. > Also very cool! Articles like this is wht we all want to see! ===== Charles Ford KC5-OWZ cjford1 yahoo.com cjford1 swbell.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 07:11:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA20084; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:09:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:09:00 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304100604.00adb478 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:08:59 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Sunday Times coverage of ORNL cold fusion-related process In-Reply-To: <20020304142745.69370.qmail web11206.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"-hFIl.0.kv4.CuuWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46415 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Charles Ford wrote: >Articles like this is what we all want to see! Except for the part about, "Professor Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons . . . were ridiculed when no one could repeat their work." They were ridiculed despite the fact that hundreds repeated their work. I shall have to send the Sunday Times my standard protest letter . . . not that it will do any good. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 09:02:48 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17725; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:02:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:02:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:05:57 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: National Compact Stellerator Facility Resent-Message-ID: <"4vspx.0.tK4.GYwWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46416 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Old fashion returns: a princeton tokamak is being replaced with a stellerator. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 09:04:37 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA17765; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:02:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:02:13 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:06:00 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: MAGNETIC ORBITAL IONIZATION Resent-Message-ID: <"X0TM_2.0.VL4.LYwWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46417 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:00 PM 3/2/2, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:43:17 >-0900: >Hi, >[snip] >>We have had this discussion before? I don't think this argument applies to >>stripping reactions in the stellerator, for example. I don't believe that >>for each free neutron released that He3 is created by stripping. It is >>also not reasonable that a proton can be absorbed from a low energy >>interaction with a heavy nucleus, i.e. in the stellerator glass walls. If >>that happens then there is still a big mystery as to how the energy >>exchange happens between the heavy nucleus and the deuteron. >[snip] >I did a web search, but was unable to find any reference to low energy >stripping reactions in stellarators. Could you provide a reference? I have looked around a bit and can not find one either. I may have read about it in Scientific American many years ago, but I just don't remember for sure now. I think "Project Sherwood" (which included the stellerator at Princeton's Forrestal labs I think) is the thing to research for relevant information. It may in fact have been the Project Sherwood Pinch studies, along with Britain's ZETA etc., that actually dashed the hopes that the neutrons from the stellerator were from fusion. There ARE ref's to pinch studies showing anomalous amounts of neutrons, I think. A good ref. on Project Sherwood is: Bishop, A.S. 1958. Project Sherwood: The U.S. Program in Controlled Fusion, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, available for a few US bucks plus shipping on Abe's Books web site. About the stellerator, in that day, around 1958, it was mainly an issue of whether fusion was happening at all and not whether stripping was happening at low energies. However, the temperature the stellerator was operating at was in fact less than that required for fusion in significant quatities, which is about a mere 20 keV, far from the 2.22 MeV required to break the P-N bond in D. If I recall, this is why stripping was a such big surprise in the first place, but, at the moment I can't find an article to prove that. Certainly it SHOULD be a surprise that 20 keV collisons can free neutrons from D. Similarly, the fusor doesn not produce much out in the fusion range, and certainly does not produce an observable number of 2.22 MeV deuterons, yet it produces copius neutrons. There are lots of fusor refs on the web. Back to the main subject, but for a less mainstream ref. see: which is: "Three Decades of Cold Fusion Prior to Pons and Fleischmann by Peter Graneau and Neal Graneau" (Originally Published September-October, 1999 In Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #27) Of some interest is the statement by Graneau and Graneau about selected Project Sherwood results: "... neutron production was quenched by the application of a weak axial magnetic field (50 - 100 gauss), implying that collisions were dominated by electromagnetic rather than thermal forces." Quoting Bishop: "The deuterons, therefore, did not have random velocities, as required for true thermonuclear conditions. Instead, they had somehow acquired axial velocities greater than they would have achieved by being accelerated the entire length of the tube! For example, with only 20 kV applied across the tube, the deuterons responsible for producing the neutrons were found to have an average energy of the order of 50 kV." Of other note in the this article is of Haines and Robson investigation of current pulses through about 10 cm-long "frozen deuterium wires." Haines and Robson estimated that "the temperature might have been of the order of one million degrees whereas hot fusion requires at least 100 million degrees." A million degrees corresponds to about 86 volts, though there would of course be a very very small number of atoms out in the tail of the thermal distribution at 20 keV. There is no reason to believe an observable number of 2.22 MeV or even 1.11 MeV deuterons were produced. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 11:09:19 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23548; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:06:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:06:06 -0800 Message-ID: <3C83C4C6.2EF80504 attbi.com> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:02:30 -0800 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Case tested catalytic converters Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MDxI7.0.ol5.UMyWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46418 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The thread about catalytic converters reminded me of a talk given by Les Case at ICCF-7 in April 1998. Some of the information from the talk may not have made it into his published papers, so I doug out my notes of the talk. Case did exactly what Jed suggested. He tried lots of different commercial catalysts, including those intended for auto catalytic converters. He tested Pt, Pd, and Rh on carbon in a D2 atmosphere and said they all "worked." He defined "worked" to mean that the there was a higher temperature rise for D compared to H. The best was PMC from United Catalyst. Other notes from the talk: If trying to replicate: Run at 150 deg C, do not exceed 250C. Pressure must be above 1 ATM. Case used a 1.6 L chamber., 0-50 PSI Rises to 60-70 PSI at temperature. Got 5-10W excess power (around 50% excess) I have not followed Case's work since. Does anyone have an update? -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 11:26:33 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01166; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:25:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:25:49 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304141937.00b1bcc0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:25:47 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Case tested catalytic converters In-Reply-To: <3C83C4C6.2EF80504 attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Ynsk4.0.sH.xeyWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46419 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horst wrote: >Case at ICCF-7 in April 1998. Some of the information from the talk may > >not have made it into his published papers, so I doug out my notes of >the talk. > >Case did exactly what Jed suggested. He tried lots of different >commercial catalysts, including those intended for auto catalytic >converters. Did he say that? I wish I had a recording. Are you sure he was talking about Pd, Ru and/or Pt on metal or ceramic substrates? I know he has done a great deal of work with a variety of metal on carbon substrates. Ed Storms has found this material is dirty and requires extensive cleaning before it can be used. Others who have tried palladium thin film on various substrates have said the biggest problem is that it peels off, or "delaminates." I suppose the catalytic converters are well engineered, because the palladium sticks even an high temperatures with high velocity hot gas streaming past. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 12:16:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31334; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:13:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:13:57 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Case tested catalytic converters Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:25:01 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304141937.00b1bcc0 pop.mindspring.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"Pga6U3.0.Pf7.4MzWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46420 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi. I agree, delamination is a big problem with deposited metal films and CF type experiments. I was under the impression that Ed's techniques use VERY small amounts of Pd and would not suffer too much from this effect. I've done work with electroplating nickle alloys for catalytic purposes and had endless problems with delamination, the electrolytic process is a CLEANING process for some applications which is a good example of how to make lemonade out of lemons... I was under the impression that Case couldn't be replicated, what's he been up to recently????? K. -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothwell infinite-energy.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:26 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Case tested catalytic converters Horst wrote: >Case at ICCF-7 in April 1998. Some of the information from the talk may > >not have made it into his published papers, so I doug out my notes of >the talk. > >Case did exactly what Jed suggested. He tried lots of different >commercial catalysts, including those intended for auto catalytic >converters. Did he say that? I wish I had a recording. Are you sure he was talking about Pd, Ru and/or Pt on metal or ceramic substrates? I know he has done a great deal of work with a variety of metal on carbon substrates. Ed Storms has found this material is dirty and requires extensive cleaning before it can be used. Others who have tried palladium thin film on various substrates have said the biggest problem is that it peels off, or "delaminates." I suppose the catalytic converters are well engineered, because the palladium sticks even an high temperatures with high velocity hot gas streaming past. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 12:36:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA09248; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:34:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:34:50 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304153228.00b1be28 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:34:48 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Case tested catalytic converters In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304141937.00b1bcc0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"y68NI2.0.QG2.ffzWy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46421 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel wrote: >I was under the impression that Case couldn't be replicated, >what's he been up to recently????? He was replicated by McKubre, who carefully measured the healing production and showed that it correlated to the heat in the same ratio as bulk palladium CF and conventional D-D hot fusion. McKubre used much better calorimetry that Case did, and measured much less heat, but what he did measure is pretty solid I think. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 13:43:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA14834; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:40:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:40:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:43:01 -0900 To: From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Case tested catalytic converters Resent-Message-ID: <"BGEnw2.0.ad3.Ed-Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46422 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:25 PM 3/4/2, Keith Nagel wrote: [snip] >I was under the impression that Case couldn't be replicated, >what's he been up to recently????? [snip] Last I head Les Case gave some help to Russ George of E-Quest who then successfully replicated Case and was moving forward with the research. If I recall, George wrote an article that seemed, at least to me at the time, a bit lacking in credit to Case. That work was also done with Miley's help? I don't know for sure where either Case of George went from there. Case was working with Mallove et al back in New England? Russ George was starting a private for-profit style (gagged) email list, which I declined to join. He was very put out by the vortex information sharing style as I recall. He wrote: "Stuff it Jed. E-Quest has been working full time non stop with major scientific organizations for the past year replicating it's work with oversight by the finest sicentists in the nation. Is just doesn't give the results of hundreds of thousands of dollars of work to you for free so get off my back." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 13:56:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22841; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:55:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:55:46 -0800 Message-ID: <3C83EC72.AF92DE4B attbi.com> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:51:46 -0800 From: Bob Horst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Case tested catalytic converters References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304141937.00b1bcc0 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KgJ0k1.0.na5.Xr-Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46423 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Horst wrote: > > >Case at ICCF-7 in April 1998. Some of the information from the talk may > > > >not have made it into his published papers, so I doug out my notes of > >the talk. > > > >Case did exactly what Jed suggested. He tried lots of different > >commercial catalysts, including those intended for auto catalytic > >converters. Jed wrote: > Did he say that? I wish I had a recording. Are you sure he was talking > about Pd, Ru and/or Pt on metal or ceramic substrates? I know he has done a > great deal of work with a variety of metal on carbon substrates. Ed Storms > has found this material is dirty and requires extensive cleaning before it > can be used. > > It is pretty hard to remember much about a talk from four years ago, but my notes definitely said that he tried all three and all were found to have some degree of success. I think all were on carbon substrates, but cannot be sure. The main thing I remember from the talk is that I was not very convinced by his tests that just measured delta T between H and D. He did not have any real calorimetry. -- Bob From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 14:05:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA26252; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:03:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:03:04 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Case tested catalytic converters Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:14:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"hsvQ51.0.pP6.My-Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46424 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Horace. Thanks. If I remember correctly, Scott Little tried to replicate this here on vortex and failed, hence my comment. I can fully understand Russ Georges comment about sharing info, but it would be nice if he provided some critique of Scotts null experiment. It was done pretty cleanly, as I remember. I think the major issue was thermal distribution in the volume of the carbon mass, Scott determined that this was not uniform and when he used improved calorimetry the effect vanished (ugh!). Hi Jed. Perhaps you can dig up the experimental data concerning McKubre's replication, it sounds like Scott work except for the residue of unexplained heat. The whole "improve calorimetry and reduce excess heat" thing is something we are all too painfully familiar with, yes??? (smile). K. -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 4:43 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Case tested catalytic converters At 3:25 PM 3/4/2, Keith Nagel wrote: [snip] >I was under the impression that Case couldn't be replicated, >what's he been up to recently????? [snip] Last I head Les Case gave some help to Russ George of E-Quest who then successfully replicated Case and was moving forward with the research. If I recall, George wrote an article that seemed, at least to me at the time, a bit lacking in credit to Case. That work was also done with Miley's help? I don't know for sure where either Case of George went from there. Case was working with Mallove et al back in New England? Russ George was starting a private for-profit style (gagged) email list, which I declined to join. He was very put out by the vortex information sharing style as I recall. He wrote: "Stuff it Jed. E-Quest has been working full time non stop with major scientific organizations for the past year replicating it's work with oversight by the finest sicentists in the nation. Is just doesn't give the results of hundreds of thousands of dollars of work to you for free so get off my back." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 14:24:51 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06658; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:24:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:24:10 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304165435.00b1be28 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:23:59 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Case tested catalytic converters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"fMNOP.0.Yd1.4G_Wy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46425 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >I recall, George wrote an article that seemed, at least to me at the time, >a bit lacking in credit to Case. That work was also done with Miley's >help? McKubre's. Depending on who you ask, it was done by McKubre with some help from George, or George with some help from McKubre. >Case was working with Mallove et al back in New England? Yes indeed. He demonstrated the effect with very crude calorimetry. >He was very put out by the vortex information sharing style as I >recall. He wrote: "Stuff it Jed. E-Quest has been working full time non >stop with major scientific organizations for the past year replicating >it's work with oversight by the finest sicentists in the nation. Is just >doesn't give the results of hundreds of thousands of dollars of work to >you for free so get off my back." He has a charming way of expressing himself. He misunderstood my point of view, and my purpose. When he wrote that, he was anxious to attract funding. (He may still be.) As I explained to him, the only way to attract funding is to tell people what you are doing, and explain what you hope to accomplish. You must advertise your accomplishments. You cannot charge people to read your advertisements. Academic scientists don't call this advertising but the principle and the effect is the same. They try to publish in journals that other scientists have free access to, in university library subscriptions, and nowadays on Internet publications. In the academic tradition, it is considered ethical and proper to give away information. Perhaps it is partly altruistic, but mainly this is how these people make a living, oddly enough. Russ George did not understand that corporations selling in the high tech business-to-business market must give away remarkably detailed technical information. They always have, and they do this even more nowadays on the Internet, because the cost of distributing information is so low. This is not a favor to the public. It is certainly not altruism! It is a time-tested, effective marketing technique. It attracts customers by demonstrating expertise and describing the superior quality of the product. A company like Hewlett-Packard or IBM knows that its customers are sophisticated and will shop around and decide based on technical merit, so they must describe this merit in detail. They have to walk a fine line between giving away information that might help their competitors, and holding back information that might attract customers. I have often suggested this technique to would-be entrepreneurs trying to sell cold fusion and other anomalous energy, such as Mitch Swartz, R. Mills and the late James Reding. They have always misunderstood me, misread my intention and accused me of scheming to steal their information. I conclude that these people do not understand the principles of managing and marketing high-tech products. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 19:44:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA12804; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:41:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:41:20 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 22:40:54 -0800 Subject: Infinite Energy Statement on Science Sonofusion Article in March 8 Issue From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"N0Lbq.0.z73.Vv3Xy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46426 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Infinite Energy Magazine's Statement on the Science Sonofusion Article by Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove www.infinite-energy.com March 4, 2002 As an AAAS member, I am delighted that Science magazine will be publishing an article and a commentary about table-top sonofusion in its March 8, 2002 issue -- it is said to be highlighted as a high-profile cover story. We congratulate Science and the authors. I learned earlier today that because the New York Times has decided to publish an article about the Science paper in its March 5th edition, Science has lifted the March 7th embargo to other journalists. I have now read the technical paper and its associated commentary and will remarking briefly about it in general terms below. Sonofusion (and sonoluminescence) is an area in which Infinite Energy has published since its inception in 1995. In fact, our first issue, March/April 1995, had Roger Stringham (now of First Gate Energies, Inc.) on the cover cradling his sonofusion reactor. The cover story, "A 'Micro-Fusion' Reactor: Nuclear Reactions 'In the cold' by Ultrasonic Cavitation," was by Tom Benson, Vol.1, No.1, pp.33-37. There have been many other pieces, notably: * "Cavitation in D2O with Metal Targets Produces Predictable Excess Heat," by Roger Stringham, John Chandler, Russ George, Tom Passell, and Dick Raymond, Infinite Energy, Vol. 4, No.19, April-May 1998,pp.41-44 * "A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence," by Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger (Reprint of his Nov. 11, 1991 lecture at MIT), Infinite Energy, Vol. 4, No. 24, March-April 1999, pp.81-83. In more recent issues of Infinite Energy since November 2000 (Nos. 35-41), New Energy Research Laboratory's Manager, Kenneth Rauen and I have chronicled our experience in experimenting with Roger Stringham's sonofusion reactor, and our smaller modified reactor derived from it. The primary purpose of this work has been to identify the primary and most desirable signature of cold fusion/low energy nuclear reactions: excess heat. This work, furthermore, has been aimed at producing a commercially viable demonstration device for excess heat, a still elusive goal for reasons mentioned in our Device and Process Testing Update articles. Since we are aware that Roger Stringham and others have found nuclear products, as well as excess heat in cavitation devices, we have been driven to examine the evidence for excess heat in his and our design reactor. At this point, our evidence is not strong enough to promote a commercial demonstration device, but the quest to understand the mechanical and electrical interactions that could manifest reliable excess heat, as well as nuclear products, continues. Another laboratory is now working with us to examine the possible helium production in this sonofusion reactor. Roger Stringhamn et al have already found helium and other nuclear evidence in their sonofusion devices, in addition to observing melting under heavy water of normally high melting point metals. **** Comments on the Science Articles: The articles are: "Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation, " R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, Science, Vol. 295, March 2002, pp.1868-1873. and Commentary: "Evidence for Nuclear Reactions in Imploding Bubbles," F.D. Becchetti, Science, Vol. 295, March 2002, p.1850. The matter to celebrate the most in these Science articles is the apparent discovery of yet another particular system for producing fusion reactions -- other than with the large and expensive, and so far unproductive, magnetic confinement tokamak and large laser inertial confinement fusion devices of the DOE. And we certainly celebrate that the experiments are, indeed, "table-top" -- just like most cold fusion experiments. Of course, the work reported in Science needs to be reproduced in its particular form, just as cold fusion experiments had to be and WERE reproduced, repeatedly. But on first examination today, the work reported in Science appears to have been done very thoroughly. It is also immediately apparent that sonofusion work carried out in the cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) field, although not referenced by these authors, can provide significant support in both experimental and theoretical aspects. (I imagine that the authors were not aware of much of this work.) Perhaps the appearance of the Science articles will cause scientists, technologists, and officials to reconsider their previous impression of other fusion technologies, including the much maligned cold fusion science and its emerging technology. Cold fusion/LENR has been under research and development for some years, since being prematurely dismissed by a egregiously flawed and rush-to-judgment DOE report in 1989. We note with some dismay that Dr. Robert Park of the American Physical Society chose last Friday to pre-empt the Science articles' appearance with an attack on the articles, which he published on his "What's New" web site run by the American Physical Society, but which allegedly does not endorse his opinions: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkan et al. observe 2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission correlated with sonoluminescence. Any neutron emission was many orders of magnitude too small to account for the tritium production reported by the first group. Although distinguished physicists, fearing a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco 13 years ago, advised against publication, the editor has apparently chosen not only to publish the work, but to do so with unusual fanfare, involving even the cover of Science. Perhaps Science magazine covets the vast readership of Infinite Energy magazine. ... THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. ******* Park's assessment is quite faulty, not unusual for his uninformed and often malicious commentary over the past 13 years, but it is nice that he gave publicity to the forthcoming Science articles (and to our magazine!-- which he evidently dislikes for its bold examination of cold fusion science). In contrast to Science magazine's general abdication of responsibility for over a decade in covering cold fusion and properly reviewing technical submissions, Infinite Energy has been in the vanguard of publishing and discussing this science. We did, however, enjoy the appearance today of the London Sunday Times piece concerning the forthcoming Science articles: ***** Cold fusion 'breakthrough' heralds clean nuclear power By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor The Sunday Times, UK Sunday, March 3, 2002 Nuclear scientists will this week announce they may have achieved a controlled form of cold fusion, a technology that potentially offers humanity a limitless source of clean energy....the latest research, by scientists at the American government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Michigan, was done on a laboratory bench using relatively simple and cheap equipment at room temperature. The study echoes the work of Professor Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who, in 1989, announced they had achieved cold fusion at Southampton University but were ridiculed when no one could repeat their work. ... ****** Unfortunately, this latter comment, "no one could repeat their work," is entirely in error, but it is good that the Sunday Times referred to the sonofusion work in terms of "cold fusion," which it may well be, at least in part. It may, in fact, be exhibiting both hot fusion and cold fusion characteristics. More needs to be known. More testing needs to be done -- calorimetry and helium measurments, in particular, which were not made by these authors. But as Park himself highlights, the anomalous ratio of tritium to neutron production reported in the article -- which he dismisses outright as indicating an experiment flaw - has long been a known characteristic of cold fusion systems. The critique by Bechetti was well done and will likely anger the hot fusioneers, because it puts this work too much into the same context as energy generation via tokamaks and big lasers, something they do not want to hear. As usual, they want all DOE resources concentrated on THEIR well-funded projects. And, I noticed that Becchetti did refer to a paper in 1990 of a supposedly failed "table top" experiment (likely one of the "failed" cold fusion replication attempts, but I do not have the specific paper referred to) in which he said he participated. He and Science are to be roundly criticized for referring to an early cold fusion era experiment, while not properly mentioning that numerous other highly positive experiments with repeatable results -- especially at tritium generation (e.g. by Dr. Tom Claytor at Los Alamos National Laboratory), but also neutron generation -- have been done in cold fusion. It must be recalled that in June 1990, Science magazine produced a virtually slanderous attack by Gary Taubes against the work of cold fusion researchers at Texas A&M University, suggesting that fraud was the likely explanation of the tritium findings in cold fusion experiments. That this past poor journalism and continuing tritium findings in cold fusion continue to be ignored at Science -- except when an alleged HOT fusion explanation is given -- is intellectually dishonest. There is an effort throughout the March 8 technical paper (but of course!) to put the observed reactions into the context exclusively of HOT fusion. However, I do note that the experimenters were still unable to get the gap between neutron counts and tritium measured to fall below a single order of magnitude difference! I had hoped that the measured/inferred gap would be greater, but it is there nonetheless. Tritium is higher than neutron production. The authors do much hand-waving to say that this might be "explained" by various measurement errors and inefficiencies. Indeed, cold fusion experiments show many times a factor of 10 -- up to a 100-million ratio of tritium to neutrons when tritium is found. And, cold fusion experiments have proved that the birth of the tritium can be COLD, not HOT. If it had been hot (energetic), as in tritium formed by the D + D hot fusion reaction, 14 MeV hot fusion neutrons (from T + D collision reaction) would have been seen and they are not seen, e.g. what Claytor et al at LANL have found. Because of the uncertainties in this Science paper data, it is not exactly possible to determine whether this is fully mini-hot fusion, or some mixture of cold fusion and hot fusion. That will come later. The most important matter is that this article will get more people thinking again about alternative ways to do fusion. This inevitably will bring up the huge body of cold fusion literature that has been ignored by these authors and Science. It is too bad that it has to happen this way. It would have been better if proper coverage by Science had been occurring all along. Many cold fusion people long ago gave up even submitting to Science. They publish in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Physics Letters A, and Fusion Technology, among other journals, including Infinite Energy magazine. I predict that the hot fusion people will do their best to trash this new table-top work, especially because it is in the context of on-going work that they well know is occurring world-wide on cavitation-induced fusion. They helped kill off more widespread interest in electrolytic fusion, but it will be much harder for them to kill off these kinds of sonofusion experiments, especially now that they are documented in a very visible publication. As more is learned from the Science papers, I may post further commentary. Note that the Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-9) will be held May 19-24, 2002 in Beijing. Sonofusion and the articles in Science are certain to be a topic of discussion there. (http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn) Sincerely, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 4 19:50:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA17769; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:49:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:49:53 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:53:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: MAGNETIC ORBITAL IONIZATION Resent-Message-ID: <"-JLto2.0.ZL4.X14Xy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46427 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It has dawned on me that it may not be clear to all exactly what I have suggested constitutes a stripping reaction, and why I think it explains thermal neutrons out vs the 2.45 MeV or 3.02 MeV neutrons characteristic of fusion. The fusion reaction branches are: D + D -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%) -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%) -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%) and clearly all these branches have one or more high energy signatures. What I am suggesting as a stripping reaction is: D + D -> D + p + n + very small energy which is merely the inverse of the fusion reaction: p + n -> D + 2.22 MeV gamma with the obvious problem of conservation of energy. In the stripping reaction the second D plays only a catalytic role, remains unchanged. I have suggested that the excess energy comes is borrowed from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea by the n-p pair confined to the magnetic orbital with range delta x, giving a Heisenberg energy uncertainty: delta KE = h^2 /[(8 Pi^2 m) (delta x)^2] where delta x might be deduced to be about 3.07 fm, or 3.07x10^-15 m, so as to make: delta KE = 2.20 MeV thus needing only a small push over the hump to separation. This is pretty close for intuitive estimating related to what is actually a very complex system, the deuteron. The n-p pair are about 4 fm apart, but oscillate and also rotate about a central point about 2 fm from each other. The mass locus is a probability distribution, as is the charge locus of the deuteron. The result shows that the nucleus is the ideal size for building a Maxwell's demon, for extracting energy from the ZPE sea. However, from the stripping reaction mechanism suggested here, you can clearly see that you would not expect any high energy radiation, only near thermal by-products. You would not see any fusion signatures. Such radiation would later be obtained from the p + n -> D recombination, not from the stripping reaction itself. The check is written on the ZPE bank at the time of the stripping, and it is cashed when n-p fusion occurs. What I am proposing is NOT a borrowing mechanism that results in a transaction whereby nucleons are exchanged between two nucleii. The second nucleus merely acts as an anvil on which the stripped deuteron is broken. The energy borrowing that takes place is permanent, it is actually a withdrawal from the ZPE bank, just as the mass-enegry of the universe is such a withdrawal. It is of interest that if such withdrawals and deposits can easily be made by merely bashing deuterons together, that the much more sophisticated lattice, with electron shielding and magnetic catalysis and other possibilities, might be used to pull off the trick in much more subtle and controllable ways. Various devices in Project Sherwood produced neutrons, but without the characteristic fusion energy signatures. This was disappointing, in that the goal was fusion energy. The joke of the time was: "sher wood be nice if it worked." However, the unexpected results may have been a key to a much longer lasting supply of power than provided by mere fusion, and one far more useful for space travel. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 03:41:07 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA05400; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:38:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:38:18 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:38:46 -0800 Subject: Retaliation -- already --on sonofusion From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <41.195113ea.29b58e81 aol.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"D5kSc2.0.9K1.fuAXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46428 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The evil empire (hot fusion) strikes back... Already.. Gene http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/nuclear_fusion_020304.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 03:44:23 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA06729; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:43:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:43:42 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:44:08 -0800 Subject: Science Magazine editor, Kennedy, speaks out on publication process From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id DAA06711 Resent-Message-ID: <"0smYg3.0.3f1.jzAXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46429 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 2) To Publish or Not to Publish: Publication is the right option. by Donald Kennedy, Editor http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1793.pdf Every once in a while, we at Science receive a paper that causes us to exercise particular care in handling, because it may be controversial or because it is important‹or both. The paper by Taleyarkhan et al. on p. 1868 of this issue is a case in point. It qualified for careful, responsible treatment on both counts. And its history with us has exposed some of the more unusual challenges that can arise in the publication process. The paper reports experiments in which sonoluminescence is induced in solutions of deuterated acetone subjected to sound waves and neutron irradiation. These conditions cause bubbles to grow and then implode, locally generating high pressures and temperatures and the emission of sonoluminescent light. The authors present evidence for the production of tritium in the solution, and for neutron emission coincident with the light emission. They cautiously interpret these observations as evidence that deuterium-deuterium fusion occurred in the imploding bubbles. That prospect naturally encouraged us to treat the paper with care. After the external review process had been completed, we scheduled the paper for publication. Then we were contacted by senior science managers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), who said that certain reservations had developed about the findings and their interpretation. In a series of telephone and e-mail contacts, they urged that we delay the scheduled publication of the paper. The authors participated in a series of meetings to discuss objections raised by the ORNL managers, including some findings made by a second group of scientists who had been asked to perform additional tests, using the same apparatus but a different detector. After some negotiation, a compromise was reached in which the authors responded to criticisms and subsequently made some modifications in the text to accommodate them. They also agreed to cite a short non­peer-reviewed communication in which the second group present measurements that disagree in some respects with theirs, along with their own response to it. While these agreements were being reached, Science received communications from two distinguished scientists in this field, raising objections to the paper and urging that we reconsider our plans to publish it. And the matter became even more public on 1 March when Robert Park issued an airy, premature dismissal from the American Physical Society. By this time, it had become clear that a number of people didn¹t want us to publish this paper. I have been asked, "Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so much controversy?" Well, that¹s what we do; our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best as we possibly can. After that, efforts at repetition and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. That¹s where it belongs, not in an alternative universe in which anonymity prevails, rumor leaks out, and facts stay inside. It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right. We¹re not that smart. That is why we are prepared for occasional disappointment when our internal judgments and our processes of external review turn out to be wrong, and a provocative result is not fully confirmed. What we ARE very sure of is that publication is the right option, even‹and perhaps especially‹ when there is some controversy. A reporter also asked me whether this was the only time pressure has been put on Science not to publish a paper. Although this case is exceptional, it is not unique; we have been there before. The motivations for urging us not to publish have varied from one case to another. Often they rest on serious legitimate scientific differences of opinion, although sometimes that is not so clear. In this instance, we see no good reason for abandoning our plans to publish the paper, and we can see no merit whatsoever in the efforts to discredit it in advance. Both the premature critics and those who believe in the result would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 06:24:02 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA02235; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:21:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:21:06 -0800 Message-ID: <3C84D424.81118773 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:20:20 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Shrimp Fusion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cyk5x2.0.rY.IHDXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46430 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's another article about how a certain species of shrimp produce sonoluminescence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000922072104.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 07:15:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26063; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:12:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:12:52 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 10:13:16 -0800 Subject: WP (AP) "Take" on Sonofusion From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA26018 Resent-Message-ID: <"IvLjY3.0.0N6.o1EXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46431 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nuke Fusion Made in Tabletop Test By Paul Recer AP Science Writer Monday, March 4, 2002; 8:41 PM WASHINGTON ­­ In a tabletop experiment, researchers created a reaction like nuclear fusion ­ the energy source of the sun. Using a device described as the size of three stacked coffee cups, they zapped tiny dissolved bubbles with sound waves, triggering a flash of light and super-high temperatures. Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute say the phenomenon was like nuclear fusion in a bottle, but they are uncertain if it could be used as a source of energy. The study appears this week in the journal Science and was released for publication by the journal on Monday. Researchers said that the experiment, which they called "bubble fusion," created two signs of nuclear fusion: a burst of subatomic particles called neutrons and the production of tritium, an isotope of hydrogen. In an unusual comment on the work, other scientists at Oak Ridge posted a review on the Internet that disputed the findings. It said their repeat of the experiment failed to detect sufficient neutrons to prove the claimed results. Harnessing nuclear fusion, the power that lights the sun, has long been a goal of researchers who view it as the ultimate energy source. Most researchers have concentrated on huge machines that mimic the sun by compressing hydrogen plasma and heating it to millions of degrees to force atoms to fuse. This reaction gives off heat and an isotope of helium, along with some subatomic particles. But in the experiment reported in Science, researchers used the simple equipment to create and analyze a brief flash and burst of heat that may be fusion. R. P. Taleyarkhan of Oak Ridge, the first author of the study, said in Science that the experiment is true "tabletop physics," using an apparatus "the size of three coffee cups stacked on top of the other." Richard T. Lahey Jr., a Rensselaer professor and a co-author of the study, said it was not clear if the technique could be used as an energy source, but it could be valuable in fundamental studies of nuclear fusion. In the study, researchers used a beaker of a chemical called deuterated acetone. Normal acetone is a colorless, volatile liquid often used as a paint remover or chemical solvent. In deuterated acetone, the chemical's normal hydrogen atoms have been replaced with deuterium, a hydrogen isotope that is heavier than ordinary hydrogen and is capable fusion reactions. When combined with oxygen, deuterium is sometimes called "heavy water." The researchers introduced tiny bubbles, no bigger than the period at the end of a sentence, into the beaker. They then zapped the bubbles with sound waves. The bubbles rapidly expanded and then collapsed. It's believed that the bubble collapse causes a momentary shock wave that creates high pressures, high temperatures and a flash of light, called sonoluminescence. In a discussion of the experiment, F. D. Becchetti, a physicist at the University of Michigan, said the study by Taleyarkhan needs to be confirmed by other researchers. "If the results are confirmed, this new compact apparatus will be a unique tool for studying nuclear fusion reactions," said Becchetti. He said the experiments appear to have been carefully done and analyzed by reviewers. "The results are credible until proven otherwise," said Becchetti. However, in a repeat of the experiment that used slightly different equipment, D. Shapira and M. J. Saltmarsh of Oak Ridge contended the neutron emission they detected was too small to explain the tritium production reported by Taleyarkhan. In a response, Taleyarkhan and his colleagues said Shapira and Saltmarsh misinterpreted their results, and the level of neutron emission they detected was consistent with the original experiment. The announcement of the Taleyarkhan tabletop fusion experiment is in sharp contrast to the tabletop fusion experiment announced at a news conference in 1989 by researchers at the University of Utah. The Utah experiment used electrodes placed inside a vat of heavy water, or deuterium. The Utah conclusions were quickly rejected by many other physicists. Taleyarkhan's experiment, however, was reviewed by a committee of experts, selected by Science, before the study was accepted for publication. ­­­­­­ Science: www.sciencemag.org © 2002 The Associated Press From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 07:21:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA30257; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:20:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:20:37 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 10:21:06 -0800 Subject: Taubes and Park try to screw the world again... the bastards! From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gGNxq.0.cO7.49EXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46432 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fusion in beaker report leaves some physicists cold By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY A physics team Monday reported evidence that it had created high-temperature fusion in a laboratory beaker. Nuclear fusion, the same force that powers the sun, has been a longtime goal of scientists because it promises abundant energy with no radioactive waste. But the finding triggered intense skepticism from some scientists, burned by memories of "cold fusion," the 1989 claim by Utah researchers to have produced fusion at room temperatures, a highly criticized result that no one else could ever reproduce. In the experiment, details of which were released ahead of schedule by the journal Science, researchers led by Rusi Taleyarkhan of Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory imploded small bubbles in acetone, best known as an ingredient in nail polish remover, by shooting neutrons into the liquid. Neutrons are uncharged physics particles in the center of atoms. When the researchers imploded the bubbles, the bursts gave off a flash of light and thousands of neutrons, a sign of nuclear fusion. "We tried a different approach that seemed promising and it works. We were lucky," says team member Richard Lahey Jr. of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. In their approach, the bubbles grew 10,000 times larger than their starting size, to about eight hundredths of an inch across, before they imploded. Past efforts grew bubbles only 10 times larger than their starting size. Essentially, for every neutron the researchers shot into the solution, they received thousands out of it. A computer model suggests that temperatures reached around 18 million degrees inside the implosions ? fusion temperatures ? the authors report. However, some experts tried to burst the "bubble fusion" result. Last week in an American Physical Society newsletter, physicist Robert Park wrote that "distinguished physicists, fearing a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco 13 years ago, advised against publication." Park and others cited a critique by separate Oak Ridge physicists who tried to duplicate the experiment. They failed to see enough neutrons, using the same apparatus, to justify fusion claims. Citing the disagreement, Science released the original paper, the critique and a response by Taleyarkhan's group. They say their critics misinterpreted the duplicate effort and did in fact produce fusion neutrons. "Nature loves to delude us on these things," says physicist Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington-Seattle. "There has to be a great deal of skepticism." "If history is any indication, just the existence of this kind of brouhaha and the criticism from very competent experts is good evidence that the results are just dead wrong. And if it's dead wrong, then Science probably shouldn't have decided to publish it," says science writer Gary Taubes, a correspondent for Science and author of Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. ------ End of Forwarded Message From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 07:24:02 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31484; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:23:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:23:20 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <61.1bf16207.29b63cc1 aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:22:41 EST Subject: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"g98mQ1.0.mh7.dBEXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46433 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This ran yesterday: http://villagevoice.com/issues/0210/baard.php From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 08:44:03 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA08895; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:43:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:43:42 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <2f.235e9122.29b64f9a aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:43:06 EST Subject: Re: WP (AP) "Take" on Sonofusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"iY5Aa1.0.vA2.zMFXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46435 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/05/science/05BUBB.html?Partner=AOL& RefId=3eEFnnFnNJl From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 08:44:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA07678; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:41:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:41:34 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020305113607.03d224c0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 11:41:37 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion In-Reply-To: <61.1bf16207.29b63cc1 aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"OS61f2.0.ot1.zKFXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46434 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Erikbaard aol.com wrote: >This ran yesterday: > >http://villagevoice.com/issues/0210/baard.php And Erik Baard is the author. Good job! However, I wish you would add a few lines representing our side of the story. Naturally, you should report that Robert Park "blasts" the development as cold fusion reincarnated, and that he thinks cold fusion was a fiasco. That is newsworthy. However, I think he would be fair to also include a sentence or two in rebuttal from Fleischmann, Storms or McKubre saying that cold fusion was *not* a fiasco, and this may actually be a form of cold fusion. It seems to me McKubre and Storms speak with as much authority on the subject as Park does, and their views are as newsworthy as his. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 09:55:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA16956; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:54:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:54:30 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <8c.14de28bc.29b6602e aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:53:50 EST Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"LaE-X.0.k84.LPGXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46437 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi - Thanks for the kind words. As you can see, the story was a bare bones piece for the web edition -- really a wired story in a sense. I hope to flesh it out for a broader feature later. My goal was to beat CNN, CNBC, etc. and to provide an angle unlike there's: that a code of ethics was breached by Park et al. I think those small goals were achieved. Your justified complaints over how Park and company behaved back in 1989 and since would be a great part of another story. Hopefully the current upheaval will open the door to new discussions on how his ilk have suppressed debate in the past. About a year or so ago I pitched a story about the "whores of science." My editor at the Voice says she is ready now. Warm regards, Erik From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 09:56:07 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA15940; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:53:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:53:27 -0800 Message-ID: <20020305175325.94670.qmail web11206.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:53:25 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Ford Subject: Re: Shrimp Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <3C84D424.81118773 bellsouth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"ywaZb3.0.yu3.MOGXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46436 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: But the subject sounds like a good name for a seafood restaurant. :-) --- Terry Blanton wrote: > Here's another article about how a certain species of shrimp > produce sonoluminescence: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000922072104.htm > ===== Charles Ford KC5-OWZ cjford1 yahoo.com cjford1 swbell.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 09:58:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19225; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:57:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:57:26 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <1e.242b184e.29b660de aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:56:46 EST Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"Glp5V.0.Bi4.6SGXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46438 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Whoops -- that was meant to be a private letter to Jed. If it can be held from the group, great. I didn't realize the "reply to" was completely different from the sender. But if this forum has no administrator overseeing such things, I'll live with my error. The letter is true and I stand by it. I'll let you know if anything progresses on the Village Voice story front but I can't reveal anything until publication. All the best to you. Erik From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 10:09:18 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26445; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:08:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:08:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020305130048.00b17140 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:06:41 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion In-Reply-To: <8c.14de28bc.29b6602e aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"rnKhl1.0.6T6.gcGXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46439 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Erikbaard aol.com -- intending to make this private -- wrote: >Thanks for the kind words. As you can see, the story was a bare bones >piece for the web edition -- really a wired story in a sense. I hope to >flesh it out for a broader feature later. No doubt the editors had a hand in it as well. It isn't fair to assume that newspaper and magazine stories reflect the views of the author precisely. Come to think of it, left wing journals like the V. Voice or The Nation should be digging into this story. It is about establishment oppression of new ideas. I hope you and other reporters can "sell" this aspect of the story to the editor. I fired off a copy of my canned "polite objection" letter to the editor. Not the Tinsley version! I sent the letter to Jonathan Leake at the Sunday Times, as well. He responded: "thanks for the e-mail. Did any of these other researchers detect neutron emissions too?" I send him a paragraph outlining some neutron results. It is nice to see reporters responding and following up on comments about cold fusion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 11:11:52 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA24994; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:08:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:08:30 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <137.a620bfc.29b67181 aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:07:45 EST Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"lUmzx1.0.S66.jUHXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46440 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All - Just to clear the air, in this case I take responsibility for the contents of the article in nearly its entirety, including any omission for which it might be faulted. My editors wanted something even shorter but ran what I sent. It was simply a quick turnaround in a competitive environment. A wire story more than a feature. I truly hope to publish more later. Dr. Mallove gave me some insights from the cold fusion perspective that simply required too much background at that moment, but they are valuable and will be used later. Letters -- positive or negative -- and lots of clicks on the Village Voice website (as opposed to copying and pasting text) will encourage my editors to keep on the story, even though it is a little outside the usual mission of the paper. As for: "Come to think of it, left wing journals like the V. Voice or The Nation should be digging into this story. It is about establishment oppression of new ideas. I hope you and other reporters can "sell" this aspect of the story to the editor." I think I have done so time and again regarding Dr. Mills and other stories, one or two of which are linked to my article about bubble fusion. And my story proposal mentioned earlier is clearly in that vein. Thanks again. Erik From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 13:58:57 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08572; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:55:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:55:47 -0800 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:47:51 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect To: vortex Message-id: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CdSMk2.0.s52.ZxJXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46441 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greetings, The following essay is the most speculative component of a more complicated hypothesis, in what has become nearly a decade-long struggle of trying to reconcile as many as possible of the loose ends of the field known of LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. There are likely to be many gaps, inaccuracies and oversights here and all comments and corrections are welcome. They can be sent directly to me or to the forum in the event that you wish to take strong issue with a point, but it is unlikely that I will have the time or inclination to defend the hypothesis, at least in the short term, because of other commitments. Resorting as much to desperation as to logic, the careful observer can scarcely come to any other conclusion in characterizing the whole field of LENR except to say that there *must* exist several different overlapping reactions in the reported experiments. There is no single thread of recurring truth. Furthermore, at least three of these intermingled reactions may be QM related and of low probability. But when conditions are right and several low probability reactions can be optimized together, then perhaps they can act in concert to trigger actual nuclear reactions of the more traditional kind, which are far more vigorous and tend to mask the underlying mechanism. The QM related interactions which may be implicated in LENR are Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping, QM tunneling, and the Mossbauer effect, or its superset, IPE. The Mossbauer effect itself may be a subset of a larger class of reactions that can be called IPE or Induced Photon Emissions. IPE technology may be a most notable new addition to the lexicon of LENR: To the extent that when carefully controlled, IPE permits a new type of meta-phenomenon to appear and self-perpetuate - a *photon chain reaction*. A photon chain reaction, as here defined, is a correlate of the nuclear chain reaction, but limited to induced photon emission from electron orbitals at a particular wavelength or multiple thereof. Such a phenomenon has reputedly been discovered and documented by Dr. Randell Mills, although he describes it differently. A similar mechanism may be implicated in other forms of "cold fusion" as well, and in fact there is ample reason to believe that Mills' techniques might be better implemented with deuterium than with hydrogen from the standpoint of energy return. Several aspects of the Mossbauer Effect in relation to triggering IPE chain reactions is the speculative subject of this essay. The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect Dr. Randell Mills and his company, Blacklight Power, BLP, have made the fantastic claim that a new form of energy can be released from hydrogen by catalytically forcing it "below ground state." The catalytic process will continue in a step-wise fashion, shedding invisible EUV photons (blacklight) along the way, until the so-called hydrino gives up hundreds of times more energy than can ordinary hydrogen in chemical reactions such as combustion, according to Mills. Although a great deal of theoretical material has been made public by BLP, there is no truly independent verification from a recognized laboratory - except those that have signed very strong non-disclosure agreements. Why Randell Mills has stubbornly resisted truly independent verification of his amazing hydrino claims is still a bit of a mystery since he now has significant patent protection. Nevertheless, some of the complex body of related information is now beginning to fall into a logical context to offer an answer. I believe that there could exist a previously undisclosed key to understanding the BLP results. This is speculative, of course, but most everything relevant is in the public domain, albeit in many disparate locations, so it can be cross-checked. Not that there has been a deliberate or intentional effort to mislead on the part of BLP, but at some level, it is probably naive to expect any businessman to disclose every detail in a complex process - at least until the prospects for competition have been minimized. Even with the seemingly straightforward and detailed information on the hydrino process from the numerous BLP patents (the foreign patents are somewhat more forthcoming), a skilled practitioner would probably have difficulty in replication of a clear OU effect in the Mills' cell, as has been the case with Earthtech and others. Plus, Mills seems remarkably unconcerned about this in the face of repeated pleas for independent verification. These circumstances present the likelihood that BLP has an undisclosed "trade secret" or facilitating technique. However, even without the trade secret that I will suggest below, the patent disclosure material should be enough to allow for replication of an anomaly in the EUV output of a catalyzed plasma - and perhaps even a modest OU. This is a very important little point - and Mills must believe that it is possible for anyone to replicate some degree of the anomaly, as indeed that necessity would be at the core of his risky decision to withhold an important but not critical trade secret (if that is the case). Mills most likely intends to justify any lack of complete disclosure at some later date when he amends the patents with the trade secret, which really is not all that well disguised - after all, if you look carefully at his web site you will find the latest of his many medical Mossbauer patents spanning the last dozen years. And if you read between the lines you will also see how clearly this particular technology, which is not mentioned in the energy patents, neatly dovetails into those patents (in a limited way as a "trigger") and how Mills could argue, if discovered, that the trade secret was at best just a "subset" of the basic technology, not a "sine qua non." What Mills most likely does not know or appreciate is that there is a claimed mechanism for "Cold Fusion" technology by Dr. Nelson Ying that asserts that a source of external gamma radiation of negligible caloric energy will actually change the QM wave function probability for certain nuclear reactions (This appears to be somewhat of an expanded version of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect related to quantum tunneling). If Ying is correct and Mills does use an undisclosed gamma trigger, then his entire patent base (which is already shaky in the USA, but is extensive overseas) is in jeopardy. But it appears most likely at this writing that Mills himself has been more accurate in his experiments and his CQM theory than Ying in finding and explaining, at least partially, the precise mechanism that triggers and sustains an IPE chain reaction. Mills does not use this exact terminology, so some of his ideas have been recast to reflect the mechanics as seen by someone who has no stake in the details of his broader theoretical TOE (Theory of Everything). In other words, the broader theory may end up being a tour-de-force and may likely be flawed in some details, but that alone should not necessarily distract from understanding a valid and less inclusive discovery. I will touch on all of the following points that relate to the likelihood that Mills uses "Mossbauer effect technology" (hereafter, MET) as a trigger for starting the hydrino reaction (after which it becomes auto-catalytic in the sense of a photon chain reaction propagating at multiples of 27.2 eV, a frequency in the Extreme Ultraviolet, or EUV spectrum): 1) The time connection, 1989 and beyond, between the Mills' medical MET patents, P&F cold fusion, and the wet cell hydrino work is identical. 2) Mills was using potassium electrolytes in both the MET work and in his early wet electrolytic cells in 1989. 3) All the reputed successful outside replications of the hydrino work have been the result of "sweetheart" arrangements, accompanied by strong NDAs, so they are not independent, and all of these labs are ones that can be expected to have NRC licenses for the use of radioactive materials. 4) The MET fits into Mills' CQM theory - even better than does the hydrino! 5) The "Auger cascade" that follows MET irradiation is about the only conceivabl e way to initially accomplish significant higher level ionization of a catalyst (>+2) without also ionizing the reactant - and the reactant must be in atomic, not ionic form, according to Mills. 6) The unexplained delays in getting the process to market are easier to justify if one assumes that radioactivity has been part of the problem. 7) All of the "Mills catalysts" have nuclear features that suggest that they may contain either previously unreported Mossbauer-type isotopes or some IPE analog to them. 8) The MET "tracer" 57Fe is an almost perfect Mills catalyst but is not prominently mentioned in the disclosures. 9) In a few of his older papers Mills makes oblique reference: that is, never fully defined reference, to something like "an additional small source of added EM irradiation." I don't think that it is any coincidence that in 1989 Shortly after P&F introduced to the world their cold fusion cell, Mills had his first "wet" nickel/ light water/ potassium electrolytic cell in operation. This is like the one that Earthtech tried to replicate, and at the very same time Mills was also actively filing, promoting, demonstrating and receiving numerous patents for medical treatments related to his therapeutic implementation of the Mossbauer technique for cancer treatment. It should be made clear that Dr. Mills, as a medical researcher, was widely recognized as one of the *leading experts* in the world on implementing the Mossbauer effect, and that his later identification with only BLP or the hydrino by those outside of medicine may have caused them to overlook this early focus. The Mossbauer effect is intuitively explained by Dr. Mills in terms of his orbitsphere concept - and MET very well could have been the instigator of his whole CQM theory. If a nucleon can resonantly absorb a photon (one of higher energy - as a gamma ray) and be excited to a higher level just like an electron then the photon is trapped inside the nucleon resonator cavity in a metastable state, and we have the perfect analog to what Mills sees in the electron's orbit. Mills believes that every orbiting electron at ground state traps a photon of an exact energy quanta within its orbit. In the case of hydrogen, that photon is of the 13.6 eV variety, and when hydrogen "shrinks" non-radiatively, that energy - indeed the photon itself, goes into the catalytic"hole" of the catalyst which contains the energy deficit, before showing up later in the process as a photon re-emitted by the catalyst. Once the initial "shrinkage" occurs, then the stage is set for further steps and indeed a chain reaction at multiples of 26.2 eV, or more precisely 13.6 eV. More than a decade ago, Mills made the connection that iron is highly concentrated in cancer cells, as opposed to healthy cells, and that by adding Mossbauer tracers (57Fe) to compounds that were absorbed preferentially by cancer cells he could irradiate them with the focused doses of the characteristic 14.4 keV gamma photon from a radioactive isotope of cobalt, 57Co, and then selectively kill the cancer by proximity to the "Auger cascade" of electrons that follows a resonant photon absorption/re-emission by the iron tracer. The actually dosage employed in this therapy is still *orders of magnitude* less than the dosage of radiation that traditional cancer radiation therapy requires and that is because of the selectivity of the MET tracer, the iron target. It should be noted that a chemical used to get iron into biological uptake is a *potassium* iron cyanate and this chemical has a somewhat broader absorption and emission spectra than does the elemental isotope, which normally must be held in a crystal or in a cryogenic state in order to show the characteristic Mossbauer recoilless absorption. Mills, of course, used a potassium electrolyte in his first cold fusion cells - before he chose to sever ties to the broader CF field. Just do a little "role playing" and ask yourself this question: If, back in 1989, within days of promoting you MET cancer therapy, you had just read about the Pons and Fleischmann anomalous energy work, and you had already been using electrolytic cells to confirm certain new ideas that were emerging from you ongoing MET investigations, and you had at your workbench both a potassium iron electrolyte and a source of 14.4 eV gammas, then isn't it obvious: why wouldn't you try to see if the theory you were working on explained the P&F results better than their own theories? Later on, you might wish that you had distanced yourself from the other field at the start, as their results were harshly rebuked by the scientific establishment, but doesn't it seem logical that, early on in this scenario described above, everything mentioned is consistent with what a creative experimenter would be doing in 1989? To take the role reversal thing a step further, isn't it kind of absurd to think that Mills could separate these two types of rather similar experiments that he was performing simultaneously and in the same lab? I suspect that the problem with the wet cell replication of Earthtech and others operating without Mills' blessing (and the proper license for 57Co) is that, unlike the later plasma cell, there is very little auto-catalytic behavior in the wet cell because so much of the excess EUV (which the hydrino catalyst requires to stay ionized) is instead absorbed by the water in the cell. That is to say, these older wet cells probably never showed much actual OU without the continuous input of gammas. Later when gas phase and plasmas were tried by BLP and it was discovered that the presently-favored plasma work turned out to be robustly auto-catalytic because of self-absorbed EUV (and consequently, the external gamma input is only needed as the *trigger* to the IPE chain reaction) then this is where BLP as a company really took off, and the former electrolytic work was dropped and hardly mentioned any more. For any of the Mills catalysts to function, we are talking about either a higher level ionization, like Rb+ to Rb+2, or a "three-body" combination- as there is no perfect fit for 27.2 eV at +1 ionization. But at the same time, you can't let the reactant, hydrogen, become ionized at all !! On the surface, it would seem like an impossible to task to ionize a Rb atom from +1 to +2 at the modest voltage 300 volts without also ionizing enough H to quench the process. Certainly it is not easy to pull off in a cold plasma! And you will undoubtedly have noticed that Mills is able to form intense plasmas at seemingly impossible input parameters. I believe that this is where the Mossbauer "trigger" or its surrogate comes into play. Later on in his process, once a hydrino plasma has reached a certain intensity level and becomes fully autocatalytic from EUV self-absorption, the trigger can be removed. I believe that this is why all of Mills early plasma cells were quartz, as most metal reactors, and certainly all steel reactors would absorb most of the externally produced gamma radiation before it could have any triggering effect. Furthermore, there is probably a good reason why accomplishing startup in the plasma cells using higher voltage alone is tricky if not impossible, and this probably has to do with absorption resonance and Q values that must be held within a narrow range. But even a tiny bit of added Mossbauer radiation along with some 57Fe would create the Auger cascade and the necessary EUV to start things rolling. Just using higher voltage to do the same thing possibly ionizes too much reactant and quenches the process. A rather telling clue here is that 57Fe itself is an almost perfect Mills catalyst at higher ionization, YET he doesn't mention it prominently in the reported experiments. The present suggestion also assumes that the hydrino reaction usually occurs on the surface of the dissociator itself rather than in the plasma. If true, then this is probably why the BLP plasma cell does not scale well to larger sizes and another reason why it is very difficult to start the plasma with high voltage alone. Also consider the "ultrasonic focusing" element from the recent medical patents. This technique is probably also adaptable to the hydrino cell to give plenty of Doppler spread to the photons so that the high heat of the plasma will not nullify the needed absorption coherence range. Again, once the hydrino formation has been underway for a while, enough EUV from hydrogen shrinkage will be generated to make the thing autocatalytic, so we are probably only talking about startup here. Some of the delay that has occurred in implementing a commercial version of the hydrino process could relate to trying to engineer a substitute for the 57Co trigger source that would have been used previously (57Co is commonly used in cancer treatment and is relatively safe to store and handle but is expensive) - and it is likely that such an isotope would not be acceptable commercially. Mills' delay may relate to engineering alternative non-isotopic sources for these photons, not an easy task. The source must be tunable over a narrow range to counteract the increasing Doppler spread of an energetic plasma as it heats up. There are a number of possibilities for this gamma photon source, including the many small commercial medical x-ray machines that use small accelerators. Next consider this, I have been assuming that 57Fe has been used as a dopant with the Mills catalysts but other possibilities exist, such as the Mills catalysts themselves being Mossbauer-like in the broader sense. Consider the two most effective of the "Mills' catalysts," strontium and rubidium. Of all the common elements, these two "share" a most unusual nuclear isomeric oddity at Z=87. 87Rb, which is 28% of natural, is radioactive and highly deformed. 87Sr, which is 7% of natural, is stable but so highly deformed that it was the first isomer to confirm the IGE, Induced Gamma Emission theory - the reaction Sr87 (gamma, gamma') Sr-87m served to confirm the radiative model of IGE and validate its use. IGE can be understood as a subset of a broader field IPE, or Induce Photon Emission which extends the range down into the extreme ultraviolet spectrum. One question that I kept asking myself when tossing around this hypothesis regarding the MET trigger is this. If you have an external source of ionizing radiation and Mills' catalysts themselves are chosen to promote IPE reactions, then why do you even need a Mossbauer target as a trigger? The answer may lie simply in cross-sectional probabilities and in the difficulty of getting the reaction started in a warm plasma. Normally, externally applied radiation will most likely be absorbed either by "free" electrons and seldom by inner orbitals or else absorbed by a resonant nucleus, and on re-emission, it is only then you are far more likely to see the needed higher-level ionization from the Auger cascade and those initial EUV photons to act as seed. Also this point IPE should be mentioned in regard to the ZPE mechanism of Drs. Puthoff and Ibison. If there is any arguably indisputable ZPE pumping effect to be presently found in all of the physics literature, then the best candidate IMHO would be the Mossbauer effect. This is because even though it is technically not OU, it is "lossless" in a situation where losses should clearly be present and on a spatial scale it is consistent with the Casimir effect. So if the ZPE hypothesis can be extended to the broader subject of the IPE chain reaction, then an alternative hypothesis to the hydrino or shrunken hydrogen can be undertaken from. That would be important only if Mills stumbles, and what Mills claims are actual recovered shrunken hydrino hydrides turns out to be something else. He is presently having these compounds analyzed, but the final word is not in on just what they are. END of draft Well. I warned you that this analysis was going to be pretty extreme! Regards, Jones Beene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 14:56:55 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09559; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:52:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:52:35 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <10c.df2098f.29b6a609 aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:51:53 EST Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10c.df2098f.29b6a609_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"OPj3G.0.DL2.pmKXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46442 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_10c.df2098f.29b6a609_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All - I won't pretend to have the competence to analyze this in depth, but here I think is an error. From what I understand, Mills' 1988 paper in Nature doesn't say there's more iron in cancer cells. It says that iron could be delivered to cells for the proposed therapy. Indeed, he's moved beyond iron and has significantly modified his ideas about practicing his MIRAGE therapy. More on this in my article from some while ago: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0004/baard.php One danger here, as a side note, is that people might mistakenly conflate Mills' medical work and his hydrino theory. I'm not saying the author of this post is doing that, but that casual readers might slip in the language of it all. The two research paths are distinct, even if the author of this post is correct that radiation from one could be employed to enable the other. Erik In a message dated 3/5/02 5:42:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonesb9 pacbell.net writes: > More than a decade ago, Mills made the connection that iron is highly > concentrated in cancer cells, as opposed to healthy cells, and that by > adding > Mossbauer tracers (57Fe) to compounds that were absorbed preferentially by > cancer cells he could irradiate them with the focused doses of the > characteristic 14.4 keV gamma photon from a radioactive isotope of cobalt, > 57Co, > and then selectively kill the cancer by proximity to the "Auger cascade" of > electrons that follows a resonant photon absorption/re-emission by the iron > tracer. The actually dosage employed in this therapy is still *orders of > magnitude* less than the dosage of radiation that traditional cancer > radiation > therapy requires and that is because of the selectivity of the MET tracer, > the > iron target. > > --part1_10c.df2098f.29b6a609_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All -

I won't pretend to have the competence to analyze this in depth, but here I think is an error.  From what I understand, Mills' 1988 paper in Nature doesn't say there's more iron in cancer cells.  It says that iron could be delivered to cells for the proposed therapy.

Indeed, he's moved beyond iron and has significantly modified his ideas about practicing his MIRAGE therapy.

More on this in my article from some while ago:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0004/baard.php

One danger here, as a side note, is that people might mistakenly conflate Mills' medical work and his hydrino theory.  I'm not saying the author of this post is doing that, but that casual readers might slip in the language of it all.  The two r esearch paths are distinct, even if the author of this post is correct that radiation from one could be employed to enable the other.

Erik

In a message dated 3/5/02 5:42:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonesb9 pacbell.net writes:


More than a decade ago, Mills made the connection that iron is highly
concentrated in cancer cells, as opposed to healthy cells, and that by adding
Mossbauer tracers (57Fe) to compounds that were absorbed preferentially by
cancer cells he could irradiate them with the focused doses of the
characteristic 14.4 keV gamma photon from a radioactive isotope of cobalt, 57Co,
and then selectively kill the cancer by proximity to the "Auger cascade" of
electrons that follows a resonant photon absorption/re-emission by the iron
tracer. The actually dosage employed in this therapy is still *orders of
magnitude* less than the dosage of radiation that traditional cancer radiation
therapy requires and that is because of the selectivity of the MET tracer, the
iron target.



 --part1_10c.df2098f.29b6a609_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 15:40:20 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02093; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:37:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:37:19 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:36:42 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> In-Reply-To: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 PAA02029 Resent-Message-ID: <"FUFjp3.0.YW.kQLXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46443 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:47:51 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] >Well. I warned you that this analysis was going to be pretty extreme! [snip] Not so much extreme, as hard to follow. Could you perhaps be clearer on the actual mechanism itself, and leave out the anecdotal stuff and justifications? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 16:11:00 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA24102; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:08:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:08:29 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:12:17 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Taubes and Park try to screw the world again... the bastards! Resent-Message-ID: <"ukAju2.0.Qu5.ztLXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46444 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: First, let me say kudos to Donald Kennedy, Editor of Science magazine for his decision to publishin his refereed journal the controversial material that is the subject of this tempest. At 10:21 AM 3/5/2, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: [snip] >By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY [snip] >A computer model suggests that temperatures reached around 18 million >degrees inside the implosions ? fusion temperatures ? the authors report. [snip] I would like to point out that the kinetic energy involved, corresponding to 18 million deg., is only about 1550 eV, not nearly enough for sustained or "ignition" based fusion. In that sense, it is "cold", or at least "warm" as compared to the 100 million degrees required for ignition. It is true though that the tail of the kinetic energy distibution may support a significant number of fusions, and it is also true that ignition style fusion is not the objective of the authors. It is important to know whether the temperature estimate is based on spectroscopy or computed from the gas compression or whether fusion is assumed and the temperature back solved from the number of neutrons. It is possible the neutron flux is due in large part to stripping reactions, and thus not fusion. It would not be the first time such a mistake was made. However, based on the neutron energies leaked to the press so far, it seems nearly impossible that the neutrons are not at least in part from ordinary hot fusion reactions. The fusion reactions being observed are in nature closer to the hot fusion realm than the cold, so the feasibility of this should not be nearly so threatening to Taubes and Park as a true "cold" fusion device. Since ignition based fusion is not the goal, power input is required to sustain power output and the ratio of those powers is, once again, all important to potential utility of the approach for energy generation. It is notable that 1550 eV is right at the threshold of "electron catalysed fusion" as described here recently. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 5 22:57:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA03312; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:55:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:55:14 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Message-ID: <3c.1a579537.29b7172d aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:54:37 EST Subject: Taleyarkhan's Bubble Fusion - PHOTO and VIDEO To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3c.1a579537.29b7172d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows FR sub 161 Resent-Message-ID: <"1OZVv1.0.dp.IrRXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46445 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_3c.1a579537.29b7172d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear All, You will find a PHOTO and a VIDEO of the Taleyarkhan' sonofusion experiment at : http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/science/2002-03/taleyarkh-3-8-02.html << The dramatic flashing implosion of tiny bubbles--in acetone containing deuterium atoms--produces tritium and nuclear emissions similar to those characteristic of nuclear fusion involving deuterium-deuterium reactions, scientists report. The overall results of the study, published in the 8 March 2002 issue of Science, only suggest, but do not confirm, nuclear fusion in the bubbles' collapse. Scientists have long been interested in fusion, because unlike fission, the process has the potential to generate energy using readily available raw materials with little radioactive waste. The tiny bubbles generated by Rusi P. Taleyarkhan and colleagues may reach up to 10 million degrees Kelvin in their collapse, as hot as the center of the sun. The researchers detected promising signs of fusion, including tritium production and neutron emissions with an energy close to that expected from deuterium-deuterium fusion. In a related Perspective, F. D. Becchetti discusses the study's implications for "table-top" research on nuclear fusion. The journal Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).>> Best Regards Jean-Louis Naudin Email: JNaudin509@aol.com Main Web site : http://go.to/jlnlabs/ Alternate site : http://jnaudin.free.fr/ Site France : http://jlnlabs.multimania.com/ --part1_3c.1a579537.29b7172d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear All,

You will find a PHOTO and a VIDEO of the Taleyarkhan' sonofusion experiment at :

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/science/2002-03/taleyarkh-3-8-02.html

<< The dramatic flashing implosion of tiny bubbles--in acetone containing deuterium atoms--produces tritium and nuclear emissions similar to those characteristic of nuclear fusion involving deuterium-deuterium reactions, scientists report. The overa ll results of the study, published in the 8 March 2002 issue of Science, only suggest, but do not confirm, nuclear fusion in the bubbles' collapse. Scientists have long been interested in fusion, because unlike fission, the process has the potentia l to generate energy using readily available raw materials with little radioactive waste. The tiny bubbles generated by Rusi P. Taleyarkhan and colleagues may reach up to 10 million degrees Kelvin in their collapse, as hot as the center of the sun. The re searchers detected promising signs of fusion, including tritium production and neutron emissions with an energy close to that expected from deuterium-deuterium fusion. In a related Perspective, F. D. Becchetti discusses the study's implications for "table -top" research on nuclear fusion. The journal Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).>>

Best Regards
Jean-Louis Naudin
Email: JNaudin509@aol.com
Main Web site : http://go.to/jlnlabs/
Alternate site : http://jnaudin.free.fr/
Site France : http://jlnlabs.multimania.com/

 --part1_3c.1a579537.29b7172d_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 00:46:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA15185; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:43:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:43:47 -0800 Message-ID: <002001c1c4e6$f0e5d1c0$12dbf1c3 p7l2i4> From: "peter v Noorden" To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020305130048.00b17140 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:14:22 +0100 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: <"PdGfR2.0.Aj3.3RTXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46446 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, Here in the Netherlands the papers mentioned the discovery of the bubble fusion. They mentioned that Sience stated that it has nothing to do with cold fusion. Then half of the article was used to describe the cold fusion fiasco. According to the article these experiments where never reproduced and never produced any excess energy. Could you send me the polite objection letter to inform these writers about the true facts? Best regards, Peter van Noorden From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 01:14:03 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA25143; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:11:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:11:20 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 03:09:48 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Translation of the Meyl website Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"1evYB.0.n86.tqTXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46447 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Translation of the Meyl website
Potential eddies, newly discovered characteristics of the electrical field, change the physical conception of the world fundamentally! Professor Dr. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl develops a uniform field theory in its books, from which all well-known reciprocal effects are derivable. In place of the usually used Maxwell equations he selects the prototype of the induction law discovered of Faraday as beginning and shows that eddies of the electrical field are contained in
it. These potential eddies spread in the area as scalar wave, a longitudinal electrical wave, whose existence was already proven before 100 years by Nikola Tesla and whose characteristics at a historical reproduction everyone can study.

The field theory after Meyl gets along without postulates and makes nevertheless a new interpretation possible of several basic phenomena of electro-technology and atomic physics and leads to plausible interpretations of several physical experiments, which were not explainable in the context of the past theory. For example the quantum characteristics of elementary particles can be computed with the eddy interpretation. Also many neutrino experiments are explainable, if one neutrinos not as particles, but when one understands cyclic fields. Afterwards even a energy-technical use would be conceivable in the form of neutrino power. The dielectric losses of a condenser emerge as vortex losses and regarding the environmental compatibility result from the corrected theory new substantial aspects about electrical smog.

Since the presented theory is based on an extension of the Maxwell theory, it includes the classical theory as a special case also, which means that all classical physical laws keep further their validity. >From the extended point of view of the potential eddies the physical conception of the world objektiviert itself, so that equally apart from Einstein' relativity theory the objectivity theory pushes itself after Meyl, which also explains additionally as the reciprocal effects, what temperature is, to which past theories are not able.

Professor Meyl wrote numerous books. In its lectures e.g. at the technical universities in Berlin and in Clausthal, to the FH in ford cheeks, as well as in its week final seminars opportunity, potential eddy and objectivity theory consists more near to become acquainted with and with the author to discuss. In specialized technical and lectures individual aspects are deepened. They can see the current dates now or order the scalar wave transmission set, a video or also books

Demo set

Due to interest and the questions into tracing during and after the lectures of Professor Meyl (e.g. like a transfer of energy distance functioned and like the individual components procure to be must) to have we move decided a demonstration set and an experimentation set to develop, with
whose assistance the interested practical men can make own experiences and experiments.
Thus characteristics can be investigated by Teslaspulen, dependence of the resonant frequency on position and size of the ball electrodes, change of the system resonance in dependence of the distance between transmitters and receiver, etc..

The goal is pursued of reaching on the one hand reproductibility of the results of measurement. This would be alone not done with a tinkering guidance. On the other hand Skeptiker give frequently only to the results of measurement faith, which determined them with them trusted the devices. Therefore  connection types of external measuring instruments are planned.

 The demo set contains a simple function table from 4 MHz to 8 MHz, a pair of decks  with different loads, which can be used on different kind, as well as all necessary accessories. It is possible without developing and demonstrate additional instrumentation, a complete scalar wave transmission circuit for first experiences.  It is also possible to refer the different components individually (for those, already  appropriate devices at the disposal are to those or by the set to extend). Additionally the experimentation set  contains an extended function table (135 kHz to 10 MHz) and a simple frequency counter, as well as two further pairs of coils with the half and/or the   double wire length.  Contained in the sets is  likewise a description of  the set with theoretical explanations and practical  attempt guidances.

Since we are interested in your realizations and measurements much, we would be pleased, if you communicate us your results. It would be helpful, if these are arranged following the attempt guidances. These metrology records are collected, multiplied and offered as empiric reports starting from Dezenber 2001. Buyers set, who supply us accordingly extensive and useful test logs, adequately with current empiric reports are compensated.

Here you find an overview of from Professor Dr. - engineers Konstantin Meyl wrote books and other media. You find a short description of the individual titles, if you click on the names of the appropriate book or over the menu border left down.

"potential eddy" volume 1 ,
Discussion contributions for scientific interpretation and for physical-technical use, based on a mathematical computation newly discovered hydrotischer eddy

"potential eddy" volume 2 ,
Suggestions on the new interpretation of the atomistic, the materialistic and the scientific conception of the world onthe basis of electromagnetic eddies

"electromagnetic environmental compatibility" part of 1: Reprint for lecture , Causes, phenomena and scientific consequences

"electromagnetic environmental compatibility" part of 2: Reprint to the energy-technical seminar ,
Free energy and the reciprocal effect of the neutrinos

"electromagnetic environmental compatibility" part of 3: Reprint to the information-technical seminar ,  Only starting from 2002 available!

"scalar wave technology" ,
With excerpts from the third volume to the "electromagnetic environmental compatibility"
and documentation for the demonstration set for the transmission of electrical scalar waves

"neutrino power" ,
Johannes of Buttlar in the discussion with Professor Dr. K. Meyl

Video "Teslastrahlung"
Mitschnitt of a week final seminar

I would like to thank http://www.systranet.com for making this translation possible.



--
From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 04:00:51 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA29797; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 03:58:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 03:58:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:00:03 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nrj7V3.0.QH7.WHWXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46448 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: March 6, 2002 Vortex, American Association of Advancement of Science (Kennedy, ed.)has immediately put the March 8th article on ORNL's Sonofusion discovery Online at its Science website ahead of schedule. It is in PDF format. 6 pages with diagrams. Nice move. It deflates heavy pressures against the publication. Let's see how the skeptics' cookie crubles. The article is accessible by anyone. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 04:03:38 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA31476; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:03:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:03:06 -0800 Message-ID: <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0 houston.rr.com> From: "Craig Haynie" To: References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:02:48 -0600 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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"k2pBZ2.0.jh7.vLWXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46449 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > The article is accessible by anyone. Where? Craig From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 04:43:28 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA14843; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:43:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:43:07 -0800 Message-ID: <00ee01c1c50c$6eb1f3c0$6601a8c0 houston.rr.com> From: "Craig Haynie" To: References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0@houston.rr.com> Subject: Re: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:42:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"XxeLm3.0.rd3.RxWXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46451 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > The article is accessible by anyone. > > Where? And to answer my own question, here it is -- in Science! http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/index.shtml Craig (Houston) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 04:44:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA14310; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:41:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:41:54 -0800 Message-ID: <3C860EF4.824AB6C2 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:43:32 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0@houston.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xKZBU1.0.WV3.HwWXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46450 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: March 6, 2002 I assumed people on the Vortex could use a search engine like Google. Look under Science Online or AAAS. -AK- Craig Haynie wrote: > > The article is accessible by anyone. > > Where? > > Craig From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 04:49:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA17086; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:48:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:48:48 -0800 Message-ID: <3C861093.549179B4 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:50:27 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0@houston.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PiULx.0.pA4.l0XXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46452 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: TRY <> Craig Haynie wrote: > > The article is accessible by anyone. > > Where? > > Craig From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 05:16:35 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA25535; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:14:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:14:03 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:13:26 EST Subject: Re: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d2.14aceb07.29b76ff6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows FR sub 161 Resent-Message-ID: <"TlUt_2.0.vE6.ROXXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46453 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_d2.14aceb07.29b76ff6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dans un e-mail dat=E9 du 06/03/2002 13:03:44 Paris, Madrid,=20 cchaynie ix.netcom.com a =E9crit : > Where? >=20 > Craig >=20 Here : http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1067589.pdf Related articles: Science advance announcement, (including all of the other links): http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/index.shtml "Evidence for Nuclear Reactions in Imploding Bubbles"- Commentary by Science magazine's F. D. Becchetti http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1070165.pdf " 'Bubble Fusion' Paper Generates A Tempest in a Beaker" =20 by Science magazine's Charles Seife=20 http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1808.pdf "Bubble Fusion Furor" (may require subscription or password) htt= p://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/304/1 Best Regards Jean-Louis Naudin Email: JNaudin509@aol.com Main Web site : http://go.to/jlnlabs/ Alternate site : http://jnaudin.free.fr/= Site France : ht= tp://jlnlabs.multimania.com/ --part1_d2.14aceb07.29b76ff6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dans un e-mail dat=E9 du 06/03/2002 13:03:44 Paris, Ma= drid, cchaynie ix.netcom.com a =E9crit :


Where?

Craig


Here :
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1067589.pdf
Related articles:
   Science advance announcement, (including all of the other links= ): http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/index.shtml
"Evidence for Nuclear Reactions in Imploding Bubbles"- Commentary
by Science magazine's F. D. Becchetti
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1070165.pdf<= BR> " 'Bubble Fusion' Paper Generates A Tempest in a Beaker" 
   by Science magazine's Charles Seife
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1808.pdf
   "Bubble Fusion Furor" (may require subscription or password) htt= p://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/304/1

Best Regards
Jean-Louis Naudin
Email: JNaudin509@aol.com
Main Web site : http://go.to/jlnlabs/<= BR> Alternate site : http://jnaudin.free.fr/=
Site France : ht= tp://jlnlabs.multimania.com/ --part1_d2.14aceb07.29b76ff6_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 06:24:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA20019; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:22:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:22:18 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20020306091655.00b5b168 alcor.concordia.ca> X-Sender: simonb alcor.concordia.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:16:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Bart Simon Subject: Shapira and Saltmarsh replication attempt In-Reply-To: <00ee01c1c50c$6eb1f3c0$6601a8c0 houston.rr.com> References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0 houston.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"pKJFW3.0.fu4.QOYXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46454 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, woohoo - the fun begins again. The Science paper has the url for the paper by Shapira and Saltmarsh on their negative replication at http://www.ornl.gov/slsite/ (its the one pdf doc listed there). Wasn't Saltmarsh involved in the ORNL CF effort in '89. I seem to recall his name popping up in Franl Close's book (actually didn't Close hang out at ORNL for a time?). cheers, Bart ------------------------------------------------------ Bart Simon, Asst. Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Concordia University, LB-687 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8 phone: 514-848-2164 email: simonb alcor.concordia.ca ------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 06:30:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA23158; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:30:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:30:20 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20020306092455.00b59400 alcor.concordia.ca> X-Sender: simonb alcor.concordia.ca (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:24:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Bart Simon Subject: reply to negative replication Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Luizh1.0.mf5.yVYXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46455 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Oops - I should have included the link for Taleyarkhan's reply - www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf cheers, bart ------------------------------------------------------ Bart Simon, Asst. Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Concordia University, LB-687 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8 phone: 514-848-2164 email: simonb alcor.concordia.ca ------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 06:33:29 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA24318; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:32:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:32:57 -0800 Message-ID: <3C86286B.BE78D45F bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:32:11 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SCIENCE ONLINE HAS tALEYARKHAN SONOFUSION ARTICLE NOW References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1Oq-v2.0.tx5.PYYXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46456 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > March 6, 2002 > > Vortex, > > American Association of Advancement of Science (Kennedy, ed.)has > immediately put the March 8th article on ORNL's Sonofusion discovery > Online at its Science website ahead of schedule. It is in PDF format. 6 > pages with diagrams. Nice move. It deflates heavy pressures against the > publication. Let's see how the skeptics' cookie crubles. > The article is accessible by anyone. It's going to be difficult to turn this into a heat engine since the cavitation heat drops rapidly with increasing fluid temperature (fig. 6, p. 1872). Of course acetone doesn't freeze until -94.7 Celcius and if you extrapolate (caution!) the graph . . . Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 06:43:10 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA28846; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:42:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:42:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 06:34:40 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Shapira and Saltmarsh replication attempt To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <004601c1c51c$0cf31d20$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0 houston.rr.com> <3.0.3.32.20020306091655.00b5b168 alcor.concordia.ca> Resent-Message-ID: <"aJtzm3.0.e27.QhYXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46457 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Bart Simon" > woohoo - the fun begins again. The Science paper has the url for the paper > by Shapira and Saltmarsh on their negative replication at > http://www.ornl.gov/slsite/ (its the one pdf doc listed there). I think it is a little extreme to call this a negative replication. Shapira and Saltmarsh did not find high energy neutrons consistent with normal D+D fusion. That is all that can be said for their "negative replication". They did not ostensibly look for tritium itself - but neither did they dispute, nor even hint, that the high tritium findings of Taleyarkhan et al. were not accurate. And I think this is an important point, and one that is likely to be overlooked by the skeptics and some of the press - as it has already seemingly been overlooked by a university professor ;-) Since Shapira and Saltmarsh did not attempt to look for tritium, which is actually easier to detect than are neutrons, I think it is at least permissible for us to assume that they implicitly agree that the tritium is there - and it is that alone that should be the focus of this story. This makes the story even most important item for dissemination by those who support Cold Fusion, as for a long time - before he was "squelched" by higher-ups, Claytor at LANL has found lots of tritium in CF reactions without the necessary high energy neutrons. The fact that this story is just now making such a big splash is only an indication to some of us that the popular press in this country is in need of more thorough science journalism. Why aren't they mentioning Claytor? Regards, Jones Beene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 07:13:08 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA08556; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:10:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:10:20 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20020306101021.00b83798 alcor.concordia.ca> X-Sender: simonb alcor.concordia.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:10:21 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Bart Simon Subject: Re: Shapira and Saltmarsh replication attempt In-Reply-To: <004601c1c51c$0cf31d20$8837fea9 computer> References: <3C8604C3.9D7231D7 ix.netcom.com> <00d901c1c506$d5fdf2f0$6601a8c0 houston.rr.com> <3.0.3.32.20020306091655.00b5b168 alcor.concordia.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xVOKR1.0.R52.R5ZXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46458 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:34 AM 06/03/2002 -0800, Jones Beene wrote: >I think it is a little extreme to call this a negative replication. > >Shapira and Saltmarsh did not find high energy neutrons consistent with normal >D+D fusion. That is all that can be said for their "negative replication". Agreed. But that is how they rhetorically position their comments - >They did not ostensibly look for tritium itself - but neither did they dispute, >nor even hint, that the high tritium findings of Taleyarkhan et al. were not >accurate. And I think this is an important point, and one that is likely to be >overlooked by the skeptics and some of the press - as it has already seemingly >been overlooked by a university professor ;-) ho, ho - actually I think whats going on here is very similar to the original CF case - the invokation of neutrons as the only definitive proof of fusion in spite of anything else that's anomalous. The hot fusion community sustained this mantra through 89 and 90 and IMO it has been the thorn generating the CF-blindness disease Jed and Gene are always pointing to. Perhaps this new announcement will drive a wedge into the tacit assumption that in order to have fusion one needs 2.5 MeV neutrons - if this claim is "unsettled" people may start to look at the corpus of CF research more seriously. cheers, Bart ------------------------------------------------------ Bart Simon, Asst. Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Concordia University, LB-687 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8 phone: 514-848-2164 email: simonb alcor.concordia.ca ------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 08:49:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA27064; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:46:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:46:03 -0800 Message-ID: <3C863AF9.A5D68540 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:51:22 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Village Voice article on Park and Bubble Fusion References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020305130048.00b17140 pop.mindspring.com> <002001c1c4e6$f0e5d1c0$12dbf1c3@p7l2i4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5dpYt2.0.Xc6.9VaXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46459 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Peter, While Jed will write a good letter, I suggest you read the review "Cold Fusion: An Objective Assessment" on my web site at http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/index.html. I think you can generate your own letter based on facts noted there. Regards, Ed Storms peter v Noorden wrote: > Jed, > Here in the Netherlands the papers mentioned the discovery of the bubble > fusion. > They mentioned that Sience stated that it has nothing to do with cold > fusion. Then half of the article was used to describe the cold fusion > fiasco. According to the article these experiments where never reproduced > and never produced any excess energy. > Could you send me the polite objection letter to inform these writers about > the true facts? > > Best regards, > > Peter van Noorden From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 12:45:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA28569; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:42:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:42:43 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306153414.04ecad80 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:42:27 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Shrimp Fusion In-Reply-To: <3C84D424.81118773 bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Y73U43.0.H-6.3zdXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46460 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >Here's another article about how a certain species of shrimp >produce sonoluminescence: > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000922072104.htm The shrimp use the shock waves to stun small prey. Suppose it turns out there is a component of plasma fusion in the energy of sonoluminescence. That will mean living creatures have evolved to use thermonuclear fusion as a weapon in the fight for survival. That is mind-boggling! Millions of years ago they beat us in the arms race to develop the ultimate weapon. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:05:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA05587; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:02:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:02:47 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:02:49 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"W6m_o3.0.DN1.78fXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46461 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK, I read this paper two or three times, and I read the debate between Taleyarkhan and Shapira & Saltmarsh, which accuses them of "truly unfortunate and very unprofessional" behavior. Can someone explain to me what is controversial about these results? As far as I can tell the hypothesis proposed by the authors is that conventional plasma fusion is occurring on a microscopic scale. It only works at 0 deg C. It does not sound like a threat to ITER. Is Taleyarkhan seeing an unbalanced, excess amount of tritium, such as cold fusion produces? It seems that would be difficult to establish, because tritium is easy to detect, but neutrons are hard. Robert Park is upset because all discoveries upset him. Maybe I am missing something . . . But why are other people upset? The editor said this paper caused quite a commotion. Perhaps it is not widely known -- or accepted -- that sonoluminescence causes extreme pressure. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:16:01 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA14906; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:15:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:15:30 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <180.4a220bf.29b7eeca aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:14:34 EST Subject: Re: Shrimp Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_180.4a220bf.29b7eeca_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"bbUzD.0.le3.2KfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46462 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_180.4a220bf.29b7eeca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - I think the temperature reached by the shrimp bubbles are quite a bit lower than in the Oak Ridge experiments -- thousands Kelvin, not millions. So, for now, we might rest easy that the crustacean revenge killings against humanity won't commence. : ) Erik In a message dated 3/6/02 4:57:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, jedrothwell infinite-energy.com writes: > The shrimp use the shock waves to stun small prey. Suppose it turns out > there is a component of plasma fusion in the energy of sonoluminescence. > That will mean living creatures have evolved to use thermonuclear fusion as > > a weapon in the fight for survival. That is mind-boggling! Millions of > years ago they beat us in the arms race to develop the ultimate weapon. > > - Jed > > --part1_180.4a220bf.29b7eeca_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi -

I think the temperature reached by the shrimp bubbles are quite a bit lower than in the Oak Ridge experiments -- thousands Kelvin, not millions.  So, for now, we might rest easy that the crustacean revenge killings against humanity won't commence.

: )

Erik

In a message dated 3/6/02 4:57:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, jedrothwell infinite-energy.com writes:


The shrimp use the shock waves to stun small prey. Suppose it turns out
there is a component of plasma fusion in the energy of sonoluminescence.
That will mean living creatures have evolved to use thermonuclear fusion as
a weapon in the fight for survival. That is mind-boggling! Millions of
years ago they beat us in the arms race to develop the ultimate weapon.

- Jed



 --part1_180.4a220bf.29b7eeca_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:28:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA21674; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:25:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:25:59 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306171221.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:25:47 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"wZ4_C1.0.aI5.sTfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46463 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: >Robert Park is upset because all discoveries upset him. I do understand that he is saying the tritons measured by Taleyarkhan greatly outnumber the neutrons measured by Shapira & Saltmarsh, but those are two different experiments, and S&S did not measure tritium, so who can say what their ratio is? For all anyone knows, nothing happened in the S&S cell, although Taleyarkhan thinks they were seeing the same number of neutrons per second that he did, after adjusting for counting losses. Do Taleyarkhan et al. claim a significant imbalance in the t/n ratio? I don't see that in the paper. They describes the difficulties capturing neutrons. Do they extrapolate the probable total neutron count? I expect they want to prove it t/n=1 after massaging. I hope it does not! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:29:05 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA22956; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:28:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:28:31 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8697DF.48D0B258 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:27:43 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OnBWv3.0.Qc5.DWfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46464 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > OK, I read this paper two or three times, and I read the debate between > Taleyarkhan and Shapira & Saltmarsh, which accuses them of "truly > unfortunate and very unprofessional" behavior. Can someone explain to me > what is controversial about these results? As far as I can tell the > hypothesis proposed by the authors is that conventional plasma fusion is > occurring on a microscopic scale. It only works at 0 deg C. It does not > sound like a threat to ITER. The way I read it, 10^6 temperatures begin to be achieved at 0 deg C. Higher temperatures allow gaseous acetone within the bubble and premature collapse (bubble size is important in achieving high temps). Lower fluid temperatures should work more better. If you extrapolate that graph, 10^8 should be achieveable before you reach the freeze point of acetone. THAT should scare ITER proponents. Of course, it is pure conjecture to extrapolate beyond the data. > Is Taleyarkhan seeing an unbalanced, excess amount of tritium, such as cold > fusion produces? It seems that would be difficult to establish, because > tritium is easy to detect, but neutrons are hard. Isn't one molecule considered excess by s(k)eptics where there was none before? ;-) > Robert Park is upset because all discoveries upset him. Maybe I am missing > something . . . But why are other people upset? The editor said this paper > caused quite a commotion. Perhaps it is not widely known -- or accepted -- > that sonoluminescence causes extreme pressure. If you do a restricted search on an exact phrase match on "cavitation damage" on google, you get over 1100 hits. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:38:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA30518; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:37:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:37:55 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306173316.04ed46d8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:37:54 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: <3C8697DF.48D0B258 bellsouth.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"wBBeX2.0.ZS7.3ffXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46465 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >If you extrapolate that graph, 10^8 should be >achieveable before you reach the freeze point of acetone. THAT >should scare ITER proponents. Of course, it is pure conjecture >to extrapolate beyond the data. Yes, but as you said Terry, this would make a lousy heat engine. Maybe they are hoping to harvest the neutrons externally with a lithium blanket? That is what the hot fusion people want to do, I think. As someone remarked years ago, neutrons are a very inconvenient source of energy. Maybe the ITER lobby is afraid someone will find some other fluid that works at higher temperatures. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:45:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA02402; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:45:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:45:17 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:48:26 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Resent-Message-ID: <"jSHmH.0.Db.xlfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46466 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:02 PM 3/6/2, Jed Rothwell wrote: >OK, I read this paper two or three times, and I read the debate between >Taleyarkhan and Shapira & Saltmarsh, which accuses them of "truly >unfortunate and very unprofessional" behavior. Can someone explain to me >what is controversial about these results? As far as I can tell the >hypothesis proposed by the authors is that conventional plasma fusion is >occurring on a microscopic scale. It only works at 0 deg C. It does not >sound like a threat to ITER. The issue between Taleyarkhan and Shapira & Saltmarsh is over the neutron counting. Not a big deal. I think you have misread the "truly unfortunate and very unprofessional" behavior remark to be directed by Taleyarkhan at Shapira & Saltmarsh, which it is not, at least entirely. It is directed at those who attempted to squash publication - which includes senior ORNL officials, Taubes, Park and others. The issue about fusion in a "cold" bottle of stuff is only indirectly ruffling. There is no solid link to Pons and Fleischmann as of yet, except maybe the possible low neutron to H3 debate. A more serious issue might be that a new tabletop method of studying fusion reactions might be at hand, and that IS a threat to some big research budgets. The REAL concern in my opinion is that a lot of smoke could be blown in congressional faces regarding budgets, be it correct or not. The ostensible reason for quashing publication is the "embarassment" of another "cold fusion fiasco" but that is just a cover, because the only people who might actualy get the egg are Taleyarkhan et al and Kennedy. By sticking their necks out already, the other parties have made a tactical error - unless of course the concerns are not just about embarassment of the scientific community, but rather about budget, and the high personal stake some have placed on CF being bogus. Given that, at best, you only get about one 2.5 MeV neutron out per 14 MeV neutron in, it does not look like a threat to any other power generation scheme as of yet, including those with limited near term promise, like ITER. > >Is Taleyarkhan seeing an unbalanced, excess amount of tritium, such as cold >fusion produces? It seems that would be difficult to establish, because >tritium is easy to detect, but neutrons are hard. Taleyarkhan et al DID see a balance. It is Shapira & Saltmarsh that did not see the expected neutrons, but Shapira & Saltmarsh did not bother to look at the tritium at all. It might be concluded that Shapira's & Saltmarsh's management at ORNL, who requested the "replication", and who also tried to stop publication in Science, did not see any possible benefit to looking for tritium. > >Robert Park is upset because all discoveries upset him. Maybe I am missing >something . . . But why are other people upset? The editor said this paper >caused quite a commotion. Perhaps it is not widely known -- or accepted -- >that sonoluminescence causes extreme pressure. > >- Jed Yes, and simulations done by Willy Moss et al, and others have shown the feasibility of nominal amounts of fusion in D2O-T2O mixtures, which makes it of possible lab interest, but not a fad. However, Taleyarkhan et al have really souped up the water based expriment several orders of magnitude, and this could lead to some significant yet low cost reasearch possibilities. Perhaps the threat is the possibility of secrets revealed, or maybe it's budgets whittled away by small science at small universites, or maybe it's concern that new science will show there is something to CF after all, especially the low neutron/tritium ratio, and the "magic" breaking of the Coulomb barrier. As Jones Beene has pointed out already, it is overdue for considering the relevance of the tritium work of Clayter et al to this little tempest. There are too many fusion anomalies becoming well established for the hard core CF skeptics to be comfortable. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:47:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03874; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:47:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:47:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3C869C44.647C7083 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:46:28 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Potatov Failure Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Mpf6N3.0.Sy.rnfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46467 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts, Vorts! After reading the papers on acoustic fusion, it occurs to me why our tests of the Potatov device failed. Note that the experimenters at Oak Ridge DEGASSED their fluid prior to the experiment. Also, low starting temperatures are important to achieving large cavitation bubbles. Here in the states we pump gas (air) INTO our processed water as part of the purification process. And our starting water temperatures are likely much higher than Russia. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:51:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA04896; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:48:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:48:55 -0800 Message-ID: <3C869CA1.12D029C4 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:48:01 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020306173316.04ed46d8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WpvA8.0.HC1.MpfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46468 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Maybe the ITER lobby is afraid someone will find some other fluid that > works at higher temperatures. Exactly! Once this is accepted and the materials scientists get involved, who knows what could be achieved. Hey, wasn't someone on the list doing cavitation experiments with something other than water a couple of years ago? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:53:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08057; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:52:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:52:54 -0800 Message-ID: <3C869D90.20BA1A05 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:52:00 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Potatov Failure References: <3C869C44.647C7083 bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6P9o9.0.oz1.6tfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46469 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: That should read 'Potapov'! Shades of Dan Quayle! Terry (going home) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 14:58:02 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11369; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:57:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:57:34 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306175049.04ec6c70 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:57:37 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Z4vr32.0.Yn2.TxfXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46470 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >I think you have misread the "truly unfortunate and very unprofessional" >behavior remark to be directed by Taleyarkhan at Shapira & Saltmarsh, >which it is not, at least entirely. It is directed at those who attempted >to squash publication . . . Taleyarkhan is upset that the S&S internal ORNL paper was disseminated even though it was not peer reviewed. "Indeed, some people may have reached conclusions concerning the validity of our findings prior to the publication of our paper." Them's fighten' words. - http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf >Taleyarkhan et al DID see a balance. Where does it say that? I don't get it. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 15:11:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA18607; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:10:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:10:41 -0800 Message-ID: <008a01c1c564$1eba1e80$e709da42 usadatanet.net> From: "Ryan Hopkins" To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306175049.04ec6c70 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:10:32 -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: <"TBNij2.0.fY4.m7gXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46471 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This really sucks. It's a prime example of the tendency of scientific communities to get stuck in their own muck of solidifying a set of concepts which have been experimentally verified - from a certain point of view. One would think that forward-thinking scientists would have learned this, having rigorously studied what came before them. Sadly, it seems as though the study of what has come before, is precisely the key which locks a padlock labeled 'dogma' around those unfortunate minds. Alas, the old guard dies hard... Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? > Horace Heffner wrote: > > >I think you have misread the "truly unfortunate and very unprofessional" > >behavior remark to be directed by Taleyarkhan at Shapira & Saltmarsh, > >which it is not, at least entirely. It is directed at those who attempted > >to squash publication . . . > > Taleyarkhan is upset that the S&S internal ORNL paper was disseminated even > though it was not peer reviewed. "Indeed, some people may have reached > conclusions concerning the validity of our findings prior to the > publication of our paper." Them's fighten' words. > > - http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf > > > >Taleyarkhan et al DID see a balance. > > Where does it say that? I don't get it. > > - Jed > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 15:48:49 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05306; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:46:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:46:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3C869D7E.6001C17C ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:52:02 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306171221.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ygr-o2.0.hI1.BfgXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46472 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >Robert Park is upset because all discoveries upset him. > > I do understand that he is saying the tritons measured by Taleyarkhan > greatly outnumber the neutrons measured by Shapira & Saltmarsh, but those > are two different experiments, and S&S did not measure tritium, so who can > say what their ratio is? For all anyone knows, nothing happened in the S&S > cell, although Taleyarkhan thinks they were seeing the same number of > neutrons per second that he did, after adjusting for counting losses. > > Do Taleyarkhan et al. claim a significant imbalance in the t/n ratio? I > don't see that in the paper. They describes the difficulties capturing > neutrons. Do they extrapolate the probable total neutron count? I expect > they want to prove it t/n=1 after massaging. I hope it does not! > > - Jed Let me take a shot at proposing why Park et al. are so negative. I can think of three reasons. First, many laboratories have attempted to produce fusion during bubble collapse and have failed. As a result, theoreticians have come up with explanations of why the process does not work. With this success, previous work looks less competent. Besides, an attempt at replication appeared to fail. Second, this simple method is similar to a simple method proposed by P-F. Modern physicists do not like simple experiments because modern physics is based to the large experiments with the large amount of money and power this gives. The idea that something new can be discovered by simple means is a threat. Third, the method can be a threat to the hot fusion program in the future. Successful ideas always start small. As for the n/t ratio, Teleyarkhan says on page 1872 that the "neutron emission rate associated with cavitation was 4x10^4 to 8x10^4 n/s. This value is somewhat smaller than the estimated rate of n generation from the T measurements (~7x10^5 n/s)". In other words, the n/t ratio was about 0.1, a value they, and I, consider to be equal to unity within the errors of the measurement. Unfortunately, both the neutron rate as well as the amount of tritium detected is small, too small to establish a good n/t ratio. Consequently, this issue has little bearing on the work. Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 15:50:03 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08191; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:49:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:49:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:53:25 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Resent-Message-ID: <"tg5ds.0.s_1.DigXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46473 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:57 PM 3/6/2, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>I think you have misread the "truly unfortunate and very unprofessional" >>behavior remark to be directed by Taleyarkhan at Shapira & Saltmarsh, >>which it is not, at least entirely. It is directed at those who attempted >>to squash publication . . . > >Taleyarkhan is upset that the S&S internal ORNL paper was disseminated even >though it was not peer reviewed. "Indeed, some people may have reached >conclusions concerning the validity of our findings prior to the >publication of our paper." Them's fighten' words. Yes, but that does not say WHERE the paper ended up, or WHO reached conclusions. I suspect "some people" is actually not aimed so much at Shapira & Saltmarsh as at those who tried to make the trouble over at Science. Otherwise, they could have simply referred to the authors of the paper to which they were responding, and not to the more cryptic "some people." As far as I can see, Shapira & Saltmarsh simply were doing their jobs, and the basis for their disagreement was lay in their work. It is the other folks making the rush to judgement and who have no legitimate business trying to gag a journal. > >- http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf > > >>Taleyarkhan et al DID see a balance. > >Where does it say that? I don't get it. > >- Jed Acutally, it is in the "COMMENTS ON THE SHAPIRA AND SALTMARSH REPORT", March 2, 2002, page 4, bottom of first paragraph, not in the original paper. After correcting 50% for neutron scatter in the experiment (not done in original paper) a neutron emission rate of ~1.6x10^5 neutorns/second is obtiained. The article says: "Thus, contrary to what Shapira and Saltmarsh claim, the PD neutron emission rates are in quite good agreement (considering experimental uncertainties) with the emission rate we estimate from our experiments and, with the rates of ~7x10^5 determined from our tritium data." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 15:54:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA10938; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:54:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:54:01 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:57:54 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Resent-Message-ID: <"CBofm3.0.hg2.PmgXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46474 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:48 PM 3/6/2, Terry Blanton wrote: >Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Maybe the ITER lobby is afraid someone will find some other fluid that >> works at higher temperatures. > >Exactly! Once this is accepted and the materials scientists get >involved, who knows what could be achieved. > >Hey, wasn't someone on the list doing cavitation experiments with >something other than water a couple of years ago? > >Terry Somebody was trying to get funding to try a liquid (HOT) LiD-LiT mixture. Was it Charles Cagle, or maybe Ross Tessien? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 15:56:30 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11976; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:55:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:55:52 -0800 Message-ID: <3C869FBC.84332E41 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:01:36 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Potatov Failure References: <3C869C44.647C7083 bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zopPv2.0.2x2.8ogXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46475 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: > Gnorts, Vorts! > > After reading the papers on acoustic fusion, it occurs to me why > our tests of the Potatov device failed. Note that the > experimenters at Oak Ridge DEGASSED their fluid prior to the > experiment. Also, low starting temperatures are important to > achieving large cavitation bubbles. > > Here in the states we pump gas (air) INTO our processed water as > part of the purification process. And our starting water > temperatures are likely much higher than Russia. > > Terry Or Potatov had a convenient method to turn electrical energy into heat, and nothing more. Remember, attempts to make the sonofusion method work using D2O has always failed. This recent success was based on C3D6O. Even when using acetone, the hydrogen version did not work. Consequently, no relationship exists between the Potatov claims and the Taleyarkhan et al. work. Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 16:00:06 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14026; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:59:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:59:20 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306185131.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:59:28 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: <3C869D7E.6001C17C ix.netcom.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306171221.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"42p3p3.0.4R3.OrgXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46476 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >As for the n/t ratio, Teleyarkhan says on page 1872 that the "neutron >emission rate associated with cavitation was 4x10^4 to 8x10^4 n/s. This >value is somewhat smaller than the estimated rate of n generation from the >T measurements (~7x10^5 n/s)". In other words, the n/t ratio was about >0.1, a value they, and I, consider to be equal to unity within the errors >of the measurement. Ah, I see. I missed that somehow. I hope they measure it more carefully and come up with a much larger "neutron gap." In other words, I hope it is a form of CF. Robert Park's "neutron gap" was the difference between S&S's neutrons (or lack of neutrons) and Teleyarkhan's tritium, which is a meaningless comparison. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 16:30:20 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28647; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:27:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:27:47 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:31:37 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Potapov Failure Resent-Message-ID: <"SMPK-2.0.U_6.2GhXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46477 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 5:46 PM 3/6/2, Terry Blanton wrote: >Gnorts, Vorts! > >After reading the papers on acoustic fusion, it occurs to me why >our tests of the Potatov device failed. Note that the >experimenters at Oak Ridge DEGASSED their fluid prior to the >experiment. Also, low starting temperatures are important to >achieving large cavitation bubbles. > >Here in the states we pump gas (air) INTO our processed water as >part of the purification process. And our starting water >temperatures are likely much higher than Russia. > >Terry Yes, but there was a reason for that. Potapov was supposedly heating apartment buildings with the hot water from the device. The energy that should have been required to heat the water to the temperature differential observed was supposedly more than that expended on pumping, giving a high COP. The objective was hot water and the effort was merely to substantiate a claim, not to redesign the device, though we did attempt lot of redesign on vortex! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 16:30:49 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA29686; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:30:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:30:27 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:34:18 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Resent-Message-ID: <"o-fOf3.0.hF7.YIhXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46478 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:57 PM 3/6/2, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>I think you have misread the "truly unfortunate and very unprofessional" >>behavior remark to be directed by Taleyarkhan at Shapira & Saltmarsh, >>which it is not, at least entirely. It is directed at those who attempted >>to squash publication . . . > >Taleyarkhan is upset that the S&S internal ORNL paper was disseminated even >though it was not peer reviewed. "Indeed, some people may have reached >conclusions concerning the validity of our findings prior to the >publication of our paper." Them's fighten' words. Yes, but that does not say WHERE the paper ended up, or WHO reached conclusions. I suspect "some people" is actually not aimed so much at Shapira & Saltmarsh as at those who tried to make the trouble over at Science. Otherwise, they could have simply referred to the authors of the paper to which they were responding, and not to the more cryptic "some people." As far as I can see, Shapira & Saltmarsh simply were doing their jobs, and the basis for their disagreement was lay in their work. It is the other folks making the rush to judgement and who have no legitimate business trying to gag a journal. > >- http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf > > >>Taleyarkhan et al DID see a balance. > >Where does it say that? I don't get it. > >- Jed Acutally, it is in the "COMMENTS ON THE SHAPIRA AND SALTMARSH REPORT", March 2, 2002, page 4, bottom of first paragraph, not in the original paper. After correcting 50% for neutron scatter in the experiment (not done in original paper) a neutron emission rate of ~1.6x10^5 neutorns/second is obtiained. The article says: "Thus, contrary to what Shapira and Saltmarsh claim, the PD neutron emission rates are in quite good agreement (considering experimental uncertainties) with the emission rate we estimate from our experiments and, with the rates of ~7x10^5 determined from our tritium data." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 16:35:08 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA32303; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:34:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:34:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:38:33 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: messages disappearing Resent-Message-ID: <"PDztZ3.0.du7.WMhXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46479 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just for general information, I've had some messages disappear recently, especially those sent to vortex but which did not come back as vortex posts. Sorry if I repost and get duplicate posting. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 22:41:45 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA25006; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:39:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:39:11 -0800 From: "Matthew Rogers" To: Subject: Sonofusion Released papers, can someone sort out the information for the basics ? Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:39:05 -0800 Message-ID: <001101c1c5a2$c7603770$0501a8c0 kitty> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"MHHFG.0.a66.FimXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46480 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Vor, I have tracked down the papers ( in PDF ) by order of appearance. First is the announced Science Mag article as reported by Craig here on Vor. http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/index.shtml Then is the report by Jean-Louis here on Vor the Sonofusion Video at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/science/2002-03/taleyarkh-3-8-02.html with the video at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_jrnls/sci/public_releases/images/SoundofNeutro ns.rpt.mov By clicking on the more info I found the Oak Ridge review http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/science/2002-03/SLan5av2.pdf and the response of Taleyarkhan here at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/science/2002-03/TaleyarkhanResponse.p df I gather that the press is reporting the negative information located in the Oak ridge report, even though it is not really negative, According to Taleyarkhan. In this case, I believe in publishing all the results like what is happening, so independent review may be done. My 2 questions are : 1. Does this appear to be a valid apparatus and test ? 2. Why don't we have a complete catalog of the CF metal D2 tests since Pons-Fleishman posted on the web with complete diagrams and test procedures like was done by Taleyarkhan ? Thanks VOR, Matt Rogers -----Original Message----- From: Eugene F. Mallove [mailto:editor infinite-energy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:21 AM To: vortex l eskimo.com Subject: Taubes and Park try to screw the world again... the bastards! Fusion in beaker report leaves some physicists cold By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY A physics team Monday reported evidence that it had created high-temperature fusion in a laboratory beaker. Nuclear fusion, the same force that powers the sun, has been a longtime goal of scientists because it promises abundant energy with no radioactive waste. But the finding triggered intense skepticism from some scientists, burned by memories of "cold fusion," the 1989 claim by Utah researchers to have produced fusion at room temperatures, a highly criticized result that no one else could ever reproduce. In the experiment, details of which were released ahead of schedule by the journal Science, researchers led by Rusi Taleyarkhan of Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory imploded small bubbles in acetone, best known as an ingredient in nail polish remover, by shooting neutrons into the liquid. Neutrons are uncharged physics particles in the center of atoms. When the researchers imploded the bubbles, the bursts gave off a flash of light and thousands of neutrons, a sign of nuclear fusion. "We tried a different approach that seemed promising and it works. We were lucky," says team member Richard Lahey Jr. of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. In their approach, the bubbles grew 10,000 times larger than their starting size, to about eight hundredths of an inch across, before they imploded. Past efforts grew bubbles only 10 times larger than their starting size. Essentially, for every neutron the researchers shot into the solution, they received thousands out of it. A computer model suggests that temperatures reached around 18 million degrees inside the implosions ? fusion temperatures ? the authors report. However, some experts tried to burst the "bubble fusion" result. Last week in an American Physical Society newsletter, physicist Robert Park wrote that "distinguished physicists, fearing a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco 13 years ago, advised against publication." Park and others cited a critique by separate Oak Ridge physicists who tried to duplicate the experiment. They failed to see enough neutrons, using the same apparatus, to justify fusion claims. Citing the disagreement, Science released the original paper, the critique and a response by Taleyarkhan's group. They say their critics misinterpreted the duplicate effort and did in fact produce fusion neutrons. "Nature loves to delude us on these things," says physicist Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington-Seattle. "There has to be a great deal of skepticism." "If history is any indication, just the existence of this kind of brouhaha and the criticism from very competent experts is good evidence that the results are just dead wrong. And if it's dead wrong, then Science probably shouldn't have decided to publish it," says science writer Gary Taubes, a correspondent for Science and author of Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. ------ End of Forwarded Message From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 6 23:33:11 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA13035; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:30:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:30:47 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:33:28 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Sonofusion Released papers, can someone sort out the information for the basics ? Resent-Message-ID: <"F0J4j1.0.VB3.cSnXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46481 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:39 PM 3/6/2, Matthew Rogers wrote: >My 2 questions are : >1. Does this appear to be a valid apparatus and test ? Yes, but like any other scientific work it needs replication. That's replication, not some experiment with "ego mods". >2. Why don't we have a complete catalog of the CF metal D2 tests since >Pons-Fleishman posted on the web with complete diagrams and test procedures >like was done by Taleyarkhan ? Good idea. Please implement. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 01:18:08 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA22679; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:15:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:15:34 -0800 Message-ID: <00a301c1c5b8$af00bcc0$878f209a ggrf30j> From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020306173316.04ed46d8@pop.mindspring.com> <3C869CA1.12D029C4@bellsouth.net> Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:07:16 -0000 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: <"p7jlD3.0.DY5.r-oXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46482 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote:- << Hey, wasn't someone on the list doing cavitation experiments with something other than water a couple of years ago?>> I remember emailing Chris Tinsley, when the sonofusion (in water) story first broke, to speculate on what would happen if liquid deuterium was cavitated. I wondered if there might be a loud noise, a lot of mess and a big bill! Nick Palmer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 03:39:20 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA00669; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:36:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:36:41 -0800 Message-ID: <001c01c1c5cc$27789a20$7dfcc2d4 oemcomputer> Reply-To: "Jean-Pierre Lentin" From: "Jean-Pierre Lentin" To: References: Subject: Re: Potapov Failure Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:35:15 +0100 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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Resent-Message-ID: <"IRnkP1.0.NA.93rXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46483 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Terry, Horace, Edmund & all For a long time, I remained skeptical about American efforts to evaluate the Potapov "Yusmar" system, especially since Peter Glueck from Romania, pro-CF physicist and then Vortex member, kept insisting that something was wrong with the U.S. replications and that Potapov, whom he knew personnally, had a bona fide OU system. However, by pure chance, I recently met a French engineer and businessman who struck a deal with Potapov, paid for a French patent and was about to commercialize the system. Hehad a team of good engineers to thoroughly test the system, and found, like the Americans did, that Potapov's calculations were wrong at that the C.O.P. was no better that a conventional electric heating system - and certainly not O.U.. Last time this Frenchman saw Potapov in Moldavia, the inventor was living the high life and driving a flashy big black limousine. For my French contact, it seemed to indicate that Potapov's operation is now laundering money for the local mafia... Sic transit gloria mundi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 03:48:09 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA04997; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:47:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:47:41 -0800 Message-Id: <4.3.1.20020307111025.00bcae20 pop3.newnet.co.uk> X-Sender: lawrence pop3.newnet.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:15:08 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Stephen Lawrence Subject: A Functioning Casimir Effect Generator? Cc: rn214 hermes.cam.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"VPLAs2.0.wD1.TDrXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46484 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear All, I don't hear much about the Casimir Effect on vortex-l, but if somebody would like to comment... A while ago I reported an "Energy Conversion Device" invented by Geoffrey Spence, UK. US patent 4,772,816 (1986). That patent comes with its own appended theory of operation. I include here an alternative idea, based on the Casmir Effect. The patent (incl. diags) can be obtained from: http://www.butlerlabs.com/patentlinks.htm In a betatron, electrons are accelerated in a chamber with a magnetic field and assume a circular orbit of radius r. Eventually, the electrons radiate their energy and lose speed, falling back to an anode. An additional cylindrical electrode (radius r') is placed in the chamber in the centre of the orbit of the electrons, so that they orbit around it. This electrode is now negatively biassed and is made bigger s.t. r' > r. The electrons are thus bent towards the electrode by the magnetic field, and away from it by electrostatic repulsion. Thus a thin cylindrical cloud of electrons should build up around the central electrode. Spence's device (of this nature) has been observed to generate energy. I hypothesize that when the electron cloud becomes dense enough and close enough to the central electrode, the electron cloud forms a barrier so that ZPF forces between the cloud and the electrode are reduced. The electrons are forced on to the central electrode, overcoming electrostatic forces and doing considerable work, thereby generating energy. I am guessing that the quantum 'jitter' away from the central electrode is less than the jitter towards it. Thus electrons will randomly 'jitter' onto the central electrode: once there, they are caught in the metal conductor where they are fed through a load and return to the source, the electron gun. Holes formed by electrons jittering onto the central collector are replenished by new electrons from the incoming beam. If they 'jitter' outwards they are magnetically attracted back again anyway. Has Spence found a way of constructing an ever replenishing series of collapsing plates to harness the Casimir Effect? Yours views would be greatly appreciated. Stephen Lawrence, S.E.A., UK. "As punishment for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." - A. Einstein. To his dying day, Einstein tried to convince people not to believe unquestionly in him: "I may well be on the wrong track", he said. 8 Supanee Court, French's Road, Cambridge, England, CB4 3LB. Tel/Fax +44 1223 564373 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 07:18:11 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA05020; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:14:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:14:58 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [209.249.70.145] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Functioning Casimir Effect Generator? Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 07:14:26 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2002 15:14:26.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[C55362C0:01C1C5EA] Resent-Message-ID: <"koLOJ1.0.ME1.oFuXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46485 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear All, We investigated the Spence device when it first surfaced, and visited the inventor and Suffolk University. George Hathaway, an open minded engineer in Canada, who evaluates such devices, also visited Spence for several days. Both Hathaway and we concluded that the device never functioned as claimed. It was a sad case of inventor's delusion. However, Lucent announced a working Casimir teeter-totter useful in MEMs last year in Nature. There is also promising work involving the Casimir effect in progress at Interstellar Technologies, which has a web site. Mark Goldes, CEO, Magnetic Power Inc. Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. >From: Stephen Lawrence >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >CC: rn214 hermes.cam.ac.uk >Subject: A Functioning Casimir Effect Generator? >Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:15:08 +0000 > >Dear All, > >I don't hear much about the Casimir Effect on vortex-l, but if somebody >would like to comment... > >A while ago I reported an "Energy Conversion Device" invented by Geoffrey >Spence, UK. US patent 4,772,816 (1986). That patent comes with its own >appended theory of operation. I include here an alternative idea, based on >the Casmir Effect. The patent (incl. diags) can be obtained from: >http://www.butlerlabs.com/patentlinks.htm > >In a betatron, electrons are accelerated in a chamber with a magnetic field >and assume a circular orbit of radius r. Eventually, the electrons radiate >their energy and lose speed, falling back to an anode. An additional >cylindrical electrode (radius r') is placed in the chamber in the centre of >the orbit of the electrons, so that they orbit around it. This electrode >is now negatively biassed and is made bigger s.t. r' > r. The electrons >are thus bent towards the electrode by the magnetic field, and away from it >by electrostatic repulsion. > >Thus a thin cylindrical cloud of electrons should build up around the >central electrode. Spence's device (of this nature) has been observed to >generate energy. I hypothesize that when the electron cloud becomes dense >enough and close enough to the central electrode, the electron cloud forms >a barrier so that ZPF forces between the cloud and the electrode are >reduced. The electrons are forced on to the central electrode, overcoming >electrostatic forces and doing considerable work, thereby generating >energy. > >I am guessing that the quantum 'jitter' away from the central electrode is >less than the jitter towards it. Thus electrons will randomly 'jitter' >onto the central electrode: once there, they are caught in the metal >conductor where they are fed through a load and return to the source, the >electron gun. Holes formed by electrons jittering onto the central >collector are replenished by new electrons from the incoming beam. If they >'jitter' outwards they are magnetically attracted back again anyway. > >Has Spence found a way of constructing an ever replenishing series of >collapsing plates to harness the Casimir Effect? > >Yours views would be greatly appreciated. > >Stephen Lawrence, S.E.A., UK. >"As punishment for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority >myself." - A. Einstein. To his dying day, Einstein tried to convince >people not to believe unquestionly in him: "I may well be on the wrong >track", he said. > >8 Supanee Court, French's Road, Cambridge, England, CB4 3LB. Tel/Fax +44 >1223 564373 > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 07:34:18 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA15532; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:33:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:33:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:37:13 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: 1,000 to 1 neutron production noted in AIP update Resent-Message-ID: <"sU-0w2.0.Zo3.2XuXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46486 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Note the comment about 1000 to 1 neutron production in the cell's active region! Moral to the story, make the entire radiated region active. (1000*2.5 MeV)/(14 MeV) = 178 COP. However, a very large flux would be necessary, and the energy to maintain the bubbles plus generate the neutrons has not been considered. The output of 10^6 2.5 MeV neutrons is only 1.6x10^-7 J, so it is way way under unity as is. PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 579 March 5, 2002 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon HAS NUCLEAR FUSION BEEN OBSERVED IN A BUBBLE TANK? A team of scientists has claimed evidence for deuterium- deuterium fusion in a tabletop apparatus at Oak Ridge National Lab (Taleyarkhan et al., Science, 8 March 2002), but other scientists (including a separate group at Oak Ridge) are raising serious concerns about the validity of the result. In their experiment, Taleyarkhan et al. (a collaboration of scientists from Oak Ridge, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Russian Academy of Sciences) utilize sonoluminescence (SL), itself a well- studied and highly regarded area of research (see, for example, Updates 34, 299, 307, 327, and 355), in which powerful sound waves sent into a liquid tank trigger the creation of single or multiple bubbles which then collapse and release short flashes of light. Sonoluminescence, literally the conversion of sound into light, is a remarkable process in that sound itself is not a densely packed form of energy. Even the sound in the most powerful car stereo has a much lower energy density than the light in a penlight laser beam. In an SL experiment, however, the energy from the sound wave gets focused into a very small region, namely a collapsing bubble. This highly concentrated energy heats the gas inside the bubble to incandescent temperatures resulting in the release of light. The conversion of sound energy into light energy represents an energy concentration of over a trillion. Researchers have long speculated whether the conditions inside the collapsing bubbles could be made to approach the high temperatures and densities necessary to trigger energy-producing nuclear fusion reactions such as those that occur inside the sun. This is a great matter of debate, as some details of the bubble collapse and light emission are still incompletely understood. With this incomplete knowledge, researchers cannot discount the possibility that the conditions can be tweaked to generate nuclear fusion, modest as these fusion reactions are likely to be. However, according to leading sonoluminescence theorist William Moss of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "We are all pretty sure that normal SL conditions are nowhere near fusion temperatures--typical SL temperatures don't exceed 11,000 degrees Kelvin or so, at least from theoretical estimates"---as opposed to the millions of degrees that nuclear fusion would typically require. In the newly reported experiment, many details are similar to a traditional SL setup: researchers aimed 19.3-kHz sound waves at a glass flask containing deuterated acetone. But here's the novel part of the experiment: a pulsed neutron generator injected 14.3 MeV neutrons into the flask, in sync with the sound waves. The researchers claim that the neutrons trigger the creation of extremely small bubbles which then grow to relatively large sizes and then collapse to generate pulses of light. In conjunction with the light pulses, the researchers report the detection of significant amounts of tritium and evidence for neutrons with an energy of 2.5 MeV. Such neutrons would be produced in the fusion of deuterium atoms in the glass flask. They repeated the experiment with normal acetone (lacking deuterium) and did not detect the tritium or neutrons. However, another group at Oak Ridge, consisting of D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, attempted to reproduce the experiment, except for the fact that they used a larger neutron/gamma-ray detector and what they report to be a more sophisticated data acquisition system (http://www.ornl.gov/slsite/SLan5av2.pdf). They found a 1% increase in the neutron/gamma ray signal when the experiment was set up to trigger cavitation (formation of bubbles), as opposed to when the sound wave was turned off. However, they did not find the 10-fold increase that they expected if the reported tritium levels occurred as a result of deuterium-deuterium fusion. And they found nothing when they looked for neutrons or gamma rays being emitted in coincidence with the light pulses. Outside researchers who have studied the Science paper have expressed very significant concerns about its validity. According to Moss, the key measurement is the 2.5 MeV neutron peak. "If measured neutrons are thermonuclear in origin, then there must be a peak at 2.5MeV, and measuring and reporting that peak constitutes a minimum requirement to support the claim of thermonuclear origin," he says. "Tritium production (claimed in the paper) is not sufficient evidence, since it is difficult to determine the source." Moss rejects the conclusions of the paper based on the "lack of a properly resolved neutron peak." He says, "Extraordinary claims require unambiguous data, which they did not provide. This doesn't mean that thermonuclear neutrons from a sonoluminescence source are impossible, only that they didn't show data to support the claim." Seth Putterman, a leading sonoluminescence experimentalist at UCLA, points out that the researchers claim a 1000-to-1 production of output neutrons to input neutrons that hit the acoustically sensitive region of the resonator. It should be possible, he says, to turn this data into a huge signal and a clearly detectable neutron spectrum, but this is not presented in the paper. He also points out that no other paper on sonoluminescence has ever detected a single neutron as a result of the SL process. The authors of the Science paper have invited other researchers to attempt to reproduce the experiments. They say that they have reanalyzed the Shapira and Saltmarsh data and find that these data are actually compatible with sonofusion and provide an independent confirmation of their controversial claim (http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf). However, according to Putterman and Moss, the experiment by Taleyarkhan et al. does nothing to resolve the question of whether acoustic cavitation can generate nuclear fusion reactions. "The actual scientific experiment appears to be flawed," Putterman says. "If confirmed, however," adds sonoluminescence pioneer Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington, "it would be a remarkable result, demonstrating that mechanical systems could induce nuclear reactions." However, Crum also adds, "I am very skeptical that their results will ever be duplicated." "This is an interesting, high-risk direction of research that should go on," Putterman says. "These results may be so premature and so flawed, however, that it may taint future attempts in the field." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 07:35:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA16738; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:34:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:34:44 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:35:11 -0800 Subject: Voice of America on Bubble Fusion From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oxbU01.0.A54.JYuXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46487 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received from VOA -- Gene Mallove ***** Slug Item Moved RUN TIME 5-51205 Nuclear Fusion Fuss 5-51205 03/06/02 02:09:37 04:06 DATE=03/06/02 TYPE= BACKGROUND REPORT TITLE= Bubble Fusion Fuss NUMBER=55-51205 BYLINE= Christine Elliott DATELINE= Washington CONTENT= VOICED AT: // Re-issuing from file of 3/5, correcting intro // INTRO: Some U-S government scientists say they have produced the elusive effect of nuclear fusion, a long-sought form of nuclear energy that has no toxic byproducts. As V-O-A's Christine Elliott reports, some physicists say this is a step that could lead to safer methods of nuclear energy, but others are much more skeptical. TEXT: Nuclear fusion is the process the sun uses to convert matter into energy. The sun does this by combining two small atoms into a larger one. The byproduct of the reaction is energy, but it can only be done when the temperature is higher than a million degrees! Researchers are in a race to find ways to reproduce nuclear fusion in laboratories here on earth. The journal "Science" reports that scientists at the U-S Government Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee might have won that race. In a beaker the size of two drinking cups, the researchers grew large bubbles in liquid acetone that collapsed. /// OPT /// University of Michigan Physics Professor Fred Becchetti (bee-KET-tee) says the process they used to do this is called "sonoluminescence." /// BECCHETTI ACT /// It's the generation of light flashes using sound waves. Now the extension to that is, if we could increase the temperature and density in this collapsing bubble, and add to it let's say deuterium, which is a heavy hydrogen atom, we can in principal induce reactions that take place in the sun, namely nuclear fusion. /// END ACT /// /// END OPT /// The researchers report the temperature in the collapsing bubbles was indeed high enough to produce the fusion of atoms. But another team of researchers examined the experiment, and found that the temperature in the bubbles was NOT high enough to produce fusion. It is this contradiction that has physicists skeptical. The Deputy Director for Science and Technology at the Oak Ridge lab, Lee Riedinger (REED-een-ger, hard G), says he is excited about the research, but not overly optimistic. /// RIEDINGER ACT /// These clever authors have found a way to grow far bigger bubbles in liquids than have been achieved before. And that has potential for making nuclear fusion. Now, can this type of nuclear fusion that perhaps goes on inside of bubbles, can that lead to energy supply? I sincerely doubt it. /// END ACT /// But others are more hopeful, such as Richard Lahey, an engineering professor at the Rensselear (REN-seh-LAYR) Polytechnic Institute in New York. Professor Lahey says he has worked on bubble fusion for eight years, and has teams of scientists who have performed this experiment successfully many times. /// OPT /// /// LAHEY ACT /// We're pretty pleased about this and, of course, there are skeptics as there should be, and what's needed now is for them to go into their laboratories and repeat our experiment. /// END ACT /// /// END OPT /// He says if this method of creating energy proves to be possible, problems associated with other types of nuclear energy processes such as nuclear fission will be avoided. In fission, a larger atom is broken down into smaller ones, giving off harmful byproducts and nuclear waste. Professor Lahey says, however, that nuclear fusion is safer. /// LAHEY ACT /// It could eliminate many of the problems that have plagued nuclear energy in the past, such as radioactive waste issue, safety issue, the fuel availability issue. /// END ACT /// Mr. Lahey adds that people have to wait to see whether bubble fusion could be used to produce energy as the sun does. /// LAHEY ACT /// It's not for sure that it can be scaled up to that level, but if it can, it can be a tremendous contribution to producing energy for mankind. So you have to stay tuned to see if that will happen. /// END ACT /// Lee Riedinger from the Oak Ridge National Lab says the world might be waiting for a long time. /// RIEDINGER ACT /// I think that we are a million or a billion times away from how much energy can come out from one such bubble or a set of bubbles to have any effect on energy supply. /// END ACT /// For now, the United States will have to depend on other energy resources. (SIGNED) NB/MEM  From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 07:41:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA19095; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:38:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:38:38 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307103549.00b0eba0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:38:44 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Is SL fusion CF? The "neutron gap" will show Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"sGweP1.0.7g4.zbuXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46488 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is part of a message I sent to D. Britz. This is a restatement, or summary of some of the points made here in the last few days, with some comments published here deleted. I have been reading various responses to the Taleyarkhan paper. I noticed that you are wondering whether to classify the sonoluminescence (SL) papers as cold fusion, plasma fusion or in a new category. This is an interesting question. It is too early to judge. Assuming the SL reactions are replicated, and progress is made, I think this issue will become clearer after additional research clarifies two things: 1. The presence or absence of macroscopic excess heat. If SL produces orders of magnitude more excess heat compared to the tritium and neutrons than plasma fusion does, it must be cold fusion. I do not think anyone has performed calorimetry on the Taleyarkhan cell. That would be difficult. The cell must be run at or below 0 deg C. It does not work at 20 deg C. Taleyarkhan thinks the reaction will be enhanced at temperatures of 260 K (-13 deg C). He has not yet been able to run it below zero. I do not think conventional calorimetry would work at these temperatures. Perhaps a Seebeck calorimeter would. 2. The extent of the "neutron gap," that is, the ratio of tritium to neutrons. If t/n=1, this is probably a plasma fusion reaction. If it is 100 or more I would suspect cold fusion instead. The measurements so far have not been accurate enough to judge this, because the counting losses for neutrons are high. Edmund Storms wrote: . . . Taleyarkhan says on page 1872 that the "neutron emission rate associated with cavitation was 4x10^4 to 8x10^4 n/s. This value is somewhat smaller than the estimated rate of n generation from the T measurements (~7x10^5 n/s)." In other words, the n/t ratio was about 0.1, a value they, and I, consider to be equal to unity within the errors of the measurement. Robert Park confused this question, and made me think the reaction may be cold fusion. He wrote, "D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission correlated with sonoluminescence. Any neutron emission was many orders of magnitude too small to account for the tritium production reported by the first group. . . ." I thought he meant they measured the n/t ratio and found it was high or infinitely high, as it sometimes is in cold fusion; i.e. lots of tritium with no neutrons. It turns out he was comparing S&S to Taleyarkhan, and S&S did not even measure tritium, so we do not know whether they were seeing a fusion reaction or not. This comparison made no sense. The debate is more complicated though, because Taleyarkhan now says S&S *did* see neutrons at approximately the same rate he did. Contrary to Park, he claims the S&S neutron detection equipment was inferior. So the n/t comparison would make sense according to him. Still, a direct comparison of the ratio within this experiment would be much more valuable. I cannot understand why S&S failed to measured tritium. Perhaps it is a deliberate ploy to evade the issue. Bart Simon suggested it may be "the invocation of neutrons as the only definitive proof of fusion in spite of anything else that's anomalous." . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 08:05:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA02870; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:02:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:02:47 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:06:40 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Functioning Casimir Effect Generator? Cc: rn214 hermes.cam.ac.uk Resent-Message-ID: <"-Da5y.0.mi.cyuXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46489 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:15 AM 3/7/2, Stephen Lawrence wrote: >I am guessing that the quantum 'jitter' away from the central electrode is >less than the jitter towards it. Thus electrons will randomly 'jitter' >onto the central electrode: once there, they are caught in the metal >conductor where they are fed through a load and return to the source, the >electron gun. Holes formed by electrons jittering onto the central >collector are replenished by new electrons from the incoming beam. If they >'jitter' outwards they are magnetically attracted back again anyway. > >Has Spence found a way of constructing an ever replenishing series of >collapsing plates to harness the Casimir Effect? > >Yours views would be greatly appreciated. My initial feeling is that the magnetic field, which can add no energy, is superfluous. It seems to me that the Casimir effect should have already been rolled into the emperically determined "work function" for the metals and temperatures involved. The flaw in the idea seems to be that the Casimir effect should be the same on electrons entering the vacuum as on those entering the circular plate, thus the Casimir effect is nullified with respect to any net potential gained. However, it has often bothered me that work functions at a given temperature are not all the same. It has seemed to me that this fact alone is sufficient to gain free energy. If we can eject electrons into a vacuum from a plate with a low work function and absorb them on a plate with a high work function, then the electrons should still be absorbed on the high work function plate even though there is a small potential maintained across the gap between the plates against the electron flow, smaller than the difference in work function potentails, and provided the plates are very close. Instead of working against a potential, equal potential plates could be used to generate a spontaneous current flow that could be used to do work. (These plates would have to be hot, but could be at the same temperature to eliminate complexity.) However, once again, there must be a reverse potential drop in the system somewhere that prevents the gain of free energy. That drop must occur in the conductors (the circuit) at some place where the metal types change. The problem then is no longer vacuum related, but rather related to making a solid state junction between conductors of differing work functions that does not create a potential barrier. It is interesting that the gate between transistors can overcome a large potential barrier between P and N type semiconductors. Perhaps a transistor like gate between the two metals is the way to make a boundary between the two metal types that overcomes the potential drop. Please forgive the wild speculation, but that's what vortex is for ... 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 08:45:10 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30513; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:42:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:42:32 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307103916.03e90f18 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:08:55 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Consensus re: what is controversial about Taleyarkhan et al. In-Reply-To: <00a301c1c5b8$af00bcc0$878f209a ggrf30j> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020306173316.04ed46d8 pop.mindspring.com> <3C869CA1.12D029C4 bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"sBErc3.0.fS7.tXvXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46490 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I raised to the question in this message header yesterday. I think members of this forum have now reached a consensus. It seems to me, cold fusion was controversial for five reasons, but only three apply to Taleyarkhan et al. so far. They are: 1. CF was announced at a press conference supposedly in violation of academic decorum. Actually, most breakthroughs are announced at press conferences, especially in plasma fusion and high energy physics. Taleyarkhan avoided this problem. 2. CF seemed to violate some conventional nuclear theories. So far, Taleyarkhan appears to be conventional, although it is too early to judge. Some people are upset because they regard even a minor deviation from conventional theory as heresy. 3. CF was completely unexpected. Many people seem shocked by Taleyarkhan, but given previous experiments with sonoluminescence (SL) I do not understand why. 4. Both CF and SL may be developed into practical technology, which threatens vested interests ranging from plasma fusion researchers to the oil companies. The plasma fusion researchers may be put out of business very soon by significant progress in SL -- within a year or two. (I expect the plasma fusion researchers are frantically working to suppress the news of SL, prevent replications, and oust Taleyarkhan to prevent this.) The oil and electric power companies probably feel they would not be affected for decades, and I doubt they are worrying about it. They have occasionally taken active measures to suppress cold fusion, such as Amoco's treatment of its own successful cold fusion research. 5. All breakthroughs are controversial. This is human nature. People were upset and morally outraged by the invention of the zipper. Famous scientists ganged up on Townes and tried to stop him from developing the maser. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 10:32:04 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA27625; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:28:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:28:21 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [209.249.70.226] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Functioning Casimir Effect Generator? Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:27:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2002 18:27:46.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[C76362C0:01C1C605] Resent-Message-ID: <"yqZIl.0.Kl6.45xXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46491 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace, A very interesting idea! NelsonScientific.com has been trying to do something similar with a vacuum tube device. The Casimir Effect work I referred to earlier can be found at the URL http://www.interstellartechcorp.com/# Mark Goldes >From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >CC: rn214 hermes.cam.ac.uk >Subject: Re: A Functioning Casimir Effect Generator? >Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:06:40 -0900 > >At 2:15 AM 3/7/2, Stephen Lawrence wrote: > > >I am guessing that the quantum 'jitter' away from the central electrode >is > >less than the jitter towards it. Thus electrons will randomly 'jitter' > >onto the central electrode: once there, they are caught in the metal > >conductor where they are fed through a load and return to the source, the > >electron gun. Holes formed by electrons jittering onto the central > >collector are replenished by new electrons from the incoming beam. If >they > >'jitter' outwards they are magnetically attracted back again anyway. > > > >Has Spence found a way of constructing an ever replenishing series of > >collapsing plates to harness the Casimir Effect? > > > >Yours views would be greatly appreciated. > > >My initial feeling is that the magnetic field, which can add no energy, is >superfluous. It seems to me that the Casimir effect should have already >been rolled into the emperically determined "work function" for the metals >and temperatures involved. The flaw in the idea seems to be that the >Casimir effect should be the same on electrons entering the vacuum as on >those entering the circular plate, thus the Casimir effect is nullified >with respect to any net potential gained. > >However, it has often bothered me that work functions at a given >temperature are not all the same. It has seemed to me that this fact alone >is sufficient to gain free energy. If we can eject electrons into a vacuum >from a plate with a low work function and absorb them on a plate with a >high work function, then the electrons should still be absorbed on the high >work function plate even though there is a small potential maintained >across the gap between the plates against the electron flow, smaller than >the difference in work function potentails, and provided the plates are >very close. Instead of working against a potential, equal potential plates >could be used to generate a spontaneous current flow that could be used to >do work. (These plates would have to be hot, but could be at the same >temperature to eliminate complexity.) However, once again, there must be a >reverse potential drop in the system somewhere that prevents the gain of >free energy. That drop must occur in the conductors (the circuit) at some >place where the metal types change. The problem then is no longer vacuum >related, but rather related to making a solid state junction between >conductors of differing work functions that does not create a potential >barrier. It is interesting that the gate between transistors can overcome >a large potential barrier between P and N type semiconductors. Perhaps a >transistor like gate between the two metals is the way to make a boundary >between the two metal types that overcomes the potential drop. Please >forgive the wild speculation, but that's what vortex is for ... 8^) > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 12:39:05 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA28987; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:35:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:35:54 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307152424.00b0d978 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:35:53 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: L. Case comments on catalytic converters and other matters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"6Nn-x3.0.f47.fyyXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46492 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I spoke with Les Case about his upcoming presentation at ICCF 9 in Beijing. He will describe improved catalysts that he believes are producing on the order of five to 10 watts per pound of material, which is 0.1% palladium by weight. Compared to his previous catalysts, this is two or three times more power, and the mass of palladium has been reduced by a factor of five. He and I discussed some issues that came up in this forum recently: automotive catalytic converters, palladium supplies and transmutation. He knows a great deal about catalysis with precious metals, and he made many interesting observations. He recommends literature from Johnson Matthey. The power density he believes he has achieved comes to 0.05 grams per watt. That is impressive, but unfortunately if the reaction works best with the platinum group, especially palladium and rhodium, there will not be enough in the world to produce all the energy we now use. I will run a spreadsheet on this later. I will try to determine to within a few orders of magnitude how much palladium this would call for. He does not think the amount of platinum-group metals mined every year can be expanded much. The industry is trying to expand output. He says automotive catalytic converters would not be suitable for cold fusion, because they are oxidation catalysts and cold fusion calls for hydrogenation catalysts such as the ones used to make margarine from vegetable oil. The main differences between the two types are the surface morphology, surface treatment, and choice of substrate. This is an extremely complicated business. Catalysts have to be carefully engineered for different applications, with as much art as science. He does not know whether the cold fusion reaction transmits palladium or not. He is aware of claims by Mizuno and others that it does. He says we will have to run a very large sample for a longtime high-powered to confirm this. If the reaction converts palladium to rhodium that would be fine. If it converts to silver this would sideline cold fusion as a niche energy source because world production of palladium would not be enough to supply the energy we need. Also, this would shorten the operating lifetime of the cells. He hopes to run cells with standard catalysts for about five years before dismantling and recycling the precious metals. If transmutation does not occur, none of the metal would be lost because the cells would be tightly sealed, unlike catalytic converters. The deuterium gas would have to be replenished periodically, and helium would have to be bled off, but the catalyst should last five years based on performance in similar applications. He did not say this, but I presume that estimate is based upon a moderate operating temperature, no higher than 300 degrees C. Previous catalysts he tested have reached 180 degrees as I recall. Getting back to this 0.05 grams per watt estimate . . . Case says that modern automobiles used generally 10 to 15 grams per car in the catalytic converter. This is close to the number I derived from industry sources the other day. Case thinks that cold fusion devices will be too heavy to mount and automobiles, so they will be used at central generation plants to produce chemical fuel for automobiles, from electricity or directly from heat. He thinks methane would be a good choice. Others have said pure hydrogen would be better. Come to think of it, this arrangement would save a great deal of palladium. Automobiles require maximum instantaneous propulsion power ranging from 50 to 100 kW I believe, but the average car while driving is closer to 20 kW vehicle propulsion power. I assume a palladium cold fusion car would be a battery hybrid, to conserve precious metal. It would produce 20 kW constantly while storing energy for peak demand. If Ni CF can be ramped up rapidly to peak power, it would use a brute force heat engine capable of putting out 200 or 300 kW of heat, and 100 kW propulsion power. Whether the demand is 20 or 100 kW, most of the time the palladium in your car would be doing no useful work while the car is parked in the driveway. Cold fusion engines would not be shut down completely, because there is no point to doing that, and in cold climates the engine fluids might freeze, but most of the capacity of the palladium would be wasted in standby mode most hours of the day. On the other hand, if central plants are used to generate chemical fuel, the palladium would be in use nearly 24 hours a day and maximum power for the average car would be a few hundred watts. (The U.S. model Toyota Prius ICE develops 52 kW (70 hp) at 4500 rpm. The electric motor develops 33 kW maximum. See http://www.sae.org/automag/features/prius/.) Case does not think that hydrogen fuel cells will ever be widely used because they are restricted by limited supplies of platinum, just as cold fusion may be limited by palladium. He does not think there is anywhere near enough platinum in the world to build fuel cells for every house and automobile. In recent years great progress has been made in reducing the amount of platinum per fuel cell, but it is still not enough. Case did not think much of the paper by Taleyarkhan, because as they said in the radio broadcast Mallove quoted here, energy levels are a billion times too small for practical applications. Case says he is within a factor of 2 to 10 below commercially valuable levels, so he is not afraid of competition from Taleyarkhan who needs to increase a billion times. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 13:03:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA09259; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:00:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:00:50 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307155855.03e8acc8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:00:34 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Bockris reaction to Taleyarkhan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"MxtMT1.0.bG2.2KzXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46493 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The inimitable and irrepressible John Bockris writes: Dear Jed: I wrote to the Editor of Science pointing out that there were 3000 papers before this one he just published. By coincidence, I mailed today a letter to the Editors of the main journals telling them that the present situation of denial is a farce. Any suggestions except BATHE IN THE GLORIOUS LIGHT? Sincerely, John Bockris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 13:05:03 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10575; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:04:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:04:02 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307160141.03e8acc8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:03:35 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: SL temperature difficult to determine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"xI_Se.0.3b2.1NzXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46494 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is a follow up message I wrote to Britz, who is wondering how to catalog the SL fusion findings. He is a good librarian but I wish he would look at the big picture instead. Earlier I wrote: "I noticed that you are wondering whether to classify the sonoluminescence (SL) papers as cold fusion, plasma fusion or in a new category. . . . I think this issue will become clearer after additional research clarifies two things: 1. The presence or absence of macroscopic excess heat. . . ." Some people have suggested the distinction would depend upon the operating temperature of the reaction. Perhaps this is literally true; a plasma fusion reaction is certainly occurring if temperatures are in the bubble reach millions of degrees. However, I do not think this would be a good criterion to distinguish between hot and cold fusion, for two reasons: First, the experts do not know what maximum temperature is reached when bubbles collapse. This may take years to determine. Some dogmatic experts are already saying that Taleyarkhan must be wrong because they think the bubble temperature is much too cool. As usual, they would put theory ahead of experimental evidence, and the cart before the horse. Second, I gather that some theorists think that cold fusion reactions take place on such a small-scale -- atom by atom as it were -- temperature is not a meaningful concept. The individual atom undergoing the cold fusion reaction might be as excited as the atoms in solar or tokamak plasma fusion, even though the average temperature of the sample is only 20 deg C. I cannot address these theories, but if they turn out to be right then cold fusion was hot all along. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 13:06:33 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA11183; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:06:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:06:06 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307160452.00a8b2b0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:05:45 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: L. Case comments on catalytic converters and other matters In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307152424.00b0d978 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"QgoWZ1.0.ek2.zOzXy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46495 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >He does not know whether the cold fusion reaction transmits palladium or not. Meant transmutes. Sorry. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 13:57:44 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04899; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:54:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:54:59 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:55:26 -0800 Subject: New hydrogen reaction -- Nature Magazine From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"c1tVp.0.RC1.o6-Xy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46496 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: All, Looks like Nature and Science will be doing battle over who gets to publish the heretical physics and chemistry of hydrogen first :) Lovely. Maybe this gives some support to R. Mills -- some kind of new QM involved -- or support for another twist to the possible basis of cold fusion reactions? Whatever the case, it sure may opens some people's minds to the possibility that there was something, after all, to cold fusion. Eugene Mallove Www.infinite-energy.com *** Mar 6, 2002 HYDROGEN REACTION EXPERIMENT REAPS A SURPRISE Scientists got a surprise recently when a team of physical chemists at Stanford University studied a common hydrogen reaction. The experiment and an associated new theory revealed behaviors completely opposed to what had previously been expected. In the effort to learn more about fundamental chemical reactions, scientists have intensively studied the hydrogen exchange reaction, which occurs when a hydrogen atom (H) collides with a hydrogen molecule (H2). In the recent experiment, scientists supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) used a sophisticated laser laboratory at Stanford to observe the collision between a single hydrogen atom (H) and a heavy form of hydrogen molecule (D2, or deuterium). In hydrogen, the nucleus of the atom is a single proton, while deuterium's nucleus consists of a proton and a neutron bonded together. One of the products resulting from the collision, HD, traveled in an unexpected direction. As predicted by longstanding theories of scattering, the HD is expected to recoil, or scatter, in the opposite direction from that of the incoming H atom. In this experiment, however, the resulting product moved forward, in the same direction the single atom had been traveling. The experiment also revealed a time delay before the HD product began its forward motion. These results are reported in the March 7 issue of Nature. "Even in the simplest kinds of chemical reactions, including hydrogen atoms colliding with hydrogen molecules, we are still finding surprises," said Donald Burland, acting director of NSF's chemistry division. "These results demonstrate the importance of continued research in fundamental chemistry." "This news is quite exciting for the world of chemistry because it suggests that the 'simple' hydrogen reaction is a more complicated process than previously thought, involving more than one reaction mechanism," said Stanford chemist and team leader Richard Zare. The results of Zare's experiment demonstrate that the hydrogen reaction involves more than the direct atom-molecule exchange mechanism commonly observed. The explanation, the Stanford scientists believe, is that in addition to the direct reaction mechanism that leads to backward scattering, as predicted, another indirect mechanism at the quantum mechanical level (the level of subatomic particles) leads to forward scattering after a brief delay. Both the forward motion and the time delay are in keeping with new theories recently developed by a team at the University of Durham, England, led by Stuart Althorpe. animated graphics: http://www.dur.ac.uk/chemistry/publications/ sc_althorpe/nature.html contacts: Amber Jones (703) 292-8070/aljones nsf.gov; Frank Wodarczyk (703) 292-7235/fwodarcz nsf.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 15:05:16 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA09299; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:02:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:02:30 -0800 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:10:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SL temperature difficult to determine In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020307160141.03e8acc8 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"TQBeF1.0.AH2.56_Xy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46497 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: SL or sonoluminescence is not verified as having any one specific mechanism. We have one paper which is getting as lot of attention...but not many people have commented that a RADIATION source is used as part of this.... This should be called a hybrid paper or finding. Lumping SL as fusion is as off the mark as sying the light is CAUSED by: fusion plasma heat triboluminescent action electrostatic effect you fill in the blank ....... On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is a follow up message I wrote to Britz, who is wondering how to > catalog the SL fusion findings. He is a good librarian but I wish he > would look at the big picture instead. > > > Earlier I wrote: > > "I noticed that you are wondering whether to classify the sonoluminescence > (SL) papers as cold fusion, plasma fusion or in a new category. . . . I > think this issue will become clearer after additional research clarifies > two things: > > 1. The presence or absence of macroscopic excess heat. . . ." > > Some people have suggested the distinction would depend upon the operating > temperature of the reaction. Perhaps this is literally true; a plasma > fusion reaction is certainly occurring if temperatures are in the bubble > reach millions of degrees. However, I do not think this would be a good > criterion to distinguish between hot and cold fusion, for two reasons: > > First, the experts do not know what maximum temperature is reached when > bubbles collapse. This may take years to determine. Some dogmatic experts > are already saying that Taleyarkhan must be wrong because they think the > bubble temperature is much too cool. As usual, they would put theory ahead > of experimental evidence, and the cart before the horse. > > Second, I gather that some theorists think that cold fusion reactions take > place on such a small-scale -- atom by atom as it were -- temperature is > not a meaningful concept. The individual atom undergoing the cold fusion > reaction might be as excited as the atoms in solar or tokamak plasma > fusion, even though the average temperature of the sample is only 20 deg C. > I cannot address these theories, but if they turn out to be right then cold > fusion was hot all along. > > - Jed > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 15:33:44 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA25365; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:31:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:31:11 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:30:56 -0800 Subject: The Anti-Sonofusion Attack - Why? From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA25284 Resent-Message-ID: <"31S2p.0.4C6.-W_Xy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46498 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Anti-Sonofusion Attack - Why? by Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine www.infinite-energy.com March 7, 2002 Science magazine's publication of the Taleyarkhan et al paper, "Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation² and associated commentary in its March 8, 2002 issue has provoked unusual criticism and controversy ‹ even before the actual appearance of the article. It is reminiscent of what followed after the March 23, 1989 announcement of cold fusion by Fleischmann and Pons at the University of Utah. Actually, after the Utah announcement there was a relatively polite ³grace period² of a few weeks (at least in most public pronouncements), before the behind-the-scenes rabid critics came out with guns blazing and accused Fleischmann and Pons of incompetence and/or fraud‹a stigma which has lasted almost 13 years. There has been no grace period this time, even though the subject of the Science paper makes no claims of cold fusion. The authors discuss their evidence for neutron emissions and tritium elevation above background in the context of D + D hot fusion occurring at elevated temperature within the collapsing cavitation bubbles. The vehemence of the attack on this table-top fusion claim has surprised many people, including some in the cold fusion field, who wonder ³what all the fuss is about.² After all, why should a new potential HOT fusion method be criticized? As a long-time participant in the cold fusion war, let me suggest some of the ³whys² for the vicious attacks that have already occurred this month. These are not necessarily in order of their relative importance in the current furor; there is surely much overlap and interaction among them: € The similarities to cold fusion: This has to be a very big factor. The current ³Science-sonofusion² (to distinguish it from other sonofusion efforts, especially in the cold fusion community) is ³table-top² in size, was done in a deuterated liquid (acetone, not heavywater), and is of relatively modest expense‹ just like cold fusion; the Science-sonofusion is being purveyed mainly by nuclear engineers, not plasma physicists (cold fusion was prompted by chemists, not physicists), and thus outsiders to the hot fusion/physics community; there is evidence of neutron emission and tritium ‹ the early and continuing claims in cold fusion. Because of these similarities, the critics‹ who were part of the anti-cold fusion camp already‹ feared and will continue to fear a possible new openness to classical cold fusion by the media and from funding sources. In the general confusion of the recent events, this possible confusion of Science-sonofusion with cold fusion (has already occurred (e.g. the headline in the UK Sunday Times of 3/3/02). It may not actually be a confusion; coherent cold fusion-like processes may be at work in Science-sonofusion, at least in part. After all, the process is occurring in the environment of sonoluminescence, which was a mysterious process to begin with. There is no generally accepted explanation for the light emission and coherent processes have been implicated in SL. The late Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, a cold fusion theorist, had suggested similarities between cold fusion and sonoluminescence in ³A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence.² [a lecture at MIT, November 11, 1991; reprinted in Infinite Energy, March-April 1999.] € Impact on hot fusion funding: There is nothing worse for the hot fusioneers ‹ the ³tokamak Maffia²‹ than any suggestion that alternative paths to fusion energy might reasonably be considered. Alternative paths, such as cold fusion or Science-sonofusion, might mean losing some hot fusion funding to the alternative modes ­ or a cancellation of hot fusion projects generally. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year in hot fusion funding are at stake. Furthermore, in the immediate time period, the hot fusioneers have been orchestrating to get the U.S. back into the multi-billion dollar ITER hot fusion project. Many stories have recently appeared on that budget matter. This news about sonofusion in a very prestigious publication, Science, is the last thing the hot fusioneers wanted anyone to hear about at this time. If nothing else, it pushes the ITER funding story to the backburner. € Intellectual arrogance of physicists ­ NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome: Cavitation bubbles, sonoluminescence, postulated very high temperatures in these collapsing bubbles, and even the possibility of fusion occurring in cavitation bubbles has been around since at least the early 1990s. Therefore, the physicists who are attacking Science-sonofusion, must have given this possibility some thought, and even some testing from time to time. They evidently concluded that it was not a feasible process ­ on theoretical or experimental grounds ­ and now someone comes along to tell them that there is a way to make it work! This is a challenge to their vaunted intellects ­ as it was in 1989. ³Why didn¹t we think of that? Wait, it¹s got to be a stupid/invalid idea because we didn¹t think of how to do it! Now let¹s prove that it is wrong and can¹t be real. We¹ll be heroes!² € Suspicions of ³Pathological Science²: The scientific community has been conditioned by the likes of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and the bashing of cold fusion to look at any very surprising results in terms of the possibility that the new claim is ³pathological science²‹ what they believe cold fusion to be. They thus fear a new outbreak of this alleged disease and are eager to kill the virus before it spreads to far. € The Cheerleader Effect: The scientific establishment has its boosters, spokesmen, and cheerleaders. Unfortunately for the APS, it has one of the biggest and most ignorant mouths in science on its web page ‹ pseudoscientist Robert Park with his weekly ³What¹s New² column. So intent was Park to valiantly lead the troops against the Science-sonofusion claim, that he jumped the gun on the March 7th embargo and on March 1 revealed the emerging story and the behind-the-scenes attempt to kill the story. Park both follows and leads. He gathers faulty information from sources, like the late Douglas Morrison ‹ or the hot fusion people in this instance, and then spreads it around. Park¹s groupies then use this as a signal to move in for the kill against the offending new idea. Journalists are especially susceptible to this. One monkey sees Park spouting off in outlet A and soon outlet B many other outlets have other physicist monkeys chiming in. € Fear of Errors and Mistakes: Closely related to the crackpot idea of ³pathological science² as a major ailment of science that must be guarded against at all costs, is the creeping notion that it is not OK to make errors in science. There is some kind of imagined ³contest² going on to make sure that no scientific paper published by Science or Nature is wrong in some fundamental way. This, of course, is completely against the spirit of true science. The history of science is permeated by errors that have taught us how to move forward in the right direction. Furthermore, many revolutionary concepts that were initially roundly criticized as error, later became acknowledged as true. Still, the message of this history is not getting through to the general community and there is a palpable fear of publishing something that might be wrong ‹ and thus open to attack by science-bigot cheerleaders like Park. € Peer Review = Sneer Review: The fact that this paper was almost killed by its opponents, and even after it came out is being attacked for its very existence, should be a good case study for the scientific community that its so-called ³peer-review² system has completely broken down ­ if it ever had been a truly legitimate process. ³Peer review² today accomplishes two things: A. It fixes many minor and/or major mistakes in articles in an accepted field of study (and that part is to the good) and B. It completely weeds out topics that are forbidden, e.g. cold fusion, while allowing such ³acceptable² discussions as how to create baby universes and whether the universe has 10 or 26 dimensions. € Fear of Loss of Reputation: Much is at stake today in the scientific community in being always right with such opinions as ³cold fusion is nonsense,² ³homeopathy can¹t work,² ³all UFO reports are bogus,² etc. Thus, as soon as any purported evidence comes to light that hints directly or indirectly that the purveyors of CSICOP-like myths might be in for a big pie-in-the-face (or crow-eating), out go the defensive statements to the press. The most ludicrous one so far in this Science-sonofusion affair is from cold fusion-basher Gary Taubes: ³If history is any indication, just the existence of this kind of brouhaha and the criticism from very competent experts is good evidence that the results are just dead wrong. And, if it¹s dead wrong, then Science probably shouldn¹t have decided to publish it.²(USA Today, 3/5/02) € ³Good Scientists² Proved It Wrong Already: As soon as the Chief Cheerleader put out the notion that ³good physicists with much better equipment² can¹t seem to find the claimed Science-sonofusion effect, this is taken as encouraging news to the attacking troops. More groups form to perform hatchet jobs and receive new honors for helping to slay ³pathological science.² Never mind that the first group of ³good scientists² did not measure tritium! € Fear of ³Free Energy²: This is the basic reason that all laboratory claims of a new kind of robust energy that could have a vanishingly small ³fuel² cost, or actually zero fuel cost, face an uphill battle. The idea that energy could become free is as alien a concept as the notion in the 15th century that celestial lights might be other worlds. Anything that touches the idea of free energy is rejected by society at an extremely primitive level. There is a subconscious understanding by everyone of what free energy would mean, even if it hasn¹t been thought out carefully by each individual. The average mind recoils from it; it is too unsettling. People who want business as usual aren¹t interested in hearing that their world could turn upside down and be unrecognizable. ³It¹s too good to be true, therefore it can¹t be true.² That¹s all for now. Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 15:39:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA29665; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:39:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:39:00 -0800 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:47:03 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: "Eugene F. Mallove" cc: "vortex l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: The Anti-Sonofusion Attack - Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA29614 Resent-Message-ID: <"i0-dy1.0.LF7.Je_Xy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46499 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The primary points of the pseudo replication paper involve the use of discrimination and selective manipulation of the detectors. It is not a replication for this reason alone.... and to put the icing on the cake ther is a 3 cm barrier of "cold pack" between the experiment and the detector which is NOT defined and is NOT in the original paper's experiment Beside which this is a hbrid experiment.... the original, and the term sonofusion is misleading... No need to compound errors. On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > > The Anti-Sonofusion Attack - Why? > > by Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine > www.infinite-energy.com March 7, 2002 > > Science magazine's publication of the Taleyarkhan et al paper, "Evidence > for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation² and associated commentary > in its March 8, 2002 issue has provoked unusual criticism and controversy ‹ > even before the actual appearance of the article. It is reminiscent of what > followed after the March 23, 1989 announcement of cold fusion by Fleischmann > and Pons at the University of Utah. Actually, after the Utah announcement > there was a relatively polite ³grace period² of a few weeks (at least in > most public pronouncements), before the behind-the-scenes rabid critics came > out with guns blazing and accused Fleischmann and Pons of incompetence > and/or fraud‹a stigma which has lasted almost 13 years. > > There has been no grace period this time, even though the subject of the > Science paper makes no claims of cold fusion. The authors discuss their > evidence for neutron emissions and tritium elevation above background in the > context of D + D hot fusion occurring at elevated temperature within the > collapsing cavitation bubbles. The vehemence of the attack on this > table-top fusion claim has surprised many people, including some in the cold > fusion field, who wonder ³what all the fuss is about.² After all, why should > a new potential HOT fusion method be criticized? As a long-time participant > in the cold fusion war, let me suggest some of the ³whys² for the vicious > attacks that have already occurred this month. These are not necessarily in > order of their relative importance in the current furor; there is surely > much overlap and interaction among them: > > € The similarities to cold fusion: > This has to be a very big factor. The current ³Science-sonofusion² (to > distinguish it from other sonofusion efforts, especially in the cold fusion > community) is ³table-top² in size, was done in a deuterated liquid > (acetone, not heavywater), and is of relatively modest expense‹ just like > cold fusion; the Science-sonofusion is being purveyed mainly by nuclear > engineers, not plasma physicists (cold fusion was prompted by chemists, not > physicists), and thus outsiders to the hot fusion/physics community; there > is evidence of neutron emission and tritium ‹ the early and continuing > claims in cold fusion. Because of these similarities, the critics‹ who were > part of the anti-cold fusion camp already‹ feared and will continue to fear > a possible new openness to classical cold fusion by the media and from > funding sources. In the general confusion of the recent events, this > possible confusion of Science-sonofusion with cold fusion (has already > occurred (e.g. the headline in the UK Sunday Times of 3/3/02). It may not > actually be a confusion; coherent cold fusion-like processes may be at work > in Science-sonofusion, at least in part. After all, the process is occurring > in the environment of sonoluminescence, which was a mysterious process to > begin with. There is no generally accepted explanation for the light > emission and coherent processes have been implicated in SL. The late Nobel > laureate Julian Schwinger, a cold fusion theorist, had suggested > similarities between cold fusion and sonoluminescence in ³A Progress Report: > Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence.² [a lecture at MIT, > November 11, 1991; reprinted in Infinite Energy, March-April 1999.] > > € Impact on hot fusion funding: > There is nothing worse for the hot fusioneers ‹ the ³tokamak Maffia²‹ than > any suggestion that alternative paths to fusion energy might reasonably be > considered. Alternative paths, such as cold fusion or Science-sonofusion, > might mean losing some hot fusion funding to the alternative modes ­ or a > cancellation of hot fusion projects generally. Hundreds of millions of > dollars per year in hot fusion funding are at stake. Furthermore, in the > immediate time period, the hot fusioneers have been orchestrating to get the > U.S. back into the multi-billion dollar ITER hot fusion project. Many > stories have recently appeared on that budget matter. This news about > sonofusion in a very prestigious publication, Science, is the last thing the > hot fusioneers wanted anyone to hear about at this time. If nothing else, > it pushes the ITER funding story to the backburner. > > € Intellectual arrogance of physicists ­ NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome: > Cavitation bubbles, sonoluminescence, postulated very high temperatures in > these collapsing bubbles, and even the possibility of fusion occurring in > cavitation bubbles has been around since at least the early 1990s. > Therefore, the physicists who are attacking Science-sonofusion, must have > given this possibility some thought, and even some testing from time to > time. They evidently concluded that it was not a feasible process ­ on > theoretical or experimental grounds ­ and now someone comes along to tell > them that there is a way to make it work! This is a challenge to their > vaunted intellects ­ as it was in 1989. ³Why didn¹t we think of that? Wait, > it¹s got to be a stupid/invalid idea because we didn¹t think of how to do > it! Now let¹s prove that it is wrong and can¹t be real. We¹ll be heroes!² > > € Suspicions of ³Pathological Science²: > The scientific community has been conditioned by the likes of CSICOP > (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and > the bashing of cold fusion to look at any very surprising results in terms > of the possibility that the new claim is ³pathological science²‹ what they > believe cold fusion to be. They thus fear a new outbreak of this alleged > disease and are eager to kill the virus before it spreads to far. > > € The Cheerleader Effect: > The scientific establishment has its boosters, spokesmen, and cheerleaders. > Unfortunately for the APS, it has one of the biggest and most ignorant > mouths in science on its web page ‹ pseudoscientist Robert Park with his > weekly ³What¹s New² column. So intent was Park to valiantly lead the troops > against the Science-sonofusion claim, that he jumped the gun on the March > 7th embargo and on March 1 revealed the emerging story and the > behind-the-scenes attempt to kill the story. Park both follows and leads. > He gathers faulty information from sources, like the late Douglas Morrison ‹ > or the hot fusion people in this instance, and then spreads it around. > Park¹s groupies then use this as a signal to move in for the kill against > the offending new idea. Journalists are especially susceptible to this. One > monkey sees Park spouting off in outlet A and soon outlet B many other > outlets have other physicist monkeys chiming in. > > € Fear of Errors and Mistakes: > Closely related to the crackpot idea of ³pathological science² as a major > ailment of science that must be guarded against at all costs, is the > creeping notion that it is not OK to make errors in science. There is some > kind of imagined ³contest² going on to make sure that no scientific paper > published by Science or Nature is wrong in some fundamental way. This, of > course, is completely against the spirit of true science. The history of > science is permeated by errors that have taught us how to move forward in > the right direction. Furthermore, many revolutionary concepts that were > initially roundly criticized as error, later became acknowledged as true. > Still, the message of this history is not getting through to the general > community and there is a palpable fear of publishing something that might be > wrong ‹ and thus open to attack by science-bigot cheerleaders like Park. > > € Peer Review = Sneer Review: > The fact that this paper was almost killed by its opponents, and even after > it came out is being attacked for its very existence, should be a good case > study for the scientific community that its so-called ³peer-review² system > has completely broken down ­ if it ever had been a truly legitimate > process. ³Peer review² today accomplishes two things: A. It fixes many minor > and/or major mistakes in articles in an accepted field of study (and that > part is to the good) and B. It completely weeds out topics that are > forbidden, e.g. cold fusion, while allowing such ³acceptable² discussions as > how to create baby universes and whether the universe has 10 or 26 > dimensions. > > € Fear of Loss of Reputation: > Much is at stake today in the scientific community in being always right > with such opinions as ³cold fusion is nonsense,² ³homeopathy can¹t work,² > ³all UFO reports are bogus,² etc. Thus, as soon as any purported evidence > comes to light that hints directly or indirectly that the purveyors of > CSICOP-like myths might be in for a big pie-in-the-face (or crow-eating), > out go the defensive statements to the press. The most ludicrous one so far > in this Science-sonofusion affair is from cold fusion-basher Gary Taubes: > ³If history is any indication, just the existence of this kind of brouhaha > and the criticism from very competent experts is good evidence that the > results are just dead wrong. And, if it¹s dead wrong, then Science probably > shouldn¹t have decided to publish it.²(USA Today, 3/5/02) > > € ³Good Scientists² Proved It Wrong Already: > As soon as the Chief Cheerleader put out the notion that ³good physicists > with much better equipment² can¹t seem to find the claimed > Science-sonofusion effect, this is taken as encouraging news to the > attacking troops. More groups form to perform hatchet jobs and receive new > honors for helping to slay ³pathological science.² Never mind that the > first group of ³good scientists² did not measure tritium! > > € Fear of ³Free Energy²: > This is the basic reason that all laboratory claims of a new kind of robust > energy that could have a vanishingly small ³fuel² cost, or actually zero > fuel cost, face an uphill battle. The idea that energy could become free is > as alien a concept as the notion in the 15th century that celestial lights > might be other worlds. Anything that touches the idea of free energy is > rejected by society at an extremely primitive level. There is a > subconscious understanding by everyone of what free energy would mean, even > if it hasn¹t been thought out carefully by each individual. The average > mind recoils from it; it is too unsettling. People who want business as > usual aren¹t interested in hearing that their world could turn upside down > and be unrecognizable. ³It¹s too good to be true, therefore it can¹t be > true.² > > That¹s all for now. > > > Dr. Eugene F. Mallove > Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine > Director, New Energy Research Laboratory > PO Box 2816 > Concord, NH 03302-2816 > editor infinite-energy.com > www.infinite-energy.com > Ph: 603-228-4516 > Fx: 603-224-5975 > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 16:15:07 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA16553; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:12:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:12:25 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:12:06 -0800 Subject: "Sanity, I submit, is not a canon of science. "=?ISO-8859-1?B?iw==?=Julian Schwinger, 1991, MIT From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id QAA16528 Resent-Message-ID: <"aWuJ-2.0.Y24.f70Yy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46500 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The late Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, a cold fusion theorist, had suggested similarities between cold fusion and sonoluminescence in ³A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence.² [a lecture at MIT, November 11, 1991; reprinted in Infinite Energy, March-April 1999.] Here is one of the eloquent things that he said in that article: "Well, to the extent that sanity implies conformity with the mores of a society -- didn't the Soviets clap their egregious dissidents into insane asylums? --sanity, I submit, is not a canon of science. Indeed, isn't it a goal of physics, specifically, to push at the frontiers of accepted theory through suitably designed experiments, not only to extend those frontiers, but, more importantly, to find fundamental flaws that demand new and revolutionary physics?" Good wishes, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Www.infinite-energy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 19:43:56 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA32143; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:41:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:41:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3C88260B.EBC75892 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:46:37 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: free energy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DWlXR.0.8s7.RB3Yy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46501 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is an interesting idea from the Daily University Science News for those of us who search for free energy. Microbes Turn Underwater Gunk Into Electric Energy Certain microorganisms known as Geobacters can transform organic matter commonly found at the bottom of the ocean into electrical energy. Aside from raising the possibility that microbes someday could be used to produce power in subsurface settings, the findings have implications for many industrial and military applications, according to Derek R. Lovley, UMass microbiologist and team leader of the study. The research by University of Massachusetts microbiologists is reported in today's issue of Science. An understanding of how microbes generate and use electrical energy may prompt the development of new technologies to decontaminate polluted water and sediment-containing organic materials, including petroleum and other aromatic hydrocarbons, Lovley says. In the Science article, he explains how the team used water and sediment from Boston Harbor, a collection of mason jars, ordinary electrical wiring and sterile graphite electrodes to determine the science behind the mechanics of a simple sediment battery. The researchers added a layer of common mud to water in the jars, then put one graphite electrode in the mud and another in the overlying water. The resulting electrical current was strong enough to activate a lightbulb, or a simple computer. "Even using a primitive electrode made from graphite," Lovely said, "it is possible to produce enough current to power basic electronic marine instruments." Through more refined experiments, Lovley’s group found that the family of energy-harvesting microorganisms commonly referred to as Geobacters, were key to the production of the electrical current. Most life forms, including humans, get their energy by oxidizing organic compounds with oxygen, but Geobacters can grow in environments lacking oxygen by using the iron naturally present in soil in place of oxygen. This new research demonstrates that Geobacters can also substitute an unnatural substance, such as an electrode, for the iron, according to Lovley. A large number of a Geobacter species known as Desulfuromonas acetoxidans (D. acetoxidans) were found on the anode end of the primitive batteries. When the researchers destroyed the D. acetoxidans in the sediment, the current stopped. "In the mud, a community of microorganisms cooperates to break down larger, more complex organic compounds to acetate. Geobacters then transfer the electrons from the acetate to the electrode, generating the electrical energy," he said. Lovley’s group also has found that some Geobacters can convert toxic organic compounds, such as toluene, to electricity. Lovley says this suggests that some Geobacters can be used to harvest energy from waste matter, or can be included in technology used to clean up subsurface environments contaminated by organic matter, especially petroleum. Earlier studies had shown bacteria could produce electricity under artificial conditions in which special chemicals were added, but the UMass study was the first to prove that the nearly ubiquitous microbes living in a typical marine environment could produce electricity under the conditions naturally found in that environment. "Once we know more about the genome of Geobacters, we will be able to manipulate these organisms to make them receptive to a variety of organic or inorganic contaminants. Theoretically, when they begin to degrade the contaminant, they will throw electrons on an electrode, and that could set off a light, a sound or some other form of signal," Lovely said. "An understanding of how this phenomenon operates has a number of extremely timely applications," he continued, "especially in developing technologies to recognize toxins and organic contaminants." Lovley cites, for example, the potential for using such technology to develop military equipment that could alert soldiers to the presence of toxins or biological warfare agents in the immediate environment. The Office of Naval Research funded this study. The research team included Daniel R. Bond and Dawn E. Holmes from UMass and Leonard M. Tender of the Naval Research Laboratories. [Contact: Derek Lovley, Paula Hartman Cohen] 18-Jan-2002 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 7 22:53:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA21230; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:49:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:49:05 -0800 Message-ID: <3C885EE6.AB0238E3 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:49:10 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: AAAS Annual Meeting] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------982289AAABFC70EE5283D54D" Resent-Message-ID: <"hEJeu1.0.aB5.Xx5Yy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46502 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --------------982289AAABFC70EE5283D54D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AAAS Annual Meeting Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:17:27 -0600 From: "Floyd Bloom" Reply-To: "AAAS Member Services" To: From: Floyd Bloom Scripps Research Institute, President, AAAS and Chair, 2003 AAAS Annual Meeting Program Committee Date: March 7, 2002 The 2002 AAAS Meeting in Boston this past month was an exhilarating success! The program presented an impressive array of speakers spanning the breadth of science. What struck me was that AAAS' reputation for assembling the best and brightest stars of science was coupled this year with an international vision…captured in the meeting's theme, "Science in a Connected World." We heard AAAS President Peter Raven (now Chair of the AAAS Board of Directors) present a compelling argument for the imperative to move to a sustainable world. He was followed the next evening by Ismail Serageldin, Director General of Egypt’s Library of Alexandria, and formerly Vice President of the World Bank, highlighting the role and responsibilities of science and technology to meet the needs of the world’s poorest citizens. Larry Smarr of UC San Diego and the Cal-(IT)2 project illustrated the many ways that emerging sensornet technology will connect all of us in the not-too-distant future. And Lila Gleitman, University of Pennsylvania, told us how "the language we speak…" affects "…the thoughts we think." Finally, we learned of the ingenuity and productivity of India's research establishment from Ragunath Mashelkar, Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. We also heard about Hungarian science and technology from that nation's Minister of Education, Jozsef Palinkas, and about science and democracy from Khotso Mokhele of South Africa's National Research Foundation. Special 2-day seminars on nanotechnology and genomics provided opportunity for the leading researchers and an overflow audience of several hundred to examine the progress in these rapidly evolving fields. Public Science Day, an outreach to hundreds of school children in the Greater Boston Area, began the meeting with events in Cambridge, at the Boston Museum of Science, and at the meeting itself. Nearly 800 young people attended a Science Career Fair, organized by Science magazine and the Science Careers web site, and met with more than 35 prospective employers. In addition, Career Development Workshops provided tools and skills for navigating the scientific job market. Also present was the largest and broadest representation of the global press that I have ever seen at a single meeting. More than 1,000 reporters from the U.S., UK (BBC), Australia, Japan, several European countries, and many other nations vied for the best stories and opportunities to interview researchers. We are now planning the 2003 meeting and are in the process of receiving and selecting symposia. I invite you to be a part of 2003 meeting by organizing a symposium that highlights the cutting-edge issues in your field. Our theme, "Science as a Way of Life," highlights the central role of science in today's society. You can see the preliminary themes and topics developed by the program committee at the 2003 Web page: www.aaasmeeting.org/MPE_12.shtml You will need to act soon, however. Proposals for symposia must be received this month. The official deadline for receipt of proposals is March 18, but we will include all received by Friday, March 29 in the first round of review. I, therefore, urge you to take time from your busy schedule to prepare a brief proposal. We seek proposals for 90-minute or 3-hour symposia in all areas of science. While special attention is afforded those of an interdisciplinary nature, all symposia are expected to showcase leading areas of science and technology. Instructions for submitting a proposal are at www.aaasmeeting.org/MPE_10.shtml. Proposals are peer reviewed and those selected for presentation at the 2003 meeting will be announced in early June, 2002. I invite you to join us in Denver for what will be yet another exciting experience. For additional details visit www.aaasmeeting.org. AAAS Meetings Office 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 326-6450 Fax: (202) 289-4021 American Association for the Advancement of Science ---- If you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from AAAS in the future, please reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line and your e-mail address in the body and we will remove your name from the list promptly. PLEASE NOTE: This will UNSUBSCRIBE you from ALL further email announcements sent from AAAS, including announcements of new member benefits, discounts, or meetings of interest. This message was sent to AKI IX.NETCOM.COM. If you wish to change your email address, please log in to AAASMember.org and click on "Online Member Services." --------------982289AAABFC70EE5283D54D Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  AAAS Annual Meeting
Date:  Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:17:27 -0600
From:  "Floyd Bloom" <memuser aaas.org>
Reply-To:  "AAAS Member Services" <memuser aaas.org>
To:  <AKI IX.NETCOM.COM>

 

From: Floyd Bloom

Scripps Research Institute,

President, AAAS and

Chair, 2003 AAAS Annual Meeting Program Committee

Date: March 7, 2002

The 2002 AAAS Meeting in Boston this past month was an exhilarating success! The program presented an impressive array of speakers spanning the breadth of science. What struck me was that AAAS' reputation for assembling the best and brightest stars of science was coupled this year with an international vision…captured in the meeting's theme, "Science in a Connected World."

We heard AAAS President Peter Raven (now Chair of the AAAS Board of Directors) present a compelling argument for the imperative to move to a sustainable world. He was followed the next evening by Ismail Serageldin, Director General of Egypt’s Library of Alexandria, and formerly Vice President of the World Bank, highlighting the role and responsibilities of science and technology to meet the needs of the world’s poorest citizens. Larry Smarr of UC San Diego and the Cal-(IT)2 project illustrated the many ways that emerging sensornet technology will connect all of us in the not-too-distant future. And Lila Gleitman, University of Pennsylvania, told us how "the language we speak…" affects "…the thoughts we think." Finally, we learned of the ingenuity and productivity of India's research establishment from Ragunath Mashelkar, Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. We also heard about Hungarian science and technology from that nation's Minister of Education, Jozsef Palinkas, and about science and democracy from Khotso Mokhele of South Africa's National Research Foundation.

Special 2-day seminars on nanotechnology and genomics provided opportunity for the leading researchers and an overflow audience of several hundred to examine the progress in these rapidly evolving fields.

Public Science Day, an outreach to hundreds of school children in the Greater Boston Area, began the meeting with events in Cambridge, at the Boston Museum of Science, and at the meeting itself.

Nearly 800 young people attended a Science Career Fair, organized by Science magazine and the Science Careers web site, and met with more than 35 prospective employers. In addition, Career Development Workshops provided tools and skills for navigating the scientific job market.

Also present was the largest and broadest representation of the global press that I have ever seen at a single meeting. More than 1,000 reporters from the U.S., UK (BBC), Australia, Japan, several European countries, and many other nations vied for the best stories and opportunities to interview researchers.

We are now planning the 2003 meeting and are in the process of receiving and selecting symposia. I invite you to be a part of 2003 meeting by organizing a symposium that highlights the cutting-edge issues in your field. Our theme, "Science as a Way of Life," highlights the central role of science in today's society. You can see the preliminary themes and topics developed by the program committee at the 2003 Web page: www.aaasmeeting.org/MPE_12.shtml

You will need to act soon, however. Proposals for symposia must be received this month. The official deadline for receipt of proposals is March 18, but we will include all received by Friday, March 29 in the first round of review. I, therefore, urge you to take time from your busy schedule to prepare a brief proposal. We seek proposals for 90-minute or 3-hour symposia in all areas of science. While special attention is afforded those of an interdisciplinary nature, all symposia are expected to showcase leading areas of science and technology.

Instructions for submitting a proposal are at www.aaasmeeting.org/MPE_10.shtml.

Proposals are peer reviewed and those selected for presentation at the 2003 meeting will be announced in early June, 2002.

I invite you to join us in Denver for what will be yet another exciting experience.

For additional details visit www.aaasmeeting.org.

AAAS Meetings Office

1200 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 326-6450

Fax: (202) 289-4021

American Association for the Advancement of Science
----
If you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from AAAS in the future, please reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line and your e-mail address in the body and we will remove your name from the list promptly. PLEASE NOTE: This will UNSUBSCRIBE you from ALL further email announcements sent from AAAS, including announcements of new member benefits, discounts, or meetings of interest.

This message was sent to AKI IX.NETCOM.COM.

If you wish to change your email address, please log in to AAASMember.org and click on "Online Member Services." --------------982289AAABFC70EE5283D54D-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 08:46:50 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04229; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:44:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:44:03 -0800 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:52:09 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Society of Cassiodorus cc: Vortex Subject: Re: [Existence] Re: color temperature In-Reply-To: <20020308004722.38176.qmail web11207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA04186 Resent-Message-ID: <"714uJ.0.u11.IfEYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46503 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Where does the sight occur? Where does hearing occur? These are serious questions, I have a strong background in multidisciplinary fields including but in no manner limited to: molecular, micro, functional, and physics of biology chemical physics sensors and systems And I have spent over a decade studying the huamn system and one idea of a 'transfer system' of or for the brain at Armstrong Aerospace med Labs, WPAFB. Is the retina an extension of the brain? Where do the ear structures perform their 'FFT" so-to-say? I am and will probably be until I am no longer able, looking to couple to the human system to return the gift of sight and speech and hearing. JHS On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Society of Cassiodorus wrote: > Greetings to all. What a privledge it is to converse > with this noble group. > > It a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to > hear it - does it make a sound? Oh to be sure, all the > mechanical vibrations in the air and other mediums > will occure - but sound is not mechanical vibrations. > Sound is preception (not vibrations per se). > Preception occures only in a mind. > > When a stellar object (or a light bulb) is turned on, > and no one is there to see it, does it make light? Oh > to be sure, all the electromagnetic vibrations will > occure, but light is a preception (not vibrations per > se). Preception occures only in a mind. > > Sincerely, > Dr. John Kuefel > > ***************************************************** > --- dekasges aol.com wrote: > > Thema:Re: Re: [Existence] Re: color temperature > > Datum:02.03.02 02:31:56 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit > > From: a.mil chello.nl (Minerva) > > Reply-to: Existence yahoogroups.com > > To: Existence yahoogroups.com > > > > > Not at all! The medium light travels trough and > > the observation of that > > > travel are quite different things! Light travels > > from sun to moon, no > > > matter, if you look at it or not. > > > > > > Why do you put everything, that seems to be > > strange to you, into a > > > subjectivistic corner? > > > > > > Peter > > > > ==== We can't see that light travels from sun to > > moon, the only light we see > > is the light we DETECT (by our eyes or by machines). > > So how would we know if > > there is always light travelling to the moon from > > the sun? We don't know... > > we only assume since that seems to make most sense > > to us.. > > Even the light detected by machines is ultimately > > detected by us. If not, the > > measurement wouldn't be a measurement since never > > anyone would see the > > outcome. I recognize the > > same manner of thinking I had in the past. It seems > > very plausible that we > > can see "all light", however this is absolutely not > > true. You can't see a ray > > of sunlight, unless that ray passes into your eye, > > directly or indirectly. > > > > Cheers Albert > > > > I agree, that most events we believe, because it > > makes sense to us. But the > > main point is, that the light travels to the moon > > independent of, whether > > somebody sees it or assumes that. - Perhaps, you > > would return to a more > > practical point of view when returning to your > > previous occupation (which is > > similar to mine). > > > > Best wishes! Peter > > > > > >> Thema:Re: Re: [Existence] Re: color temperature > > > > >> Datum:26.02.02 12:30:11 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische > > Zeit > > >> From: a.mil chello.nl (Minerva) > > >> Reply-to: Existence yahoogroups.com > > >> To: Existence yahoogroups.com > > >> > > >> > Van: "Anna" > > >> > Datum: 2002/02/26 di AM 12:18:55 GMT+01:00 > > >> > Aan: , > > >> > "Anna" > > >> > cc:: > > >> > Onderwerp: Re: [Existence] Re: color > > temperature > > >> > > > >> > Then obviously they can and they do depending > > on a medium they travel > > >> through. > > >> > Such *slowdowns* can happen all the way to > > the observer's eye. > > >> > Seems nothing we see is real and we indeed > > live in a matrix. > > >> > Anna > > >> > > >> === Hi Anna, > > >> > > >> yes indeed! :) > > >> The only reality you see/feel is the reality just > > outside your body, you > > >> don't see what's happening ten meters further up, > > you see what happens at > > >> your body position. > > >> You can also look at your body (your feet), are > > they real?? > > >> You think so, but is that true?? You can look in > > a mirror, but is that > > >> image real? etc, etc.... > > >> > > >> Albert > > >> > > > > > > Not at all! The medium light travels trough and > > the observation of that > > > travel are quite different things! Light travels > > from sun to moon, no > > > matter, if you look at it or not. > > > > > > Why do you put everything, that seems to be > > strange to you, into a > > > subjectivistic corner? > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > >> Then obviously they can and they do depending > > on a medium they travel > > >> through. > > >> Such *slowdowns* can happen all the way to the > > observer's eye. > > >> Seems nothing we see is real and we indeed live > > in a matrix. > > >> Anna > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> > > >> >>> From: > HREF="mailto:herman antioch-college.edu">John > > Schnurer > > >>> To: > HREF="mailto:pantheon ix.netcome.com">Anna > > >>> Cc: > > HREF="mailto:Existence yahoogroups.com">Existence@yahoogroups.com > > > > >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:03 PM > > >>> Subject: [Existence] Re: color temperature > > >>> > > >>> This is EM, electromagnetic radiation ... > > like light. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Anna wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > < the hotter it gets, > > >>> > > the shorter the wavelength..... THIS is the > > color temperature> > > >>> > > > >>> > Can these waves as they travel cool down and > > lengthen? > > >>> > Anna > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- > > >>> > From: "John Schnurer" < > > HREF="mailto:herman antioch-college.edu">herman@antioch-college.edu> > > > > >>> > To: < > > HREF="mailto:Existence yahoogroups.com">Existence@yahoogroups.com> > > > > >>> > Cc: "Anna" < > > HREF="mailto:pantheon ix.netcom.com">pantheon@ix.netcom.com> > > > > >>> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:16 PM > > >>> > Subject: color temperature > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > A perfect radiation source is also a perfect > > absorber. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > SO: when you want to build emission sources > > they are black.... > > >>> > > > > >>> > > As you HEAT this... it begins to > > radiate..... the hotter it gets, > > >>> > > the shorter the wavelength..... THIS is the > > color temperature. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > What you'alls talkin' about is bits and > > pieces of different WAYS > > >>> > > to make BB radiation sources.... > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Hit the encylopedias of sciences to get the > > full pictures here > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Read.... absorb....write > > >>> > > > > >>> > > VS > > >>> > > > > >>> > > guess......write > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Access Your PC from Anywhere > It's Easy. It's Fast. - Free Download > http://us.click.yahoo.com/AxtVhB/6XkDAA/_ZuFAA/fCsqlB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > Post message: Existence yahoogroups.com > Subscribe: Existence-subscribe yahoogroups.com > Unsubscribe: Existence-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com > Moderators: Existence-owner yahoogroups.com > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 10:26:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA24054; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:24:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:24:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:23:12 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306164935.04ef77e0 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"TM4cp3.0.at5.G7GYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46504 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Jed Rothwell wrote: > OK, I read this paper two or three times, and I read the debate between > Taleyarkhan and Shapira & Saltmarsh, which accuses them of "truly > unfortunate and very unprofessional" behavior. Can someone explain to me > what is controversial about these results? As far as I can tell the > hypothesis proposed by the authors is that conventional plasma fusion is > occurring on a microscopic scale. It only works at 0 deg C. It does not > sound like a threat to ITER. It is premature to speculate what physics is involved in sonofusion. All the experiment shows is that fusion occurs. > Is Taleyarkhan seeing an unbalanced, excess amount of tritium, such as cold > fusion produces? It seems that would be difficult to establish, because > tritium is easy to detect, but neutrons are hard. Since the other branchs are not indicated, one cannot speculate on what the branching ratios are for this reaction. > Robert Park is upset because all discoveries upset him. Maybe I am missing > something . . . But why are other people upset? They say they are worried about appearing foolish in the eyes of the unwashed masses. It is not a rational concern. > The editor said this paper > caused quite a commotion. Perhaps it is not widely known -- or accepted -- > that sonoluminescence causes extreme pressure. The experiments I've read about do not show extreme pressure and temperature. Extreme pressure and temperature are speculated as the cause of the fusion observed. That is logically inconsistant. IF there is extreme temperature and pressure, then fusion. But it is not true that if fusion, then extreme temperature and pressure. This last logical error seems to be one of the errors made by Parks and the AIP. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 10:30:30 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA25601; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:27:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:27:44 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:26:40 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306173316.04ed46d8 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"qqsja3.0.tF6.VAGYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46505 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >If you extrapolate that graph, 10^8 should be > >achieveable before you reach the freeze point of acetone. THAT > >should scare ITER proponents. Of course, it is pure conjecture > >to extrapolate beyond the data. > > Yes, but as you said Terry, this would make a lousy heat engine. Maybe they > are hoping to harvest the neutrons externally with a lithium blanket? That > is what the hot fusion people want to do, I think. As someone remarked > years ago, neutrons are a very inconvenient source of energy. > > Maybe the ITER lobby is afraid someone will find some other fluid that > works at higher temperatures. This is a physics experiment that demonstrates a new effect. There isn't even enough info to form a good theory as to what is happening yet, engineering for power reactors is way premature, and clearly isn't the intent of the experiment. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 11:55:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA08552; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:51:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:51:47 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:52:06 -0800 Subject: Dr. Scott Chubb Statement About Bubble Fusion From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3098443926_1274930" Resent-Message-ID: <"pn74p2.0.Y52.JPHYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46506 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3098443926_1274930 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable All, The statement below sent to me by Dr. Scott Chubb suggests that there is much more to the science of bubble fusion than most commentators on the Science articles are discussing. Sincerely, Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. Www.infinite-energy.com * Statement About Science Magazine Bubble Fusion Papers Dr. Scott R. Chubb, Research Systems, Inc, 9822 Pebble Weigh Ct., Burke, VA 22015-3378 Donald Kennedy (DK)[1] is to be congratulated for deciding to publish and profile[1-3] the article by Taleyarkhan et al [4] in the 8 March issue of Science magazine. Faced with controversial opinions[1], he decided to publish a controversial article as well as commentaries[2-3] about it, despite harsh criticism[3,5].. Charles Seife[3] should also be congratulated for presenting background material concerning the relevant facts about both sides of a potentially spectacular scientific discovery, involving room, or near-room temperature Nuclear Fusion. It is unfortunate (but understandable) that Charles Seife missed a number of key points, about the underlying dynamic of the debate. Part of the problem is sociological: Chemists and Nuclear Engineers view the world differently from Nuclear Physicists. Part of the problem is more basic. Nuclear Physicists have ignored important effects (with good reason, until 1989) involving potentially non-local effects associate with electromagnetism (EM) in most applications of nuclear physics . The proble= m is that non-local EM effects can make a big difference in the way nuclear fusion begins and ends, provided an appropriately constructed procedure is developed. =20 Nobelauriate Julian Schwinger=B9s view[6] of the situation provides an instructive lesson. The father of the Rarita-Schwinger equation, which is used to describe the underlying building blocks (Deuterons D) of nuclear fusion, as well as of quantum electrodynamics, which provides the basic framework for most theories of interaction, Julian Schwinger recognized tha= t coherence, driven through electromagnetic (EM) effects, could significantly alter the possible ways that nuclear fusion could occur. Thus, implicitly, throughout, he made the point that EM potentially can couple disparately different length scales, and for this reason he replaced the use of intuitive ideas about localization in certain circumstances with more precisely-understood ideas associated with coherence. These can lead to non-local (more wave-like) features (for example, in the Mossbauer effect) that are implicit in the EM interaction [6], in which momentum is shared by many locations (as in a Bose Einstein Condensate or in the behavior of a periodically ordered solid) instantly. However, although he pointed this out, up front, no one listened. Part of the problem is that implicit in this view is the idea that phenomena can become non-local in nature. Although this is known to occur in solids, Nuclear Physicists for the most part have not been prepared to accept the possibility that it can occur in nuclear fusion, despite the fact that implicitly the fact that it can occur is already known.. Part of the problem appears to be the result of a breakdown in communication. Since the 1930's, after Chemists discovered a cornerstone o= f Nuclear Physics (Nuclear Fission), a gradual decline in communication between Chemists and Nuclear Physicists has taken place. An important reason for this involves length-scale: Nuclear reactions appear to only occur when isolated particles collide at a particular location where particles are separated from each other by distances that are as much as 100000 times shorter than when they interact in normal chemical reactions. Thus, Chemists and Nuclear Physicists have assumed they are dealing with such completely different phenomena that they have believed that what they study can not be possibly related. The key point of confusion has involved the role of EM in nuclear fusion (NF). Most Nuclear Physicists believe NF occurs when EM alters reactions through particle-particle collisions at isolated locations, through =B3tunnelling=B2 effects, associated with a simplified picture of the EM interaction. For this reason, Nuclear Physicists ignore more subtle, potentially, longer-range effects that can be triggered in dynamically changing environments, which very easily can be present in solids (as in th= e case of Cold Fusion) or in cavitating bubbles (as in Bubble Fusion). In both situations, as Schwinger pointed out[6], coherent forms of interaction involving EM can occur. For this reason many of the intuitive ideas that Nuclear Physicists have about NF need not be valid. An important question associated with both Cold Fusion (CF) and Bubble Fusion (BF)[4] is whether or not the assumption that it is necessary for comparable numbers of tritons Nt and neutrons Nn be produced. Provided non-local EM interaction only occur over sufficiently long length scales, through processes that proceed sufficiently slowly, the effect of EM can be treated statically, and its effect on the nuclear interaction through dynamical forms of coupling can be ignored. Then, it is true, effectively, with respect to the nuclear reaction, the effect of the EM interaction on the make up of the final state becomes inconsequential, and Nt =3D Nn. But in the BF work[4], Nt is at least an order of magnitude greater than Nn [4], and it could be as much as two orders of magnitude greater. In fact, in Cold Fusion, not only is the disparity between Nt and Nn significantly greater, the reason for the disparity is well-understood[7]. It occurs because for this case, the dominant reaction, D+D->4He, involves non-local EM coupling[8]. For this reason the amounts of neutrons or tritons that ar= e produced usually are statistically insignificant, although both experimenta= l evidence and theoretical explanations exist for understanding how cold (i.e= . low energy) tritons can be produced. In fact, in more general terms, when non-local EM effects become important, the normal assumptions about NF (such as the requirement that interacting D=B9s have high enough kinetic energy to circumvent the Coulomb barrier) need not apply. In particular, for example, for D+D fusion to result in the production of 4He, each of the interacting D=B9s must be indistinguishable from the other on length scales associated with conventional EM interaction[8]. Because at high incident energy and momentum, this condition is rarely met, 4He is rarely produced in NF. However, at lower values of the incident momentum, not only do the underlying features associated with our understanding of conventional D+D->4He at higher momentum require that this symmetry be present, the fact that the dominant excess heat reaction in electrolytic CF occurs in this manner implies that this requirement is being satisfied when the incident D=B9s have lower momentum.. An important point of confusion is that although D+D->4He occurs relatively infrequently, the reason for this is that this particular reaction involves significant coupling between the nuclear and EM forces. Because in single-bubble cavitation, an acoustical field can be used to produce precisely tuned, time-varying EM radiation[6], it is plausible that the coupling between the boundaries of the bubble and its potentially interacting D=B9s may also result in significant EM coupling, in a dynamically-driven fashion . Especially at close separation, when 2 D-nuclei begin to overlap, it is possible to view the 2D state as an excited state of a 4He nucleus. Then, significant coupling to a dynamically changing EM field (as pointed out by Schwinger[6]) can occur. This suggests that since in the experiment[4], fast (~14.1 MeV) neutrons (n's) are introduced to foster bubble growth, it is entirely possible that on occasion particular n=B9s collide with a 2D initial state configuration that resembles a 4He nucleus. If this happens, provided this excited state nucleus effectively recoils in an appropriate manner, it may be possible to create a reverse D-t fusion reaction, in whic= h -4He+n-> D+t. In this way, one can see how effects that are well-known can be used to explain the potentially anomalously high ratio of tritons to neutrons. =20 An important point is that regardless of whether or not the details associated with this argument are correct, the possibility that the reactio= n could occur is associated with potentially significant coupling with the EM field. Over the years, in CF it has also been found that the EM field not only can couple to potentially interacting D=B9s but that it can do so in a coherent fashion, without high energy particles being released. Thus, the fact that Nt does not equal Nn in Bubble Fusion may be related to the fact that the dominant reaction in Cold Fusion involves the production of 4He. With hindsight, it=B9s obvious that confusion about potential effects associated with coherent coupling to the EM field could lead to situations in which high energy particles would be inhibited, in CF. It is also obvious that because of the highly non-linear coupling to the EM field that occurs in many of the electrolytic experiments, under certain circumstances the process of triggering the associated forms of interaction can be closel= y associated with changes in the local environment in the electrodes. This led to considerable confusion in 1989. Additional confusion resulted because at that time most Nuclear Physicists adopted the conventional view of the potential role of EM, and the impossibility of coherence and related factors altering the relevant forms of reaction. Further compounding this confusion was the fact that Cold Fusion claims wer= e made simultaneously by Chemists (Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons), followed by counter-claims by Nuclear Physicists (Steven Jones and coworkers), involving very different phenomena. A second, key source of confusion was the assumption that the claims were related when they were not. Thus, at an early stage, as a consequence, the dynamic of the debate (or lack of debate) rapidly became unscientific. A tragic aspect of the episode is that new vehicles for communication (the internet and FAX machines), as well as the Press also became involved. As = a consequence, unprecedented confusion about the various claims escalated. It is unfortunate that even at this late date, Charles Seife is neither aware of the underlying dynamic, the relevant experimental situation and (from all appearances) the fact that the debate remains unresolved. Potentially more tragic is that he provides quotations from individuals who either are ignorant of what has transpired during the last 13 years or have deliberately decided to not disclose new information about the associated field. In contrast to the situation described by Seife[3], where Cold Fusion not only is not taken seriously, but where through apparent fear about potentia= l embarrassment, the subject continues to be ridiculed, as guest editor of a recent volume of an Ethics in Science Journal[9], I asked a number of journalists, editors, and scientists to re-examine what happened in the Col= d Fusion controversy. Contrary to the assertions made by Seife[3] about this subject, in fact, the consensus was that no consensus exists because meaningful dialogue about Cold Fusion ended very early. This occurred partly because of confusion that resulted from the very strong opinions tha= t were expressed at an early stage in the controversy. But it also occurred because arguments and claims were not adequately reviewed and discussed prior to their being announced in the Press. However, remarkable as it may seem, it is also true that a number of the more important CF claims, made by the Chemists, may very well be true, despite the fact that most Nuclear Physicists dispute them. An important point involves perspective: Nuclear Physicists and Chemists are different. Chemists pay attention to fine details involving the environment of a particular reaction that may include important long-range EM effects that are often missed (or dismissed) by Nuclear Physicists. It also is not true that the "Cold Fusion" field has been dismissed, although this seemed to be the case, following a raucous, unwieldy meeting of the American Physical Society (APS), that was held in Baltimore, on 1 Ma= y 1989. In fact, on 22 March, 2002, not only will a session be held concernin= g Cold Fusion at a meeting of the APS, others have been held since 1999. At this session, well-defined experiments, based on well-defined protocols wil= l be discussed. If Charles Seife covers the associated debate at that time in an as even-handed manner as he did in his 8 March article, it will greatly help to eliminate on-going confusion about an important, contentious area o= f scientific debate. [1]Donald Kennedy, =B3To Publish or Not to Publish=B2, Science, 295, 1793 (2002= ) [2]Charles Seife, =B3=B9Bubble Fusion=B9 Paper Generates a Tempest in a Beaker,=B2 Science, 295 , 1808-1809 (2002) [3] F.D. Becchetti, Commentary: "Evidence for Nuclear Reactions in Implodin= g Bubbles," Science, 295, 1850 (2002). [4]R.P.Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, "Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation, " Science, 295, 1868-1873 (2002). [5]Robert L. Park, =B3BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD,=B2 WHATSNEW in the APS, 2 March 2002, American Physical Society, http://www.aps.org/WN. [6] Julian Schwinger, =B3Cold Fusion Theory A Brief History of Mine,=B2 Trans Fus Tech., 26, #2, xiii-xxi (1994). [7]Edmund Storms, "A Review of the Cold fusion Effect," J. Sci. Exploration= , 10, 2, 185 (1996). (also, http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/storms/1.html) [8] D. R. Thompson, Nuclear-Physics-A. vol.A1 54, no.2, 442-8(1970). S. R. Chubb, Finding the Missing g in D+D->4He Cold Fusion Excess Heat., Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., 47, #1 (2002).(http://www.aps.org/meet/MAR02/baps/tocW.html#SW21.011) [9] Scott Chubb, Martin Fleischmann, Stephen E. Jones, David Goodstein, Francesco. Scaramuzzi, George H. Miley, John O'M Bockris, and David J. Nagel, Accountability in Research, 8, 1 - 162 (2000). --B_3098443926_1274930 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dr. Scott Chubb Statement About Bubble Fusion

All,

The statement below sent to me by Dr. Scott Chubb suggests that there is mu= ch more to the science of bubble fusion than most commentators on the Scienc= e articles are discussing.

Sincerely,

Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.

Www.infinite-energy.com

*



Statement About Science Magazine Bubble Fusion Papers

Dr. Scott R. Chubb, Research Systems, Inc, 9822 Pebble Weigh Ct.,
Burke, VA 22015-3378


Donald Kennedy (DK)[1] is to be congratulated for deciding to publish and p= rofile[1-3] the article by Taleyarkhan et al [4] in the 8 March issue of Sci= ence magazine.  Faced with controversial opinions[1], he decided to pub= lish a controversial article as well as commentaries[2-3] about it, despite = harsh criticism[3,5]..  Charles Seife[3] should also be congratulated f= or presenting background material concerning the relevant facts about both s= ides of a potentially spectacular scientific discovery, involving room, or n= ear-room temperature Nuclear Fusion.

It is unfortunate (but understandable) that  Charles Seife missed a nu= mber of key points, about the underlying dynamic of the debate.  Part o= f the problem is sociological: Chemists and Nuclear Engineers view the world= differently from Nuclear Physicists.  Part of the problem is more basi= c.  Nuclear Physicists have ignored important effects (with good reason= , until 1989) involving potentially non-local effects associate with electro= magnetism (EM) in most applications of nuclear physics .  The problem i= s that non-local EM effects can make a big difference in the way nuclear fus= ion begins and ends, provided an appropriately constructed procedure is deve= loped.  

Nobelauriate Julian Schwinger’s view[6] of the situation provides an = instructive lesson.  The father of the Rarita-Schwinger equation, which= is used to describe the underlying building blocks (Deuterons D) of nuclear= fusion, as well as of quantum electrodynamics, which provides the basic fra= mework for most theories of interaction, Julian Schwinger recognized that co= herence, driven through electromagnetic (EM) effects, could significantly al= ter the possible ways that nuclear fusion could occur.  Thus, implicitl= y, throughout, he made the point that EM potentially can couple disparately = different length scales, and for this reason he replaced the use of intuitiv= e ideas about localization in certain circumstances with more precisely-unde= rstood ideas associated with coherence.  These can lead to non-local (m= ore wave-like) features (for example, in the Mossbauer effect) that are impl= icit in the EM interaction [6], in which momentum is shared by many location= s (as in a Bose Einstein Condensate or in the behavior of a periodically ord= ered solid) instantly.  However, although he pointed this out, up front= , no one listened.  Part of the problem is that implicit in this view i= s the idea that phenomena can become non-local in nature.  Although thi= s is known to occur in solids, Nuclear Physicists for the most part have not= been prepared to accept the possibility that it can occur in nuclear fusion= , despite the fact that implicitly the fact that it can occur is already kno= wn..

Part of the problem appears to be the result of a breakdown in communicatio= n.  Since the 1930's, after Chemists discovered a cornerstone of Nuclea= r Physics (Nuclear Fission), a gradual decline in communication between Chem= ists and Nuclear Physicists has taken place.  An important reason for t= his involves length-scale: Nuclear reactions appear to only occur when isola= ted particles collide at a particular location where particles are separated= from each other by distances that are as much as 100000 times shorter than = when they interact in normal chemical reactions. Thus, Chemists and Nuclear = Physicists have assumed they are dealing with such completely different phen= omena that they have believed that what they study can not be possibly relat= ed.  

The key point of confusion has involved the role of EM in nuclear fusion (N= F).  Most Nuclear Physicists believe NF occurs when EM alters reactions= through particle-particle collisions at isolated locations, through “= tunnelling” effects, associated with a simplified picture of the EM in= teraction.  For this reason,  Nuclear Physicists ignore more subtl= e, potentially, longer-range effects that can be triggered in dynamically ch= anging environments, which very easily can be present in solids (as in the c= ase of Cold Fusion) or in cavitating bubbles (as in Bubble Fusion).  In= both situations, as Schwinger pointed out[6], coherent forms of interaction= involving EM can occur.  For this reason many of the intuitive ideas t= hat Nuclear Physicists have about NF need not be valid.

An important question associated with both Cold Fusion (CF) and Bubble Fusi= on (BF)[4] is whether or not the assumption that it is necessary for compara= ble numbers of tritons Nt and neutrons Nn be produced.  Provided non-lo= cal EM interaction only occur over sufficiently long length scales, through = processes that proceed sufficiently slowly, the effect of EM can be treated = statically, and its effect on the nuclear interaction through dynamical form= s of coupling can be ignored.  Then, it is true, effectively, with resp= ect to the nuclear reaction, the effect of the EM interaction on the make up= of the final state becomes inconsequential, and Nt =3D Nn.  

But in the BF work[4], Nt is at least an order of magnitude greater than Nn= [4], and it could be as much as two orders of magnitude greater.  In f= act, in Cold Fusion, not only is the disparity between Nt and Nn significant= ly greater, the reason for the disparity is well-understood[7].  It occ= urs because for this case, the dominant reaction, D+D->4He, involves non-= local EM coupling[8].  For this reason the amounts of neutrons or trito= ns that are produced usually are statistically insignificant, although both = experimental evidence and theoretical explanations exist for understanding h= ow cold (i.e. low energy) tritons can be produced.  

In fact, in more general terms, when non-local EM effects become important,= the normal assumptions about NF (such as the requirement that interacting D= ’s have high enough kinetic energy to circumvent the Coulomb barrier) = need not apply.  In particular, for example, for D+D fusion to result i= n the production of 4He, each of the interacting D’s must be indisting= uishable from the other on length scales associated with conventional EM int= eraction[8].  Because at high incident energy and momentum, this condit= ion is rarely met, 4He is rarely produced in NF.  However, at lower val= ues of the incident momentum, not only do the underlying features associated= with our understanding of conventional D+D->4He at higher momentum requi= re that this symmetry be present, the fact that the dominant excess heat rea= ction in electrolytic CF occurs in this manner implies that this requirement= is being satisfied when the incident D’s have lower momentum..

An important point of confusion is that although D+D->4He occurs relativ= ely infrequently, the reason for this is that this particular reaction invol= ves significant coupling between the nuclear and EM forces.  Because in= single-bubble cavitation, an acoustical field can be used to produce precis= ely tuned, time-varying EM radiation[6], it is plausible that the coupling b= etween the boundaries of the bubble and its potentially interacting D’= s may also result in significant EM coupling, in a dynamically-driven fashio= n .  

Especially at close separation, when 2 D-nuclei begin to overlap, it is pos= sible to view the 2D state as an excited state of a 4He nucleus.  Then,= significant coupling to a dynamically changing EM field (as pointed out by = Schwinger[6]) can occur.  This suggests that since in the experiment[4]= , fast (~14.1 MeV)  neutrons (n's) are introduced to foster bubble grow= th, it  is entirely possible that on occasion particular n’s coll= ide with a 2D initial state configuration that resembles a 4He nucleus. &nbs= p;If this happens, provided this excited state nucleus effectively recoils i= n an appropriate manner, it may be possible to create a reverse D-t fusion r= eaction, in which -4He+n-> D+t.  In this way, one can see how effect= s that are well-known can be used to explain the potentially anomalously hig= h ratio of tritons to neutrons.  

An important point is that regardless of whether or not the details associa= ted with this argument are correct, the possibility that the reaction could = occur is associated with potentially significant coupling with the EM field.=  Over the years, in CF it has also been found that the EM field not on= ly can couple to potentially interacting D’s but that it can do so in = a coherent fashion, without high energy particles being released.  Thus= , the fact that Nt does not equal Nn in Bubble Fusion may be related to the = fact that the dominant reaction in Cold Fusion involves the production of 4H= e.

With hindsight, it’s obvious that confusion about potential effects a= ssociated with coherent coupling to the EM field could lead to situations in= which high energy particles would be inhibited, in CF.  It is also obv= ious that because of the highly non-linear coupling to the EM field that occ= urs in many of the electrolytic experiments, under certain circumstances the= process of triggering the associated forms of interaction can be closely as= sociated with changes in the local environment in the electrodes.  This= led to considerable confusion in 1989.  Additional confusion resulted = because at that time most Nuclear Physicists adopted the conventional view o= f the potential role of EM, and the impossibility of coherence and related f= actors altering the relevant forms of reaction.  

Further compounding this confusion was the fact that Cold Fusion claims wer= e made simultaneously by Chemists (Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons), fol= lowed by counter-claims by Nuclear Physicists (Steven Jones and coworkers), = involving very different phenomena.  A second, key source of confusion = was the assumption that the claims were related when they were not.  Th= us, at an early stage, as a consequence, the dynamic of the debate (or lack = of debate) rapidly became unscientific.

A tragic aspect of the episode is that new vehicles for communication (the = internet and FAX machines), as well as the Press also became involved.  = ;As a consequence,  unprecedented confusion about the various claims es= calated.  It is unfortunate that even at this late date, Charles Seife = is neither aware of the underlying dynamic, the relevant experimental situat= ion and (from all appearances) the fact that the debate remains unresolved. =  Potentially more tragic is that he provides quotations from individual= s who either are ignorant of what has transpired during the last 13 years or= have deliberately decided to not disclose new information about the associa= ted field.

In contrast to the situation described by Seife[3], where Cold Fusion not o= nly is not taken seriously, but where through apparent fear about potential = embarrassment, the subject continues to be ridiculed, as guest editor of a r= ecent volume of an Ethics in Science Journal[9], I asked a number of journal= ists, editors, and scientists to re-examine what happened in the Cold Fusion= controversy. Contrary to the assertions made by Seife[3] about this subject= , in fact, the consensus was that no consensus exists because meaningful dia= logue about Cold Fusion ended very early.  This occurred partly because= of confusion that resulted from the very strong opinions that were expresse= d at an early stage in the controversy.  But it also occurred because a= rguments and claims were not adequately reviewed and discussed prior to thei= r being announced in the Press.

However, remarkable as it may seem, it is also true that a number of the mo= re important CF claims, made by the Chemists, may very well be true, despite= the fact that most Nuclear Physicists dispute them. An important point invo= lves perspective: Nuclear Physicists and Chemists are different.  Chemi= sts pay attention to fine details involving the environment of a  parti= cular reaction that may include important long-range EM effects that are oft= en missed (or dismissed) by Nuclear Physicists.

It also is not true that the "Cold Fusion" field has been dismiss= ed, although this seemed to be the case, following a raucous, unwieldy meeti= ng of the American Physical Society (APS), that was held in Baltimore, on 1 = May 1989. In fact, on 22 March, 2002, not only will a session be held concer= ning Cold Fusion at a meeting of the APS, others have been held since 1999. = At this session, well-defined experiments, based on well-defined protocols w= ill be discussed. If Charles Seife covers the associated debate at that time= in an as even-handed manner as he did in his 8 March article, it will great= ly help to eliminate on-going confusion about an important, contentious area= of scientific debate.

[1]Donald Kennedy, “To Publish or Not to Publish”, Science, = 295, 1793 (2002)

[2]Charles Seife, “’Bubble Fusion’ Paper Generates a Temp= est in a Beaker,” Science, 295 , 1808-1809 (2002)

[3] F.D. Becchetti, Commentary: "Evidence for Nuclear Reactions in Imp= loding Bubbles," Science, 295,  1850 (2002).

[4]R.P.Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, = and R.C.
Block, "Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation, &qu= ot; Science, 295, 1868-1873 (2002).

[5]Robert L. Park, “BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD,&#= 8221; WHATSNEW in the APS, 2 March 2002, American Physical Society, http://w= ww.aps.org/WN.

[6] Julian Schwinger, “Cold Fusion Theory A Brief History of Mine,= 221; Trans Fus Tech., 26, #2, xiii-xxi (1994).

[7]Edmund Storms, "A Review of the Cold fusion Effect," J. Sci. E= xploration, 10, 2, 185 (1996). (also, http://www.scientificexploration.org/j= se/articles/storms/1.html)

[8] D. R. Thompson, Nuclear-Physics-A. vol.A1 54, no.2= , 442-8(1970).  S. R. Chubb, Finding the Missing g in D+D->4He Cold F= usion Excess Heat., Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., 47, #1 (2002).(http://= www.aps.org/meet/MAR02/baps/tocW.html#SW21.011)

[9] Scott Chubb, Martin Fleischmann, Stephen E. Jones, David Goodstein, Fra= ncesco. Scaramuzzi, George H.  Miley, John O'M Bockris, and David J. Na= gel, Accountability in Research, 8, 1 - 162  (2000).



 --B_3098443926_1274930-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 13:40:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA30693; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:37:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:37:12 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020308163530.033985e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:37:19 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: The Anti-Sonofusion Attack - Why? REFORMATTED In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id NAA30664 Resent-Message-ID: <"T5EH91.0.TV7.7yIYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46507 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [Here is a de-Mac-ed, de-Gates-ed version of Gene's statement. - JR] Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. • Infinite Energy Magazine P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816 Tel. 603-228-4516 Fax 603-224-5975 http://www.infinite-energy.com editor infinite-energy.com Infinite Energy Magazine's Statement on the Science Sonofusion Article by Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove www.infinite-energy.com March 4, 2002 As an AAAS member, I am delighted that Science magazine will be publishing an article and a commentary about table-top sonofusion in its March 8, 2002 issue -- it is said to be highlighted as a high-profile cover story. We congratulate Science and the authors. I learned earlier today that because the New York Times has decided to publish an article about the Science paper in its March 5th edition, Science has lifted the March 7th embargo to other journalists. I have now read the technical paper and its associated commentary and will remarking briefly about it in general terms below. Sonofusion (and sonoluminescence) is an area in which Infinite Energy has published since its inception in 1995. In fact, our first issue, March/April 1995, had Roger Stringham (now of First Gate Energies, Inc.) on the cover cradling his sonofusion reactor. The cover story, "A 'Micro-Fusion' Reactor: Nuclear Reactions 'In the cold' by Ultrasonic Cavitation," was by Tom Benson, Vol.1, No.1, pp.33-37. There have been many other pieces, notably: * "Cavitation in D2O with Metal Targets Produces Predictable Excess Heat," by Roger Stringham, John Chandler, Russ George, Tom Passell, and Dick Raymond, Infinite Energy, Vol. 4, No.19, April-May 1998,pp.41-44 * "A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence," by Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger (Reprint of his Nov. 11, 1991 lecture at MIT), Infinite Energy, Vol. 4, No. 24, March-April 1999, pp.81-83. In more recent issues of Infinite Energy since November 2000 (Nos. 35-41), New Energy Research Laboratory's Manager, Kenneth Rauen and I have chronicled our experience in experimenting with Roger Stringham's sonofusion reactor, and our smaller modified reactor derived from it. The primary purpose of this work has been to identify the primary and most desirable signature of cold fusion/low energy nuclear reactions: excess heat. This work, furthermore, has been aimed at producing a commercially viable demonstration device for excess heat, a still elusive goal for reasons mentioned in our Device and Process Testing Update articles. Since we are aware that Roger Stringham and others have found nuclear products, as well as excess heat in cavitation devices, we have been driven to examine the evidence for excess heat in his and our design reactor. At this point, our evidence is not strong enough to promote a commercial demonstration device, but the quest to understand the mechanical and electrical interactions that could manifest reliable excess heat, as well as nuclear products, continues. Another laboratory is now working with us to examine the possible helium production in this sonofusion reactor. Roger Stringham et al have already found helium and other nuclear evidence in their sonofusion devices, in addition to observing melting under heavy water of normally high melting point metals. Comments on the Science Articles: The articles are: "Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation, " R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, Science, Vol. 295, March 2002, pp.1868-1873. and Commentary: "Evidence for Nuclear Reactions in Imploding Bubbles," F.D. Becchetti, Science, Vol. 295, March 2002, p.1850. The matter to celebrate the most in these Science articles is the apparent discovery of yet another particular system for producing fusion reactions -- other than with the large and expensive, and so far unproductive, magnetic confinement tokamak and large laser inertial confinement fusion devices of the DOE. And we certainly celebrate that the experiments are, indeed, "table-top" -- just like most cold fusion experiments. Of course, the work reported in Science needs to be reproduced in its particular form, just as cold fusion experiments had to be and were reproduced, repeatedly. But on first examination today, the work reported in Science appears to have been done very thoroughly. It is also immediately apparent that sonofusion work carried out in the cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) field, although not referenced by these authors, can provide significant support in both experimental and theoretical aspects. (I imagine that the authors were not aware of much of this work.) Perhaps the appearance of the Science articles will cause scientists, technologists, and officials to reconsider their previous impression of other fusion technologies, including the much maligned cold fusion science and its emerging technology. Cold fusion/LENR has been under research and development for some years, since being prematurely dismissed by a egregiously flawed and rush-to-judgment DOE report in 1989. We note with some dismay that Dr. Robert Park of the American Physical Society chose last Friday to pre-empt the Science articles' appearance with an attack on the articles, which he published on his "What's New" web site run by the American Physical Society, but which allegedly does not endorse his opinions: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. BUBBLE FUSION: A COLLECTIVE GROAN CAN BE HEARD. A report out of Oak Ridge of d-d fusion events in collapsing bubbles formed by cavitation in deuterated acetone, is scheduled for publication in the March 8 issue of Science magazine. Taleyarkhan et al. observe 2.5 MeV neutron peaks, evidence of d-d fusion, correlated with sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles. Pretty exciting stuff huh? It might be, if the experiment had not been repeated by two experienced nuclear physicists, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh, using the same apparatus, except for superior neutron detection equipment. They found no evidence for 2.5 MeV neutron emission correlated with sonoluminescence. Any neutron emission was many orders of magnitude too small to account for the tritium production reported by the first group. Although distinguished physicists, fearing a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco 13 years ago, advised against publication, the editor has apparently chosen not only to publish the work, but to do so with unusual fanfare, involving even the cover of Science. Perhaps Science magazine covets the vast readership of Infinite Energy magazine. ... THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. ******* Park's assessment is quite faulty, not unusual for his uninformed and often malicious commentary over the past 13 years, but it is nice that he gave publicity to the forthcoming Science articles (and to our magazine!-- which he evidently dislikes for its bold examination of cold fusion science). In contrast to Science magazine's general abdication of responsibility for over a decade in covering cold fusion and properly reviewing technical submissions, Infinite Energy has been in the vanguard of publishing and discussing this science. We did, however, enjoy the appearance today of the London Sunday Times piece concerning the forthcoming Science articles: ***** Cold fusion 'breakthrough' heralds clean nuclear power By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor The Sunday Times, UK Sunday, March 3, 2002 Nuclear scientists will this week announce they may have achieved a controlled form of cold fusion, a technology that potentially offers humanity a limitless source of clean energy....the latest research, by scientists at the American government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Michigan, was done on a laboratory bench using relatively simple and cheap equipment at room temperature. The study echoes the work of Professor Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who, in 1989, announced they had achieved cold fusion at Southampton University but were ridiculed when no one could repeat their work. ... ****** Unfortunately, this latter comment, "no one could repeat their work," is entirely in error, but it is good that the Sunday Times referred to the sonofusion work in terms of "cold fusion," which it may well be, at least in part. It may, in fact, be exhibiting both hot fusion and cold fusion characteristics. More needs to be known. More testing needs to be done -- calorimetry and helium measurements, in particular, which were not made by these authors. But as Park himself highlights, the anomalous ratio of tritium to neutron production reported in the article -- which he dismisses outright as indicating an experiment flaw - has long been a known characteristic of cold fusion systems. The critique by Bechetti was well done and will likely anger the hot fusioneers, because it puts this work too much into the same context as energy generation via tokamaks and big lasers, something they do not want to hear. As usual, they want all DOE resources concentrated on THEIR well-funded projects. And, I noticed that Becchetti did refer to a paper in 1990 of a supposedly failed "table top" experiment (likely one of the "failed" cold fusion replication attempts, but I do not have the specific paper referred to) in which he said he participated. He and Science are to be roundly criticized for referring to an early cold fusion era experiment, while not properly mentioning that numerous other highly positive experiments with repeatable results -- especially at tritium generation (e.g. by Dr. Tom Claytor at Los Alamos National Laboratory), but also neutron generation -- have been done in cold fusion. It must be recalled that in June 1990, Science magazine produced a virtually slanderous attack by Gary Taubes against the work of cold fusion researchers at Texas A&M University, suggesting that fraud was the likely explanation of the tritium findings in cold fusion experiments. That this past poor journalism and continuing tritium findings in cold fusion continue to be ignored at Science -- except when an alleged HOT fusion explanation is given -- is intellectually dishonest. There is an effort throughout the March 8 technical paper (but of course!) to put the observed reactions into the context exclusively of HOT fusion. However, I do note that the experimenters were still unable to get the gap between neutron counts and tritium measured to fall below a single order of magnitude difference! I had hoped that the measured/inferred gap would be greater, but it is there nonetheless. Tritium is higher than neutron production. The authors do much hand-waving to say that this might be "explained" by various measurement errors and inefficiencies. Indeed, cold fusion experiments show many times a factor of 10 -- up to a 100-million ratio of tritium to neutrons when tritium is found. And, cold fusion experiments have proved that the birth of the tritium can be COLD, not HOT. If it had been hot (energetic), as in tritium formed by the D + D hot fusion reaction, 14 MeV hot fusion neutrons (from T + D collision reaction) would have been seen and they are not seen, e.g. what Claytor et al at LANL have found. Because of the uncertainties in this Science paper data, it is not exactly possible to determine whether this is fully mini-hot fusion, or some mixture of cold fusion and hot fusion. That will come later. The most important matter is that this article will get more people thinking again about alternative ways to do fusion. This inevitably will bring up the huge body of cold fusion literature that has been ignored by these authors and Science. It is too bad that it has to happen this way. It would have been better if proper coverage by Science had been occurring all along. Many cold fusion people long ago gave up even submitting to Science. They publish in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Physics Letters A, and Fusion Technology, among other journals, including Infinite Energy magazine. I predict that the hot fusion people will do their best to trash this new table-top work, especially because it is in the context of on-going work that they well know is occurring world-wide on cavitation-induced fusion. They helped kill off more widespread interest in electrolytic fusion, but it will be much harder for them to kill off these kinds of sonofusion experiments, especially now that they are documented in a very visible publication. As more is learned from the Science papers, I may post further commentary. Note that the Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-9) will be held May 19-24, 2002 in Beijing. Sonofusion and the articles in Science are certain to be a topic of discussion there. (http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn) Sincerely, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 14:03:33 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11935; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:02:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:02:54 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <185.4bc1462.29ba8ec7 aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:01:43 EST Subject: Fwd: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_185.4bc1462.29ba8ec7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"0HuZD2.0.kv2.8KJYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46509 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_185.4bc1462.29ba8ec7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_185.4bc1462.29ba8ec7_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: Erikbaard aol.com Full-name: Erikbaard Message-ID: <16c.9f6033e.29ba8e41 aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:59:29 EST Subject: Re: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 To: whatsnew aps.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_185.4bc1462.29ba8e41_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 --part2_185.4bc1462.29ba8e41_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/8/02 4:26:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, whatsnew aps.org writes: > A press embargo is a > device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks. > In all matters, science and otherwise, I have usually found embargoes to be a way for journalists to research and prepare stories to make sense of them once they break. If anything, the opposite is implied -- rather than just repeating what a scientist or other mover claims, writers have a chance to build context and interview dissenters. Partly this also maximizes the impact of the breaking story as opposed to trickling out, so that benefits the people imposing the embargo. But it also helps print media keep up with real-time news services who provide less depth. Damn! That was the last 2 cents I had! Sincerely, Erik --part2_185.4bc1462.29ba8e41_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/8/02 4:26:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, whatsnew aps.org writes:


A press embargo is a
device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks.


In all matters, science and otherwise, I have usually found embargoes to be a way for journalists to research and prepare stories to make sense of them once they break.  If anything, the opposite is implied -- rather than just repeating what a scient ist or other mover claims, writers have a chance to build context and interview dissenters.

Partly this also maximizes the impact of the breaking story as opposed to trickling out, so that benefits the people imposing the embargo.  But it also helps print media keep up with real-time news services who provide less depth.

Damn!  That was the last 2 cents I had!

Sincerely,

Erik --part2_185.4bc1462.29ba8e41_boundary-- --part1_185.4bc1462.29ba8ec7_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 14:03:33 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11975; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:02:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:02:56 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: <24.22050444.29ba8edd aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:02:05 EST Subject: my reply to park for What's New To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_24.22050444.29ba8edd_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"SiOoA2.0.1x2.DKJYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46510 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_24.22050444.29ba8edd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_24.22050444.29ba8edd_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: Erikbaard aol.com Full-name: Erikbaard Message-ID: <16c.9f6033e.29ba8e41 aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:59:29 EST Subject: Re: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 To: whatsnew aps.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_24.22050444.29ba8e41_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 --part2_24.22050444.29ba8e41_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/8/02 4:26:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, whatsnew aps.org writes: > A press embargo is a > device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks. > In all matters, science and otherwise, I have usually found embargoes to be a way for journalists to research and prepare stories to make sense of them once they break. If anything, the opposite is implied -- rather than just repeating what a scientist or other mover claims, writers have a chance to build context and interview dissenters. Partly this also maximizes the impact of the breaking story as opposed to trickling out, so that benefits the people imposing the embargo. But it also helps print media keep up with real-time news services who provide less depth. Damn! That was the last 2 cents I had! Sincerely, Erik --part2_24.22050444.29ba8e41_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/8/02 4:26:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, whatsnew aps.org writes:


A press embargo is a
device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks.


In all matters, science and otherwise, I have usually found embargoes to be a way for journalists to research and prepare stories to make sense of them once they break.  If anything, the opposite is implied -- rather than just repeating what a scient ist or other mover claims, writers have a chance to build context and interview dissenters.

Partly this also maximizes the impact of the breaking story as opposed to trickling out, so that benefits the people imposing the embargo.  But it also helps print media keep up with real-time news services who provide less depth.

Damn!  That was the last 2 cents I had!

Sincerely,

Erik --part2_24.22050444.29ba8e41_boundary-- --part1_24.22050444.29ba8edd_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 14:04:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11151; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:01:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:01:30 -0800 From: Erikbaard aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:00:55 EST Subject: Fwd: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_c.244bea58.29ba8e97_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <"cW39Z2.0.8k2.wIJYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46508 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_c.244bea58.29ba8e97_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_c.244bea58.29ba8e97_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v83.45) with ESMTP id MAILINZA48-0308162611; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:26:11 -0500 Received: from tron.aps.org (tron.aps.org [149.28.112.105]) by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA15-0308162602; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:26:02 -0500 Received: (from whatsnew localhost) by tron.aps.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA07627; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:25:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:25:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200203082125.QAA07627 tron.aps.org> To: erikbaard aol.com From: "What's New" Subject: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 8 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. BUBBLES: TO FLACK OR NOT TO FLACK. An editorial by Don Kennedy in the March 8 issue of Science, "To Publish or Not to Publish," describes his courageous stand in publishing a controversial paper even though "it had become clear that a number people didn't want us to publish this paper." Last week WN revealed that Science would carry an article by Taleyarkhan et al. from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (WN 1 Mar 02), claiming evidence of d-d fusion correlated with sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles in deuterated acetone. However, Shapira and Saltmarsh, also from Oak Ridge, using purportedly superior detection and analysis equipment, found no evidence for fusion. Kennedy, it turns out, was merely urged to delay publishing the Taleyarkhan result until it could be accompanied by the Saltmarsh finding. Instead, Science accompanied the Taleyarkhan paper with a glowing "Perspectives" article, a "News" report and an editorial. Worse, Science issued an embargoed press release. A press embargo is a device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks. We at WN are not press, however, nor did our information come from Science. After WN broke the story, Science dropped its embargo. Both sides, Kennedy's editorial concludes, "would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work." But in the end, it was Science that refused to wait until it had a balanced report. 2. HEALTH PROBLEMS: WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ENDS, PROBLEMS BEGIN. In the waning months of his administration, while pardoning felons and bestowing various favors on supporters, Bill Clinton rewarded loyal Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), an ardent believer in superstitious medicine, with an executive order creating a 20-member White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. It was to last two years and submit a report to the President on how to spread the benefits of magic medicine. James Gordon, a leading "mind-body" proponent, was picked to head the commission, and he proceeded to select a "balanced" collection of true believers in acupuncture, Reiki, homeopathy, herbs, native American cures, quack diets and "energy" medicine of every sort. There are no legitimate scientific researchers on the Commission. Gordon himself has an interesting background, having been an ardent follower of the late Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh, he of the 35 Rolls Royces. The Bhagwan was deported after it was learned that his followers had deliberately poisoned some 700 residents of Antelope, Oregon with salmonella to keep them from the polls in a local election. The Commission officially terminated yesterday, and delivered its report to the White House. The report, which will not be made public for at least a month, is expected to call for legislation that would require insurance providers to cover the witch doctor of your choice. Since the Commission was created under the Clinton administration, it is hoped that the Bush White House will name a panel of medical experts to review the report. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. --part1_c.244bea58.29ba8e97_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 15:01:11 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA10866; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:58:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:58:25 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020308173453.033985e0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 17:58:20 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Fwd: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"AVuAn3.0.Zf2.G8KYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46511 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert Park wrote: >deuterated acetone. However, Shapira and Saltmarsh, also from Oak >Ridge, using purportedly superior detection and analysis >equipment, found no evidence for fusion. Taleyarkhan says their equipment was inferior. I know little about neutron detection, but I did help Akimoto translate a chapter of a book on low level neutron detection, and it is clear that Taleyarkhan is using more of the techniques recommended by Akimoto and others. >Kennedy, it turns out, was merely urged to delay publishing the >Taleyarkhan result until it could be accompanied by the Saltmarsh finding. This looks like a delaying tactic. The Saltmarsh report was already written but it has not gone through peer-review. Taleyarkhan's paper took a year to peer-review. Since the Taleyarkhan response to Saltmarsh was already written, why not go a step further and include that too? For that matter, why not wait for Saltmarsh to respond to Taleyarkhan? You could stall publication for years! It is not customary to hold back a peer-reviewed paper for a pending response or rebuttal. In publishing, you print the papers which are finished and ready, and in due time when the rebuttals are ready, you publish them, usually alongside a response from the original researcher. (Second-round papers are sometimes published together, not the first round.) For all we know, Saltmarsh may not survive peer-review, and may never be suitable for publication. He will have to make an effort to respond to Taleyarkhan's critique, I assume. The problems Taleyarkhan pointed out are fairly elementary, since even I knew about them. >Worse, >Science issued an embargoed press release. A press embargo is a >device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks. This is nonsense. First, as Erik Baard pointed out, this is not the usual purpose of an embargo. But suppose that is your purpose, and you succeed in delaying dissenting views on that day. So what? The sun rises, another day comes, and dissenting views bloom. Most people remember events for more than one day, and they are capable of reevaluating on Tuesday what they learned on Monday. This is a telling comment. Robert Park and his ilk are always anxious to jump to a conclusion the first day, or the first minute. Apparently, Park thinks that everyone makes up their mind after glancing at a press release, since he thinks the timing of announcements is a powerful tool to suppress dissent. Scientists are supposed to wait for replications which may take months or years. It is supposed to be a slow business. What happens the first day should not affect anyone's judgment. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 15:54:56 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08959; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:52:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:52:05 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8941D9.1709462 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:58:25 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fwd: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020308173453.033985e0 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9LtZf2.0.cB2.ZwKYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46512 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Park wrote: > > >deuterated acetone. However, Shapira and Saltmarsh, also from Oak > >Ridge, using purportedly superior detection and analysis > >equipment, found no evidence for fusion. > > Taleyarkhan says their equipment was inferior. I know little about neutron > detection, but I did help Akimoto translate a chapter of a book on low > level neutron detection, and it is clear that Taleyarkhan is using more of > the techniques recommended by Akimoto and others. > > >Kennedy, it turns out, was merely urged to delay publishing the > >Taleyarkhan result until it could be accompanied by the Saltmarsh finding. > > This looks like a delaying tactic. The Saltmarsh report was already written > but it has not gone through peer-review. Taleyarkhan's paper took a year to > peer-review. Since the Taleyarkhan response to Saltmarsh was already > written, why not go a step further and include that too? For that matter, > why not wait for Saltmarsh to respond to Taleyarkhan? You could stall > publication for years! > > It is not customary to hold back a peer-reviewed paper for a pending > response or rebuttal. In publishing, you print the papers which are > finished and ready, and in due time when the rebuttals are ready, you > publish them, usually alongside a response from the original researcher. > (Second-round papers are sometimes published together, not the first round.) > > For all we know, Saltmarsh may not survive peer-review, and may never be > suitable for publication. He will have to make an effort to respond to > Taleyarkhan's critique, I assume. The problems Taleyarkhan pointed out are > fairly elementary, since even I knew about them. > > >Worse, > >Science issued an embargoed press release. A press embargo is a > >device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks. > > This is nonsense. First, as Erik Baard pointed out, this is not the usual > purpose of an embargo. But suppose that is your purpose, and you succeed in > delaying dissenting views on that day. So what? The sun rises, another day > comes, and dissenting views bloom. Most people remember events for more > than one day, and they are capable of reevaluating on Tuesday what they > learned on Monday. > > This is a telling comment. Robert Park and his ilk are always anxious to > jump to a conclusion the first day, or the first minute. Apparently, Park > thinks that everyone makes up their mind after glancing at a press release, > since he thinks the timing of announcements is a powerful tool to suppress > dissent. Scientists are supposed to wait for replications which may take > months or years. It is supposed to be a slow business. What happens the > first day should not affect anyone's judgment. In addition to the above comments, with which I agree, Park also made one additional blunder. He said, "Both sides, Kennedy's editorial concludes, "would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work." But in the end, it was Science that refused to wait until it had a balanced report." In short, he is saying that Science was mostly at fault for not waiting until the skeptics had time to take a shot. Apparently, Park feels self-righteous enough to take on Science for just doing its job. The man has no shame. Ed > > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 17:22:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA00636; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:20:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:20:03 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:20:31 -0800 Subject: Re: What's New for Mar 08, 2002 From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020308173453.033985e0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"u7D531.0.s9.2DMYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46513 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 3/8/02 2:58 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > This is nonsense. First, as Erik Baard pointed out, this is not the usual > purpose of an embargo. But suppose that is your purpose, and you succeed in > delaying dissenting views on that day. So what? The sun rises, another day > comes, and dissenting views bloom. Most people remember events for more > than one day, and they are capable of reevaluating on Tuesday what they > learned on Monday. Park's statement is even more nonsense and B.S. than Jed thinks. Any journalist who wants to sign up for the list of Nature's or Science's favored "hot story" list can do so. The list usually arrived in a paper envelope in the "old days" when I was at the MIT News Office -- 1987-91. All the stories on that "heads up" list were strictly embargoed. They did not single out some of these on the list for the embargo. There was a uniform embargo date and time for all the stories. I image there is some web site with password that may be used for this purpose today by these magazines. - Gene Mallove Www.infinite-energy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 8 21:14:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA09568; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:12:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:12:06 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8998BC.82DAD8EF ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 21:08:12 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 08, 2002] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"c7jDC3.0.ML2.bcPYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46514 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 Mar 08, 2002 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:13:34 -0500 (EST) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 8 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. BUBBLES: TO FLACK OR NOT TO FLACK. An editorial by Don Kennedy in the March 8 issue of Science, "To Publish or Not to Publish," describes his courageous stand in publishing a controversial paper even though "it had become clear that a number people didn't want us to publish this paper." Last week WN revealed that Science would carry an article by Taleyarkhan et al. from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (WN 1 Mar 02), claiming evidence of d-d fusion correlated with sonoluminescence from collapsing bubbles in deuterated acetone. However, Shapira and Saltmarsh, also from Oak Ridge, using purportedly superior detection and analysis equipment, found no evidence for fusion. Kennedy, it turns out, was merely urged to delay publishing the Taleyarkhan result until it could be accompanied by the Saltmarsh finding. Instead, Science accompanied the Taleyarkhan paper with a glowing "Perspectives" article, a "News" report and an editorial. Worse, Science issued an embargoed press release. A press embargo is a device meant to suppress dissenting views the day a story breaks. We at WN are not press, however, nor did our information come from Science. After WN broke the story, Science dropped its embargo. Both sides, Kennedy's editorial concludes, "would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work." But in the end, it was Science that refused to wait until it had a balanced report. 2. HEALTH PROBLEMS: WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ENDS, PROBLEMS BEGIN. In the waning months of his administration, while pardoning felons and bestowing various favors on supporters, Bill Clinton rewarded loyal Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), an ardent believer in superstitious medicine, with an executive order creating a 20-member White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. It was to last two years and submit a report to the President on how to spread the benefits of magic medicine. James Gordon, a leading "mind-body" proponent, was picked to head the commission, and he proceeded to select a "balanced" collection of true believers in acupuncture, Reiki, homeopathy, herbs, native American cures, quack diets and "energy" medicine of every sort. There are no legitimate scientific researchers on the Commission. Gordon himself has an interesting background, having been an ardent follower of the late Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh, he of the 35 Rolls Royces. The Bhagwan was deported after it was learned that his followers had deliberately poisoned some 700 residents of Antelope, Oregon with salmonella to keep them from the polls in a local election. The Commission officially terminated yesterday, and delivered its report to the White House. The report, which will not be made public for at least a month, is expected to call for legislation that would require insurance providers to cover the witch doctor of your choice. Since the Commission was created under the Clinton administration, it is hoped that the Bush White House will name a panel of medical experts to review the report. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 9 23:04:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA15066; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 23:01:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 23:01:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C8A77A8.FF74F01D ipa.net> References: <112.dcf8673.29bbcc4f aol.com> <3C8A77A8.FF74F01D@ipa.net> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:57:48 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: LENR story Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"uScBx2.0.Jh3.7JmYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46515 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Fellow Vortexians; Someone posted this on the SVPVRIL list. This is the first time that I've heard about a LENR releasing enough energy to explode, Too bad we can't ask the scientist, eh? I'm posting this for too reasons. One is the reported explosion, the other is Keely's work in cavitation. Some else just came to mind. Various researchers were going on about the temperature at the center of that reaction. I assume that if you measure the frequency of the energy emitted, then you can extraplate the temperature, of the reaction that produced it, is that correct? > > >> ooooh, this is odd synchronisity for me. I know nothing of science and cold >> fusion but a couple of weeks ago during meditation an old school >>friend's face >> came into my mind very clearly. His name was Andrew Riley; his brother was >> married to my old best friend. Anyway, having graduated from >>Oxford he later >> moved to USA as a physicist working on Cold fusion research. >>Unfortunately, he >> moved a test tube or something in the lab he was working in and blew the lab >> and himself up. A really horrible accident several years ago now. >> But Andys face was so clear and the memory of him that I wondered if his >> consciousness was trying to get in touch or something so I surfed the net to >> no avail. And now I read this posting!....(maybe some of you scientists >> remember the accident)? > >There were several accidents of this type and extent a few years ago. Which is >why I've cautioned everyone choosing to work with Cold Fusion (& dissociation >via cavitation) to be careful in the utmost. Keely, the real expert, >repeatedly >blew up his lab. Cavitation releases (liberates) enormous pressures held in >latent equilibrium. > >-- >Life, Love and Laughter, >Dale Pond >Sympathetic Vibratory Physics >Sacred Science - Sacred Life >http://www.svpvril.com >SVP Discussion Forum: >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svpvril/ >http://www.ezinfocenter.com/1186527/FREE > > > > >Get your FREE SVP catalog of 400 books, pamphlets & videos. > >Email your snail mail address to info svpvril.com. > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 10 08:53:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA30998; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:49:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:49:54 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8B81E7.EBACA091 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:55:24 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: LENR story References: <112.dcf8673.29bbcc4f aol.com> <3C8A77A8.FF74F01D@ipa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"L7Fjq1.0.7a7.owuYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46516 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The explosion that killed Andrew Riley was a chemical reaction between high pressure D2 + O2. It was not a cold fusion reaction. You can read all about it in "Forensic Analysis of Explosion Debris from the January 2, 1992 Pd/D2O Electrochemistry Incident at SRI International" LLNL Special report 15 August 1992. The very nature of the CANR reaction prevents an explosion from this mechanism. Ed thomas malloy wrote: > Fellow Vortexians; > > Someone posted this on the SVPVRIL list. This is the first time that > I've heard about a LENR releasing enough energy to explode, Too bad > we can't ask the scientist, eh? > > I'm posting this for too reasons. One is the reported explosion, the > other is Keely's work in cavitation. > > Some else just came to mind. Various researchers were going on about > the temperature at the center of that reaction. I assume that if you > measure the frequency of the energy emitted, then you can extraplate > the temperature, of the reaction that produced it, is that correct? > > > > > > >> ooooh, this is odd synchronisity for me. I know nothing of science and cold > >> fusion but a couple of weeks ago during meditation an old school > >>friend's face > >> came into my mind very clearly. His name was Andrew Riley; his brother was > >> married to my old best friend. Anyway, having graduated from > >>Oxford he later > >> moved to USA as a physicist working on Cold fusion research. > >>Unfortunately, he > >> moved a test tube or something in the lab he was working in and blew the lab > >> and himself up. A really horrible accident several years ago now. > >> But Andys face was so clear and the memory of him that I wondered if his > >> consciousness was trying to get in touch or something so I surfed the net to > >> no avail. And now I read this posting!....(maybe some of you scientists > >> remember the accident)? > > > >There were several accidents of this type and extent a few years ago. Which is > >why I've cautioned everyone choosing to work with Cold Fusion (& dissociation > >via cavitation) to be careful in the utmost. Keely, the real expert, > >repeatedly > >blew up his lab. Cavitation releases (liberates) enormous pressures held in > >latent equilibrium. > > > >-- > >Life, Love and Laughter, > >Dale Pond > >Sympathetic Vibratory Physics > >Sacred Science - Sacred Life > >http://www.svpvril.com > >SVP Discussion Forum: > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svpvril/ > >http://www.ezinfocenter.com/1186527/FREE > > > > > > > > > >Get your FREE SVP catalog of 400 books, pamphlets & videos. > > > >Email your snail mail address to info svpvril.com. > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 10 09:32:29 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19921; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:29:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:29:48 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:29:13 -0800 Subject: Business Week sonofusion article - 3/18 issue From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wvjBU.0.At4.CWvYy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46517 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: All, Otis Port of Business Week, who has covered cold fusion in the past, did a nice two-page story on the sonofusion development, "Is It Really Fusion This Time?", March 18, 2002 issue, pp.90-91. I received my subscription copy yesterday (it may not yet be on newsstands till early this week). He mentions Roger Stringham of First Gate Energies, Inc. and also Ross Tessien of Impulse Devices -- both known in the cold fusion/new energy community. Toward the end of the article Port mentions that Stringham will discuss his latest efforts "on Mar. 22, during a final-day cold fusion session at the American Physical Society's Annual March Meeting in Indianapolis." [Note: Our group from NERL will have a video tape of our lab set up and experiments in cold fusion/sonofusion (work cooperative with Roger Stringham) at the APS meeting. But I will be unable to attend.--EFM] Closing paragraph of the BW article: "Session moderator Scott R. Chubb, head of Research Systems, Inc. of Arlington, Va. [Note: by day he is at NRL --Gene], predicts that researchers will eventually uncover 'some very exotic reactions' that explain how table-top fusion works. For instance, he suggests that physical dynamics of sonofusion 'become deeply intertwined with electromagnetism," causing deuterium to behave somewhat like electrons. 'This is something you'd never expect to see in conventional fusion reactions,' he adds. As more physicists get intrigued by sonofusion in coming months, he anticipates many other surprises." All in all a very good story, except for the obligatory off-putting phrase for journalists these days -- "Cold fusion fizzled, leaving scientists bitterly disappointed." Cold fusion obviously didn't fizzle. It was the scientific establishment that fizzled and continues to do so on the matter of cold fusion. The Science sonofusion article -- and good coverage such as this Business Week article-- may change that, but we shall see. It's good to have the issue on the table again, so to speak! And, wonder of wonders, Robert Park was NOT quoted... Best, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 10 15:19:40 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA00417; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:16:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:16:45 -0800 Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:08:37 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: A Trout in the Milk To: vortex Message-id: <005901c1c888$83354b60$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"oTgHp1.0.66.Sb-Yy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46518 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Trout in the Milk, an anti-skepticism rant "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk" - Henry Thoreau From: http://www.alternativescience.com/chapter%2011.htm On his website, Richard Milton has some stories about examples of so-called 'pathological science' from several generations ago. One self-appointed expert on such things in the 1930s, was Nobelist Irving Langmuir - and as it turns out, things then were not too different from today - except that today's tunnel-blind gadfly, Bob Park, gets no prize other than the potential to win, hands down, that unwanted award for pig-headed ignominy - when and if LENR succeeds in opening up new vistas for alternative energy... Among the examples of pathological science, according to Langmuir were a number of related experiments carried out around 1930 at Columbia University by Professor Bergen Davis and his colleague Dr Arthur Barnes. The implications of these experiments with alpha particles and electrons purposefully designed to explore energy levels around 54.4 eV attracted wide attention in the physics community of the day, until Langmuir exposed some sloppiness in one version of the experiments. Langmuir did use a little trickery to get a short -term laugh, but the end-result of the whole episode look very different today because of the findings from any number of sophisticated "merged-beam" experiments that largely corroborate Davis/Barnes. BTW, one recent conclusion of merged beam experiments goes something like "While the ionization cross section for hydrogen and helium have been exhaustively investigated, uncertainties still remain concerning the mechanisms that are important at energies *near the threshold* for this fundamental process." Seventy years and we are still not sure about the simplest of all ionization mechanisms!! If the importance of those threshold levels in the context of LENR are not clear to the reader by now, then nothing else that follows will make sense either. "What goes around, comes around..." - Every Temporarily Disenfranchised Optimist since Ptolemy Many moderately mis-informed skeptics, even recently, are quoting the Davis/ Barnes incident as evidence of the problems that ensue from letting personal beliefs overwhelm observational evidence. BUT because Davis and Barnes were later largely proven correct in the bulk of their assertions, the final results of Langmuir's intrusion serves mainly to undercut the whole rationale of scientific skepticism. No one knows how much progress was lost or delayed by the unnecessary controversy- which was not about results but techniques. Whether or not Langmuir's trickery really proves the evils of self-deception or the evils of skepticism is an open question. In truth, the bottom line may yet prove that Langmuir himself was little more than a half-sighted flounderer who should be scaled clean of his prize, particularly if indeed his efforts to expose "pathological science" actually resulted in the postponement for seventy years of the early evidence of several unusual energy phenomena of great importance. That leads up to this curious note on the Davis-Barnes experiments at 54.4 eV, especially with respect to Randell Mills ideas: maybe Mill's is only partially correct and the main thing he got right was the importance of photons in multiples of 13.6 eV in many anomalous quasi-nuclear processes of light nuclei. Perhaps the mysterious hydrino may end up looking more like "disappearance into a 4D wormhole" than mere shrinkage, and perhaps even at least one mechanism of stellar energy production may involve mass exchanges with a fourth spatial dimension (shades of ZPE). I wonder if the percentage of scintillations that didn't get deflected by the magnet during the D&B calibration could have been related to reactions involving anomalous energy EUV photons. That is, something akin to shrunken hydrogen, the reaction Randell Mills says happens when hydrogen gets in proximity with "holes" or "energy deficits" which are multiple of 13.6 eV. But maybe the correct concept is 13.6*Z^2 - and that is exactly the issue that Davis and Barnes would have pursued, but for Langmuir .... And whether it all relates to Mills is far from certain. It certainly falls far outside of Mills' CQM theory, but Mills may not have all the answers... The only certainty is that the older research shouldn't have gotten quashed by Langmuir's misdirected self-righteousness and more importantly - the world in 2072 will be better off if the nay-sayers of today like Bob Park, Taubes, Close, and their ilk should volunteer for an unceremonious version of 1st amendment hari-kari tongue removal. Occasionally, perhaps, looking back at older reported phenomena with a new perspective offers insight. OTOH, it should be mentioned that maybe this particular incident is not really the prized trout... perhaps instead it's just a red herring... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 11 09:14:51 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA07769; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:10:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:10:20 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8CE401.D5F44390 ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:06:09 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: ChemWeb.com Member News Bulletin] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xBg_l3.0.Gv1.xJEZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46519 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ChemWeb.com Member News Bulletin Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 08:51:34 -0600 From: "ChemWeb.com" To: ================================================== ChemWeb.com News Bulletin - Volume 5, Issue 10 Dear Akira Kawasaki, (Member Name:aki22) ================================================== In this issue: 1 - the alchemist highlights 2 - Visit us at PITTCON booth 1122! 3 - Sign up for the alchemist conference reporter 4 - New look Conference Centre 5 - Over 400 articles in the CPS 6 - Celebrate St.Patrick's Day 7 - Book of the week ================================================= 1 - the alchemist highlights ================================================= Sign up to receive the alchemist headlines each week. Go to: http://www.chemweb.com/mailing_list/add_user.asp?firstlist=Alchemist A Heap of the Smelly Stuff Composting is perhaps not the most pleasant of subjects to discuss but there is a lot of it going on around the world and given the right conditions it could help solve the landfill crises. http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1014822009170.html Applications of Chemometrics So chemometrics is reaching into the public domain. It struck me how broadly based the applications of chemometrics really are, in many fields of chemistry, as well as chemical engineering, archaeology, food science, biology and so on. http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1014822038074.html Nuclear Fusion in a Flask? Controversy ensues about reports of nuclear fusion in chilled completely deuterated acetone from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1014822039279.html Read more headlines and see the latest features at: http://alchemist.chemweb.com ===================================================== 2 - Visit us at PITTCON booth 1122! ===================================================== We are exhibiting at Pittcon 2002 in New Orleans March 18-21. Come and check us out to see what new and exciting features we have added to ChemWeb.com to make it better for you. We have freebies to give away including a special inflatable give-away! So come and have a look and see what you've been missing. Come by and see us at booth 1122 ================================================= 3 - Sign up for the alchemist conference reporter ================================================= The next Conference Reporter will cover 'Pittcon 2002' to be held in New Orleans, USA on 18-21 March 2002. Pittcon is one of the biggest Analytical Chemistry Exhibitions with an estimated 30000 attendees including 1300 exhibitors from 120 countries displaying the latest analytical instrumentation and software over 4 days. Sign up for the Email Update and be first with the news. http://www.chemweb.com/utils/email.cfm?id=9122&uid=294183 ================================================= 4 - New look Conference Centre ================================================= The Conference Centre has been redesigned with a new look and improved functionality. It is now easier to promote your own event and find relevant meetings. Click here to find out more: http://www.chemweb.com/conferences ================================================= 5 - Over 400 articles in the CPS ================================================= The Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) continues to receive support from the worldwide chemistry community with over 400 preprints uploaded for browsing, review and discussion since its launch in August 2000. Submissions have been received from more than 50 countries. Browse the latest submissions on the CPS: http://preprint.chemweb.com/CPS/show/most_recent.html Submission of a research paper, short communication or conference proceeding can be made online by visiting: http://www.chemweb.com/utils/email.cfm?id=9120&uid=294183 Remember - your comments are important! Each article forms its own discussion group making the CPS the perfect forum to openly discuss articles with your peers. ================================================= 6 - Celebrate St.Patrick's Day ================================================= Celebrate with the Irish by sending a St Patrick's postcard to a friend or colleague free with ChemWeb.com. http://www.chemweb.com/utils/email.cfm?id=9121&uid=294183 ================================================= 7 - Book of the week ================================================= Stories of the Invisible Philip Ball Stories of the Invisible is an aspirational appetiser that hopefully will inspire the bright minds of inchoate 'molecular scientists' to delve deeper and, as the jacket blurb says, "reinvent chemistry as the central creative science of the new century." Read the alchemist's review at: http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1014215516587.html ================================================= If you would like a reminder of your Member Name/password, please use our reminder service at: http://www.chemweb.com/home?forgot=1 ================================================= This email has been sent to you because you are a registered member of ChemWeb.com and we feel it is important to keep you up-to-date with new developments. If you would prefer not to receive any more of these emails, please click on the link below to automatically unsubscribe: http://www.chemweb.com/unsubscribe?uid=294183 ================================================== Best regards Kristina Thrower Member Services PS. If you think that a friend or colleague might find ChemWeb.com useful, don't forget to forward them this message. ================================================== From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 12 07:46:55 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21265; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:43:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:43:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:43:00 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Commercial Biomass Project Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"anG1J3.0.xB5.p8YZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46520 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sparber was right about bull$hit! http://redding.com/top_stories/business/20020311topbus037.shtml Cow power could light Northwest Manure-to-methane projects considered environment friendly Linda Ashton Associated Press March, 11 2002 - 2:52 a.m. SUNNYSIDE, Wash. - It's a little bit like the old saying, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Dairies have given the Yakima Valley an abundance of cow manure and, one day, it might be used to make methane. To that end, Energy Northwest, the public power group that owns the region's only nuclear power plant, is looking at the possibility of teaming up with dairy farms in Washington, Oregon and Idaho to develop this form of "green" power. The goal is to build a 3- to 4-megawatt electrical power plant fueled with "biogas," or manure-derived methane. "We've been working with the dairy industry for 10 to 15 years, trying to solve the manure waste problem," said Ivan White, president of Sunnyside Inc., the economic development group for this central Washington city of 14,000. Sunnyside, in Yakima County, is one of the locations Energy Northwest is looking at, along with northwestern Washington's Whatcom County, Boise and Twin Falls, Idaho, and Tillamook, Ore. Yakima County alone has 85,000 head of dairy cows, and tons of manure. That's a very renewable resource. And it's no bull that biodigester technology today makes it possible to get about 0.3 kilowatts of electricity per cow, as much as 0.9 kilowatts in some European studies, said Stan Davison, business development specialist for the Richland-based utility. One kilowatt is enough to power 10 100-watt light bulbs. The manure-to-methane project would work like this: A big digester tank, acting essentially as a mechanical stomach, is filled with a slurry of manure and water. Bacteria, already present in the waste, process the manure into methane while thriving in the 130-degree temperature of the tank. The methane rises to the top - it's lighter than air - and is piped off to power a pair of modified diesel generators outfitted with spark plugs. While the generators make electricity, the remaining fiber in the tanks settles to the bottom. Liquid squeezed out of the fiber makes fertilizer and the dry fiber makes compost. The Northwest accounts for 8 percent of the nation's dairy farm business. A biomass power plant would need access to a dairy or dairies, room to build the power plant and access to transmission lines. "The real issue is high capital costs," Davison said. "If you ignore the capital costs, the fuel is free - it's a byproduct of milk. It's something you're going to be producing anyway. You might as well handle it as fuel as handle it as waste." The rough estimate for building such a plant is about $2,800 dollars a kilowatt. Wind power runs about $1,000 per kilowatt. But on average, a wind farm only produces about 30 percent of capacity over the course of a year, while a cow-powered plant can produce at 90 percent. That just about evens up the costs, Davison said. "Over the years, there have been a number of people promoting methane digesters. The one thing they're always lacking is capital," said Jay Gordon, a Lewis County dairy farmer and director of the Washington State Dairy Federation, which represents about 650 family dairy farms in the state. The margin is thin, Davison said. So Energy Northwest's next step is to approach utilities to see if there's enough interest in such a project to pay for it. It could be a nice fit for a lot of dairy farms, if it doesn't cost the farmer money, Gordon said. "We know the technology works. We know it's a great concept. We know it's renewable. We know it's green," he said. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 12 09:35:06 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA19408; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:32:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:32:10 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8E2EC7.60D86900 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:37:43 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zMdhl1.0.6l4.PkZZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46521 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this one overlooks a very important unintended consequence. Cow manure is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. In the process, materials are removed from this land which must be replaced. This replacement can either be accomplished by returning the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. Your proposal would increase the energy needed to generate fertilizer as well as deny the soil the complex chemicals found in compost. The net result would be a faster destruction of the soil and a faster loss of nutrient value to the food chain than is already occurring. This idea is one of many examples of how ignorance can cause an even worse problem. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: > Sparber was right about bull$hit! > > http://redding.com/top_stories/business/20020311topbus037.shtml > > Cow power could light Northwest > > Manure-to-methane projects considered environment friendly > > Linda Ashton Associated Press > > March, 11 2002 - 2:52 a.m. SUNNYSIDE, Wash. - It's a little bit > like the old saying, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. > > Dairies have given the Yakima Valley an abundance of cow manure > and, one day, it might be used to make methane. > > To that end, Energy Northwest, the public power group that owns > the region's only nuclear power plant, is looking at the > possibility of teaming up with dairy farms in Washington, Oregon > and Idaho to develop this form of "green" power. > > The goal is to build a 3- to 4-megawatt electrical power plant > fueled with "biogas," or manure-derived methane. > > "We've been working with the dairy industry for 10 to 15 years, > trying to solve the manure waste problem," said Ivan White, > president of Sunnyside Inc., the economic development group for > this central Washington city of 14,000. > > Sunnyside, in Yakima County, is one of the locations Energy > Northwest is looking at, along with northwestern Washington's > Whatcom County, Boise and Twin Falls, Idaho, and Tillamook, Ore. > > Yakima County alone has 85,000 head of dairy cows, and tons of > manure. That's a very renewable resource. > > And it's no bull that biodigester technology today makes it > possible to get about 0.3 kilowatts of electricity per cow, as > much as 0.9 kilowatts in some European studies, said Stan > Davison, business development specialist for the Richland-based > utility. One kilowatt is enough to power 10 100-watt light bulbs. > > The manure-to-methane project would work like this: > > A big digester tank, acting essentially as a mechanical stomach, > is filled with a slurry of manure and water. Bacteria, already > present in the waste, process the manure into methane while > thriving in the 130-degree temperature of the tank. > > The methane rises to the top - it's lighter than air - and is > piped off to power a pair of modified diesel generators outfitted > with spark plugs. > > While the generators make electricity, the remaining fiber in the > tanks settles to the bottom. Liquid squeezed out of the fiber > makes fertilizer and the dry fiber makes compost. > > The Northwest accounts for 8 percent of the nation's dairy farm > business. A biomass power plant would need access to a dairy or > dairies, room to build the power plant and access to transmission > lines. > > "The real issue is high capital costs," Davison said. "If you > ignore the capital costs, the fuel is free - it's a byproduct of > milk. It's something you're going to be producing anyway. You > might as well handle it as fuel as handle it as waste." > > The rough estimate for building such a plant is about $2,800 > dollars a kilowatt. Wind power runs about $1,000 per kilowatt. > > But on average, a wind farm only produces about 30 percent of > capacity over the course of a year, while a cow-powered plant can > produce at 90 percent. That just about evens up the costs, > Davison said. > > "Over the years, there have been a number of people promoting > methane digesters. The one thing they're always lacking is > capital," said Jay Gordon, a Lewis County dairy farmer and > director of the Washington State Dairy Federation, which > represents about 650 family dairy farms in the state. > > The margin is thin, Davison said. So Energy Northwest's next step > is to approach utilities to see if there's enough interest in > such a project to pay for it. > > It could be a nice fit for a lot of dairy farms, if it doesn't > cost the farmer money, Gordon said. > > "We know the technology works. We know it's a great concept. We > know it's renewable. We know it's green," he said. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 12 12:01:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA04824; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:58:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:58:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:58:17 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project In-Reply-To: <3C8E2EC7.60D86900 ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"YefdQ3.0.AB1.TtbZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46522 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Actually, you are better off skipping the cow process and using the grass to produce gas directly, and then returning the left over grass product to the pasture. But as you say, it's still a loss, energy wise. Just use cold fusion and be done with it. On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Edmund Storms wrote: > Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this > one overlooks a very important unintended consequence. Cow manure > is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. In the > process, materials are removed from this land which must be > replaced. This replacement can either be accomplished by returning > the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be > expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. Your proposal > would increase the energy needed to generate fertilizer as well as > deny the soil the complex chemicals found in compost. The net > result would be a faster destruction of the soil and a faster loss > of nutrient value to the food chain than is already occurring. This > idea is one of many examples of how ignorance can cause an even > worse problem. > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 12 15:23:54 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA11866; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:20:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:20:45 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:20:56 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project In-Reply-To: <3C8E2EC7.60D86900 ix.netcom.com> References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"3-Fop2.0.Fv2.CreZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46523 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this >one overlooks a very important unintended consequence. Cow manure >is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. In the >process, materials are removed from this land which must be >replaced. This replacement can either be accomplished by returning >the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be >expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. I believe you're missing the point here, Ed. No one proposes raising cows in order to generate energy. The cows are being raised anyway, for food. The manure must be disposed of, and it may make economic sense to convert it to energy. As a source of energy, the manure is probably uneconomical, but the processing probably reduces waste disposal costs. The combination of energy revenue and savings in disposal costs may make this viable. A breeder fission reactor is a much grimmer example of the same principle. When you use up more of the remaining potential energy of the fuel, you reduce the half-life, the volume of spent fuel, and greatly reduce the ultimate disposal costs. Unfortunately, breeder fission reactors are fantastically expensive compared to conventional uranium reactors, and the savings in fuel cost and disposal cost would not justify making them. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 06:11:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA20841; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 06:08:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 06:08:35 -0800 Message-ID: <004601c1ca90$250a06c0$5a8f85ce computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Biomass Thread? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:07:37 -0600 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: <"PZoHJ1.0.R55.YrrZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46524 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks Terry. Your post was forwarded to me by a co-conspirator. :-) Since I had been unsubscribed from Vortex for a spell and missed out on first-hand posts, especially Ed Storms' post regarding starving out soil nutrition by using biomass for energy production, I would like to jump into the foray with some thoughts based on many years as a farm kid trained in vocational agriculture added to about 30 years of biomass energy research. The Feedlot-Dairy Manure Disposal Problem. Present efforts to keep Nitrates-Nitrites from polluting ground/surface waters requires that dairies have a fermentation lagoon bottom-sealed to keep nitrates-nitrites out of the ground water, which allows the anaerobic produced methane produced to go into the atmosphere and the ozone layer, and the lost energy aerobic oxidation- produced CO2 ( at a rate of 44/12 Tons of CO2/Ton plant carbon to go into the environment as a lost resource. In several Eastern States, in order to protect streams and ground water, environmental protection laws require that the lagoon effluent be piped for miles, and immediately "plowed" into the soil, precluding the option of "no till" agriculture. Based on D.O.E. studies, present agricultural biomass residues ( not needed for soil humus or nutrition) represents an immediately available 5 Quad/Year carbon-neutral energy resource to offset part of the 98 Quad/Year U.S. energy use. More Later, Ed. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 06:46:23 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA03326; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 06:43:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 06:43:50 -0800 Message-ID: <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:43:30 -0600 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: <"2e-gv1.0.up.cMsZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46525 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I found the thread title. Ed Storms wrote: > Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this one overlooks a very important unintended consequence. Cow manure > is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. True! In the > process, materials are removed from this land which must be > replaced. Mainly Potassium and Phosphorus which can be recycled in a more available form than that in most soils. It had been common practice to burn corn stover and wheat straw in the field to get higher yields from the increased availability of nutrients. The legumes soy beans, clover, alfalfa, peas, etc., do not require a nitrogen source as does wheat and corn. This replacement can either be accomplished by returning > the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be > expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. The thermochemical conversion of biomass to hydrogen for ammonia/urea fertilizer synthesis has over 16:1 benefit/requirement ratio. IOW, 40 acres of high tonnage biomass will support ALL of the Energy Requirements for 640 acres, excluding deep well pumped irrigation. The main thrust of biomass energy was to support the Energy Requirements of Agriculture, not the gas tank of kids from Acne-High cruising St. Francis Drive. :-) Your proposal > would increase the energy needed to generate fertilizer as well as > deny the soil the complex chemicals found in compost. The net > result would be a faster destruction of the soil and a faster loss > of nutrient value to the food chain than is already occurring. That's a gut reaction, Ed. This > idea is one of many examples of how ignorance can cause an even > worse problem. OTOH. :-) Regards, Frederick > > Ed > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 07:47:42 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31736; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:41:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:41:29 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8F6660.3833819D ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:47:02 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MRrS_3.0.nl7.fCtZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46526 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > >Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this > >one overlooks a very important unintended consequence. Cow manure > >is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. In the > >process, materials are removed from this land which must be > >replaced. This replacement can either be accomplished by returning > >the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be > >expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. > > I believe you're missing the point here, Ed. No one proposes raising cows > in order to generate energy. The cows are being raised anyway, for food. > The manure must be disposed of, and it may make economic sense to convert > it to energy. I never assumed that cows would be raised for energy. However, once an industry is created based on turning cow manure into energy, this industry will compete with the use of manure to make compost. Already, the compost business has to compete with the fertilizer industry, causing a loss of soil quality. Another competitor would make the problem worse. > As a source of energy, the manure is probably uneconomical, > but the processing probably reduces waste disposal costs. The combination > of energy revenue and savings in disposal costs may make this viable. The same advantage can be obtained by turning manure into compost. This action would tie up the nitrates, eliminate the smell, provide a better nutrient for the soil, and reduce energy used to make fertilizer. Granted, this would not completely eliminate the use of fertilizer, but it would improve average soil health. The main reason compost is not more widely used is because chemical fertilizer has become of habit. If the use of compost were encouraged by a lower price based on large operations, we would all benefit. > > > A breeder fission reactor is a much grimmer example of the same principle. > When you use up more of the remaining potential energy of the fuel, you > reduce the half-life, the volume of spent fuel, and greatly reduce the > ultimate disposal costs. Unfortunately, breeder fission reactors are > fantastically expensive compared to conventional uranium reactors, and the > savings in fuel cost and disposal cost would not justify making them. While less Pu or U would be present as a disposal problem, more of the other dangerous isotopes are present. In addition, a chemical separation is required, which adds to the volume of dangerous material needed to be disposed. Its a bad method no matter what the argument. Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 08:23:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA19276; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:19:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:19:51 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8F6F51.5B16BFF2 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:25:15 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Mmw8s3.0.yi4.amtZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46527 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: > I found the thread title. > > Ed Storms wrote: > > > Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this one overlooks a > very important unintended consequence. Cow manure > > is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. > > True! > > In the > > process, materials are removed from this land which must be > > replaced. > > Mainly Potassium and Phosphorus which can be recycled in > a more available form than that in most soils. It had been common practice to burn > corn stover and wheat straw in the field to get higher yields from the increased > availability of nutrients. > The legumes soy beans, clover, alfalfa, peas, etc., do not require a nitrogen source > as does wheat and corn. True, but soil also needs humates in order to retain moisture and to allow efficient microbe action. > > > This replacement can either be accomplished by returning > > the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be > > expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. > > The thermochemical conversion of biomass to hydrogen > for ammonia/urea fertilizer synthesis has over 16:1 benefit/requirement ratio. Are you suggesting that the hydrogen is best put back into the soil as NH4 rather than being burned for energy? > > > IOW, 40 acres of high tonnage biomass will support ALL > of the Energy Requirements for 640 acres, excluding deep well pumped irrigation. > > The main thrust of biomass energy was to support the Energy Requirements of > Agriculture, not the gas tank of kids from Acne-High cruising St. Francis Drive. :-) Very true, but this fact is being ignored in "modern" thinking. > > > Your proposal > > would increase the energy needed to generate fertilizer as well as > > deny the soil the complex chemicals found in compost. The net > > result would be a faster destruction of the soil and a faster loss > > of nutrient value to the food chain than is already occurring. > > That's a gut reaction, Ed. A gut reaction based on facts. People who have turned to compost are finding that their soil requires less water, that the plants are more productive and healthy, and that the plants have a higher nutritional value. Thanks to the growing organic food industry, these facts are becoming better known. Like the method of analysis applied to most industries, the real cost to society of using chemical fertilizer is not taken into account. Fortunately, intelligent people who have the necessary money are able to protect themselves from the shortsighted greed of the chemical fertilizer industry. This process will gradually demonstrate to ordinary farmers the advantages of using organic fertilizers, causing improved farming in general. > > > This > > idea is one of many examples of how ignorance can cause an even > > worse problem. > > OTOH. :-) Regards, Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 08:41:04 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32508; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:39:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:39:47 -0800 Message-ID: <009d01c1caa5$4173b080$5a8f85ce computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08@pop.mindspring.com> <3C8F6660.3833819D@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:39:21 -0600 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: <"Je3pd3.0.ax7.G3uZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46528 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:47 AM Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project Gosh Ed, if you stood ankle-deep in cow dooty covering an acre of 60 bushel/acre wheat, or 150 bushel/acre corn crops you couldn't get enough nitrogen or mineral nutrients back to sustain that yield. How many 1,000 head dairies at about 12 lbs/day/cow (~ 1/3 cubic feet manure/day, or about 12 cubic ft of methane at about 12 ft^3/cow day) would it take to fertilize and compost a 4,000 acre agricultural operation? Where did it go? You're flushing it into your municipal sewage treatment plant and it's making it's ~ 90 mile journey down the Rio Grande and ending up in my well water. That's why I had to invest ~ $500.00 in a Reverse Osmosis water purification system. This way it will eventually end up in El Paso, :-) ADM doesn't use Organic Farming either. Regards, Frederick > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > > >Well Terry, like all attempts to address the energy problem, this > > >one overlooks a very important unintended consequence. Cow manure > > >is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere. In the > > >process, materials are removed from this land which must be > > >replaced. This replacement can either be accomplished by returning > > >the manure to the land as compost or raw manure, or energy must be > > >expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer. > > > > I believe you're missing the point here, Ed. No one proposes raising cows > > in order to generate energy. The cows are being raised anyway, for food. > > The manure must be disposed of, and it may make economic sense to convert > > it to energy. > > I never assumed that cows would be raised for energy. However, once an > industry is created based on turning cow manure into energy, this industry > will compete with the use of manure to make compost. Already, the compost > business has to compete with the fertilizer industry, causing a loss of soil > quality. Another competitor would make the problem worse. > > > As a source of energy, the manure is probably uneconomical, > > but the processing probably reduces waste disposal costs. The combination > > of energy revenue and savings in disposal costs may make this viable. > > The same advantage can be obtained by turning manure into compost. This > action would tie up the nitrates, eliminate the smell, provide a better > nutrient for the soil, and reduce energy used to make fertilizer. Granted, > this would not completely eliminate the use of fertilizer, but it would > improve average soil health. The main reason compost is not more widely used > is because chemical fertilizer has become of habit. If the use of compost > were encouraged by a lower price based on large operations, we would all > benefit. > > > > > > > A breeder fission reactor is a much grimmer example of the same principle. > > When you use up more of the remaining potential energy of the fuel, you > > reduce the half-life, the volume of spent fuel, and greatly reduce the > > ultimate disposal costs. Unfortunately, breeder fission reactors are > > fantastically expensive compared to conventional uranium reactors, and the > > savings in fuel cost and disposal cost would not justify making them. > > While less Pu or U would be present as a disposal problem, more of the other > dangerous isotopes are present. In addition, a chemical separation is > required, which adds to the volume of dangerous material needed to be > disposed. Its a bad method no matter what the argument. > > Ed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 08:50:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA01552; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:42:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:42:34 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313113407.03dfa968 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:42:48 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project In-Reply-To: <3C8F6660.3833819D ix.netcom.com> References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"WX73E2.0.2O.u5uZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46529 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >I never assumed that cows would be raised for energy. However, once an >industry is created based on turning cow manure into energy, this industry >will compete with the use of manure to make compost. Most of the methods of extracting energy I have read about also yield useful compost. Perhaps the quality is degraded -- I wouldn't know. But in any case there is too much manure. >Already, the compost business has to compete with the fertilizer industry, >causing a loss of soil quality. Another competitor would make the problem >worse. If the manure could be pre-processed to yield energy, this would add to the profit and help it compete with chemical fertilizer. It might produce enough energy to run the fertilizer factory, for example. >The main reason compost is not more widely used is because chemical >fertilizer has become of habit. I think chemical fertilizer is cheaper, because it requires less processing. >While less Pu or U would be present as a disposal problem, more of the >other dangerous isotopes are present. The Japanese breeder program advocates said the half-life of most dangerous isotopes was much shorter than in conventional spent fuel. > In addition, a chemical separation is >required, which adds to the volume of dangerous material needed to be >disposed. Its a bad method no matter what the argument. No doubt, but it would be an attractive idea, if only it could be implemented in a safe and cost-effective manner. It would be nice to reduce waste AND extract more energy. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 09:07:06 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA15615; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:06:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:06:12 -0800 Message-ID: <00a901c1caa8$f5e18a80$5a8f85ce computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce@computer> <3C8F6F51.5B16BFF2@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:05:52 -0600 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: <"Q5AtJ.0.pp3.4SuZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46530 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:25 AM Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article Ed Storms wrote: > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > > > > Ed Storms wrote: > > > > Mainly Potassium and Phosphorus which can be recycled in > > a more available form than that in most soils. It had been common practice to burn > > corn stover and wheat straw in the field to get higher yields from the increased > > availability of nutrients. > > The legumes soy beans, clover, alfalfa, peas, etc., do not require a nitrogen source > > as does wheat and corn. > > True, but soil also needs humates in order to retain moisture and to allow efficient > microbe action. Yes. But the root system and plant stubble allows adequate humus. You can overdo turning under too much "sod/humus" because the bacterial metabolism will starve out a succeeding crop. The switch to No-Till and Organic farming has got around this problem, especially when going from a hay crop to a corn or cereal grain crop. > > > > > > > > > The thermochemical conversion of biomass to hydrogen > > for ammonia/urea fertilizer synthesis has over 16:1 benefit/requirement ratio. > > Are you suggesting that the hydrogen is best put back into the soil as NH4 rather than > being burned for energy? I think you meant anhydrous NH3 or water soluble pellets of Urea, NH2-CO-NH2, Yes. Biomass energy and it's by-products should only be used to maintain a food supply. Now that "wheeling" of electrical power and or natural gas is a matter of public policy, the logistics for a system of ag wastes to energy and ag waste energy to agriculture is tractable. > > > > > > IOW, 40 acres of high tonnage biomass will support ALL > > of the Energy Requirements for 640 acres, excluding deep well pumped irrigation. > > > > > The main thrust of biomass energy was to support the Energy Requirements of > > Agriculture, not the gas tank of kids from Acne-High cruising St. Francis Drive. :-) > > Very true, but this fact is being ignored in "modern" thinking. Yes. People are more concerned about the anthropomorphism of the automobile than assurance of a "stable" food supply. :-) > > > > > > > A gut reaction based on facts. People who have turned to compost are finding that their > soil requires less water, that the plants are more productive and healthy, and that the > plants have a higher nutritional value. Thanks to the growing organic food industry, > these facts are becoming better known. Like the method of analysis applied to most > industries, the real cost to society of using chemical fertilizer is not taken into > account. Fortunately, intelligent people who have the necessary money are able to > protect themselves from the shortsighted greed of the chemical fertilizer industry. This > process will gradually demonstrate to ordinary farmers the advantages of using organic > fertilizers, causing improved farming in general. > Agreed. > Regards, Frederick > > Regards, > Ed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 09:29:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA27406; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:26:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:26:38 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:26:26 -0800 Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313113407.03dfa968 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA27376 Resent-Message-ID: <"07kbp.0.5i6.CluZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46531 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 3/13/02 8:42 AM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > Most of the methods of extracting energy I have read about also yield > useful compost. Perhaps the quality is degraded -- I wouldn't know. But in > any case there is too much manure. The careful work of David Wallman and Wilbur Dammann of DW Research (Colorado and Nebraska) reported in a number of issues of Infinite Energy, employs a carbon arc in pure water or an organic waste pool to generate a new kind of gas, which DW calls CarboHydrogen gas -- other has referred to it as "AquaFuel." No matter what you call it, the properties of this gas are emerging as quite amazing. I was speaking with David Wallman just yesterday and he told me that two independent test facilities determined that the BTU content of one STP cubic foot of such gas has a heating value of about 1170 BTU. (The tests were done by comparing the heating of water by natural gas at the same pressure as a test of CarboHydrogen gas). Careful measurements by DW Research have determined separately from these heating value tests, they say, that 12 (twelve!) cu ft. of said gas can be created from I.0 kWHr of electrical energy, plus a minimal consumption of carbon (which like the water is "free"). Now I.0 kWHr of energy is 3413 BTU. So the formal O/U is 4.11/1. The carbon consumption may reduce "scientific O/U", but not necessarily by that much. Moreover, new methods being pioneered by DW seem to indicate even greater gas production than 12 cu ft/kwHr, according to David Wallman. Like cold fusion, this process is marginalized by the mainstream and even by most cold fusion/new energy researchers. Fortunately, DW is very, very intensely focused on commercialization and will no doubt succeed. They have a significant patent position. The integrity of this company, based on my intimate knowledge of the people, is extremely high. This work should not be ignored in biomass energy discussions. Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 09:39:33 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA02137; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:38:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:38:54 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313123837.00b13fa8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:39:13 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Is Saltmarsh paper available? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"BCl923.0.7X.kwuZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46532 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Does anyone have the Shapira & Saltmarsh paper? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 09:53:26 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA10281; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:50:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:50:38 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8F9140.A8A2176C bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:49:52 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Is Saltmarsh paper available? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313123837.00b13fa8 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-YqmF1.0.OW2.j5vZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46533 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Does anyone have the Shapira & Saltmarsh paper? > > - Jed It's available at: http://www.ornl.gov/slsite/SLan5av2.pdf but I have sent it to you directly. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 10:07:16 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA17812; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:06:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:06:03 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:06:33 -0800 Subject: Letter to the Editor re: "Star in a Jar?" From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA17762 Resent-Message-ID: <"PeyH_2.0.2M4.AKvZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46534 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Letter to the Editor: Dear Julie Ann Miller (Editor, Science News): In your coverage of the recent sonofusion work reported in Science by Taleyarkhan et al, SN: 3/9/01, p.147, we find the unsubstantiated and false remark regarding cold fusion and Fleischmann and Pons: "However, neither the original pair nor anyone else could reproduce those findings, which have largely been discredited as a case study in mistaken science." If P. Weiss really believes this utter falsehood, then I suggest that Science News send him to the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, meeting in Beijing, May 19-24, 2002 under the sponsorship of official Chinese physics organizations. Let him determine, if he can, that no replications of electrochemical cold fusion have been performed. He will fail, since the peer-reviewed and Proceedings literature since 1989 does indeed contain such substantial replications‹ including the accurate correlation of excess heat to helium-4 production. I believe an apology and a correction by Science News is in order. The reputation of Science News is not served by repeating the uninformed scientific bigotry of certain "Voodoo" scientists at the American Physical Society. Sincerely, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 10:16:12 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA22185; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:13:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:13:44 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313130648.00b13fa8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:13:46 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC Good news on population Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"qecUp3.0.PQ5.NRvZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46535 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: Population Estimates Fall as Women Assert Control http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/international/10POPU.html Third world population growth is dropping rapidly. Here are two paragraphs that Arthur C. Clarke must find gratifying, since he predicted this and helped bring it about: "Gelson Fonseca, Brazil's ambassador to the United Nations, said that television was important. Brazilians see small and apparently happy families in television programs and think about emulating that example. In Bangladesh, family planning experts noticed a decade ago that in some of the remotest areas, information gleaned from satellite television was influencing contraceptive choices. In one case, a certain intrauterine device was rejected by many women in an area where one of them had seen it described as hazardous in a Western television program." This is a superb example of the benefits of technology. In developed nations we have so much television exposure it probably hurts us. Children should play outside instead of watching the boob tube. But for the human race as a whole, television is an enormous benefit. It is an unparalleled source of liberation, education and hope, and a window on the rest of humanity. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 10:49:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA07330; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:46:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:46:42 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:54:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Frederick Sparber cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article In-Reply-To: <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce computer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"D7ASU.0.Oo1.HwvZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46536 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Where is St. Francis Drive? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 11:04:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19095; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:03:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:03:35 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313140144.00a8fcc0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:03:52 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Bubble fusion in Japanese press Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"VCZ9r1.0.Gg4.7AwZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46537 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Japanese press has taken note of the bubble fusion claims. The Yomiuri devotes a third of a page to the story, in the Wednesday March 13 print edition, p. 11. Headlines: "Bubble Fusion" Could It Be Real? Theoretically Possible Replicability not yet ascertained "We must objectively wait for verification," says the editor of the journal in which paper was published The introductory paragraph says: "After claims of 'bubble nuclear fusion' were published in the March 8 edition of the journal Science, a dispute has erupted over whether the claims are true or false. This may be a re-enactment cold fusion dispute, which ended as a great fuss about nothing. Or could it be true this time?" Except for that first crack at cold fusion, the article is informative and balanced, in my opinion. Although the introduction begins by mentioning the conflict, it downplays the dispute in the rest of the article. It says that similar experiments have been done for many years, and innovation in this particular experiment is the use of an external neutron source. It says the research is similar to cold fusion. Several leading people involved in the experiment are quoted, including: Taleyarkhan, Kennedy, Putterman, and in Japan Takahashi and someone named Hayashi who has been ultrasound, and who expresses doubt, "I do not think temperatures high enough for fusion can be achieved." Takahashi says the Taleyarkhan paper, "seems well-written. Actually, the replication experiment performed in the same lab has many unclear aspects." The article concludes: "Science editor Donald Kennedy agrees, ' we will have to wait until objective scientific experiments have been conducted.' It seems likely that will be awhile before conclusions can be reached." The Asahi online edition has a short, dismissive report that sounds like it was translated from an APS press release or "What's New." It says claims were made but an attempt to replicate failed, and it now seems "the 'bubble fusion' bubble is deflating." In Japanese, see: http://www.asahi.com/science/news/K2002030500983.html - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 12:01:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA19298; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:59:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:59:04 -0800 Message-ID: <002201c1cac1$13e729a0$cf8f85ce computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:57:43 -0600 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: <"rtRWi1.0.Pi4.5-wZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46538 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schnurer" To: "Frederick Sparber" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article John wrote: > > Where is St. Francis Drive? > Ask Ed Storms. He cruises it on occasion. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 12:11:52 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA26725; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:11:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:11:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3C8FA599.367E2FFC ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:17:17 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020313113407.03dfa968@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rZVIb2.0.NX6.U9xZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46539 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > >I never assumed that cows would be raised for energy. However, once an > >industry is created based on turning cow manure into energy, this industry > >will compete with the use of manure to make compost. > > Most of the methods of extracting energy I have read about also yield > useful compost. Perhaps the quality is degraded -- I wouldn't know. But in > any case there is too much manure. You are correct, extracting energy as methane does degrade the compost. True, there is too much manure. I suggest this is because people are not taking advantage of using it as compost. If the amount of compost required to keep the soil healthy were used, there would no longer be too much manure. Why not encourage the use of compost rather than using the manure as energy, something we can get from many other sources. Already the soil is being mined to raise corn to make alcohol as fuel. Why add to the problem? > > > >Already, the compost business has to compete with the fertilizer industry, > >causing a loss of soil quality. Another competitor would make the problem > >worse. > > If the manure could be pre-processed to yield energy, this would add to the > profit and help it compete with chemical fertilizer. It might produce > enough energy to run the fertilizer factory, for example. Turning manure into compost does release energy, but at a slow rate, too slow to make its harvest practical. > > > >The main reason compost is not more widely used is because chemical > >fertilizer has become of habit. > > I think chemical fertilizer is cheaper, because it requires less processing. It is cheaper if only the product is considered. It is not cheaper when the total cost to society is considered. In addition, compost would also be cheaper if it were more widely used. > > > >While less Pu or U would be present as a disposal problem, more of the > >other dangerous isotopes are present. > > The Japanese breeder program advocates said the half-life of most dangerous > isotopes was much shorter than in conventional spent fuel. As I said, less of the long-lived U and Pu is present because these elements are extracted. The rest of the junk is dangerous far longer than the attention span of modern man. Therefore, I see absolutely no merit to their argument. > > > > In addition, a chemical separation is > >required, which adds to the volume of dangerous material needed to be > >disposed. Its a bad method no matter what the argument. > > No doubt, but it would be an attractive idea, if only it could be > implemented in a safe and cost-effective manner. It would be nice to reduce > waste AND extract more energy. I agree, in an ideal world, this would be the way to go. The world being very nonideal, I think a breeder reactor is a very bad idea. Also, in this nonideal world, a hot fusion reactor is also a bad idea because it further concentrates energy production, thereby increasing the risks. Ed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 12:43:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA11680; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:40:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:40:39 -0800 Message-ID: <004101c1cac6$ea6e0a20$cf8f85ce computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08@pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020313113407.03dfa968@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:39:44 -0600 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: <"G1rbd3.0.Ms2.7bxZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46540 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project Jed wrote: > > Most of the methods of extracting energy I have read about also yield > useful compost. Perhaps the quality is degraded -- I wouldn't know. But in > any case there is too much manure. Not if you let it rot real good, then add corn meal or distillers grains from ADM's ethanol plants, for a startup worm farm. The other end of the food chain? :-) > > >Already, the compost business has to compete with the fertilizer industry, > >causing a loss of soil quality. Another competitor would make the problem > >worse. > > If the manure could be pre-processed to yield energy, this would add to the > profit and help it compete with chemical fertilizer. It might produce > enough energy to run the fertilizer factory, for example. In 1986 I shipped several tons of dry (virtually odorless) feedlot manure 1400 miles to a DOE-funded 5,000 horsepower (~3.5 Megawatt) external combustion gas turbine test facility operated by Joseph Hamrick of Aerospace Research Corporation in Roanoke, Virginia for burning sawdust and other biomass wastes. Almost all of the ash was removed and recovered by cyclone separators, such that the 36 lbs/second of > 1500 F turbine exhaust gases met EPA air quality standards. We were getting a bit over 1.0 Megawatt-hr/ ton of manure. And that is no bull. :-) It is all documented in the DOE reports. The commercialization problems Were Not Technical. But rather the glut of power generating capacity brought on by new fossil and nuclear plants coming on line. Perhaps now the pendulum will swing the other way? Regards, Frederick > > - Jed > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 13 12:47:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA15032; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:47:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:47:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313151802.03e22c08 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:47:18 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project In-Reply-To: <3C8FA599.367E2FFC ix.netcom.com> References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020313113407.03dfa968 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"kN0-63.0.ng3.5hxZy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46541 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >Turning manure into compost does release energy, but at a slow rate, too >slow to make its harvest practical. It is practical, but it often takes a lot of space. Methane from often taken from garbage, compost and manure. In the third world this is done on a small scale. In the U.S., some large landfills make significant revenue from this. It works best when they plan for it before constructing the landfill. In Georgia, several urban counties have effective composting programs. They do not produce energy but they do reduce solid waste and improve soil. In DeKalb County I believe they use a slow acting landfill, but Cobb County has and advanced, enclosed factory that organically digests garbage in three days, and produces good compost a month later. See: http://www.cobbcounty.org/compostfacility/compostfacility.htm > > The Japanese breeder program advocates said the half-life of most dangerous > > isotopes was much shorter than in conventional spent fuel. > >As I said, less of the long-lived U and Pu is present because these >elements are extracted. The rest of the junk is dangerous far longer than >the attention span of modern man. I believe they said most of the half-lives are reduced from hundreds of thousands of years to a range of 1,000 to 10,000 years. Reducing the half-life of most dangerous isotopes by this amount would be meaningful. Many human institutions, such as Oxford University, have remained active with a reliable institutional memory for more than 1,000 years. Some have lasted nearly 2,000 years -- 1/5 the required duration. I think it is reasonable to hope that human beings can maintain a 10,000 year stewardship over nuclear waste, unless some catastrophic event such as a nuclear war or meteor strike wipes out our knowledge. It is much less likely we could maintain a vigil for 200,000 years. Also, the physical containers designed to hold the material could be engineered to survive 10,000 years unattended. Ancient structures half that old have survived in good shape. The ancient pyramids still have intact, open rooms inside, which might have safely held nuclear waste, if the institutional memory could have been kept alive to prevent tomb robbers. It is impossible to build a structure from metal or rock that will survive 100,000 years. >The world being very >nonideal, I think a breeder reactor is a very bad idea. So do I! So do the Japanese, in retrospect. In 1992, the New York Times quoted a senior Japanese official who asked not to be identified: "It is almost inconceivable that such a good idea would have turned this bad. We spent the last 20 years building this project, and we'll probably spend the next 20 killing it." - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 01:26:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA25545; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:24:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:24:16 -0800 Message-ID: <00a401c1cb3a$16350640$bd8f209a ggrf30j> From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce@computer> Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:24:41 -0000 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: <"ofFuf2.0.-E6.0n6ay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46542 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Fred, Living in Jersey, as I do, we have loads of Jersey cows wandering about the fields but mostly they are kept in large sheds where the cow slurry builds up at a rate of knots. Current practice is to keep it in large tanks until sufficient has built up then the farmers spay it on the fields. This causes the neighbours to keep the windows shut for days! I believe in places such as Holland, they have to inject it directly into the soil. Oddly enough we have too high levels of nitrates in our water but every body denies responsibility - if anything is blamed publicly, it is the application of granular nitrogenous chemical fertiliser. So, we don't compost or "digest" our cow manure but we do digest our human toilet waste to create methane which is burned in piston engines to create electricity. The remaining solids are dried to a granular form which is promoted as a "soil conditioner". I believe they cannot promote it as a general fertiliser for a couple of reasons - firstly it has been somewhat nutritionally degraded but more importantly, human sewage contains lots of perhaps unexpected chemicals such as female hormones, heavy metals, drug residues etc which make it not ideal for food crops. They sell it to places such as golf courses. Nick Palmer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 08:35:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA20474; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:31:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:31:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314112649.00b141b0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:32:09 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Administration's nuclear weapons policy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"yynz42.0.o_4.w1Day" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46543 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The new proposed strategy to use small nuclear weapons has stirred up a lot of opposition. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24156-2002Mar13.html http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/ A quote from document #1: "The Pentagon reviewers may seem to be activating the nuclear trigger by asserting that we will use nuclear weapons against any nation threatening biological or chemical warfare. Hitherto, nonnuclear states were exempt from U.S. nuclear attack, but the president says he has to have every possible option. For some, the review offered a trip down memory lane. The advocacy of small nuclear weapons brought back memories of 1964, when Republican presidential contender Barry Goldwater traversed the country peddling tactical battlefield nukes no bigger than a fountain pen -- so small they could be clipped to a GI's shoulder tabs." Thermonuclear weapons require a critical mass of fissionable fuel, much bigger than a fountain pen. It is hard to believe Goldwater actually said that. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 11:02:37 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA15290; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:59:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:59:33 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:00:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Administration's nuclear weapons policy From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314112649.00b141b0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pLxYN3.0.dk3.KCFay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46544 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 3/14/02 8:32 AM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > Thermonuclear weapons require a critical mass of fissionable fuel, much > bigger than a fountain pen. It is hard to believe Goldwater actually said > that. > > - Jed The late Hermann Kahn speculated about bullet-sized nuclear weapons -- the fissionable material was Californium, as I recall. Someone may know the critical mass of the transuranic Californium. --Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 11:04:52 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA18598; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:04:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:04:34 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314135246.00b14390 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:04:25 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article In-Reply-To: <00a401c1cb3a$16350640$bd8f209a ggrf30j> References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce computer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"xbAN-.0.WY4.2HFay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46545 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer wrote: >So, we don't compost or "digest" our cow manure but we do digest our human >toilet waste to create methane which is burned in piston engines to create >electricity. Piston engines or gas turbines? How much horsepower? >. . . human sewage contains lots of perhaps unexpected chemicals such as >female hormones, heavy metals, drug residues etc which make it not ideal >for food crops. Also tomato seeds, which grow. They are very hardy. Female hormones are no more common in natural human waste than any other species as far as I know, but there may be a slight elevation from contraceptives. I very much doubt it could be measured! In Japan, hardline conservatives blocked legalization of oral contraception until a few years ago. Their last ditch argument was that it might increase the amount of hormones in the water supply. That's outrageous. Many of these same people are conservative business leaders who are responsible for the frightful pollution, floating trash, filth and untreated sewage that clogs Japan's rivers and seas. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 11:19:35 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA23634; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:13:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:13:29 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314140654.00a8ca68 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:12:54 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020313151802.03e22c08 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3C8FA599.367E2FFC ix.netcom.com> <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020312180831.03191e08 pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020313113407.03dfa968 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"9naGa1.0.Bn5.OPFay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46546 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >Also, the physical containers designed to hold the material could be >engineered to survive 10,000 years unattended. . . .It is impossible to >build a structure from metal or rock that will survive 100,000 years. Source: a recent article in Sci. Am. You would think that a man-made cave would last this long, but apparently engineers project the roof would collapse and containers made from any metal alloy would decay, spilling the contents. Somewhere I read that the goal of deep burial projects is to end up in the distant future with levels of radioactivity in the rocks no higher than in the most concentrated naturally occurring uranium ore. That seems reasonable. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 11:27:40 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA30820; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:24:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:24:57 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314141421.00b14390 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:24:46 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Administration's nuclear weapons policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314112649.00b141b0 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"7b4j03.0.UX7.9aFay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46547 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >The late Hermann Kahn speculated about bullet-sized nuclear weapons . . . Yikes. What a fun-loving guy he was. Always thinking the unthinkable! >-- the fissionable material was Californium, as I recall. Great! Just what the world needs. I sure hope CF cannot be made into a weapon. A quick search of the web comes up with a message by someone speculating about this: http://yarchive.net/nuke/micronuke.html This person calculates the critical mass would be a 2.7 cm sphere. It sounds impractical. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 12:44:06 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA24302; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:41:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:41:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C910ABB.BE4BAD bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:40:27 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce computer> <5.1.0.14.2.20020314135246.00b14390@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5s0PH2.0.Px5.ghGay" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46548 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Female hormones are no > more common in natural human waste than any other species as far as I know, > but there may be a slight elevation from contraceptives. I very much doubt > it could be measured! In Japan, hardline conservatives blocked legalization > of oral contraception until a few years ago. Their last ditch argument was > that it might increase the amount of hormones in the water supply. That's > outrageous. Many of these same people are conservative business leaders who > are responsible for the frightful pollution, floating trash, filth and > untreated sewage that clogs Japan's rivers and seas. Ackshully, this was just recently in the local news: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/wednesday/metro_c3e8df9762e0324d001f.html excerpting: "In raw water, concentrations of most of the compounds were very low, much less than 1 part per billion. But previous research shows that exposure to levels even lower than reported in the new study can have adverse effects on wildlife. Those effects might be particularly true for "endocrine disrupters," chemicals that can affect animals' growth and reproductive systems. Various forms of estrogen, including those in birth control pills, might act as endocrine disrupters." Nasty stuff, those female hormones! Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 13:52:28 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA10328; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:49:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:49:00 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314152208.00a8ca68 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:31:40 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Bill from Allegheny Power illustrates CF prospects Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"yi38o.0.EX2.BhHay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46549 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Below is a spreadsheet of the numbers from an informative electric power bill, issued by Allegheny Power in Pennsylvania. "Generation charges" are 38% of the total. "Distribution" costs 28%. Something called the "KWH charge" is 21%. Apparently this is also a distribution cost. See: http://www.alleghenypower.com/CSC/Choice/guide.pdf Anyway, the point is if CF or Mills hydrino power is used in large central plants, this would not have much effect on the cost of electric power, and it would have a limited impact on overall energy problems. Mills has talked about building centralized power generators. Based on this bill and other sources, I estimate this would reduce the cost of electricity by roughly 20%, half the generation cost. (I wish I could get a better handle on this number.) It has often been noted that wind power is at best marginally competitive even though fuel costs are zero. CF or hydrino power may be similar, especially if they require expensive Pd or other materials. This comparison is unfair to wind power, because the power bill does not cover damage to the environment or health. I doubt that such costs will be added to electric bills or the cost of gasoline anytime soon. A 20% reduction in cost may not be enough to justify decentralized small scale production of hydrogen with electrolysis for transportation in filling stations. It might not justify replacing many coal and gas-fired blast furnaces and space heating with electric furnaces. In other words, centralized power production with CF may only clean up pollution from electric power generation, not transportation or manufacturing. Small-scale, decentralized CF would have larger impact, much sooner. (The same goes for hydrino power, magnet power or what-have-you.) Large scale, centralized production of hydrogen from CF heat might be more economical than decentralized production with CF electricity. Small scale cogeneration with conventional fuel (especially natural gas) might save more money than centralized CF. Centralized CF would be cheaper than wind power, so if society decides to pay the cost and invest in pollution-free, chemically fueled transportation, it would pay less with CF than wind. Half of Pennsylvania's electricity comes from coal, and one-fourth from nuclear fission, which is typical for the U.S. Allegheny Power is a Maryland supplier. I do not know how it generates electricity, but I suppose its rates are influenced by overall state supplies and competition. Maryland has an unusual mix of supplies that looks expensive to me. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/pennsylvania/pa.html#t2 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/maryland/md.html#t1 KWH206 Generation charge at .03301 per KWH6.8038% Transmission charges0.915% Distribution charges Customer Charge5.0028% KWH Charge3.7821% Transition Charges: Competitive Transition Charge(0.10)-1% Intangible Transition Charge1.287% PA Tax Adjustment at 1.59%0.282% Current Allegheny Power Charges (total)17.95 (Note. This table is copied from a spreadsheet and it came nicely formatted in a Eudora message form. I will try sending it in this format. I hope it does not mess up anyone's e-mail. It would be handy for this forum to support tables of numbers.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 14:07:50 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA20614; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:07:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:07:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314170325.04386c78 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:06:36 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Bill from Allegheny Power illustrates CF prospects In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314152208.00a8ca68 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"qTdUb2.0.w15.5yHay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46550 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Oops. The table format was lost. Here it is again. KWH 206 Generation charge at .03301 per KWH: $6.80 38% Transmission charges 0.91 5% Distribution charges Customer Charge 5.00 28% KWH Charge 3.78 21% Transition Charges: Competitive Transition Charge (0.10) -1% Intangible Transition Charge 1.28 7% PA Tax Adjustment at 1.59% 0.28 2% Current Allegheny Power Charges (total) 17.95 - JR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 14:29:35 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA30422; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:25:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:25:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3C91231B.87B0C58A bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:24:27 -0500 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"R4HFx.0.FR7.6DIay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46551 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > At 5:48 PM 3/6/2, Terry Blanton wrote: > >Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > >> Maybe the ITER lobby is afraid someone will find some other fluid that > >> works at higher temperatures. > > > >Exactly! Once this is accepted and the materials scientists get > >involved, who knows what could be achieved. > > > >Hey, wasn't someone on the list doing cavitation experiments with > >something other than water a couple of years ago? > > > >Terry > > Somebody was trying to get funding to try a liquid (HOT) LiD-LiT mixture. > Was it Charles Cagle, or maybe Ross Tessien? Must have been Ross. He's mentioned in the Business Week article on Sonofusion: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_11/b3774095.htm "Actually, the entrepreneurial phase has already begun. Three years ago, engineer Ross Tessien founded Impulse Devices Inc. His Grass Valley (Calif.) startup has hired a leading sonoluminescence researcher--D. Felipe Gaitan, a protege of Crum's--and is working on simulations of sonofusion reactors up to 20 feet in diameter that would create giant bubbles. Tessian is now negotiating with Los Alamos National Laboratory to verify his computer models." And Jed might need to send Otis Port his "nice" CF letter. He says "Cold fusion fizzled . . ." Otis is faily open minded. I corresponded with him after he wrote the article on the gravity shielding superconducting disk. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 14:51:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA09979; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:47:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:47:47 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314174622.04398a48 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:47:16 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: What is so controversial about Taleyarkhan et al.? In-Reply-To: <3C91231B.87B0C58A bellsouth.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"PDxa63.0.lR2.JYIay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46552 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >And Jed might need to send Otis Port his "nice" CF letter. He >says "Cold fusion fizzled . . ." Otis is faily open minded. I am disappointed in him. He knows the score. I don't think I'll bother sending him the letter. Maybe his editor is to blame. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 18:53:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA20382; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:50:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:50:13 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" Subject: Looking thru a glass onion. Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:01:28 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"RiMfo.0.F-4.a5May" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46553 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Vo. Here's something for all you CF conspiracy theorists. Nick Nichols is shaking the GOP tree for money and as you can see on his website, http://www.nichols-dezenhall.com/marketdef.htm his "attack-dog" marketing campaign includes mobilization of junk-science critics... Maybe something our esteemed VV muckracker Eric B. could look into? K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 14 21:05:44 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA14096; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:02:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:02:54 -0800 Message-ID: <3C918077.C5B4B886 ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:02:47 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: 11 mARCH ACS C&E NEWS REPORTS ON THE ORNL TALYARKHAN et al ARTICL;E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0a1Mw.0.kR3.x1Oay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46554 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: March 14 2002 Vortex, The weekly C&E News publication by the American Chemical Society has given a top placement of the Science publication of ORNL's sonofusion report and initial controversy. It is an one page balanced reporting by Ron Dagani. Dagani gives links to Shapira and Saltmarsh's negative replication results and Taleyarkhan et al's rebuttal of their results. <> for Shapirs et al. <> for Taleyarkhan et al. I would say the chemical community has been, just a little fraction more sympathetic of the "cold" fusion scene than --- Some years ago, Infinite Energy carried a cartoon of a fight between chemists and physicists outside a lanboratory. -AK- in an one eyed (temporary) report From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 00:27:42 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA25506; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:25:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:25:00 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C8E2EC7.60D86900 ix.netcom.com> References: <3C8E2204.9A31FBC5 bellsouth.net> <3C8E2EC7.60D86900 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:23:42 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Commercial Biomass Project Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Q6TNL2.0.SE6.S_Qay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46555 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re: Commercial Biomass Project
Ed Storms wrote;

>  Cow manure
is generated from plants that are raised on land somewhere.  In the
process,

True, but the process of producing milk and fuel removes very little of the critical minerals. In both cases, the basic material that is being removed is carbon.


>materials are removed from this land which must be
replaced.

Practitioners of intensive agriculture do a good job of adding things to the soil.


> This replacement can either be accomplished by returning
the manure to the land as compost or raw manure,


composting organic manure is better for the soil than the raw material.

> or energy must be
expended to generate even more chemical fertilizer.

We (practitioners of intense agriculture) are doing a good job of that at the moment.

  >Your proposal
would increase the energy needed to generate fertilizer as well as
deny the soil the complex chemicals found in compost.
I disagree. Given the way things are out here at the moment, and given that things aren't going to change that much, this isn't that bad an idea. Since it is "Green" it will qualify for tax credits, too bad most farmers don't make enough money to use those credits.

 >The net
result would be a faster destruction of the soil and a faster loss
of nutrient value to the food chain than is already occurring.  This
idea is one of many examples of how ignorance can cause an even
worse problem.

Ed

You worry too much Ed. OTOH, you could make the case that I don't worry enough. You might wonder why I include myself in the practitioners of intensive agriculture, which I don't like. I've been working this week as an electrician, well the bills have to be paid. One job was at the local Co-op's agricultural chemical facility, and the other was at a big farmer's new shop. Both of these projects represent high fuel input, chemical agriculture. I recently reflected that when I  was studying vocational agriculture in high school, they told us that very few of us would be able to farm, but that there would be lots of jobs in agricultural related fields, which has been exactly what happened. If it wasn't for these sort of jobs, even more people would have had to move into the Twincity area. 

Do I like industrial agriculture, no. Is there anything that I can do about it, no. This discussion made me think about potential applications that some of Malloy Electric's customers might be interested in building one of those plants especially if I can figure out how to get someone else to pay for their construction. .

--
From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 00:30:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA27265; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:29:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:29:31 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315003202.00a486f0 mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: steve mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:32:35 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Steve Subject: Re: Business Week sonofusion article - 3/18 issue In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Ax4-E3.0.nf6.e3Ray" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46556 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gene: Could you send me the full text of the article? Thanks, Steve At 12:29 PM 3/10/2002 -0800, you wrote: >All, > >Otis Port of Business Week, who has covered cold fusion in the past, did a >nice two-page story on the sonofusion development, "Is It Really Fusion This >Time?", March 18, 2002 issue, pp.90-91. I received my subscription copy >yesterday (it may not yet be on newsstands till early this week). He >mentions Roger Stringham of First Gate Energies, Inc. and also Ross Tessien >of Impulse Devices -- both known in the cold fusion/new energy community. > >Toward the end of the article Port mentions that Stringham will discuss his >latest efforts "on Mar. 22, during a final-day cold fusion session at the >American Physical Society's Annual March Meeting in Indianapolis." > >[Note: Our group from NERL will have a video tape of our lab set up and >experiments in cold fusion/sonofusion (work cooperative with Roger >Stringham) at the APS meeting. But I will be unable to attend.--EFM] > >Closing paragraph of the BW article: > > "Session moderator Scott R. Chubb, head of Research Systems, Inc. of >Arlington, Va. [Note: by day he is at NRL --Gene], predicts that >researchers will eventually uncover 'some very exotic reactions' that >explain how table-top fusion works. For instance, he suggests that physical >dynamics of sonofusion 'become deeply intertwined with electromagnetism," >causing deuterium to behave somewhat like electrons. 'This is something >you'd never expect to see in conventional fusion reactions,' he adds. As >more physicists get intrigued by sonofusion in coming months, he anticipates >many other surprises." > > >All in all a very good story, except for the obligatory off-putting phrase >for journalists these days -- "Cold fusion fizzled, leaving scientists >bitterly disappointed." Cold fusion obviously didn't fizzle. It was the >scientific establishment that fizzled and continues to do so on the matter >of cold fusion. The Science sonofusion article -- and good coverage such as >this Business Week article-- may change that, but we shall see. It's good >to have the issue on the table again, so to speak! And, wonder of wonders, >Robert Park was NOT quoted... > >Best, > >Dr. Eugene F. Mallove >Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine >Director, New Energy Research Laboratory >PO Box 2816 >Concord, NH 03302-2816 > editor infinite-energy.com > www.infinite-energy.com >Ph: 603-228-4516 >Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 01:33:05 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA18134; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:30:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:30:05 -0800 Message-ID: <005101c1cc04$0f544140$a28f209a ggrf30j> From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce@computer> <5.1.0.14.2.20020314135246.00b14390@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:30:29 -0000 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: <"2Cafm3.0.ER4.SyRay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46557 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote:- They do use piston engines (since the 1960's) - I know because I used to live within 150 yards of the building they were located in and had to listen to the throb throb throb 24 hours a day. I do not know the horsepower but there were about three engines parallel to each other; each was about 7 feet tall, five feet wide and about 12 feet long. Judging from the assorted noise, they never ran all three at once, presumably maintaining the idle one. They generate enough electricity to power the waste handling site. N.B. Jersey has an average population of 100,000. The elevation in hormones from contraceptives is a problem. I was told this by a senior civil servant/engineer who was NOT environmentally minded and his usual modus operandi was to pooh pooh any such concerns. If he wouldn't authorise the use of human manure derived soil conditioner as a fertiliser for agricultural use, there must have been serious problems with it. As Terry Blanton pointed out, the presence in our environment of hormone mimicking chemicals (endocrine disruptors) is a problem too. Many think these chemicals are responsible for the marked decline in sperm count that has occurred. Nick Palmer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 08:19:09 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA24938; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:15:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:15:49 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315111251.03e7afb8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:15:33 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Vortex replies to Biomass article In-Reply-To: <005101c1cc04$0f544140$a28f209a ggrf30j> References: <001f01c1ca96$752eefc0$8837fea9 computer> <005c01c1ca95$13295be0$5a8f85ce computer> <5.1.0.14.2.20020314135246.00b14390 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYMoK3.0.V56.ruXay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46558 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer wrote: >They do use piston engines (since the 1960's) - I know because I used to >live within 150 yards of the building they were located in and had to >listen to the throb throb throb 24 hours a day. I do not know the >horsepower but there were about three engines parallel to each other; each >was about 7 feet tall, five feet wide and about 12 feet long. I see. These are small scale generators. Similar Diesel generators are manufactured today for temporary or emergency power. They are mobile units, built on large truck chassis. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 10:28:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA32569; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:24:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:24:06 -0800 Message-Id: <200203151823.g2FINMx26468 mail4.mx.voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Standing Bear To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Administration's nuclear weapons policy Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:25:18 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314112649.00b141b0 pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314112649.00b141b0 pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BynV33.0.ny7.5nZay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46559 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thursday 14 March 2002 11:32, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The new proposed strategy to use small nuclear weapons has stirred up a lot > of opposition. See: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24156-2002Mar13.html > > http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/ > > A quote from document #1: > > "The Pentagon reviewers may seem to be activating the nuclear trigger by > asserting that we will use nuclear weapons against any nation threatening > biological or chemical warfare. Hitherto, nonnuclear states were exempt > from U.S. nuclear attack, but the president says he has to have every > possible option. > > For some, the review offered a trip down memory lane. The advocacy of small > nuclear weapons brought back memories of 1964, when Republican presidential > contender Barry Goldwater traversed the country peddling tactical > battlefield nukes no bigger than a fountain pen -- so small they could be > clipped to a GI's shoulder tabs." > > Thermonuclear weapons require a critical mass of fissionable fuel, much > bigger than a fountain pen. It is hard to believe Goldwater actually said > that. > > - Jed Jed, I highly doubt that the man that I supported in 1964 would ever have said that. The times then were highly charged. Tape recorders were beginning to be widely used and had become portable, facilitating a new fashion then called loosely: 'the politics of the remark'. The charge: 'Shooting from the lip!' was over used and applied thoughtlessly to any and all politicians that had an opposing view to the accuser. Lying was very rampant. Just about everything was recorded so that it could later be misquoted, misconstrued, ad nauseum, at leisure. Anybody who dared to be even a little different was mercilessly attacked. This was a time of the 'string tie' fashion, when it was considered chic to look like a dweeb, nerd, nerf, ...you know....just a plain nobody. Goldwater supporters were reputed to be all old ladies in worn tennis shoes. Do you even know what tennis shoes ARE today? Folks now often would not even venture out on a tennis court with less than the 100 big company product that cost 59 cents to produce using asian slave or prison labor. As for fissionable material. Transuranic elements are very unstable, undergoing spontaneous fission easily. However, suppose one could find the 'sweet spot' in a transuranic in the predicted 'zone of stability' around atomic number 114-116. There just might be a relatively stable isotope out there; we just have to find it. Such an isotope conceivably could have a very low critical mass indeed; maybe even fit in a pencil lead!? Standing Bear From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 10:28:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA01443; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:26:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:26:41 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315125952.03e80658 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:26:32 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: California Energy Commission, distributed energy costs In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314152208.00a8ca68 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"KDQiu.0.DM.WpZay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46560 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >I estimate [zero cost fuel] would reduce the cost of electricity by >roughly 20%, half the generation cost. (I wish I could get a better handle >on this number.) This web page shows gas turbine fuel costs at about 75% of the generation cost: http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/economics/cost_of_electricity.html The other numbers on this page are questionable. It says the cost of generation is $0.11 per kWh. That seems too high. Elsewhere it says large scale wind turbine equipment cost is $800 per kW capacity, which sounds too low. Maybe these numbers apply to California, which is unique in some ways. Anyway, fuel is between 50% and 75% of the cost up to the busbar, depending on the type of fuel, according to various sources. Low cost or zero cost fuel by itself is unlikely to trigger a major commercial revolution. (Naturally, CF or hydrinos would trigger a scientific revolution.) The real savings will be in eliminating the distribution network, and scaling generators down to the demands of applications. Mills and others hope to work with electric power companies to produce centralized power. If the power companies go along with this plan, it will be an excellent way to generate profits quickly, and establish credibility. But after five years or so I think competition from distributed small scale power will make this strategy obsolete. Using CF or hydrinos in large, central generator plants would be like using slow, first generation microprocessors in mainframe computers. That does not 'play to the strength' of the new product. New products have often been held back when people tried to market them or employ them as direct replacements for the older product. Often, the way tasks and tools were arranged, the old products worked better. Around 1880 people talked about installing one telephone per town, like a telegraph. This would be more expensive and less reliable than a telegraph, with a shorter range between stations. It would be equally inconvenient, since you would still have to post one person at the end of the line to take messages and dispatch them. There are other interesting pages here, such as: http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/economics/operation.html These maintenance costs for wind power are lower than EPRI estimated years ago. Evidently maintenance costs have fallen, which is not surprising. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 11:59:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA17586; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:56:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:56:30 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315143558.03e7b100 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:56:00 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: CA monthly off-line data table Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"6bA5z3.0.fI4.j7bay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46561 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: People have argued that the California energy crisis has many complex causes: demand grew, new construction languished, consumer price caps distorted the market. Maybe so, but the proximate cause was that power companies took generators off line. The power companies say the plants went off line for scheduled or emergency maintenance. Opponents say it was to jack up the prices. Here are the numbers: http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/1999-2001_monthly_off_line.html The power companies said maintenance and outages increased because equipment was getting older. I do not think they could have increased so suddenly. Sometimes a single table of numbers cuts through the bunk. Another document shows that peak demand -- which is what triggers outages -- fell from 1998 to 2001, from 53,119 MW to 47,820 MW. See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2001-11-20_700-01-002.PDF - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 12:47:45 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA06439; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:39:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:39:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: lajoie owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:39:19 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Lajoie To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CA monthly off-line data table In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315143558.03e7b100 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MVqk62.0.Ra1.vlbay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46562 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't doubt that the power companies did go off line for reasons other than what they claim. They didn't want to sell and the laws say they have to, the only excuse to not sell is downtime. I don't doubt that they did do maintence, what is the reason they decided to do the maintenace then? At issue, is what is that reason. Some people think the generator companies were trying to increase demand and raise prices. One obvious reason that the advocates of the drive up demand theorist always reject is that they were selling to a bad credit risk, and were not likely to get paid. I wonder why the advocates of this theory believe the power generator companies were smart enough to conspire and raise prices, yet too dumb to know that the comapnies they were selling to were not likely to be able to pay them regardless of what they charged. I don't see the need to suppose the invivible hand of conspiracy to explain what common econmic theory predicts. On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Jed Rothwell wrote: > People have argued that the California energy crisis has many complex > causes: demand grew, new construction languished, consumer price caps > distorted the market. Maybe so, but the proximate cause was that power > companies took generators off line. The power companies say the plants went > off line for scheduled or emergency maintenance. Opponents say it was to > jack up the prices. Here are the numbers: > > http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/1999-2001_monthly_off_line.html > > The power companies said maintenance and outages increased because > equipment was getting older. I do not think they could have increased so > suddenly. > > Sometimes a single table of numbers cuts through the bunk. > > Another document shows that peak demand -- which is what triggers outages > -- fell from 1998 to 2001, from 53,119 MW to 47,820 MW. See: > > http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2001-11-20_700-01-002.PDF > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 13:12:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA26359; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:07:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:07:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315153134.03e7afb8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:07:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Bill from Allegheny Power illustrates CF prospects In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314170325.04386c78 pop.mindspring.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020314152208.00a8ca68 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"j28kV3.0.mR6.dAcay" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46563 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My previous analysis of this bill is not fair. I use very little electricity. The $5 "customer charge" is the fixed monthly cost "for services such as meter reading and billing." This was 28% of my bill, but for most customers it would be a much smaller fraction. On the other hand, people using CF home generators will not pay anyone $5 to account for their use. Also, very poor rural families today might pay only $18, because they heat with firewood and avoid using electricity whenever possible. For them, this $5 is a substantial expense. Let me adjust the percentages slightly, ignoring this $5 charge. KWH 206 Generation charge at .03301 per KWH: $6.80 53% Transmission charges 0.91 7% Distribution charges Customer Charge DELETED KWH Charge 3.78 29% Transition Charges: Competitive Transition Charge (0.10) -1% Intangible Transition Charge 1.28 10% PA Tax Adjustment at 1.59% 0.28 2% Total 12.95 Based on this, the fuel of cost is roughly a third of the total expense, which is substantially more than I estimated yesterday. This is in line with other rule of thumb estimates I have heard. If this cost reduction were passed on to the customers, it would have a large impact. Still, electricity might not be cheap enough for things like space heating or distributed hydrogen production for transportation. Fuel cell transportation would be economical, but straight hydrogen ICE probably would not be. (Source: NREL Hydrogen Program Plan.) Hydrogen ICE hybrid electric might work, but why bother? Again, let me emphasize that this is strictly based on dollar costs, ignoring social costs & benefits, health, environment, the threat of oil-funded terrorism, war, and so on. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 13:25:56 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA32335; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:22:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:22:19 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315160808.03e7b100 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:22:09 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: CA monthly off-line data table In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315143558.03e7b100 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Z987K.0.-u7.9Ocay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46564 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lajoie wrote: >Some people think the generator companies were trying to increase demand >and raise prices. Maybe this was a typo? Withholding supplies and causing power outages does not increase demand. It causes drastic, permanent reductions when customers conserve, mainly by buying new appliances and lights. >One obvious reason that the advocates of the drive up demand theorist >always reject is that they were selling to a bad credit risk, and were not >likely to get paid. . . . >I don't see the need to suppose the invivible hand of conspiracy to >explain what common econmic theory predicts. No doubt economic forces drove them to withhold power. My point is that it would have been more honest for them to say this, rather than pretend something was wrong with their generators. It is now clear that "maintenance" was an excuse, or a cover-up. They had to pretend, because it is against the law to take the generators off line when nothing is wrong with them, even when you are being forced to sell power at a loss. Everyone agrees that situation was economic insanity. The power companies created long-term troubles for themselves when they came up with this excuse. Apparently, some people, including some power company executives and regulators, actually believed generator capacity could not meet the demand. They have now built thousands of megawatts of new capacity, while at the same time peak demand fell by 5,000 MW (10%). I predict this will lead to a huge glut in capacity. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 13:56:39 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA15655; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:53:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:53:15 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020315163232.03e9b350 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:35:37 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Hormones etc. in water Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"KVkfg.0.Lq3.9rcay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46565 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The New York Times copied this story. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/health/14POLL.html "The survey of more than 100 waterways downstream from treatment plants and animal feedlots in 30 states found minute amounts of dozens of antibiotics, hormones, pain relievers, cough suppressants, disinfectants and other products." They point out that some of the antibiotics and hormones probably come from livestock. Livestock waste is usually not treated as carefully as human waste. Some of the chemicals detected may be a natural product of indigenous plants and animals. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 15 15:31:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA04050; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:28:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:28:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3C9283F8.759B763A ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:30:00 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 15, 2002] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OIfXJ3.0.0_.GEeay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46566 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 Mar 15, 2002 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:40:04 -0500 (EST) From: "What's New" To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 15 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW: LEAKED DOCUMENT IGNITES HEATED DEBATE. For more than half a century, the sole use for US nuclear weapons has been to deter a nuclear attack. For a decade, US policy had been to maintain existing weapons under a Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program. As What's New has repeatedly warned (WN 11 Jan 02), that has all changed. This week, a classified Pentagon report, The Nuclear Posture Review, suddenly appeared on various web sites. It describes a plan to develop a new class of small nuclear weapons for a nuclear strike force, even while calling for deep cuts in strategic weapons. This has ignited a healthy public debate over nuclear policy in a post 9/11 world. It's all reminiscent of the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times. We aren't telling who the Daniel Ellsberg is in the Nuclear-Posture leak, but conscientious government employees who are willing to risk their careers by leaking classified documents may be the only check on government excesses carried out behind the screen of national security. 2. BUBBLE FUSION: IT'S NOTHING LIKE THE COLD FUSION FIASCO. But it's getting there. The first warning sign that a scientific claim is voodoo is that it's pitched directly to the media. That didn't happen with the Taleyarkhan et al. bubble-fusion paper (WN 8 Mar 02). The authors went through all the hoops, submitting their paper to a respected, peer-reviewed journal. It was Science that seemed determined to sensationalize the work. In the course of a year, various drafts went to 13 or 14 reviewers, which does not inspire confidence. A number of reviewers reportedly advised against publication and some complain that Science did not tell them of Shapira and Saltmarsh's failure to confirm fusion claims. The second warning sign of voodoo science is that any failure to confirm is blamed on an "establishment" conspiracy. A Business Week story says one author of the Taleyarkhan paper "hinted" that Shapira and Saltmarsh were protecting "the fusion establishment." 3. NASA: WHITE HOUSE DROPS NOMINATION OF MARINE CORPS GENERAL. The 1958 charter establishing NASA calls for the Administrator and Deputy Administrator to be appointed "from civilian life." When Admiral Truly, a former astronaut, took the top job in 1989 he retired from the Navy. But when the White House chose Charles Bolden for the No.2 job, the two-star Marine Corps general, also a former astronaut, was offered a third star to take the job. But the chair of Armed Services, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), and ranking member, John Warner (R-VA), balked. The nomination was dropped. 4. BURTON AWARD: ADRIAN MELOTT IS SELECTED FOR THE 2002 AWARD. A professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas, Melott played a key role in helping the people of Kansas reverse a creationist inspired action of the school board (WN 13 Aug 99). THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 00:34:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA11206; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:31:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:31:40 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 02:30:00 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: D W Research Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"JxdLH3.0.0l2.hBmay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46567 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Eugene Mallove Posted; > >The careful work of David Wallman and Wilbur Dammann of DW Research >(Colorado and Nebraska) reported in a number of issues of Infinite Energy, >employs a carbon arc in pure water or an organic waste pool to generate a When I E first posted the article on this I took an interest in it. As I understood it at the time, the oxidation of the carbonacious material in the waste accounted for all the energy observed. OTON, given the deuterium in the water, a small amount of fusion would account for the excess energy >carbon (which like the water is "free"). Now I.0 kWHr of energy is 3413 >BTU. So the formal O/U is 4.11/1. The carbon consumption may reduce >"scientific O/U", but not necessarily by that much. Moreover, new methods As I understand it, the patent is owned by Tupe Technology Corp. What is the Connection between them and D W Technology? > >Like cold fusion, this process is marginalized by the mainstream and even by >most cold fusion/new energy researchers. Fortunately, DW is very, very >intensely focused on commercialization and will no doubt succeed. They have >a significant patent position. The integrity of this company, based on my >intimate knowledge of the people, is extremely high. This work should not >be ignored in biomass energy discussions. The marginalization of this by the establishment press is typical. What is their patent number? At 400% OU, the prospects for closing the loop are marginal, but this is a very interesting development never the less. It does have potential for heat production. IMHO, if they could get the effect to 1000% OU, that would have significant commercialization potential. While I'm thinking about it, Hisho Kaku was on the Art Bell program last night. He was commenting on the sonically induced fusion and said that if confirmed, it would be the first time that LENR's had been verified. I emailed Art Bell and mentioned the list of LENR's synopsis that Ed Storms emailed to me, but he ignored me. -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 05:29:00 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA12294; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:25:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:25:52 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:25:42 -0800 Subject: Re: D W Research From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oZodw.0.x_2.WVqay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46568 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 3/16/02 12:30 AM, "thomas malloy" wrote: > Eugene Mallove Posted; > >> >> The careful work of David Wallman and Wilbur Dammann of DW Research >> (Colorado and Nebraska) reported in a number of issues of Infinite Energy, >> employs a carbon arc in pure water or an organic waste pool to generate a > > When I E first posted the article on this I took an interest in it. > As I understood it at the time, the oxidation of the carbonacious > material in the waste accounted for all the energy observed. OTON, > given the deuterium in the water, a small amount of fusion would > account for the excess energy > >> carbon (which like the water is "free"). Now I.0 kWHr of energy is 3413 >> BTU. So the formal O/U is 4.11/1. The carbon consumption may reduce >> "scientific O/U", but not necessarily by that much. Moreover, new methods > > As I understand it, the patent is owned by Tupe Technology Corp. What > is the Connection between them and D W Technology? There is NO connection whatsoever. In my opinion, DW Research is by far the most scientific group working on this process and they have what appears to be a significant patent position. The other players deal in smoke and mirrors and in fact are in the process of suing one another! (I'm not going to get into this right now. Let them sink their own ships.) > >> >> Like cold fusion, this process is marginalized by the mainstream and even by >> most cold fusion/new energy researchers. Fortunately, DW is very, very >> intensely focused on commercialization and will no doubt succeed. They have >> a significant patent position. The integrity of this company, based on my >> intimate knowledge of the people, is extremely high. This work should not >> be ignored in biomass energy discussions. > > The marginalization of this by the establishment press is typical. > What is their patent number? I'll get the list of patent numbers from Wallman and post them. > At 400% OU, the prospects for closing > the loop are marginal, but this is a very interesting development > never the less. It does have potential for heat production. IMHO, if > they could get the effect to 1000% OU, that would have significant > commercialization potential. They may be there already. > > While I'm thinking about it, Hisho Kaku was on the Art Bell program That is "Michu Kaku" > last night. He was commenting on the sonically induced fusion and > said that if confirmed, it would be the first time that LENR's had > been verified. Kaku has not bowed one inch to cold fusion in the past. He is an opportunist trying to take over Sagan's mantle, peddling the non-sense of hyperspace and the Big Bang. I helped him with his Hyperspace book and was credited by him in the acknowledgements, but today I view such books as the jokes that they are. >I emailed Art Bell and mentioned the list of LENR's > synopsis that Ed Storms emailed to me, but he ignored me. > > Gene Mallove > > > -- > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 05:32:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA13635; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:31:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:31:03 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:31:42 -0800 Subject: Earthfirst Tech -- press release From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Urulh1.0.zK3.Naqay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46569 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This press release has been circulating. ***** On February 14, 2002, EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated and EarthFirst NextGas, Inc. (collectively, the "Company") filed a lawsuit against Ruggero M. Santilli ("Santilli"), Hadronic Press, Inc. ("HPI") and Institute for Basic Research, Inc. ("IBR") in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida (the "Lawsuit"). In the Lawsuit, the Company alleges, among other things, that Santilli, HPI and IBR, through Santilli's "Notice to Cease and Desist Your Civil and Criminal Violations in Your Activities with the MagneGas-Next Gas Technology", tortiously interfered with the Company's contractual and business relationships. As part of the Lawsuit, the Company filed a Verified Motion for Temporary Injunction in which the Company asked the Circuit Court to enjoin Santilli, HPI and IBR from engaging in the alleged interference. On February 15, 2002, the Circuit Court entered its Temporary Injunction enjoining Santilli, HPI and IBR from interfering with the Company's contractual and business relationships. With the Temporary Injunction in place, the Company will pursue the lawsuit towards a final resolution. Our employees and management look forward to now devoting all of our energies to bring the Company's first commercial installation of our BigSpark(TM) converter into operation, to completing sales of our NextGas(TM) synthetic fuel, and to achieving additional installations of BigSpark(TM) converters. CONTACT: EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated, Tampa Jim Mahoney, 813/258-1065 ext. 238 jmahoney earthfirsttech.com or Beverly Mercer, 813/258-1065 ext. 237 bmercer earthfirsttech.com http://www.earthfirsttech.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 05:33:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA14749; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:33:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:33:02 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:33:41 -0800 Subject: DW Energy Research From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WMXCd3.0.Nc3.Dcqay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46570 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Correction: DW Research is actually DW Energy Research. Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 06:33:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA01895; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 06:30:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 06:30:42 -0800 Message-ID: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 07:30:11 -0600 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: <"ErXw32.0.XT.ISray" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46571 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Delving into the quark make-up of the proton suggests that there could be a natural population of protons that have a net dipole moment (-++) as opposed to those that don't (+-+) depending on the quark arrangement. This poses a problem of separation of these "proton isomers", that may only show a mass difference of a fraction of an Mev. An electrostatic separator that would allow the non-polar ion species to be swept out of an ion beam passing between a pair of charged plates, perhaps? Other, less energy intensive (chemical) means? If such a proton species exists, it could explain a lot of CF/OU and low energy Neutron Stripping effects and possibly Mills' Hydrino phenomena. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 09:15:28 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA28325; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:12:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:12:02 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:10:43 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re:The great Dr. Kaku Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"GIeL63.0.Qw6.Xptay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46572 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: That patent that D W Research has interests me. First of att it is O U, second I'm wondering how they got around the patent that Toupe has. > >That is "Michu Kaku" > >> last night. He was commenting on the sonically induced fusion and >> said that if confirmed, it would be the first time that LENR's had >> been verified. > >Kaku has not bowed one inch to cold fusion in the past. He is an opportunist >trying to take over Sagan's mantle, peddling the non-sense of hyperspace and >the Big Bang. I listened to as much of Carl Sagan's Cosmos on Public TV as I could stand. I come up with the Moniquer of Cosmic B S to describe my feelings for the show. > I helped him with his Hyperspace book and was credited by him >in the acknowledgements, but today I view such books as the jokes that they >are. According to Howard, who has a PhD in Chem Eng., If there are worm holes in space will be on the atomic level in terms of size. This would mean that if you succeeded in getting through one it would be like going through a screen with holes that size which, IMHO, would have the effect of atomizing you. As I told a woman who wanted to know if I could build a transport beam like the one on Star Trek. The problem isn't taking you apart, the problem is putting you back together again and getting you to work. > >>I emailed Art Bell and mentioned the list of LENR's >> synopsis that Ed Storms emailed to me, but he ignored me. Now that you mention it Eugens, I think that Michu would be an excellent successor for Carl Sagan. He can spread it with the best of them, get your hip boots!. > > > > > >Gene Mallove > > -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 10:25:48 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA23536; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:22:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:22:33 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:23:11 -0800 Subject: DW Energy Research Patents From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SR3o41.0.dl5.fruay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46573 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From David Wallman at DW Energy Research Gene Mallove ******** Gene, Our issued U.S. Patents are: 5,159,900 "Method & Means For Generating Gas From Water For Use As A Fuel", Dammann 5,417,817 "Biomass Gasification Process & Apparatus"; Dammann, et al 6,113,865 "Reactor Configuration For A Liquid Gasification Process"; Dammann, et al 6,183,608 B1 "Electrode Positioning Mechanism"; Dammann, et al We also have various patents based on 5,417,817 in eight foreign countries and one patent pending in the U.S. I can provide more information if needed. Best regards, David From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 11:03:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA06157; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:00:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:00:12 -0800 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:07:59 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer Reply-To: John Schnurer To: Vortex , vencislav_ygroups , William Beaty , Schnurer , Stefan Hartmann , harti@harti.com, Hamdi Ucar Subject: AND...Here I am again Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"qWcow1.0.pV1.vOvay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46574 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Folks Recently I have been called to task about why I ask questions. Some persons have inferred or have wondered if I am part of some group seeking to quash Free Energy. I have been called to task for: Debunking or bringing doubt to: 1] Free Energy 2] Reactionless Drive or Propellentless Propulsion 3] Over Unity 4] Aether or Ether On the last item, Aether or Ether, I will only say what I have said about many terms: If you use the term Aether, please tell us what you mean by it. In classical literature there have been many many many different meanins for Aether. SO: I ask individual and the forum, respectfully: Please let me know where I stand..... Am I For all of the Above, Against it and trying to kill it, am I part of a group ...other than the perpetually curious .... One further NOTE: Many Many time I write private messages off line. One reason for this, in some cases, is to try to make sure I do not say anything that may be taken as negative about individuals. ANY person is entitled to their opinion... but no indivdual is Entitled to be wrong in their facts. I was hammered on years ago when I made a public statement about some work I was doing. The work was Gravity Modification, and EVERYONE was hot to know the Do All End All Be All Answer: HOW do I make GM Work? I publicly said: "Do Not hang your hat on what I say today, because next week I may say something completely Different." On comment was "How can you SAY that? How can you do work and NOT have a solid answer?" Again, in public forum I replied: "I am exploring, learning and Next Week I may know different" The Point? Any person may learn new information and may chnage how they present. The people I have most respect for are the people who say, in forum, "I was wrong." Why? Because this lets people know a result, a direction. So, please, a little comment from the Gallery: What is my position? John Herman Schnurer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 13:14:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04485; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:10:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:10:58 -0800 Message-ID: <00f101c1cd26$a0741ce0$a3b4bfa8 computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Underwater carbon arcs Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:09:29 -0600 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: <"UAMTW3.0._51.YJxay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46575 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The combustible nature of the gas bubbling to the surface from an underwater welding arc between carbon electrodes was discovered and patented in the last century. Various improved equipment for the production of said combustible gas have been patented during this century. Nevertheless, the technology has not yet reached sufficient maturity for regular industrial and consumer production and sales because of numerous insufficiencies, including excessively short duration of the carbon electrodes which requires prohibitive replacement and service, as well as low efficiency and high content of carbon dioxide responsible for the green house effect. As a result of numerous experimentations, this invention deals with a new equipment for the production of a combustible gas from underwater arcs between carbon electrodes which resolves said insufficiencies, and achieves the first known maturity for industrial production and sales. The technology of underwater electric welding via the use of an arc between carbon electrodes to repair ships, was established in the last century. It was then discovered that the gas bubbling to the surface from underwater arcs is combustible. In fact, one of the first U.S. patent on the production of a combustible gas via an underwater electric arc between carbon electrodes dates back to 1898 (U.S. Pat. No. 603,058 by H. Eldridge). Subsequently, various patents were obtained in this century on improved equipment for the production of said combustible gas, among which I quote U.S. Pat. No. 5,159,900 (W. A. Dammann and D. Wallman, 1992); U.S. Pat. No. 5,435,274 (W. H. Richardson, Jr., 1995); U.S. Pat. No. 5,417,817 (W. A. Dammann and D. Wallman, 1995); U.S. Pat. No. 5,692,459 (W. H. Richardson, Jr., 1997); U.S. Pat. No. 5,792,325 (W. H. Richardson, Jr., 1998); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,548 (W. H. Richardson, Jr., 1998). The main process in these inventions is essentially the following. The arc is generally produced by a DC power unit, such as a welder, operating at low voltage (25-35 V) and high current (300 A to 3,000 A) depending on available Kwh. The high value of the current brings to incandescence the tip of the carbon electrode in the cathode, with consequential disintegration of the carbon crystal, and release of highly ionized carbon atoms to the arc. Jointly, the arc separates the water into highly ionized atoms of Hydrogen and Oxygen. This causes in the immediate surrounding of the arc a high temperature plasma of about 7,000 F, which is composed by highly ionized H, O and C atoms. A number of chemical reactions then occur within or near said plasma, such as: the formation of the H.sub.2 and O.sub.2 molecule; the burning of H and O into H.sub.2 O; the burning of C and O into CO; the burning of CO and O into CO.sub.2 ; and other reactions. Since all these reactions are highly exothermic, they result in the typical, very intense glow of the arc within water, which is bigger than that of the same arc in air. The resulting gases cool down in the water surrounding the discharge, and bubble to the surface, where they are collected with various means. According to numerous measurements conducted at various independent laboratories, the combustible gas produced with the above process essentially consists of 45%-48% H.sub.2, 36%-38% CO, 8%-10% CO.sub.2, and 1%-2% O.sub.2, the remaining gas consisting of parts per million of more complex molecules composed by H, O and C. This process produces an excellent combustible gas because the combustion exhausts meet all current EPA requirement without any catalytic muffler at all, and without the highly harmful cancerogenic pollutants which are contained in the combustion exhausts of gasoline, diesel, natural gas and other fuels of current use. Despite the indicated excellent combustion characteristics, and despite research and development conducted by inventors for decades, the technology of the combustible gas produced by an underwater arc between carbon electrodes has not reached industrial maturity until now, and no equipment producing said combustible gas for actual practical usages is currently sold to the public in the U.S.A. or abroad, the only equipment currently available for sale being limited to research and testing. The sole equipment currently sold for public use produce different gases, such as the Brown gas which is not suitable for use in internal combustion engines because it implodes, rather than explodes, during combustion. The main reason for lack of industrial and consumer maturity is the excessively short duration of the carbon electrodes, which requires prohibitive replacement and services. According to extensive, independently supervised, and certified measurements, the electrodes are typically composed of solid carbon rods of about 3/8 inch in diameter and about 1 foot length. Under 14 Kwh power input, said electrodes consume at the rate of about one and one quarter inch length per minute, requiring the halting of the operation, and replacement of the electrodes every ten minutes. The same tests have shown that, for 100 Kwh power input, said electrodes are generally constituted by solid carbon rod of about 1 inch diameter and of the approximate length of one foot, and are consumed under a continuous underwater arc at the rate of about 3 inch length per minute, thus requiring servicing after 3 to 4 minutes of operation. In either case of 14 Kwh or 100 Kwh, current equipment requires servicing after only a few minutes of usage, which is unacceptable on industrial and consumer grounds for evident reasons, including increased risks of accidents for very frequent manual operations in a high current equipment From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 15:26:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA28340; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:18:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:18:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010101c1cd38$68a9b6a0$a3b4bfa8 computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: DW Energy Research Patents Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:17:04 -0600 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: <"hjlaY2.0.kw6.-Azay" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46576 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 3:23 PM Subject: DW Energy Research Patents Gene, Rather than throwing a lot of energy into creating photons with an energy-intensive electric arc, one can immerse a suitably sheathed heating element (12, 120, or 240 volts ac or dc) in a water biomass slurry (cow manure or other) to create combustible gases long before the water in the vessel comes to a boil. The cellulosic-starch materials, n(C6H10O5) + nH2O ---> n(C6H12O6) materials react exothermally with water, that is why anaerobic bacteria can hydrolyze and metabolate them.This is the material left over in manures that bacteria use to produce methane. I found this out ca. 1974, but Chevron Research Labs in the San Francisco area beat me to a patent. Also similar exothermic pathways are why lumber exotherms when heated to ~ 450 F giving off CO + H2 etc., in house fires. C6H12O6 + 6 H2O ----> 6 CO2 + 12 H2 + Energy The Lignin Polymers n(CxHyOz, aromatic ring compounds) in biomass, undergo hydrolysis much easier than do the strong carbon-carbon bonds in carbon rods or coke such as is used in water gas production and will produce C2 and C3 hydrocarbon gases under less stringent conditions. If one pressurizes the vessel so that the H2O is kept close to the heating element, the carbon can react with the H2O before the carbon-carbon bonds can form a char: C + 2H2O + Heat ---> CO2 + 2 H2 A water or air-cooled "standpipe" condenses the steam mixed with the non-condensable gases (CH4,C2H4, CO, and CO2)and pushes them to the top of the pipe under the same pressure as that in the vessel, so that they can be bled off with a needle valve, and burned in an engine,or stored under pressure. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 16:18:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA19131; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:16:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:16:01 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:15:23 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> In-Reply-To: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 QAA19104 Resent-Message-ID: <"elJPh.0.og4.01-ay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46577 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 Sat, 16 Mar 2002 07:30:11 -0600: Hi, [snip] >Delving into the quark make-up of the proton suggests that there could be a natural >population of protons that have a net dipole moment (-++) as opposed to those that >don't (+-+) depending on the quark arrangement. I would expect the 2 ++ to repel one another, making -++ unstable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 16:51:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA01324; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:48:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:48:36 -0800 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:40:09 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Polar Protons? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"Wwley3.0.TK.ZV-ay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46578 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > In reply to Frederick Sparber's message: > >Delving into the quark make-up of the proton suggests that there could be a natural > >population of protons that have a net dipole moment (-++) as opposed to those that > >don't (+-+) depending on the quark arrangement. > I would expect the 2 ++ to repel one another, making -++ unstable. Robin, Here is Fred's explanation to me some time ago when I asked the same question: Relativistic Electrodynamics stipulates that like charges moving/spinning in the same direction attract by the magnetic force: Fm = 1.0E-7 *q^2*(v)^2/R^2 so that when v reaches c, the Electrostatic Repulsive Force Fes = kq^2/R^2 is canceled by the attractive magnetic force Fm. Thus if the "captured electron-circle" (e-) end of a neutron couples to the electron (down quark end) of the proton, if the spins are in the same direction, then: Fm = 1.0E-7 q^2 * c * v2/r^2 where c is the spin velocity of the electron (down quark end) of the proton and v2 is the spin velocity of "captured electron-circle" (e-). In short, Fred is explaining that the electrostatic repulsive force is cancelled by the attractive magnetic force. This makes a lot of sense to me and goes some distance towards explaining such matters as low energy stripping, etc. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 17:34:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA18864; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:31:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:31:39 -0800 Message-ID: <012d01c1cd4b$09f3d2e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:31:07 -0600 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: <"O5eDw3.0.cc4.w7_ay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46579 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:40 PM Subject: Re: Polar Protons? And why nuclei with a proton/neutron ratio greater than 1:1 don't fly apart. :-) Regards, Frederick > From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > > > In reply to Frederick Sparber's message: > > > >Delving into the quark make-up of the proton suggests that there could be a > natural > > >population of protons that have a net dipole moment (-++) as opposed to those > that > > >don't (+-+) depending on the quark arrangement. > > > I would expect the 2 ++ to repel one another, making -++ unstable. > > Robin, > > Here is Fred's explanation to me some time ago when I asked the same question: > > Relativistic Electrodynamics stipulates that like charges moving/spinning in the > same > direction attract by the magnetic force: > > Fm = 1.0E-7 *q^2*(v)^2/R^2 > > so that when v reaches c, the Electrostatic Repulsive Force > > Fes = kq^2/R^2 is canceled by the attractive magnetic force Fm. > > Thus if the "captured electron-circle" (e-) end of a neutron couples to the > electron > (down quark end) of the proton, if the spins are in the same direction, then: > > Fm = 1.0E-7 q^2 * c * v2/r^2 where c is the spin velocity of the electron (down > quark > end) of the proton and v2 is the spin velocity of "captured electron-circle" > (e-). > > > In short, Fred is explaining that the electrostatic repulsive force is cancelled > by the attractive magnetic force. > > This makes a lot of sense to me and goes some distance towards explaining such > matters as low energy stripping, etc. > > Jones > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 18:24:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA08917; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:21:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:21:27 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:20:16 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8 4ax.com> References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA08881 Resent-Message-ID: <"VgWBw.0.CB2.cs_ay" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46580 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:40:09 -0800: Hi, [snip] >> I would expect the 2 ++ to repel one another, making -++ unstable. > >Robin, > >Here is Fred's explanation to me some time ago when I asked the same question: > >Relativistic Electrodynamics stipulates that like charges moving/spinning in the >same >direction attract by the magnetic force: [snip] >In short, Fred is explaining that the electrostatic repulsive force is cancelled >by the attractive magnetic force. [snip] This leads, at best, to a situation of "no force". IOW the two would ignore one another and drift apart at the slightest nudge. OTOH, situations in which the magnetic attraction was aided by electric attraction, would be doubly strong. Ergo the latter would be very stable, and the former unstable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 16 19:51:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA13779; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:43:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:43:52 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:43:08 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> <012d01c1cd4b$09f3d2e0$a3b4bfa8@computer> In-Reply-To: <012d01c1cd4b$09f3d2e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 TAA13711 Resent-Message-ID: <"H2v7k3.0.DN3.t31by" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46581 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 Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:31:07 -0600: Hi, [snip] >And why nuclei with a proton/neutron ratio greater than >1:1 don't fly apart. :-) > >Regards, Frederick [snip] Such nuclei don't fly apart because the protons are separated by neutrons. Where this isn't possible, e.g. He2, the nucleus doesn't exist. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 07:56:26 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07914; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:51:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:51:09 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:41:38 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Polar Protons? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9 computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8 4ax.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"lU-3p2.0.Ux1.ijBby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46582 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > This leads, at best, to a situation of "no force". IOW the two would > ignore one another and drift apart at the slightest nudge. > OTOH, situations in which the magnetic attraction was aided by electric > attraction, would be doubly strong. Ergo the latter would be very > stable, and the former unstable. Maybe, if that was as far as it went. But there are two other force to contend with at small distances, the strong and weak forces. I like Fred's "stacked string circle" visualization of the quark structure of the nucleus. The fact that it opens up the possibility of a certain population of protons with a net dipole moment should not be a problem, AFAIK -in fact - for those looking for answers to otherwise intractable cold fusion and hydrino phenomena, this hypothesis of Fred's could be very instructive. How better to explain such mysteries as the Lamb shift, QM stripping and certain other unusual hydrogen phenomena in nature (that are usually ignored), such as: "In classical quantum physical chemistry, the water molecule has two basic bond angles, one angle being 104.degree., and the other angle being 109.degree.28'." Also consider this, Robin. If Fred is correct and it is only that population of hydrogen that possesses a net dipole moment that is amenable to "shrinkage" then this could serve to partially explain one (of many) of R. Mills reported "engineering" difficulties in getting an "on demand" demonstration device into the public arena. As to the question of how large this population could be, here is a ballpark estimate. Lets say a LENR cell (Pd-D) was designed that showed consistent a COP of 2 (Pin electrical and Pout thermal). Lets say this cell showed no evidence of He or T but that there was significant transmutation in the Pd electrodes that could be best explained as a neutron absorption. Lets say the energy of such a transmutation was about half an MeV or about 100,000 times greater than normal electrolysis/recombination. Then of course, if every D atom in the cell were acted on equally by the electrolysis reaction, then even a low ratio of polarized protons in some of the D nuclei (1:100,000 - which are hypothesized to be easily stripped) - could explain the entire excess energy of the cell. Since deuterium is only found in water at a rate of 1:6000 AND if the polarized proton is far more likely to form D from P-e-P reaction, then perhaps only one in every billion or so protons in nature would have to be polarized, ab initio, to explain the OU of the particular cell just described. That would explain why these have yet to be seen as anything but "noise" in spectrographic or other kinds of analysis. We simply have never looked for them! Of course, in actual CF cells, things are never this simple and there could be two or three other reactions, including QM tunneling that resulted in actual fusion, all of which serve to complicate the situation by accounting for some of the excess energy. Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 08:01:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12871; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:01:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:01:23 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: temalloy metro.lakes.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200203152010.g2FKABm21290 bmail.newswire.ca> References: <200203152010.g2FKABm21290 bmail.newswire.ca> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:59:09 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Tathacus President's Note to Shareholders Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DrC-b2.0.w83.ItBby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46583 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re: Tathacus President's Note to Shareholders
Fellow Vortexians;

I have been following this story for the past year. For those of you who aren't familiar with the story, Tathecus owns Xogen which has the rights to a series of patents which sites Stan Meyers'patents in the previous patents section. When the Canadian stock exchange suspended trading on Tathecus' stock, I assumed that there was another F E scandle developing. Well, you know what happens when you assume. If you read through this message, it appears that these people are proceeding withe development of this technology. I wonder if Tom Valentine is the same man who used to be on the radio.

Tathacus President's Note to Shareholders
    Calgary, March 15, 2002

    Tathacus would like to provide its shareholders with an update on the
activity since its December 19th, 2001 AGM. As always, your patience and
support through this period is greatly appreciated.
    Tathacus is in ongoing discussions with CDNX staff and is in receipt of
the second draft of the AMCL report. The Company is currently working with
Xogen on finalizing its response thereto. In order to ensure that all areas of
the report are addressed in detail, a great deal of time and attention have
been dedicated to this issue. At this time, Tathacus expects the final
response to be completed shortly. It is difficult to predict when the audit
process will be completed, but please rest assured the Company is doing all
that it can to ensure that it concludes in as timely a fashion as is possible
under the circumstances.
    In the meantime, Tathacus remains focused on increasing revenues by way
of additional production from its 100% owned gas properties and third party
gas processing contracts, while continuing to closely monitor and control its
spending.
    For your records, a summary of December 19, 2001 AGM is provided below.

    Summary of December 19, 2001 AGM

    The minutes from the AGM cover only the formal procedural portion of the
meeting, including the election of Directors, the approval of the minutes from
the previous AGM, the approval of the annual financials, and the appointment
of the auditor.
    The discussion period and the Question and Answer portion of the AGM were
held on an informal basis, and thus were not recorded as part of the official
minutes.
    Below is a brief synopsis of the informal discussions.
    Speakers included Tathacus Executive Management and Directors, Xogen
Scientific staff and Mr. Tom Valentine, legal counsel to the Company for
purposes of the CDNX audit.

    CDNX Audit

    The shareholders were advised that the audit is on-going, and that a
first draft of the Report had been delivered to the Company. Xogen and
Tathacus reviewed the report in detail and determined that it contained errors
of both logic and fact. Xogen and Tathacus prepared and delivered a detailed
response to both AMCL (the auditors) and the CDNX.
    Meetings were then held in an attempt to assist the audit team in better
understanding the technology. AMCL is expected to deliver a second draft which
will then be reviewed and commented on by Xogen and Tathacus. Tom Valentine
noted that this is a time-consuming process, and while both sides are working
toward a resolution as quickly as possible, it is difficult to estimate when
the audit will be concluded and reinstatement of trading will occur.

    Xogen

    Clair Shoemaker and Stephen Chambers of Xogen advised the meeting that
while a prototype burner rack for the furnace has been completed, several
engineering issues have held up the finalization of a demonstration-ready
furnace prototype. These issues are being addressed, and work is in progress
to find solutions and complete the prototype as quickly as possible.

    Finances

    James Norrie, CFO, advised that the Company's cash flow has been
understandably tight during the suspension period. Tathacus relies on its
natural gas producing subsidiary, Crucero Resources Ltd., for income. With
natural gas prices remaining as low as they have over the past 8 months,
income has been lower than anticipated. As well, the length of the suspension
has prevented Tathacus from acting upon two significant equity financing
offers which have expired. As a result, management and the Board are working
hard to manage costs. Likewise, new revenue generating opportunities are also
being pursued such as subleasing extra office space and aggressively seeking
out third-party gas processing opportunities for Crucero.
    Barrie Shibley, President and CEO, advised that overhead savings have
already been achieved through a voluntary decrease in salaries for all members
of Tathacus' executive management team. Mr. Shibley emphasized that
notwithstanding the audit and financial challenges, all members of Tathacus
remain completely committed to resolving the issues and growth and success for
Tathacus as a whole.

    Thank you for your interest; please feel free to contact us with any
further questions and/or comments you may have at ir@tathacus.ca.

    Sincerely,
    Tathacus Investor Relations


--
From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 08:01:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA12944; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:01:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:01:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: temalloy metro.lakes.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:59:09 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Earthfirst Tech -- press release Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"RAtWH2.0.5A3.NtBby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46584 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Eugene Mallove posted; Eugene, does this have anyting to do with D W Technology? > >On February 14, 2002, EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated and EarthFirst >NextGas, Inc. (collectively, the "Company") filed a lawsuit against Ruggero >M. Santilli ("Santilli"), Hadronic Press, Inc. ("HPI") and Institute for >Basic Research, Inc. ("IBR") in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 08:19:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA18597; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:15:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:15:52 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:16:33 -0800 Subject: Re: Earthfirst Tech -- press release From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jd51n3.0.TY4.t4Cby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46585 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 3/17/02 7:59 AM, "thomas malloy" wrote: > Eugene Mallove posted; > > > Eugene, does this have anyting to do with D W Technology? > >> On February 14, 2002, EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated and EarthFirst >> NextGas, Inc. (collectively, the "Company") filed a lawsuit against Ruggero >> M. Santilli ("Santilli"), Hadronic Press, Inc. ("HPI") and Institute for >> Basic Research, Inc. ("IBR") in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, > No!! DW Energy Technology has no connection with EarthFisrt, Santilli, Aquafuel, etc. The only connection is that DW Energy Research is working on a carbon arc in water/biomass system.. Note well: It is impossible to patent the generic carbon arc in water system to generate a fuel gas -- that was patented by Eldridge in 1898. Only specific embodiments can be patented (such as the controlled feeding of the carbon rod into the arc or the capture of light energy by a spherical absorber). And that is precisely what Wallman and Damann have done. Gene > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 08:57:37 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA06284; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:54:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:54:49 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: "Vortex-L Eskimo. Com" , "Freenrg-L Eskimo. Com" Subject: Phenomena Observed: Laser? Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:59:52 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Ou3M9.0.zX1.OfCby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46586 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Hi folks. Several weeks ago a company drilling a gas well near here had a minor incident involving some loose fumes and an open flame. The result was a towering inferno that can be heard for over a kilometer and a half, and a nightly cloud lighting exhibition that never fails to remind us of why safety policies exist. The top of the jet at 50 m. can almost be seen here in our camp, over thirty kilometres from the site. The well has high pressure natural gas shrieking out of a new discovery here that the company in question can't seem to do anything about. At any rate, some of us are here for another week and I will be one of the last expatriates here to get an opportunity to go visit the sight up close (I'll take video when I go). I have been pondering what we witnessed on the veranda two nights ago, thinking that there should be some way to get a video or night shot of what we saw then. Cloud cover was thin and intermittent over the well site, and we saw the brightness of the flare had increased considerably, more likely due to atmospherics than anything else. The general glow of the flare illuminating the clouds was somewhat dim at altitude, the cloud layer ranging up to somewhere near 10000 m. according to rough estimates by triangulation. We saw for several moments the clouds pierced by the light of the flare as if the flare had become the source of a rough beam. The effect was incredible, and it lasted for minutes at a time, until some few minutes before we found a camera capable of taking night photos, (Aarrgh!) when the effect collapsed. All I could think of was that the flame had become a natural laser, that the energy was being coherently focused into the clouds to produce the effect. I would imagine this has been seen elsewhere, but I have not heard of it and my colleagues have also never seen this or heard tales about this type of phenomena before either. A brief summary of the known (by us here) facts: Natural gas flare burning 50 m. into the air. Some H2S content, amount unknown. No wind or breeze at the time of occurrence. Light from flare is roughly orange. Beam effect was transitory, lasting at longest duration 10 minutes. Beam perceived to pierce perhaps 3 to 5 kilometres of thin clouds, at an elevation near 10,000 m. and up (triangulation based on GPS coordinates our camp, the well site, angle of site elevation). Well site at roughly same elevation as our camp, 100 M. mean sea level. All facilities around wellsite had been removed or incinerated, this means no electrical power connection to flame. [This said, the local power utility systems are notorious for having live grounds!] Radios in vicinity probably less than 150 watts. Powerful shrieking sound as the jet passes through what is left of the drilling equipment, possibly only a collar on the casing. If this was indeed a natural laser activity, I would imagine it could be recreated in miniature using a long pipe to entrain the flame with either acoustic or electric stimulation to cause the lasing activity. No, it wasn't our operation - we don't drill wells. We make maps. cheers From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 09:33:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA25704; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:31:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:31:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:23:10 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Phenomena Observed: Laser? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <00a101c1cdd8$69815c40$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"Wr2t-1.0.WH6.rBDby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46587 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: "xplorer" > If this was indeed a natural laser activity, > I would imagine it could be recreated in miniature > using a long pipe to entrain the flame with either acoustic > or electric stimulation to cause the lasing activity. Methane and other kinds of combustion have been suggested for years as a possible methodology for powering a ultra-high intensity laser. I suspect that if it were possible (and could be used in such top secret programs as "Star Wars") then a lot of the information would have been quashed in the USA. The Japanese are looking into this too and the conclusion below seems to be that there is at least the possibility of using methane combustion for laser applications. The long pipe as you suggest might substitute for an external EM resonance, particularly since its diameter can be assumed to be in the range of appropriate microwave wavelengths and the thermionic discharge, if it didn't melt first) would likely be in the mega-amp range. For instance: "Determination of Population Inversion in Microwave-Enhanced Combustion of Methane-Air Mixture in Ceramic Burner " ERWIN F. CABRIDO, YOSHINORI ITAYA AND SHIGEKATSU MORI Department of Chemical Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan Abstract: Microwave enhanced combustion of methane-air mixture in a ceramic burner is studied and the results suggest perturbation of the assumed Boltzmann distribution of molecular energy levels. A small signal gain, which represents the level of amplification of an incident beam in a medium, was detected using a CO 2 laser. An increase in the signal ratio of two MCT photodetectors when the combustion zone was irradiated by microwaves (2.45 GHz) indicates amplification of infrared radiation (10.6 mm) hence the possibility of using the system for laser applications. However, statistical analysis reveals that varying levels of microwave power are not significantly different. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 12:53:49 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA18281; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:50:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:50:19 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:49:03 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8@4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 MAA18210 Resent-Message-ID: <"wahbL2.0.ST4.B6Gby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46588 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:41:38 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] >> attraction, would be doubly strong. Ergo the latter would be very >> stable, and the former unstable. > >Maybe, if that was as far as it went. But there are two other force to contend >with at small distances, the strong and weak forces. Forces superimpose. Ergo, the result would still be far greater stability for one than for the other. In short, the unstable form would rapidly convert to the stable form. Even normal nuclear reactions (inter particle) happen in a time frame of E-23 to E-24 sec. These internal conversions (intra particle) would be even faster. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 13:09:23 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA22634; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:02:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:02:28 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Phenomena Observed: Laser? Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:01:38 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 NAA22599 Resent-Message-ID: <"MR71p2.0.aX5.ZHGby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46589 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In reply to xplorer's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:59:52 +0700: Hi, [snip] >A brief summary of the known (by us here) facts: > Natural gas flare burning 50 m. into the air. > Some H2S content, amount unknown. > No wind or breeze at the time of occurrence. [snip] Given the absence of wind it seems more likely to me that what you saw was the effect of the hot air column above the flare, as it evaporated the water droplets that form the clouds. There may even have been a stabilising vortex formed around the hot air column, such that an "eye" was punched in the clouds. Normally, the wind would disperse the hot air column, so that the effect would not occur (but I wouldn't rule the laser out altogether). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 13:53:48 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA06317; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:45:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:45:42 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:37:14 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Polar Protons? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9 computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8 4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9 computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"0XGmy.0.dY1.6wGby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46590 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > Forces superimpose. Ergo, the result would still be far greater > stability for one than for the other. In short, the unstable form would > rapidly convert to the stable form. Why would the proton rapidly convert? The strong force is certainly adequate to keep two loosely bound like-spin quarks together - Ergo, a rather large amount of force would have to be extended just to overcome the strong force - and overcoming the strong force would be a prerequisite - after which a lesser force would be required for the reversal - if time permitted. > Even normal nuclear reactions (inter particle) happen in a time frame of E-23 to E-24 sec. These internal conversions (intra particle) would be even faster. What makes you think that any "internal conversion" would occur at all? What would be the mechanism for such conversion? Even if some sort of QM suspension of the strong force did occur intermittently, it might lower the probability of protons with a net dipole moment over vast eons of time, but wouldn't necessarily eliminate them, and all that is necessary for substantial OU, as previously estimated, might be one per billion of all protons. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 17:03:25 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA01228; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:00:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:00:23 -0800 (PST) From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:54:29 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8@4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9@computer> <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id RAA01204 Resent-Message-ID: <"v6bUh.0.6J.cmJby" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46591 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:37:14 -0800: Hi, [snip] >From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > >> Forces superimpose. Ergo, the result would still be far greater >> stability for one than for the other. In short, the unstable form would >> rapidly convert to the stable form. > >Why would the proton rapidly convert? Because the +-+ form is far more stable, and there is nothing to prevent the conversion. > >The strong force is certainly adequate to keep two loosely bound like-spin >quarks together - Ergo, a rather large amount of force would have to be extended >just to overcome the strong force - and overcoming the strong force would be a >prerequisite - The purported strong force would also act between every other possible pair combination within the particle, so that it's net ability to distinguish between states would be zero, if it existed as a separate force of nature. (Actually, I think the strong force is probably electromagnetic in nature; see http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/checker.ppt ). Take a look at the internal structure of protons presented in this document - it is directly related to this thread. >after which a lesser force would be required for the reversal - >if time permitted. You are trying to balance a marble on the point of a needle. It's going to fall off. > >> Even normal nuclear reactions (inter particle) happen in a time frame of E-23 >to E-24 sec. These internal conversions (intra particle) would be even faster. > >What makes you think that any "internal conversion" would occur at all? What >would be the mechanism for such conversion? The electrostatic force. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 17:33:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA06234; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:31:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:31:58 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:31:14 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> In-Reply-To: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 RAA06181 Resent-Message-ID: <"ebA72.0.HX1.DEKby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46593 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:47:51 -0800: Hi, [snip] >superset, IPE. The Mossbauer effect itself may be a subset of a larger class of >reactions that can be called IPE or Induced Photon Emissions. IPE technology I believe that IPE is commonly referred to as "stimulated emission", as in laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). >may >be a most notable new addition to the lexicon of LENR: To the extent that when >carefully controlled, IPE permits a new type of meta-phenomenon to appear and >self-perpetuate - a *photon chain reaction*. This is exactly what happens in a laser. > >A photon chain reaction, as here defined, is a correlate of the nuclear chain >reaction, but limited to induced photon emission from electron orbitals at a >particular wavelength or multiple thereof. Such a phenomenon has reputedly been >discovered and documented .... and is in widespread use across the world ;) [snip] >The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect > >Dr. Randell Mills and his company, Blacklight Power, BLP, have made the >fantastic claim that a new form of energy can be released from hydrogen by >catalytically forcing it "below ground state." Not so fantastic, when one considers that hydrogen atoms in a hydrogen molecule are already "below the ground state", as Mills has previously pointed out. [snip] >Mills uses "Mossbauer effect technology" (hereafter, MET) as a trigger for >starting the hydrino reaction (after which it becomes auto-catalytic in the >sense of a photon chain reaction propagating at multiples of 27.2 eV, a >frequency in the Extreme Ultraviolet, or EUV spectrum): The problem with this is that the difference in energy levels between the shrunken states is not a constant 27.2 eV. IOW each shrinkage reaction would need to emit two photons, one at 27.2 eV to perpetuate the chain, and another carrying the energy difference between 27.2 eV and the real energy level differential. Mills accounts for this by "allowing" the 27.2 eV to be removed mechanically through collision. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 17:33:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA05798; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:30:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:30:47 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:22:15 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Polar Protons? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <00f101c1ce1b$57abcbc0$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9 computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8 4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9 computer> <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9 computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"1WT58.0.SQ1.6DKby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46592 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > >Why would the proton rapidly convert? > Because the +-+ form is far more stable, and there is nothing to prevent > the conversion. The strong force prevents the conversion > >The strong force is certainly adequate to keep two loosely bound like-spin > >quarks together - Ergo, a rather large amount of force would have to be extended > >just to overcome the strong force - and overcoming the strong force would be a > >prerequisite - > The purported strong force would also act between every other possible > pair combination within the particle, so that it's net ability to > distinguish between states would be zero, if it existed as a separate > force of nature. It doesn't have to distinguish - but it would have to be overcome if it exists, and all the evidence points to its existence. Consider two magnets held together by some glue. If they are in polar alignment they are held more strongly together than if they are in polar oposition but if they are in polar opposition they still cannot ovecome the effect of the glue and they will stay bound in opposition until the glue fails. Does the strong force ever fail? > (Actually, I think the strong force is probably electromagnetic in > nature; see http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/checker.ppt ). > Take a look at the internal structure of protons presented in this > document - it is directly related to this thread. I can't open this document with Word or Adobe. What is a PPT file? For the limited purpose of this argument what is in there that supports your argument? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 18:27:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA28417; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:25:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:25:16 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:16:46 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <010901c1ce22$f4f6a7e0$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"UQ_E53.0.rx6.B0Lby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46594 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Robin, > >Dr. Randell Mills and his company, Blacklight Power, BLP, have made the > >fantastic claim that a new form of energy can be released from hydrogen by > >catalytically forcing it "below ground state." > Not so fantastic, when one considers that hydrogen atoms in a hydrogen > molecule are already "below the ground state", as Mills has previously > pointed out. But Mills apparently claims not to use the molecular form as his startimg point, but instead the hydrogen atom - not the ion, not the molecule, just the singlet atom which is/must be at ground state if it is to give up 13.6 eV. > The problem with this is that the difference in energy levels between > the shrunken states is not a constant 27.2 eV. IOW each shrinkage > reaction would need to emit two photons, one at 27.2 eV to perpetuate > the chain, and another carrying the energy difference between 27.2 eV > and the real energy level differential. The chain reaction, perhaps it should be called a "virtual chain reaction" is not propagated by one photon that stimulates more than one photon (if you buy into Mills explanation) but by a photon that starts a hydrino to shrink - and that it is that shrinkage which continues unabated to some stage, whether it be 20 steps or 40 steps that is the propagating modality of the chain reaction. The weak link here is that Mills can find nobody, so far, who is an authority who will confirm that his hydrino hydride is a real entity. And you have probably seen on HSG that his spectroscopy has some doubters as well. Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 22:54:44 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA10294; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:51:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:51:16 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:50:36 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> <010901c1ce22$f4f6a7e0$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <010901c1ce22$f4f6a7e0$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 WAA10259 Resent-Message-ID: <"Xitvt.0.mW2.avOby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46595 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:16:46 -0800: Hi Jones, >Hi Robin, > >> >Dr. Randell Mills and his company, Blacklight Power, BLP, have made the >> >fantastic claim that a new form of energy can be released from hydrogen by >> >catalytically forcing it "below ground state." > >> Not so fantastic, when one considers that hydrogen atoms in a hydrogen >> molecule are already "below the ground state", as Mills has previously >> pointed out. > >But Mills apparently claims not to use the molecular form as his startimg point, Mills' point is that if the hydrogen atom in it's ground state (i.e. single hydrogen atoms) can give up energy when forming a molecule (i.e. mediated by a collision mechanism), then there would appear to be no a priori restriction on it giving up even more energy in a similar manner. IOW the "ground state" isn't really a ground state. >but instead the hydrogen atom - not the ion, not the molecule, just the singlet >atom which is/must be at ground state if it is to give up 13.6 eV. The hydrogen atom gives up 13.6 eV *as it forms* from a proton and an electron infinitely far apart. IOW it enters it's ground state after having given up the 13.6 eV, not before giving it up. > >> The problem with this is that the difference in energy levels between >> the shrunken states is not a constant 27.2 eV. IOW each shrinkage >> reaction would need to emit two photons, one at 27.2 eV to perpetuate >> the chain, and another carrying the energy difference between 27.2 eV >> and the real energy level differential. > >The chain reaction, perhaps it should be called a "virtual chain reaction" is >not propagated by one photon that stimulates more than one photon (if you buy >into Mills explanation) This isn't Mills explanation. He doesn't say that there are two photons. However your scenario would necessitate it, because if the process could be triggered by a photon, with no other atom in the neighbourhood, then the only place to get rid of the 27.2 eV would be as a photon (which Mills BTW says is impossible anyway, because neither the "ground state" hydrogen atom, nor any hydrinos can radiate spontaneously. IOW the first step as it were, from the stable state, is not allowed to be a radiative step (i.e. radiative transitions are forbidden), which is precisely why all the hydrogen atoms in the universe didn't collapse into shrunken hydrinos shortly after the big bang. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 17 23:05:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA15001; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:04:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:04:47 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:04:06 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8@4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9@computer> <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9@computer> <00f101c1ce1b$57abcbc0$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <00f101c1ce1b$57abcbc0$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 XAA14925 Resent-Message-ID: <"W2bKQ1.0.Ig3.F6Pby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46596 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:22:15 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Consider two magnets held together by some glue. If they are in polar alignment >they are held more strongly together than if they are in polar oposition but if >they are in polar opposition they still cannot ovecome the effect of the glue >and they will stay bound in opposition until the glue fails. Does the strong >force ever fail? Magnets have corners that prevent them from slipping. This is not a trivial argument. In a -++ arrangement, there is also a strong force bond between the outer two quarks, which tends to compensate for the strong force bond between the two ++ quarks (assuming that there is such a thing as the strong force). That's what I meant when I said you were trying to balance a marble on a needle point (no corners). > > >> (Actually, I think the strong force is probably electromagnetic in >> nature; see http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/checker.ppt ). >> Take a look at the internal structure of protons presented in this >> document - it is directly related to this thread. > >I can't open this document with Word or Adobe. What is a PPT file? It's a power point file (effectively a slide show). You can download a free reader from Microsoft. In this case I would recommend it. The theory contained therein has much to argue for it. > >For the limited purpose of this argument what is in there that supports your >argument? [snip] Protons are represented as a single central negative quark, with two positive quarks revolving around it on opposite sides of a circle. As you can see this is a natural for the +-+ layout, while automatically precluding anything else. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 00:34:30 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id AAA12861; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:31:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:31:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:39:58 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: "Eugene F. Mallove" cc: "vortex l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: D W Research In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ZxOhO1.0.t83.uNQby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46597 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Is there a URL for DW? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 03:37:02 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA04894; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:34:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:34:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:34:00 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: "Vortex-L Eskimo. Com" cc: "Freenrg-L Eskimo. Com" Subject: Re: Phenomena Observed: Laser? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"CrTDC3.0.9C1.h2Tby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46598 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, xplorer wrote: > We saw for several moments the clouds pierced by the light of the flare > as if the flare had become the source of a rough beam. > The effect was incredible, and it lasted for minutes at a time, > until some few minutes before we found a camera capable of > taking night photos, (Aarrgh!) when the effect collapsed. Sounds like "light columns" effect. It would require below-freezing weather with no wind at all, since the illusion is produced by ice crystals hovering in the air. I've seen this illusion in winters in upstate New York, where every single streetlight has a fuzzy "beam" shooting vertically upwards. People in airliners see another effect in daylight which has the same cause: a sun image down within the clouds, as if the plane was flying over still water, yet the landscape is dry. If a region of ice particles moved past, the glowing column would appear briefly and then vanish again. But if there were no ice crystals in the air, the illusion cannot exist. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 06:04:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA31318; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 06:01:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 06:01:38 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Phenomena Observed: Laser? Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:06:03 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"RYjE82.0.7f7.2DVby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46599 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Bill, the site is 7 degrees south of the equator, but I suppose the altitude the light was seen to be at may have been icy, but at altitude there is quite some velocity here these days. cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: William Beaty [mailto:billb eskimo.com] > Sent: 2002 March 18 Monday 18:34 > To: Vortex-L Eskimo. Com > Cc: Freenrg-L Eskimo. Com > Subject: Re: Phenomena Observed: Laser? > > > On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, xplorer wrote: > > > We saw for several moments the clouds pierced by the light of the flare > > as if the flare had become the source of a rough beam. > > The effect was incredible, and it lasted for minutes at a time, > > until some few minutes before we found a camera capable of > > taking night photos, (Aarrgh!) when the effect collapsed. > > Sounds like "light columns" effect. It would require below-freezing > weather with no wind at all, since the illusion is produced by ice > crystals hovering in the air. I've seen this illusion in winters in > upstate New York, where every single streetlight has a fuzzy "beam" > shooting vertically upwards. People in airliners see another effect in > daylight which has the same cause: a sun image down within the clouds, as > if the plane was flying over still water, yet the landscape is dry. > > If a region of ice particles moved past, the glowing column would appear > briefly and then vanish again. > > But if there were no ice crystals in the air, the illusion cannot exist. > > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) > William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website > billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com > EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science > Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 07:23:16 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA03045; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:18:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:18:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:10:01 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Polar Protons? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <001101c1ce8e$fa516240$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9 computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8 4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9 computer> <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9 computer> <00f101c1ce1b$57abcbc0$8837fea9 computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"XCCNG1.0.Vl.6LWby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46600 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin > >Consider two magnets held together by some glue. If they are in polar alignment > >they are held more strongly together than if they are in polar oposition but if > >they are in polar opposition they still cannot ovecome the effect of the glue > >and they will stay bound in opposition until the glue fails. Does the strong > >force ever fail? > > Magnets have corners that prevent them from slipping. This is not a > trivial argument. If you assume that the quark is a spherical structure, then then the glued magnet analogy wouldn't apply very well, but few observers buy into a spherical visualization. In the circle-string visualization, the quark is best understood as a "string" of mass energy encircling around a point in space. I suppose the closest physical thing to compare it with would be a "hula hoop." A proton is three of theses string-circles stacked into what could loosely be described as a squat cylindrical unit. The stong force "glue" the holds the three together, the gluon, would prevent the - quark in the -++ arrangement from trading places with the center +quark, even though the +-+ arrangement would be more stable. If a significant initial population of -++ can happen at all, even in the big bang, then the remnant population of -++ protons is the only important question. It's really a question of present-day percentages. Since our solar system is "second generation" system, then you have in place one mechanism that would convert a higher initial population of -++ into the more stable +-+ variety, but a valid issue exists as to whether there could be as many as several ppm to several ppb of the less stable variety. The fact that you have bought into a different visualiztion or theory only means that the two visualiztions and theories need to be compared side by side for both their explanatory value AND *predictive significance*. Can your theory explain the Lamb shift? Can it explain Oppenheiner-Phillips stripping? Can it explain many of the puzzles of cold fusion and the Mills hydrino as well as Fred's "stacked circle string" visualization? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 08:33:51 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23012; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:30:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:30:25 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020318103105.034b9940 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:33:22 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Abandoned Russian fission TEGs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"7vVfx.0.Ud5.XOXby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46601 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42294-2002Mar17.html Makings of a 'Dirty Bomb' Radioactive Devices Left by Soviets Could Attract Terrorists QUOTES: . . . In Georgia, on the Black Sea, a search is underway for at least two of the devices, called radiothermal generators, or RTGs, believed to have been abandoned and then stolen after the closing of a Soviet military base. Just before Christmas, three woodcutters in northwestern Georgia suffered massive injuries after stumbling upon a similar device in the middle of a forest. In the far-eastern Russian region of Chukotka, investigators discovered a complete breakdown in controls over 85 radiothermal generators placed along the arctic coast by the Soviets in the 1960s and '70s. Some of the machines had been vandalized for scrap metal, others were literally falling into the surf and at least one could not be found, according to Russian government documents obtained by The Washington Post. . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 10:14:44 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA13496; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:10:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:10:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:47:14 -0800 From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002101c1ce94$2d17ca20$8837fea9 computer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> <010901c1ce22$f4f6a7e0$8837fea9 computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"k--b2.0.VI3.YsYby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46602 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > IOW the "ground state" isn't really a ground state. If you want to call it "the first non-radiative state" that's all right with me, but it might well be the "first and only non-radiateve state." Mills should be careful that he is not inventing a whole new and different form of chemistry and physics for what may turn out to be, if polar protons exist (and are the real culprit here) a minority species that exist in parts-per-million or less. It is clear that he may have faltered recently and I think it is time for even his supporters to step back and take a breath of fresh air. > The hydrogen atom gives up 13.6 eV *as it forms* from a proton and an > electron infinitely far apart. IOW it enters it's ground state after > having given up the 13.6 eV, not before giving it up. If that were true, then PEM fuel cells would operate at much higher potential, closer to 13.6 volts and not the 1-2 volts that is seen in practice. Since these are already approaching 70% efficient in the best case scenario, it would be absolutely impossible to suggest that they are somehow missing this extra potential energy. > This isn't Mills explanation. He doesn't say that there are two photons. > However your scenario would necessitate it, because if the process could > be triggered by a photon, with no other atom in the neighbourhood, then > the only place to get rid of the 27.2 eV would be as a photon No. I made it abundantly clear that the hydrino, not the photon itself is responsible for the apparent multiplication factor. > BTW Mills says is impossible anyway, because neither the "ground state" > hydrogen atom, nor any hydrinos can radiate spontaneously. This is his theory, but in point of fact, if he measures photon radiation through spectroscopy, he has absolutely NO way of knowing where the radiation came from originally. The radiation can originate from the catalyst or from the hydrino or from both or from whatever other modality that he may have missed. He has gone to extreme lengths to justify a flakey theory, when he should have concentrated on getting a product to market. He invented this phoney-baloney non-radiative business to cover up for the fact that he can't explain why more hydrinos don't form naturally in the universe. Perhaps what he hasn't considered is that the reason more hydrinos don't form in nature is that they require polar protons to begin with and this may be a very limited species. Just an alternative explanation for a complicated issue that is way out of my league but also way out of Randell Mills' league. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 14:41:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA03071; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:36:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:36:50 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polar Protons? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:36:07 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <002201c1ccee$b66c05e0$a3b4bfa8 computer> <00fb01c1cd4c$4afa22c0$8837fea9@computer> <54v79us2dssq3jni9nchrgpjcdm1s1ctk8@4ax.com> <002301c1cdca$59bf9460$8837fea9@computer> <00d501c1cdfb$e81bb5a0$8837fea9@computer> <00f101c1ce1b$57abcbc0$8837fea9@computer> <001101c1ce8e$fa516240$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <001101c1ce8e$fa516240$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 OAA02984 Resent-Message-ID: <"fNo9N2.0.fl.0mcby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46603 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:10:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] >If a significant initial population of -++ can happen at all, even in the big >bang, then the remnant population of -++ protons is the only important question. >It's really a question of present-day percentages. Since our solar system is >"second generation" system, then you have in place one mechanism that would >convert a higher initial population of -++ into the more stable +-+ variety, but >a valid issue exists as to whether there could be as many as several ppm to >several ppb of the less stable variety. Then consider that the mass of the less stable variety would be higher than that of the stable variety by the energy difference (/c^2). This difference in mass should show up. > >The fact that you have bought into a different visualiztion or theory only means >that the two visualiztions and theories need to be compared side by side for >both their explanatory value AND *predictive significance*. True. >Can your theory >explain the Lamb shift? What does the Lamb shift have to do with proton structure? >Can it explain Oppenheiner-Phillips stripping? I have yet to see any evidence that there is anything exceptional about Oppenheiner-Phillips stripping. >Can it >explain many of the puzzles of cold fusion and the Mills hydrino as well as >Fred's "stacked circle string" visualization? Since neither this model nor Fred's have anything to do with Mills Hydrino, I fail to see the relevance of the question. IOW I would expect either model to coexist equally well with Hydrinos. (I see Mills theory on proton structure as separate from his hydrino theory). As to explaining CF, I agree with your previous statement that CF is likely to be a catchall for a number of different processes, some of which may be related, and some not. One last question for Fred. Does your ring model assume the existence of a nuclear force, and if so, what is the nature of that force? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 18 23:04:25 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA13624; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:01:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:01:24 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hydrino and the Mossbauer Effect Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:00:46 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <9god9uo9293lgq30kc47p9t8cbco9o4l79 4ax.com> References: <008301c1c48f$6642b620$8837fea9 computer> <010901c1ce22$f4f6a7e0$8837fea9@computer> <002101c1ce94$2d17ca20$8837fea9@computer> In-Reply-To: <002101c1ce94$2d17ca20$8837fea9 computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 XAA13554 Resent-Message-ID: <"pDnbj.0.gK3.39kby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46604 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:47:14 -0800: Hi, [snip] >but it might well be the "first and only non-radiateve state." Mills should be >careful that he is not inventing a whole new and different form of chemistry and >physics for what may turn out to be, if polar protons exist (and are the real >culprit here) a minority species that exist in parts-per-million or less. It If polar protons are the real culprit here, then you need to explain the significance of Mills catalysts. >is >clear that he may have faltered recently and I think it is time for even his >supporters to step back and take a breath of fresh air. I took that step some time ago, however unlike you I haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water. > >> The hydrogen atom gives up 13.6 eV *as it forms* from a proton and an >> electron infinitely far apart. IOW it enters it's ground state after >> having given up the 13.6 eV, not before giving it up. > >If that were true, then PEM fuel cells would operate at much higher potential, >closer to 13.6 volts and not the 1-2 volts that is seen in practice. The voltage of this cell is only indirectly related to the ionisation energy of hydrogen. The actual voltage depends on the formation energy of water. You can check any of hundreds of different sources on the web, to determine that the ionisation energy of hydrogen (i.e. the energy required to remove an electron from a ground state hydrogen atom) is 13.6 eV. The converse of this is that in recombining the resultant proton and electron, 13.6 eV is released. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 04:35:18 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA09567; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:31:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:31:48 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:32:25 -0800 Subject: FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002 From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3C96984E.B0FEF89B toast.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3099367945_2702785" Resent-Message-ID: <"zESRP3.0.PL2.q-oby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/46605 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3099367945_2702785 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/031802fusion/ MORE EXPLORE FEATURES Sonic Fusion Scientists have reported that by bombarding a liquid with sound they were able to produce nuclear fusion in a tabletop apparatus. But their colleague= s doubt it.=20 By W. Wayt Gibbs Image: Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Russian Academy of Sciences (Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, J. S. Cho, C.D. West, R.T. Lahey,Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin and R.C. Block) SIX-MILLIMETER BUBBLE CLOUD is about to implode in a glass chamber filled with acetone.=A0The implosion produces light and shock waves. Donald Kennedy, editor of the prestigious journal Science, knew he was in for a row if he published the paper. It=92s not that the work was shoddy or came out of left field. On the contrary, the experiments had been performed with great care by well-respected senior scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and the Russian Academy of Sciences. But what the authors were claiming was just so extraordinary: that nuclear fusion reactions, of the sort that power stars and hydrogen bombs, had been created on a lab bench using little more than a vibrating ring, a neutron gun and a beaker of specially prepared acetone. Add to that the fact, reported in the Washington Post, that at least three of the experts to whic= h the article had been sent for peer review urged Science to reject it. And finally there was the follow-up study (not yet subjected to peer review) by another team at Oak Ridge that claimed that the evidence of fusion reaction= s disappeared when it repeated the experiment with different sensors and analyzed the data in a different way. "It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right," Kennedy hedged in an editorial that accompanied the article in the March 8, 2002, issue of Science. "What we are very sure of i= s that publication is the right option, even=97and perhaps especially=97when ther= e is some controversy. History Repeats?=20 Controversy is the only thing assured to follow an experiment that so resembles the "cold fusion" fiasco of 1989, when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann of the University of Utah said that they had discovered room-temperature reactions; the announcement became headline news but was soon discredited. There are important differences, however. In this case th= e scientists who believe they have found a new route to fusion have suggested a plausible mechanism by which it could occur. And they have discovered two genuinely odd anomalies that conventional physics cannot easily explain. The phenomenon, as described by Rusi Peri Taleyarkhan of ORNL, Richard T. Lahey of RPI and their coinvestigators, happened when they were studying sonoluminescence=97light created by sound. German scientists first observed sonoluminescence in the 1930s, when they immersed sonar loudspeakers in water baths. But it wasn=92t until the past decade that scientists worked out many of the details. What we call sound is really a series of moving pressure fronts. The pressure at a fixed point swings from low to high and back as the sound wav= e sweeps by. If the sound is loud enough and at the right frequency, the pressure at the trough of the wave will be so low that the fluid will boil, producing microscopic bubbles. When the high pressure front at the crest of the sound wave slams into these bubbles, they implode, and shock waves focu= s the energy of the implosion to a central region of atomic dimensions. The temperature at that central point skyrockets above 10,000 degrees Celsius, the pressure zooms to 10,000 atmospheres and a flash of light emerges for just a few picoseconds. The bigger the bubble, the more energy in the implosion, and the hotter and brighter the sonoluminescent flash. Star in a Jar=20 Standard sonoluminescence experiments use water. Taleyarkhan=92s group used a= n organic chemical called acetone, an ingredient in common nail-polish remover, because it is rich in neutron-absorbing carbon and hydrogen atoms. The researchers then loaded up the acetone with extra neutrons in two ways. First, they used acetone made from deuterium, which is hydrogen with an extra neutron. Second, they put the flask of acetone next to a source of neutron radiation, in one case a chunk of plutonium-beryllium and in other cases a neutron pulse gun. Their hope was that the neutrons shooting into the acetone would collide with the carbon and hydrogen nuclei, and this would create disturbances tha= t would "seed" the bubbles produced by the sound waves. Many more bubbles tha= n normal would be formed at once, and on average the bubbles would grow much larger than usual before they collapsed. Perhaps, the scientists thought, the bubbles would get so big that their collapse would produce temperatures near 10 million degrees=97hot enough to cause a few deuterium atoms in the acetone to fuse into helium or tritium (hydrogen with two extra neutrons). Image: courtesy of Rusi Taleyarkhan SOUND OF NEUTRONS. Click here to download a Quicktime Movie showing the nucleation of tiny--smaller than a molecule--vapor pockets when neutrons from a source strike the nucleus of atoms of acetone. These vapor bubbles then grow in the "stretched" liquid (in which the pressure is about minus 250 psi) to a cloud of hundreds of bubbles about six millimeters in size. The bubbles then collapse when the pressure turns positive. Collapse speeds reach near 10 kilometers per secon= d or so and the final pressures reach to more than 50 million atmospheres upo= n which sufficient heat and compression is built up; neutrons and tritium are emitted.=A0The intense collapse results in shock waves that travel outwards o= f the chamber through the glass walls and make an audible sound. Creating even small numbers of fusing atoms would be a big deal. Fusion reactions release lots of energy, hence their usefulness for lighting stars and making mushroom clouds. The energy comes out in the form of neutrons humming along at 2.5 million electron volts (MeV), fast-moving protons and hot tritium and helium atoms. When the Taleyarkhan group checked the sample= s for tritium, the researchers found that it had indeed increased=97but only in the deuterium-laced acetone that had been zapped with both sound and neutrons. Tritium levels didn=92t change significantly in normal acetone put through the process, nor in deuterated acetone shot just with neutrons or subjected only to a good ringing. They also looked for neutrons emerging from the flask after the neutron gunshot had dissipated and the bubbles had burst. Sure enough, their scintillation detector started scintillating about twice as fast within a few microseconds of the strongest sonoluminescent flashes. Working through = a complicated set of calculations, the researchers reckoned that they observe= d a four-percent increase in 2.5 MeV neutrons just after the onset of bubble formation. That is certainly not enough to start a chain reaction (thank goodness), or even enough to produce as much energy as the apparatus consumes. But if it were confirmed, it would be an entirely new approach to generating fusion energy. The Race to Test the Results Unsurprisingly, many research groups around the world are scrambling to try this out for themselves. But the only one to make a report so far has disputed on several technical grounds the evidence that any atoms were fusing, though the group did allow that something strange was going on. Dan Shapira and Mike Saltmarsh, the group's leaders, had been asked last May by science managers at ORNL to check the Taleyarkhan group=92s findings. Shapira and Saltmarsh brought in a different kind of neutron detector that is 30 times the size of the scintillator that the first team used. (A bad idea, Taleyarkhan complained in a rebuttal, because it is more likely to pick up background radiation and to overload the electronics.) The new detector system was triggered by a neutron or gamma-ray strike, and then matched that to any sonoluminescent flash that happened within 10 microseconds before or after the strike. (But that dilutes the signal, because neutron/gamma hits are much more common than flashes, complains the Taleyarkhan group, whose detectors worked the other way around.) Saltmarsh and Shapira did not check the tritium observations. "Those look like they were handled correctly," Shapira says. He can offer no explanatio= n for the apparent increase in tritium levels. So that is one mystery. A second mystery, Shapira reports, is that "right after the neutrons hit th= e acetone, there are light flashes as the bubbles collapse, then there is a quiet period, and then thousands of flashes=9790 percent of the light=97comes out after about a millisecond. Why that happens I don=92t know." Shapira does know what he would do differently to answer the question more clearly. "For starters I would not use neutrons to create the bubbles=97I would use a laser or even a charged particle beam, something you can really control. You cannot guide neutrons." And it would be better, he suggests, not to set the acetone flask on a steel table, which can reflect neutrons back toward the detector. Finally, he advises, use a more advanced detector that uses boron or an ionization chamber. That will filter out gamma rays, which confounded both his and Taleyarkhan=92s measurements. With stakes so high and so many reputations on the line, the debate over this discovery is certain to produce lots of sound and heat=97but perhaps als= o a flash of illumination. RELATED LINKS:=20 Ask the Experts: Can Ultrasound Bubbles in Water Initiate Nuclear Fusion? Tabletop Nuclear Fusion Claims Meet with Skepticism "Sonoluminescence: Sound into Light," by Seth J. Putterman (Scientific American, February 1995), is available for purchase from the Scientific American Archive. Article from Science Follow up by Shapira and Saltmarsh Sonoluminescence Images ORNL Press Release=20 =20 ------ End of Forwarded Message --B_3099367945_2702785 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002</TIT= LE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Monaco"><TT><BR> http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/031802fusion/<BR> <BR> <HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%"></TT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT> <P ALIGN=3DCENTER> <FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><B>MORE EXPLORE FEATURES </explorations> <BR> </B><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <H1>Sonic Fusion<BR> </H1><H3>Scientists have reported that by bombarding a liquid with sound th= ey were able to produce nuclear fusion in a tabletop apparatus. But their co= lleagues doubt it. <BR> </H3><B>By W. Wayt Gibbs<BR> </B> </FONT> <P> <FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><FONT SIZE=3D"1">Image: Courtesy of Oak Ridge National L= aboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Russian Academy of Scien= ces (Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, J. S. Cho, C.D. West, R.T. Lahey,Jr., R.I. Nigmatu= lin and R.C. Block)<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT SIZE=3D"2"><B>SIX-MILLIMETER BUBBLE CLOUD</B> is about to implode in a = glass chamber filled with acetone.=A0The implosion produces light and shock wa= ves.</FONT> <BR> <BR> Donald Kennedy, editor of the prestigious journal <I>Science,</I> knew he w= as in for a row if he published the paper. It=92s not that the work was shoddy= or came out of left field. On the contrary, the experiments had been perfor= med with great care by well-respected senior scientists at Oak Ridge Nationa= l Laboratory (ORNL), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and the Russian = Academy of Sciences. <BR> <BR> But what the authors were claiming was just so extraordinary: that nuclear = fusion reactions, of the sort that power stars and hydrogen bombs, had been = created on a lab bench using little more than a vibrating ring, a neutron gu= n and a beaker of specially prepared acetone. Add to that the fact, reported= in the <I>Washington Post,</I> that at least three of the experts to which = the article had been sent for peer review urged <I>Science</I> to reject it.= And finally there was the follow-up study (not yet subjected to peer review= ) by another team at Oak Ridge that claimed that the evidence of fusion reac= tions disappeared when it repeated the experiment with different sensors and= analyzed the data in a different way. <BR> <BR> "It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee= that every result is right," Kennedy hedged in an editorial that accom= panied the article in the March 8, 2002, issue of <I>Science</I>. "What= we <I>are</I> very sure of is that publication is the right option, even=97an= d perhaps especially=97when there is some controversy. <BR> <BR> <B>History Repeats?</B> <BR> <BR> Controversy is the only thing assured to follow an experiment that so resem= bles the "cold fusion" fiasco of 1989, when Stanley Pons and Marti= n Fleishmann of the University of Utah said that they had discovered room-te= mperature reactions; the announcement became headline news but was soon disc= redited. There are important differences, however. In this case the scientis= ts who believe they have found a new route to fusion have suggested a plausi= ble mechanism by which it could occur. And they have discovered two genuinel= y odd anomalies that conventional physics cannot easily explain. <BR> <BR> The phenomenon, as described by Rusi Peri Taleyarkhan of ORNL, Richard T. L= ahey of RPI and their coinvestigators, happened when they were studying sono= luminescence=97light created by sound. German scientists first observed sonolu= minescence in the 1930s, when they immersed sonar loudspeakers in water bath= s. But it wasn=92t until the past decade that scientists worked out many of th= e details. <BR> <BR> What we call sound is really a series of moving pressure fronts. The pressu= re at a fixed point swings from low to high and back as the sound wave sweep= s by. If the sound is loud enough and at the right frequency, the pressure a= t the trough of the wave will be so low that the fluid will boil, producing = microscopic bubbles. When the high pressure front at the crest of the sound = wave slams into these bubbles, they implode, and shock waves focus the energ= y of the implosion to a central region of atomic dimensions. The temperature= at that central point skyrockets above 10,000 degrees Celsius, the pressure= zooms to 10,000 atmospheres and a flash of light emerges for just a few pic= oseconds. The bigger the bubble, the more energy in the implosion, and the h= otter and brighter the sonoluminescent flash. <BR> <BR> <B>Star in a Jar</B> <BR> <BR> Standard sonoluminescence experiments use water. Taleyarkhan=92s group used a= n organic chemical called acetone, an ingredient in common nail-polish remov= er, because it is rich in neutron-absorbing carbon and hydrogen atoms. The r= esearchers then loaded up the acetone with extra neutrons in two ways. First= , they used acetone made from deuterium, which is hydrogen with an extra neu= tron. Second, they put the flask of acetone next to a source of neutron radi= ation, in one case a chunk of plutonium-beryllium and in other cases a neutr= on pulse gun. <BR> <BR> Their hope was that the neutrons shooting into the acetone would collide wi= th the carbon and hydrogen nuclei, and this would create disturbances that w= ould "seed" the bubbles produced by the sound waves. Many more bub= bles than normal would be formed at once, and on average the bubbles would g= row much larger than usual before they collapsed. Perhaps, the scientists th= ought, the bubbles would get so big that their collapse would produce temper= atures near 10 million degrees=97hot enough to cause a few deuterium atoms in = the acetone to fuse into helium or tritium (hydrogen with two extra neutrons= ). <BR> <BR> <FONT SIZE=3D"1">Image: courtesy of Rusi Taleyarkhan<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT SIZE=3D"2"><B>SOUND OF NEUTRONS.</B> Click here <IMG/SoundofNeutrons= .rpt.mov>  to download a Quicktime Movie showing the nucleation of t= iny--smaller than a molecule--vapor pockets when neutrons from a source stri= ke the nucleus of atoms of acetone. These vapor bubbles then grow in the &qu= ot;stretched" liquid (in which the pressure is about minus 250 psi) to = a cloud of hundreds of bubbles about six millimeters in size. The bubbles th= en collapse when the pressure turns positive. Collapse speeds reach near 10 = kilometers per second or so and the final pressures reach to more than 50 mi= llion atmospheres upon which sufficient heat and compression is built up; ne= utrons and tritium are emitted.=A0The intense collapse results in shock waves = that travel outwards of the chamber through the glass walls and make an audi= ble sound. <BR> </FONT><BR> Creating even small numbers of fusing atoms would be a big deal. Fusion rea= ctions release lots of energy, hence their usefulness for lighting stars and= making mushroom clouds. The energy comes out in the form of neutrons hummin= g along at 2.5 million electron volts (MeV), fast-moving protons and hot tri= tium and helium atoms. When the Taleyarkhan group checked the samples for tr= itium, the researchers found that it had indeed increased=97but only in the de= uterium-laced acetone that had been zapped with both sound and neutrons. Tri= tium levels didn=92t change significantly in normal acetone put through the pr= ocess, nor in deuterated acetone shot just with neutrons or subjected only t= o a good ringing. <BR> <BR> They also looked for neutrons emerging from the flask after the neutron gun= shot had dissipated and the bubbles had burst. Sure enough, their scintillat= ion detector started scintillating about twice as fast within a few microsec= onds of the strongest sonoluminescent flashes. Working through a complicated= set of calculations, the researchers reckoned that they observed a four-per= cent increase in 2.5 MeV neutrons just after the onset of bubble formation. = That is certainly not enough to start a chain reaction (thank goodness), or = even enough to produce as much energy as the apparatus consumes. But if it w= ere confirmed, it would be an entirely new approach to generating fusion ene= rgy. <BR> <BR> <B>The Race to Test the Results</B> <BR> <BR> Unsurprisingly, many research groups around the world are scrambling to try= this out for themselves. But the only one to make a report so far has dispu= ted on several technical grounds the evidence that any atoms were fusing, th= ough the group did allow that something strange was going on. Dan Shapira an= d Mike Saltmarsh, the group's leaders, had been asked last May by science ma= nagers at ORNL to check the Taleyarkhan group=92s findings. <BR> <BR> Shapira and Saltmarsh brought in a different kind of neutron detector that = is 30 times the size of the scintillator that the first team used. (A bad id= ea, Taleyarkhan complained in a rebuttal, because it is more likely to pick = up background radiation and to overload the electronics.) The new detector s= ystem was triggered by a neutron or gamma-ray strike, and then matched that = to any sonoluminescent flash that happened within 10 microseconds before or = after the strike. (But that dilutes the signal, because neutron/gamma hits a= re much more common than flashes, complains the Taleyarkhan group, whose det= ectors worked the other way around.) <BR> <BR> Saltmarsh and Shapira did not check the tritium observations. "Those l= ook like they were handled correctly," Shapira says. He can offer no ex= planation for the apparent increase in tritium levels. So that is one myster= y. <BR> <BR> A second mystery, Shapira reports, is that "right after the neutrons h= it the acetone, there are light flashes as the bubbles collapse, then there = is a quiet period, and then thousands of flashes=9790 percent of the light=97com= es out after about a millisecond. Why that happens I don=92t know." <BR> <BR> Shapira does know what he would do differently to answer the question more = clearly. "For starters I would not use neutrons to create the bubbles=97I= would use a laser or even a charged particle beam, something you can really= control. You cannot guide neutrons." And it would be better, he sugges= ts, not to set the acetone flask on a steel table, which can reflect neutron= s back toward the detector. Finally, he advises, use a more advanced detecto= r that uses boron or an ionization chamber. That will filter out gamma rays,= which confounded both his and Taleyarkhan=92s measurements. <BR> <BR> With stakes so high and so many reputations on the line, the debate over th= is discovery is certain to produce lots of sound and heat=97but perhaps also a= flash of illumination. <BR> <BR> <B>RELATED LINKS:</B> <BR> <BR> Ask the Experts: Can Ultrasound Bubbles in Water Initiate Nuclear Fusion? &= lt;/askexpert/physics/physics28.html> <BR> <BR> Tabletop Nuclear Fusion Claims Meet with Skepticism </news/030602/1.html= > <BR> <BR> "Sonoluminescence: Sound into Light," by Seth J. Putterman (Scien= tific American, February 1995), is available for purchase from the Scientifi= c American Archive. <http://www.sciamarchive.com>  <BR> <BR> Article from Science <http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/b= ubble/index.shtml> <BR> <BR> Follow up by Shapira and Saltmarsh <http://www.ornl.gov/slsite/SLan5av2.= pdf> <BR> <BR> Sonoluminescence Images <http://www.fb-chemie.uni-rostock.de/ess/sonoche= m_image.htm>  <BR> <BR> ORNL Press Release <http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/current/mr2002030= 5-00.html>  <BR> <HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"100%"NOSHADE> <BR> <BR> ------ End of Forwarded Message<BR> </FONT> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3099367945_2702785-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 06:07:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA16017; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:04:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:04:36 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530501b8bcf50d8a15 [12.21.208.191]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:08:38 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA15984 Resent-Message-ID: <"hi6hi3.0.Bw3.pLqby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46606 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:32 AM 3/19/2, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/031802fusion/ [snip] >MORE EXPLORE FEATURES </explorations> [snip] >A second mystery, Shapira reports, is that "right after the neutrons hit the >acetone, there are light flashes as the bubbles collapse, then there is a >quiet period, and then thousands of flashes—90 percent of the light—comes >out after about a millisecond. Why that happens I don’t know." [snip] Sounds like the reaction products, especially the CHARGED reaction products, are making very BIG bubbles. To improve the fusion output a second sonic pulse should be delivered with slightly less than a 1 millisecond delay, timed to maximize the collapse rate of the secondary bubbles. Also of interest are the gammas. If high gamma counts are associted with the bubble collapses then that is a sign of an anomalous branching ratio, possibly due to a high incidence of D + D --> He. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 09:18:39 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA01828; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:15:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:15:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319115514.03f27e70 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:07:19 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Mike Schaffer comments on Taleyarkhan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"18_fR1.0.RS.X8tby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46607 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I asked Michael Schaffer to comment on Taleyarkhan's sonofusion. Here, with his permission, are some of his comments. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ed Storms mentioned that the t/n ratio might be lower at temperatures below the optimum for plasma fusion. I asked Shaffer how much the branching ratios might change. His response: The data on the D + D = T + p and D + D = He3 + n reaction cross sections only goes down to 15 keV energy, which is probably much higher than Taleyarkhan et al. had. Kind of interesting, that lower temperatures are so uninteresting for thermonuclear fusion that my office references don't have any data at all for lower than 15 keV. I am actually surprised. . . . The neutron producing reaction is a little more probable than 50-50 at high energies and the tritium producing one a little more probable than 50-50 at the low energies, over the range for which I have data. There are theoretical and empirical extrapolation formulas for lower temperatures, but the formulas disagree so strongly among themselves, that I hesitate to tell you if the branching ratio differs GREATLY from 50-50 at still lower energies or not. The data are reasonably suggestive of fusion in the ORNL cavitation experiments, but I do not think they are good enough, yet, to draw any more detailed conclusions. Mike - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Schaffer said earlier that he thinks this is probably a plasma fusion reaction rather than some form of cold fusion. I agree, tentatively. That is my gut feeling. I asked him whether he could justify this conclusion in greater detail. He responded: I do not have proof, of course, that Taleyarkhan et al. is thermonuclear fusion and nothing else. More precisely and correctly stated, it is my present hypothesis that their experiment produced a small amount of thermonuclear fusion. In a situation like this, where the experiment attempted to produce a tiny volume of plasma at conditions similar to those of thermonuclear fusion, and where it looks like they might have succeeded at achieving those conditions, this is the most obvious hypothesis. . . . Until the tritium and neutron products data have been reproduced in ways that the experts in both kinds of measurements agree are conclusive, I think it is premature to look at neutron/tritium ratios and try to draw still more detailed conclusions. I have not yet read or otherwise heard of a serious challenge to the tritium measurements. Taleyarkhan et al. describe in their paper the controls they used. Their tritium experimental method looks good to me. It looks like tritium generation by the reaction n + D = T would be very much smaller than is measured. However, I have never done more than routine measurements of either tritium or neutrons, so I am not an expert in these matters. I downloaded and read the "download supplement" by Nigmatulin, Lahey and Taleyarkhan on their computer modeling of their cavitation and plasma dynamics from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/295/5561/1868/DC1 This url is Ref. 25 of the paper. I am not expert enough on the properties of materials at ultra high pressures to evaluate the model fully, but I do know something about the subject. I think their equation for the thermal conductivity is the equation for a gas, not a plasma. Also, I do not see where they included power radiated from the plasma. A plasma conducts heat faster than a gas, and the carbon and oxygen in an acetone plasma at around a million degrees kelvin (about 100 eV) will radiate away lots of energy as UV into the surrounding liquid. Both processes reduce the peak temperature attained in cavitation collapse. They calculate about 2 million kelvin (200 eV) peak from their model. For the reasons cited, I suspect that their calculation is optimistic. There are, of course, classified codes that calculate this kind of stuff with great realism and detail (thermonuclear weapons codes). I have heard that no one has yet gotten code results to indicate that cavitation fusion is possible. Of course, I have no way of verifying the hearsay. But I know that the national labs have already worked at trying to figure out how do cavitation fusion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I asked about the estimates of temperatures within the bubbles. Most people agree that these estimates are very rough, so I do not understand why skeptics claim the temperature must be too low for plasma fusion. (Some cold fusion researchers have jumped to the same conclusion.) He responded: Sonoluminescent and sono/cavitation fusion experiments are almost impossible to diagnose. The object (bubble at instant of maximum compression) is tiny, and it is surrounded by several cm of condensed matter (liquid acetone). Very little useful information gets out through the acetone---just visible light, gammas and neutrons. So, until people have the time and money to develop some clever diagnostic techniques, I think we will not know the temperature, density and pressure in these experiments at all. Robert Park was stupid to denounce the Taleyarkhan et al. results without even having read their paper. Now, everyone should see how badly he behaves. He brings shame to the physics community. Mike Schaffer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 11:29:54 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00766; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:25:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:25:55 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319142240.00b1ef78 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:24:44 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: Mike Schaffer comments on Taleyarkhan In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319115514.03f27e70 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"hOJyY3.0.kB.33vby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46608 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >Ed Storms mentioned that the t/n ratio might be lower at temperatures >below the optimum for plasma fusion. Meant higher. More tritium, fewer neutrons. It is not clear whether the ratio could be as high as 10:1, or 100:1. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 12:20:26 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA23754; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:16:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:16:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319151038.03f27e70 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:16:32 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Electricity and lighting in the third world Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"dh1pV.0.vo5.fovby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46609 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Cold fusion (or some other anomalous energy) might not have a dramatic impact on the lifestyles of Americans and Europeans, but it sure would help elsewhere. Two billion people worldwide do not have electricity, including 80% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank thinks that alternative sources such as wind or solar energy will help, but frankly I doubt it. They will remain expensive for a long time to come. See: http://www.worldbank.org/fandd/english/0697/articles/020697.htm http://195.178.164.205/IAEEL/iaeel/newsl/1999/tva1999/NatGlob_a_2_99.html - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 12:44:25 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01240; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:39:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:39:12 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530503b8bd4dc16137 [12.21.209.149]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:43:25 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA01189 Resent-Message-ID: <"EQ7JA3.0.FJ.l7wby" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46610 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:32 AM 3/19/2, Eugene F. Mallove wrote: >http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/031802fusion/ [snip] >MORE EXPLORE FEATURES </explorations> [snip] >A second mystery, Shapira reports, is that "right after the neutrons hit the >acetone, there are light flashes as the bubbles collapse, then there is a >quiet period, and then thousands of flashes—90 percent of the light—comes >out after about a millisecond. Why that happens I don’t know." [snip] I wrote: "Sounds like the reaction products, especially the CHARGED reaction products, are making very BIG bubbles. To improve the fusion output a second sonic pulse should be delivered with slightly less than a 1 millisecond delay, timed to maximize the collapse rate of the secondary bubbles." I would like to amend that remark. It appears that the secondary bubbles may in fact not be significantly different from the primary bubbles. In Fig. 2 of the Talyarkhan report it was noted that the both the light pulses and neutron pulses persisted for up to 5 milliseconds! The Talyarkhan PZT drive frequency was 19.3 kHz, giving a cycle time of 52 microseconds, as did the Shapira drive. This means a very slow decay of secondary reactions over that relatively long 5 msec, and that about 100 generations of secondaires occurred. Since Shapira's decay occurred over 1 ms, and Talyarkhan's decayed over 5 ms, it might be concluded that there was a signifcant difference in the nuclear yield of the two experiments. The long decay of pulses may be evidence for a nuclear reaction with the charged secondaries initiating further bubbles, or it may be an indication that the old bubble locations can seed secondary bubbles, or some combination of the two. That a "bubble chain reaction" can occur if fusion is present is evident from the fact that fusion typically produces at least two secondary particles, the new nucleus plus either a neutron or proton. The charged products should be far more efficient at producing local bubbles, so a branching ratio of about 1.5 would be expected. Since the ratio observed is less than 1, with decay in 20 to 100 generations, not all the bubbles must produce fusion products, or at least not fusion products nucleate further bubble sites. There is a practical aspect to this observation. The frequency of the piezo drive may be crucial to maintaining the bubble chain reaction. If the cycle time is slightly longer than 50 microseconds, or slightly shorter, then the timing may increase the yield of productive secondary bubbles, and thus sustain the process. However, it appears the 19.3 kHz frequency must be very close to the right number, and it makes one wonder if they tuned to that frequency somewhat based on bubble formation and not based on accuostic resonance. Ideally the device needs to be designed so as to bring the two frequencies into agreement, and this can likely best be done by changing the size of the resonant chamber. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 13:05:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA17673; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:01:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:01:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319155405.00b04050 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:01:23 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002 In-Reply-To: <v01530503b8bd4dc16137 [12.21.209.149]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"1RQAX3.0.1K4.gSwby" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46611 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Since Shapira's decay occurred over 1 ms, and >Talyarkhan's decayed over 5 ms, it might be concluded that there was a >signifcant difference in the nuclear yield of the two experiments. It was the same cell and piezo gadget. It seems unlikely the yield would be different, assuming it was fairly consistent in Talyarkhan's tests. More likely the method used to detect the decay onset was 4 ms late using Shapira's method. Wasn't their electronics different, along with the detector? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 19:58:55 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA04226; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:50:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:50:57 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530500b8bd853167ad [12.21.209.149]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:39:43 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002 Resent-Message-ID: <"G60jP2.0.t11.XS0cy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46612 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:01 PM 3/19/2, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >>Since Shapira's decay occurred over 1 ms, and >>Talyarkhan's decayed over 5 ms, it might be concluded that there was a >>signifcant difference in the nuclear yield of the two experiments. > >It was the same cell and piezo gadget. It seems unlikely the yield would be >different, assuming it was fairly consistent in Talyarkhan's tests. More >likely the method used to detect the decay onset was 4 ms late using >Shapira's method. Wasn't their electronics different, along with the detector? > >- Jed Well, I don't see how Shapira's method could be 4 ms late. He is detecting neutrons after within 27 MICRO seconds after the bubble collapses, which themselves take about 25 MICROseconds. It seems to me that millisecond delays are just not possible. I was careful to note that the Talyarkhan article did use us [the u being a mu] to denote microseconds, not ms. It could have been a misprint, but it does not look that way at the moment. If Talyarkhan's run actually did decay at a much longer (5 times) rate than Shapira's then that, to me, indicates a longer bubble chain and thus a higher fusion yield for Talyarkhan. Perhaps the two teams tuned up the device slightly differently - one on bubble formation and one on accoustic resonance? Or maybe tuning was not that important and thus variable. I see that Shapirah's neutron pulse rate was about 5 ms, with a pulse width of 12 us. He blocked all pulses for 20 usec after the neutron pulse. His clock was a 1 MHz clock, so plenty accurate for this purpose. It is notable that the bubble formation should tend to get out of synch with the original neutron pulse because the delay time between bubble collapse and secondary bubble formation is finite and variable. If blanking is applied to the secondary events then the neutron rate will drop significantly or may even disappear. I have not had time to reread the articles with this new perspective, so I could be all wrong. This is all merely off the top of the head speculation. I am going out of town shortly, so may not be in touch for a bit. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 19 20:25:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA26538; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:23:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:23:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:31:11 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu> To: Horace Heffner <hheffner mtaonline.net> cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FW: Scientific American: Explore!: Sonic Fusion: March 18, 2002 In-Reply-To: <v01530500b8bd853167ad [12.21.209.149]> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020319232516.24020C-100000 college.antioch-college.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"j6r67.0.ZU6.lw0cy" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46613 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Horace and Vo., The two "sonic fusion" experiments have very different detector set ups and very different specifications of rise time, pulse height, pulse descrimination, analysis and so on. I do not... yet... know enough about the specialized terminology. Do you know, or do you know anyone who can either point us to a reference or tell us what the time histories of the pulse analysis is for the two experiments? Further, do we know how to find the time constants of the detectors and the parts of the detectors AND The 3 cm of "cooling" materials interposed between the detector and the test area part of the experiment in one case is not even present in the other case! These just do not seem to be replications... not matter how you cut the loaf. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 20 06:51:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA30691; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:49:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:49:13 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020320092531.03f77058 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:46:29 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: Electricity and lighting in the third world - good news too In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319151038.03f27e70 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"ar4Er3.0.CV7.e5Acy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46614 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >The World Bank thinks that alternative sources such as wind or solar >energy will help, but frankly I doubt it. That isn't fair. I should say wind & solar will not be enough to supply everyone on earth with electricity. There has been great progress, and the World Bank and others deserve credit for it. I expect problems will crop up with the last 20% or 30% of the population, as it has in Mexico. Perhaps even CF would be too expensive for them. I predict it will be cheaper than alternatives because it will be optimized for low cost, whereas other energy sources are optimized for efficiency. Yesterday a friend of mine returned from Africa where he is helping coordinate the vaccination program funding by the Gates philanthropic fund, with help from the CDC. It sounds like the program is going well, and having a large impact. Gates may be a jerk in business, and his software is mediocre, but he is a great humanitarian. My daughter knows a college age, white woman who speaks different languages and was visiting Africa a few years ago. When she came into a village one day a little girl saw her, screamed and hid behind her mother crying. The young woman heard the mother comforting the child, saying, "there, there Dear, don't worry. She isn't going to give you a shot." - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 20 12:07:42 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01517; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:03:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:03:41 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020320150231.00b0c3c8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:03:37 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: North Magnetic Pole leaving Canada? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"-qYS22.0.aN.TiEcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46615 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/20/north.pole/index.html North Magnetic Pole could be leaving Canada By Richard Stenger CNN (CNN) --The North Magnetic Pole could soon abandon Canada, migrate north of Alaska and eventually wind up in Russia, according to a Canadian scientist. The magnetic pole, which has steadily drifted for decades, has picked up its pace in recent years and could exit Canadian territory as soon as 2004, said Larry Newitt of the Geological Survey of Canada. If the pole follows its present course, it will pass north of Alaska and arrive in Siberia in a half century, but Newitt cautioned that such predictions could prove wrong. "Although it has been moving north or northwest for a hundred years, it is not going to continue in that direction forever. Its speed has increased considerably during the past 25 years, and it could just as easily decrease a few years from now," the geophysicist said. The erratic pole can jump around considerably each day, but migrates on average about 10 kilometers to 40 kilometers each year. . . . From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 20 14:49:25 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18978; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:43:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:43:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3C9910EC.F8339FF ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:45:00 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: [Fwd: A New Form of Matter] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bAmzj1.0.Oe4.32Hcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46617 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: A New Form of Matter Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:12:01 -0600 From: NASA Science News <snglist snglist.msfc.nasa.gov> Reply-To: "NASA Science News" <snglist snglist.msfc.nasa.gov> To: "NASA Science News" <snglist snglist.msfc.nasa.gov> NASA Science News for March 20, 2002 3:00:00 PM Scientists have created a new kind of matter: It comes in waves and bridges the gap between the everyday world of humans and the micro-domain of quantum physics. FULL STORY at <<http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/20mar_newmatter.htm?list486329>> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 20 14:54:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA17486; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:40:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:40:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3C990F9E.B0F0EFC8 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:39:26 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: NASA Patent Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8VeAa2.0.pG4.J_Gcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46616 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From a message on the Hydrino list comes a reference to this patent (6317310B1): http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US6317310&ID=US+++6317310B1+I+ It would appear that NASA has patented the Biefield/Brown effect (assymetrical capacitor thrustor). Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 20 18:39:31 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA03028; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:36:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:36:50 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA Patent Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:36:09 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <8lgi9uo93qk482sodd5akk81hp3d80m4dg 4ax.com> References: <3C990F9E.B0F0EFC8 bellsouth.net> In-Reply-To: <3C990F9E.B0F0EFC8 bellsouth.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA02945 Resent-Message-ID: <"gmwFL1.0.qk.0TKcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46618 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:39:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] >From a message on the Hydrino list comes a reference to this >patent (6317310B1): > >http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=US6317310&ID=US+++6317310B1+I+ > >It would appear that NASA has patented the Biefield/Brown effect >(assymetrical capacitor thrustor). > >Terry There is also a very interesting article in Alexander Frolov's latest offering, on page 36, wherein the statement is made that elliptical motion can produce an anomalous force. If so, then one could induce the atoms of a substance to follow an elliptical path at high velocity, by using two ultrasound generators operating at the same frequency to induce standing ultrasonic waves in the material (probably a solid) perpendicular to one another. If the amplitude of the ultrasound waves is much larger than the thermal motion of the atoms, then the thermal motion will be largely irrelevant. The two ultrasound waves should be phased at 90º to one another such that the atoms vibrate in a circle. This can then be converted to an ellipse by ensuring that the amplitude of one of the waves is larger than that of the other. Control over strength and direction or the resultant force can be achieved by varying relative and absolute amplitudes, as well as frequency and relative phase angle. The Biefield/Brown effect may in fact be based upon a similar principle, if the thermal motion of atoms in a dielectric is distorted by the electric field. Furthermore, Keely's flying platform that he is alleged to have demonstrated to the army would also be easily explained, as he is famous for having experimented with resonant sound. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 21 13:37:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA04342; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:34:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:34:13 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020321162942.03ddc770 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:33:40 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Interesting info on ZPE, space travel etc. from Haisch et al. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"lUsUy3.0.X31.H7bcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46619 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://www.calphysics.org/index.html - JR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 06:49:22 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA19805; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:46:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:46:24 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020322094423.03d72be0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:45:36 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Wind energy news Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"KOXU41.0.Gr4.-Eqcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46620 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A lot has happened in wind power in the last few months. There is a political battle in Denmark, and the U.S. extended the Production Tax Credit. See: http://www.windpower.org/news/index.htm - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 07:18:40 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA30955; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:15:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:15:18 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020322101358.03dd1cd8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:15:03 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Coal interests fight wind power Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"hGnjK.0.ZZ7.5gqcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46621 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Politics as usual. CF is not the only alternative facing unfair propaganda. See: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/emaa/pubs/ceed/ceed.html - JR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 12:18:55 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10214; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:54:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:54:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3C9B8BCC.EADCA9A bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:53:48 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA Patent References: <3C990F9E.B0F0EFC8 bellsouth.net> <8lgi9uo93qk482sodd5akk81hp3d80m4dg@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2bvps3.0.TV2.mlucy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46623 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > There is also a very interesting article in Alexander Frolov's latest > offering, on page 36, wherein the statement is made that elliptical > motion can produce an anomalous force. Very interesting. Is this on the web? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 12:21:54 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA10167; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:54:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:54:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3C9B8BBA.890E11E bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:53:30 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Russia Still Believes in Potapov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"M9sjE2.0.iU2.glucy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46622 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: How can you doubt "Truth"? From Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/03/18/27035.html 12:40 2002-03-18 UKRAINIAN KNIGHT OF SCIENCE DISPROVES EINSTEIN AND PREPARES HIMSELF FOR SOLVING GRAVITATION'S MYSTERY Well known scientist and inventor from the city of Cherkassy, member of Russian Academy of Science Leonid Fominsky has been awarded for his contribution to science with Russian inter-academy prize - Knight of Science order. The ceremony of decorating was carried out in Moscow, in All-Russian Exhibition Centre, where Fominsky arrived to participate in conversion exhibition Products and Technologies of Double Purpose. As L.Fominsky reported to PRAVDA.Ru correspondent, the exhibition had been organized by Russian Defence Ministry, Rosaviakosmos agency, Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, Russian Ammunition Agency, Russian Academy of Science and other respectable institutions. The subject of the exhibition is really impressive: nanotechnology, robotics, materials with specified characteristics, aircosmic systems, laser technologies, non-traditional energy. With the latter subject, the Cherkassy inventor is directly connected. L.Fominsky together with Moldavian inventor Yury Potapov participated in working out of vortical heat-generator producing three times more energy than it consumes electric power. For a very long time, such high effectiveness has been a mystery for the developers themselves, though the answer was found in Fominsky's theoretical works. Latest modification of the heat-generator was presented at the exhibition as a project of International Scientific and Technical Centre of Space Objects' Paying Loads for which L.Fominsky works. The heat-generator awarded Big Gold Medal of All-Russian Exhibition Centre. At the moment, two Russian Works (in the city of Kovrov and in the city of Istra) serialize the heat-generator of Potapov. Fominsky states that such high effectiveness of his plant could be explained with processes of cold nuclear synthesis (theoretical basis of the heat-generator's work was expounded by him in some scientific works published in Ukraine). Leonid Fomisky expressed regret because of some troubles he ran into while trying to serialize of the heat-generator in Ukraine. "While the subject of energy supply is very important for our country, - he said. - Because installation of such generators in houses allows to refuse from heating systems and two times decreases expenses for heating. Though, either authorities or private capital in Ukraine have not expressed yet their interest in realization of this project." Ukraine did not pay attention to one more project. It seems to be far from space technologies, and looks like an ordinary small stove. Though, at the conversation exhibition this stove was awarded with a gold medal as well. "It is a very effective energy settling, - Fominsky explains. - It weights 28 kg and consumes 4 kg of firewood a day, actually four logs, while it heats a 50-square-metre room! Imagine, if in a private house such a stove is used, only two cubic metres of wood are necessary for the whole winter. There are also other modifications, for example, for baths. Such stove needs already two cubic metres of wood a day. It is a necessary thing for regions without heating systems. Are these heating systems really necessary? It is, probably, more actual to work out and to introduce nuclear energy settlings." Apropos, among settlings of International Science and Technical Centre of Space Objects' Paying Loads, there are quantum heating generators, quantum thermoelectric power stations, wind-electric stations, quantum engines, solar concentrators of radiant energy. All of them are reserved with Russian patents. Leonid Fominsky supposes that most of these things could have an "Ukrainian patent and serve for Ukraine." Though, before view on science should be changed in Ukraine. The scientist intends not to stop on what was achieved. In his book "Wonder of Fall", Fominsky continues to search for Einstein's mistakes and finds them. For example, he regards as a mistake Einstein's derivation of the formula of gravitation parallax of spectral light lines, he also assumes that there is "extra-metagalaxy velocity of light" (which must be much bigger than earth velocity of light in vacuum. He writes about movement within time ("…time axis is only a mathematical method, reflecting only internal rotatory movement of matter in fundamental particles") and presents "fragmentary drafts" gravitation theory. "There is no main conclusion about what it is - gravitation, - Fominsky writes. - though acceleration of the clock's course and of all periodic processes in gravity field is enough to cause many publications on the subject." Whether this theoretical investigations will be practically realized or not, let us see. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 13:32:28 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA23016; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:29:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:29:09 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020322162605.04019898 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:28:53 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. . . . a feisty company Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"gAXyh1.0.Td5.a8wcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46624 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is insane, but interesting: http://www.atomicengines.com/index.html "Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. is a feisty company with a couple of governing thoughts." "A couple of governing thoughts" means they are obsessed, like CF fanatics, only they want to use uranium fission. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 14:37:06 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA27065; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:34:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:34:28 -0800 Message-ID: <3C9BB1DB.5D04CC30 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:36:11 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki <aki ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 22, 2002] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Jqd_R.0.pc6.p5xcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46625 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 Mar 22, 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:07:32 -0500 (EST) From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org> To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 22 Mar 02 Washington, DC WHAT'S NEW will not appear this week. Bob Park is recovering from major surgery related to his encounter with a tree in the fall of 2000. This is expected to be the final surgery, and he will be back tormenting the Philistines next week. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 22 14:59:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA08993; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:57:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:57:20 -0800 Message-ID: <3C9BB6A9.96669E24 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:56:41 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 22, 2002] References: <3C9BB1DB.5D04CC30 ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tpgOT3.0.GC2.FRxcy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46626 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: What's New for Mar 22, 2002 > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:07:32 -0500 (EST) > From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org> > To: aki ix.netcom.com > > WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 22 Mar 02 Washington, DC > > WHAT'S NEW will not appear this week. Bob Park is recovering > from major surgery related to his encounter with a tree in the > fall of 2000. Tree . . . fall . . . someone has a macabre sense of humor. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 23 07:23:55 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31394; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:21:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:21:05 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020323101940.00a8f948 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:21:00 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: How to build a fusion starship Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"vcS681.0.Sg7.Xr9dy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46627 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is a message to Bernard Haisch regarding this article: http://www.calphysics.org/articles/merc2000a.html Regarding your article "Prospects for an Interstellar Mission," I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I think you came up a little short in imagination. I think you underestimate the power that mankind will someday control. Here is what you need for a starship: 1 fusion or fission powered ship capable of carrying people. 1 self replicating, solar powered autonomous space borne robot. In other words, a Von Neumann machine. A great deal of mass and solar power. The ability to transmute elements using solar energy would be handy. Suppose your robot is capable of finding materials in an asteroid and reproducing itself in 10 days. After one year you have 60 billion robots. You set them to work building one million small throwaway fusion powered rockets, which can be ganged together to push your man-carrying ship. You bring aboard 1 copy of the robot, and blast off for Alpha Centuri. Halfway there, the throwaway rockets have exhausted almost all their fuel. You unhook from them, and use the fuel in your man-carrying rocket to decelerate. The one million small rockets are directed to aim for Alpha Centuri itself (the star). They plunge into the star and are vaporized. This is a safety precaution to prevent them from crashing into a planet in the distant future. Meanwhile, your man carrying rocket has decelerated and gone into orbit. Your dispatch your robot to produce a million new throwaway rockets and fuel for your main rocket, and you spend a year or two exploring before returning to earth. This would not deplete any resources on the earth. The cost of doing this would be the cost of building one man carrying rocket ship, and one robot. The resources used might exceed all of the aluminum, steel, plastic and energy on earth, but so what? The cost would be zero. The energy available from the sun is enough to vaporized the planet Earth in a minute or two. If you borrowed a substantial fraction of it, no one would notice or care. You would not intercept the solar energy aimed for earth or any of the planets. You would not disrupt anything on earth or cost anyone any money. If ganging up one million small spacecraft proves unwieldy, you could perhaps have them convert solar energy to laser or particle beams and launch your rocket with a large sail. If one million small spacecraft is not enough, you could make it a billion or a trillion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 23 08:29:15 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA28010; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:26:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:26:05 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020323112529.00b03d10 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:25:55 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Handy chemical energy conversion factors Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"B9uZ23.0.Vr6.ToAdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46628 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 23 13:31:54 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA03935; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:29:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:29:22 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Magnet round a wire Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:28:48 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <f2sp9u0s48udn3gtfab5eh572ij4v6lodo 4ax.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 NAA03911 Resent-Message-ID: <"AWd_k2.0.Pz.nEFdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46629 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a thought experiment designed to elucidate the nature of magnetic fields. First consider that two magnets oriented such as to attract one another. If released they will spontaneously move toward one another. Conclusion, magnets in a magnetic field move if free to. Now consider a long straight vertical piece of wire passing through the centre of a horizontal tub of water. A heavy current passes through the wire, resulting in almost circular field lines around the wire, in the tub. Also in the tub, is a little boat carrying a magnet, attached by a plastic arm with a slip ring to the central wire, such that the boat is free to move around the wire, but not get any closer or further away. Now the question: Does the boat follow the circular magnetic field forever chasing its tail, or does it come to a halt as a consequence of the not quite perfect circular uniformity of the circle, and end up aligning itself with the overall field created by the real loop through which the current passes? (And if it goes around forever, and the central current carrier is in fact part of a giant superconducting loop, then where does the energy for the boat come from?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 23 16:14:35 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA06756; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:12:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:12:01 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA Patent Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:58:01 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <8ikn9ugc8bv9d90ct93ll8famd3rfenulk 4ax.com> References: <3C990F9E.B0F0EFC8 bellsouth.net> <8lgi9uo93qk482sodd5akk81hp3d80m4dg@4ax.com> <3C9B8BCC.EADCA9A@bellsouth.net> In-Reply-To: <3C9B8BCC.EADCA9A bellsouth.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 QAA06727 Resent-Message-ID: <"WJWMG2.0.Uf1.HdHdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46630 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:53:48 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> There is also a very interesting article in Alexander Frolov's latest >> offering, on page 36, wherein the statement is made that elliptical >> motion can produce an anomalous force. > >Very interesting. Is this on the web? > >Terry The home page of the magazine is at http://www.faraday.ru/ , but the actual article isn't there. It does however provide a mean of subscribing to the magazine. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 24 08:52:14 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23390; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:49:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:49:35 -0800 From: Keasy aol.com Message-ID: <107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e aol.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:48:46 EST Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 256 Resent-Message-ID: <"x1fN-2.0.Mj5.TEWdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46631 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/23/02 1:58:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, rvanspaa bigpond.net.au writes: > Now the question: Does the boat follow the circular magnetic field > forever chasing its tail, or does it come to a halt as a consequence of > the not quite perfect circular uniformity of the circle, and end up > aligning itself with the overall field created by the real loop through > which the current passes? > My comments would be that the boat will definitely stop. And while it probably will end up aligning itself with the real loop, that is not the reason. You could specifiy that the center wire is part of a coaxial configuration, in which there is no field from the outer conductor. It stops because for a magnet to move in a field, as opposed to simply twisting to align itself, there must be a field gradient, and movement must result in a change in the field energy. In this case when the boat moves (if it were to move) the fields do not really change, so there is no tendency to move. Ken --part1_107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 3/23/02 1:58:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, rvanspaa bigpond.net.au writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Now the question: Does the boat follow the circular magnetic field<BR> forever chasing its tail, or does it come to a halt as a consequence of<BR> the not quite perfect circular uniformity of the circle, and end up<BR> aligning itself with the overall field created by the real loop through<BR> which the current passes? <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>    My comments would be that the boat will definitely stop.  And while it probably will end up aligning itself with the real loop, that is not the reason.  You could specifiy that the center wire is part of a coaxial configuration, in which there is no field from the outer conductor.<BR>    It stops because for a magnet to move in a field, as opposed to simply twisting to align itself, there must be a field gradient, and movement must result in a change in the field energy.  In this case when the boat moves (if it were to m ove) the fields do not really change, so there is no tendency to move.<BR>                                           &nb sp;                                          Ken</ FONT></HTML> --part1_107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 24 10:08:33 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA26866; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:05:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:05:51 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: <v01530500b8c3c2157bb8 [12.21.211.187]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:10:06 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire Resent-Message-ID: <"uDCnJ1.0.bZ6.-LXdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46632 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 8:28 AM 3/24/2, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >This is a thought experiment designed to elucidate the nature of >magnetic fields. > >First consider that two magnets oriented such as to attract one another. >If released they will spontaneously move toward one another. Conclusion, >magnets in a magnetic field move if free to. > >Now consider a long straight vertical piece of wire passing through the >centre of a horizontal tub of water. A heavy current passes through the >wire, resulting in almost circular field lines around the wire, in the >tub. >Also in the tub, is a little boat carrying a magnet, attached by a >plastic arm with a slip ring to the central wire, such that the boat is >free to move around the wire, but not get any closer or further away. > >Now the question: Does the boat follow the circular magnetic field >forever chasing its tail, or does it come to a halt as a consequence of >the not quite perfect circular uniformity of the circle, and end up >aligning itself with the overall field created by the real loop through >which the current passes? > >(And if it goes around forever, and the central current carrier is in >fact part of a giant superconducting loop, then where does the energy >for the boat come from?) The boat comes to a stop. If the boat were free to move closer to the wire, then of course it would. Two magnets free to move align their magnetic fields so as to give the superpositined field the least energy, and this position is with the boat bumping against the wire, even if the wire is "infinitely long" with no return current loop. Back to your question, the boat will stop when aligned with the RETURN path of the current loop. You can imagine a permanent magnet to be its "Amperian current", a ring of current around its periphery. Two planar rings of current will automatically align in the same plane (if free to do so), with their fields reversed. If free to move laterally, the rings will come together at an edge. The permanent magnet will act similarly. These motions reduce the energy present in the net field. Moving them away from a lowest energy position requires energy to "rebuild" the field, which has an energy content. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 25 08:14:32 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA18988; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:11:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:11:37 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020325110929.03c069d8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:11:15 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: How to build a fusion starship Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"ay1RR2.0.Le4.tmqdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46633 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A Bernard Haisch responded to my message with this comment: >I sure hope it winds up being simpler than that! My response to him: Actually, this method would be very simple, and it would require no important resources or manpower, just a lot of mass and solar energy. The solar system has unthinkable quantities of both. Under the conditions I described, it would not be a waste, and it would not be awkward or unthinkable. Consider this scenario. Suppose astronomers wanting to study the sun decide to drop a meteor the size of Mount Everest (1.2 billion tons) into it. They bury instruments at various levels in the rock and have them transmit back data as the meteor ablates. No one would call this a waste of resources. Now, suppose another group of scientists wants to study Alpha Centauri. They develop a fusion rocket that can produce 1 g thrust for one year, after which the fuel is 9/10 depleted. I believe that is feasible. At that thrust, taking into account relativistic effects, it would take 8.4 years to reach Alpha Centauri. They find another meteor the size of Mt Everest, or a pile of rocks from the moon, or what-have-you. They build one Von Neumann machine robot and set it to work on the meteor. A few years later it has converted the material into 100 million fusion rockets. Only one carries a useful payload. The rockets blast off at 1 g and after one year the remaining fuel from 90 million rockets is transferred to 10 million, and the 90 million are jettisoned. A year later 9 million are jettisoned, and so on. After 8 years they have 1 rocket left, weighing 1/100,000,000 the mass of Mount Everest, or 12 tons. As I said earlier, for safety's sake, the other rockets would be directed to fly into the Alpha Centauri when they arrive (some earlier, some later than the payload). This is really no different from dropping the meteor into the sun for the purposes of a scientific experiment, except it would be another sun. Even today, it would not be difficult to make instruments & computers that could last 8 years, and experiments worth doing in this time frame. Perhaps this is so far in the distant future they can intercept 0.01% of the light from the sun and convert it back to mass, in various convenient elements. In that case they could collect enough mass to launch a 12 ton payload in 3 minutes. The world's largest cruise ship, the Voyager of the Seas, weighs 142,000 tons, and carries 3114 people. Assuming food and air recycling is perfect, you could send it to Alpha Centauri with a mere 1.4E13 tons of mass. You could collect and assemble that in 27 days. That is far less time that it took us to build the present day Voyager of the Seas. It is roughly the time required to build a yacht. In the year 5000, any reasonably wealthy person who feels like doing this might construct a ship of this size and move to the nearest star. With a few orders of magnitude improvement in thrust and the percent of the light from the sun intercepted, it would not be difficult to dispatch the entire human race to another star, should the need arise. (For example if the sun showed signs of turning into a supernova.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 25 11:51:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA32145; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:47:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:47:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:47:28 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: New FE company: Steve Greer In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020325110929.03c069d8 pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020325114138.13934A-100000 eskimo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"x74Dm.0.5s7.Ixtdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46634 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Maybe this is old news, but I just heard that Steve Greer (of the ufo Disclosure Project) has a FE company and a website: Space Energy Access Systems http://seaspower.com/StrategicOverview.htm (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 25 12:48:09 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03078; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:45:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:45:31 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:46:19 -0800 Subject: Excellent cold fusion article in www.sfgate.com and San Francisco Chronicle From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com> To: "vortex l eskimo.com" <vortex-l eskimo.com> Message-ID: <B8C4F6CB.1DDC%editor infinite-energy.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_dsn63.0.xl.hnudy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46635 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: All, An excellent, tell-it-like-it-is article on cold fusion, hot off the press from a very perceptive and persistent journalist, Hal Plotkin: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/ The article is also promoted on page 2 of today's San Francisco Chronicle and a link and summary of it appears on the homepage of www.SFgate.com, the homepage of the San Francisco Chronicle. Infinite Energy magazine and Eugene Mallove are mentioned, as well as the scandal of the 1989 MIT hot fusion lab data fudging against cold fusion. The article focuses on the recent Science magazine article on table-top fusion (March 8) and efforts to suppress it before publication. But it also draws appropriate links to the cold fusion history of which the Science article is a part. Sincerely, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine Director, New Energy Research Laboratory PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 editor infinite-energy.com www.infinite-energy.com Ph: 603-228-4516 Fx: 603-224-5975 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 25 15:00:39 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA29984; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:57:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:57:55 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020325174151.05b771f0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:57:54 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: New FE company: new company, same old nonsense In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020325114138.13934A-100000 eskimo.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020325110929.03c069d8 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA29929 Resent-Message-ID: <"NYhMq1.0.GK7.njwdy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46636 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: >Maybe this is old news, but I just heard that Steve Greer (of the ufo >Disclosure Project) has a FE company and a website: > > Space Energy Access Systems > http://seaspower.com/StrategicOverview.htm That is an interesting document. It is a good example of the "Inventor's Disease." It says: "Our review of now-obscure technological breakthroughs show that these inventions have been suppressed or seized by the following broad categories of actions: · Acquisition of the technology by 'front' companies whose intent have been to 'shelve' the invention and prevent the device from coming to market. · Denial of patents and intellectual property protection by systematic action by the US and other patent offices. . . . [bla, bla, bla, . . . .] A small inventor or company can in no way overcome such obstacles." Nonsense! ALL small inventors and companies ALWAYS overcome such obstacles. Whether you sell a new kind of shoe polish or the latest high tech software, competitors and vested interests always attempt to stop you with tactics like the ones listed here. Patents, for example, are seldom granted for software. They were not allowed until recently, and they remain pretty much useless in the real world. Violence and corruption were endemic in business up until the 1930s, with protection money, gangsters and police all demanding a cut of the profits. It is somewhat rarer today but in the 1960s start up computer hardware companies reportedly lost their inventory to arson. Corruption and influence buying is still a major problem, as revealed in the Enron scandal and countless others described in the back pages of the newspaper Business section. There are tried and true ways to overcome these obstacles. According to the mythology and the stories floating around, dozens, perhaps hundreds of people have invented anomalous energy devices. Yet it seems that not a single one of them had as much common sense as a pushcart vendor in New York City! Frankly, I don't believe that. "Therefore, a strategic plan and capability commensurate with these barriers must be devised and executed in order for these new technologies to succeed." Only if you know nothing about history and you are determined to reinvent the wheel. Anyone else would use an off-the-shelf strategic plan, by hiring an experienced business manager or marketer who would work around these problems in a few months. People do that thousands of times a year. Of course, many small businesses fail to overcome such barriers, but most fail because they are stupid or they refuse to learn from history. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Mar 25 23:11:48 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA24199; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:09:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:09:13 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:08:26 +1100 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <2b60auo2dpq4fhhpduop65eg7adm2kladj 4ax.com> References: <107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e aol.com> In-Reply-To: <107.f0eacfe.29cf5d6e aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 XAA24057 Resent-Message-ID: <"vkGiD3.0.1w5.Pw1ey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46637 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Keasy aol.com's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:48:46 EST: Hi, [snip] > It stops because for a magnet to move in a field, as opposed to simply >twisting to align itself, there must be a field gradient, and movement must I did consider field gradients, but I wasn't sure whether a field gradient would result in a force, or a gradient in the force. I suspect the latter. So perhaps the problem might be better stated as: Does a magnet experience a force along the field lines of a uniform magnetic field, in which it is immersed, when it's own magnetic axis is aligned with the field? >and movement must >result in a change in the field energy. ...though I must admit that this is a very persuasive argument :) Perhaps there is not such thing as a uniform magnetic field. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 05:55:52 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA23400; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:53:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:53:16 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530500b8c62d04500e [12.21.211.178]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 04:57:32 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire Resent-Message-ID: <"Mab62.0.Tj5.Br7ey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46638 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:08 PM 3/26/2, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >In reply to Keasy aol.com's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:48:46 EST: >Hi, >[snip] >> It stops because for a magnet to move in a field, as opposed to simply >>twisting to align itself, there must be a field gradient, and movement must > >I did consider field gradients, but I wasn't sure whether a field >gradient would result in a force, or a gradient in the force. I suspect >the latter. No, the mutual field gradients of two dipoles results in a mutual force which approaches a 1/r^4 relation at long distances. > >So perhaps the problem might be better stated as: > >Does a magnet experience a force along the field lines of a uniform >magnetic field, in which it is immersed, when it's own magnetic axis is >aligned with the field? No - theoretically (see below.) > >>and movement must >>result in a change in the field energy. > >...though I must admit that this is a very persuasive argument :) > >Perhaps there is not such thing as a uniform magnetic field. Only if you have an infinite current sheet, or infinite solenoid, etc. All real magnetic fields are the result of dipoles, which result in a 1/r^3 field, thus there is no perfect gradient free magnetic field, only approximations, and some very good. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 10:37:57 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA08709; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:35:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:35:00 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326133214.03423d98 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:34:53 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Nuclear reactor corrosion reported Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA08629 Resent-Message-ID: <"qdGH81.0.l72.HzBey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46639 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/26/national/26NUKE.html New York Times U.S. Orders Checks for Corrosion at Nuclear Reactors QUOTES: WASHINGTON, March 25 — Nuclear reactor operators have been ordered to check their reactor vessels after the discovery that acid in cooling water had eaten a hole nearly all the way through the six-inch-thick lid of a reactor at a plant in Ohio. The corrosion left only a stainless-steel liner less than a half-inch thick to hold in cooling water under more than 2,200 pounds of pressure per square inch. At the 25-year-old Ohio plant, Davis-Besse, near Toledo, the stainless steel was bent by the pressure and would have broken if corrosion had continued, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where officials were surprised by the discovery. They said they had never seen so much corrosion in a reactor vessel. . . . If the liner had given way in the Ohio reactor, experts say, there would have been an immediate release of thousands of gallons of slightly radioactive and extremely hot water inside the reactor's containment building. The plants have pipe systems that are meant to pump water back into a leaking vessel, but some experts fear that if rushing steam and water damaged thermal insulation on top of the vessel, the pipes could clog. In that event, the reactor might have lost cooling water and suffered core damage — possibly a meltdown — and a larger release of radiation, at least inside the building. . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 10:52:25 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA19626; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:51:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:51:28 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:57:39 -0600 From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nuclear reactor corrosion reported References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326133214.03423d98 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dX94M3.0.To4.lCCey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46640 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is one of the great issues that is routinely not reported to the public by the government. Such corrosion has been seen many times in the past and can be expected to occur more often as the plants age. Just like the FAA that ignored the real terrorist threat, like the INS that can not keep track of dangerous people, like the FBI that can not even identify a spy successfully, like the DOE that can not clean up the nuclear waste, the NRC will eventually be shown as an incompetent organization when one of the old reactors springs a giant leak, one too large to hide. If I lived down wind from a nuclear plant, I would think about moving. Just how many failures of government agencies must occur before public outrage is noticed? Ed Storms Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/26/national/26NUKE.html > > New York Times > > U.S. Orders Checks for Corrosion at Nuclear Reactors > > QUOTES: > > WASHINGTON, March 25 — Nuclear reactor operators have been ordered to check > their reactor vessels after the discovery that acid in cooling water had > eaten a hole nearly all the way through the six-inch-thick lid of a reactor > at a plant in Ohio. The corrosion left only a stainless-steel liner less > than a half-inch thick to hold in cooling water under more than 2,200 > pounds of pressure per square inch. > > At the 25-year-old Ohio plant, Davis-Besse, near Toledo, the stainless > steel was bent by the pressure and would have broken if corrosion had > continued, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where officials > were surprised by the discovery. They said they had never seen so much > corrosion in a reactor vessel. > > . . . > > If the liner had given way in the Ohio reactor, experts say, there would > have been an immediate release of thousands of gallons of slightly > radioactive and extremely hot water inside the reactor's containment building. > > The plants have pipe systems that are meant to pump water back into a > leaking vessel, but some experts fear that if rushing steam and water > damaged thermal insulation on top of the vessel, the pipes could clog. In > that event, the reactor might have lost cooling water and suffered core > damage — possibly a meltdown — and a larger release of radiation, at least > inside the building. . . . > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 11:41:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA18221; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:38:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:38:59 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Message-ID: <8f.195ec3ef.29d2282a aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:38:18 EST Subject: The Tom Bearden's MEG IS PATENTED To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8f.195ec3ef.29d2282a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows FR sub 512 Resent-Message-ID: <"CK4oT2.0.DS4.HvCey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46641 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_8f.195ec3ef.29d2282a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear ALL, GOOD NEWS !!!! The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator from Tom Bearden is now PATENTED US 6362718 granted on March 26, 2002 <A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=6362718&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ft00">US Patent 6,362,718</A> : Motionless Electromagnetic Generator ( MEG ) Abstract An electromagnetic generator without moving parts includes a permanent magnet and a magnetic core including first and second magnetic paths. A first input coil and a first output coil extend around portions of the first magnetic path, while a second input coil and a second output coil extend around portions of the second magnetic path. The input coils are alternatively pulsed to provide induced current pulses in the output coils. Driving electrical current through each of the input coils reduces a level of flux from the permanent magnet within the magnet path around which the input coil extends. In an alternative embodiment of an electromagnetic generator, the magnetic core includes annular spaced-apart plates, with posts and permanent magnets extending in an alternating fashion between the plates. An output coil extends around each of these posts. Input coils extending around portions of the plates are pulsed to cause the induction of current within the output coils. Inventors: Patrick; Stephen L. (2511 Woodview Dr. SE., Huntsville, AL 35801); Bearden; Thomas E. (2211 Cove Rd., Huntsville, AL 35801); Hayes; James C. (16026 Deaton Dr. SE., Huntsville, AL 35803); Moore; Kenneth D. (1704 Montdale Rd., Huntsville, FL 35801); Kenny; James L. (925 Tascosa Dr., Huntsville, AL 35802) Appl. No.: 656313 Filed: September 6, 2000 For some technical info see my web site at : <A HREF="http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm"> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm</A> Best Regards Jean-Louis Naudin Email: <A HREF="mailto:jnaudin509 aol.com">JNaudin509@aol.com</A> Main Web site : <A HREF="http://go.to/jlnlabs/">http://jlnlabs.org</A> Site France : <A HREF="http://jlnlabs.multimania.com/">http://jlnlabs.multimania.com</A> --part1_8f.195ec3ef.29d2282a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1">Dear ALL,<BR> <BR> <P ALIGN=CENTER></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1"><B>GOOD NEWS !!!!</B><BR> <BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1"><B>The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator<BR> from Tom Bearden is now PATENTED<BR> US 6362718 granted on March 26, 2002</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1"><BR> <P ALIGN=LEFT></B><BR> <B><A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=6362718&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ft00">US Patent <I>6,362,718</A></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND- COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1"> </I>:  </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1">M</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" S IZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1">otionless </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1">E</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSE RIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1">lectromagnetic </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1">G</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Aria l" LANG="1">enerator</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1"></B> <B>( MEG )</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG= "1"></B><BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="1"><BR> <B>Abstract</B> An electromagnetic generator without moving parts includes a permanent magnet and a magnetic core including first and second magnetic paths. A first input coil and a first output coil extend around portions of the first magnetic path, whil e a second input coil and a second output coil extend around portions of the second magnetic path. The input coils are alternatively pulsed to provide induced current pulses in the output coils. Driving electrical current through each of the input coils r educes a level of flux from the permanent magnet within the magnet path around which the input coil extends. In an alternative embodiment of an electromagnetic generator, the magnetic core includes annular spaced-apart plates, with posts and permanent mag nets extending in an alternating fashion between the plates. An output coil extends around each of these posts. Input coils extending around portions of the plates are pulsed to cause the induction of current within the output coils. <BR> <BR> Inventors:    <B>Patrick; Stephen L.</B> (2511 Woodview Dr. SE., Huntsville, AL 35801); <B>Bearden; Thomas E.</B> (2211 Cove Rd., Huntsville, AL 35801); <B>Hayes; James C.</B> (16026 Deaton Dr. SE., Huntsville, AL 35803); <B>Moore; Kenneth D.</B> (1704 Montdale Rd., Huntsville, FL 35801); <B>Kenny; James L.</B> (925 Tascosa Dr., Huntsville, AL 35802)    <BR> <BR> Appl. No.:    <B>656313</B>    <BR> Filed:    <B>September 6, 2000</B>    <BR> <BR> For some technical info see my web site at : <A HREF="http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm">http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm</A><BR> <BR> Best Regards<BR> Jean-Louis Naudin<BR> Email: <A HREF="mailto:jnaudin509 aol.com">JNaudin509@aol.com</A><BR> Main Web site : <A HREF="http://go.to/jlnlabs/">http://jlnlabs.org</A><BR> Site France : <A HREF="http://jlnlabs.multimania.com/">http://jlnlabs.multimania.com</A></P></P></FONT></HTML> --part1_8f.195ec3ef.29d2282a_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 11:50:03 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26906; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:49:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:49:31 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326135613.03476760 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:47:10 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: Nuclear reactor corrosion reported In-Reply-To: <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326133214.03423d98 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"y_iiw2.0.Ha6.A3Dey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46642 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >This is one of the great issues that is routinely not reported to the >public by the government. I think reactor safety and status reports have been reported publicly since TMI, whenever they have been discovered by regulators. Lately they have been posted on the net. Perhaps the government is not looking for problems diligently, but it does report what it finds. >Just like the FAA that ignored the real terrorist threat . . . That seems a little unfair. Before Sept. 11, no one imagined kamikaze lunatics armed with box cutters might kill 3,000 people. FAA officials have done a good job reducing conventional hijacking. >, like the INS that can not keep track of dangerous people, like the FBI >that can not even identify a spy successfully, like the DOE that can not >clean up the nuclear waste, the NRC will eventually be shown as an >incompetent organization when one of the old reactors springs a giant >leak, one too large to hide. This one will spring a leak soon if the operator proceeds as planned: "The plant owner, FirstEnergy Corporation, is hoping to patch the hole, an irregular opening about 4 by 5 inches. But the commission is skeptical about whether this is possible." That illustrates a problem. The government is not the only party at fault. The operating company and the public share the blame. The operating company wants to patch over the problem with a half baked scheme, and the public wants cheap electricity, even at the risk of a nuclear catastrophe or environmental destruction from coal. People say they want clean energy, but they pressure the Senate to reject CAFE standards. It is no secret that coal fired plants kill thousands of people a year, and the problem could easily be corrected with a minor increase in your power bill, but the Administration, the Congress and the public prefer things as they are. People are willing to massacre their neighbors to save a few pennies per kWh. Actually, the only people free from blame lately have been government regulators such as Eric Schaeffer, head of the agency's Office of Regulatory Enforcement. He resigned in protest after the Administration blocked a settlement and gave the power company a green light to continue killing people. >If I lived down wind from a nuclear plant, I would think about >moving. Just how many failures of government agencies must occur before >public outrage is noticed? The legal responsibility is mainly assigned to the power company. The public is morally responsibility. In a democracy, we get the government we are entitled to. Ultimately, the voters are responsible for everything. Will the public demand that all nuclear and coal plants be replaced with wind power, even if this raises the cost of electricity 1 or 2 cents per kWh? I doubt it! Will the public do its homework, find out that cold fusion is real, and demand that research be allowed? Perhaps, but it is not likely! If it did, the DoE and the APS would instantly shut up and follow orders, just as they did when the public demanded research in AIDS and other social problems. The nuclear industry would be repaired or closed down in ten years, if the public demanded action. And who knows . . . perhaps it will. I hope it does not wait until after a catastrophe. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 12:08:11 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA05864; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:05:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:05:21 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326145001.034299a0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:05:06 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: The Tom Bearden's MEG IS PATENTED In-Reply-To: <8f.195ec3ef.29d2282a aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"sGzrA1.0.QR1._HDey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46643 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: JNaudin509 aol.com wrote: >Dear ALL, > >GOOD NEWS !!!! > >The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator >from Tom Bearden is now PATENTED Several other anomalous energy machines have been patented. And yet Steve Greer claimed that, "Denial of patents and intellectual property protection by systematic action by the US and other patent offices. . . ." The P.O. fights all efforts to patent all types of inventions. That is part of its job. That's a good thing. Many undeserving patents have been granted in the past, which held back innovation. The public & industry would be ill served if the P.O. were to hand out patents without challenging applicants. Greer and others see the normal challenges that any business confronts, such as the P.O.'s standard treatment, and unfair competition. They think these challenges are directed at them alone. They are like King Lear raging against the rain. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Mar 26 16:18:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA28838; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:15:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:15:12 -0800 Reply-To: <knagel gis.net> From: "Keith Nagel" <knagel gis.net> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: Energy Policy documents. Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:26:39 -0500 Message-ID: <NDBBLHBMKKFMAIAFAAKMMEHNDCAA.knagel gis.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"D9OxD2.0.K27.EyGey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46644 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Ed. Your comments seem well founded, if a bit naive. It should be apparent to all that the current government is uninterested in citizen opinions or wishes, so no amount of public outrage will change policy. Consider the recent ( heavily redacted ) energy documents released. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16943-2002Mar25.html "Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with 36 representatives of business interests and many campaign contributors while developing President Bush's energy policy, and he held no meetings with conservation or consumer groups, documents released last night show." Is this a surprise to anyone? K. PS: The agencies you mentioned are designed to work the way they do, they are not incompetent or ineffective. A better question to ask is, "who benefits from the actions and methods of these agencies?" -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:storms2 ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:58 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nuclear reactor corrosion reported This is one of the great issues that is routinely not reported to the public by the government. Such corrosion has been seen many times in the past and can be expected to occur more often as the plants age. Just like the FAA that ignored the real terrorist threat, like the INS that can not keep track of dangerous people, like the FBI that can not even identify a spy successfully, like the DOE that can not clean up the nuclear waste, the NRC will eventually be shown as an incompetent organization when one of the old reactors springs a giant leak, one too large to hide. If I lived down wind from a nuclear plant, I would think about moving. Just how many failures of government agencies must occur before public outrage is noticed? Ed Storms Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/26/national/26NUKE.html > > New York Times > > U.S. Orders Checks for Corrosion at Nuclear Reactors > > QUOTES: > > WASHINGTON, March 25 — Nuclear reactor operators have been ordered to check > their reactor vessels after the discovery that acid in cooling water had > eaten a hole nearly all the way through the six-inch-thick lid of a reactor > at a plant in Ohio. The corrosion left only a stainless-steel liner less > than a half-inch thick to hold in cooling water under more than 2,200 > pounds of pressure per square inch. > > At the 25-year-old Ohio plant, Davis-Besse, near Toledo, the stainless > steel was bent by the pressure and would have broken if corrosion had > continued, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where officials > were surprised by the discovery. They said they had never seen so much > corrosion in a reactor vessel. > > . . . > > If the liner had given way in the Ohio reactor, experts say, there would > have been an immediate release of thousands of gallons of slightly > radioactive and extremely hot water inside the reactor's containment building. > > The plants have pipe systems that are meant to pump water back into a > leaking vessel, but some experts fear that if rushing steam and water > damaged thermal insulation on top of the vessel, the pipes could clog. In > that event, the reactor might have lost cooling water and suffered core > damage — possibly a meltdown — and a larger release of radiation, at least > inside the building. . . . > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 07:02:16 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA07780; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:59:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:59:35 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:59:32 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: Energy Policy documents. In-Reply-To: <NDBBLHBMKKFMAIAFAAKMMEHNDCAA.knagel gis.net> References: <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"eMNxn1.0.Uv1.MvTey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46645 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel wrote: >Your comments seem well founded, if a bit naive. It should be apparent >to all that the current government is uninterested in citizen opinions >or wishes, so no amount of public outrage will change policy. Consider >the recent ( heavily redacted ) energy documents released. I disagree. It seems to me, the people who voted for Bush & Cheney wanted this energy policy. Everyone understood -- or should have understood -- that voting for them was tantamount to putting Big Oil in charge of our energy policy. B&C both worked for oil companies, earning millions of dollars, and they endorsed oil drilling, and dismissed conservation. Cheney called it a "personal virtue, but . . . not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." If you elected me president, you would know in advance that I would put CF, wind power, conservation and other alternative energy advocates in charge of energy policy. I would be more even-handed than B&C, giving the oil interests a little input. That would be my choice as president, not something the constitution, laws or custom compel. Bush chooses to implement the policy he said he would implement, and he chooses to ignore the opposition. That is his right. It is his style of governing. Voters who do not like it can reject him in 2004. By the way, even the redacted documents are interesting! >PS: The agencies you mentioned are designed to work the way they >do, they are not incompetent or ineffective. A better question to >ask is, "who benefits from the actions and methods of these agencies?" Exactly right! The DoE and the NRC are mainly intended to promote nuclear energy. They defend the nuclear industry from legal challenges and public opinion. They save it from having to assume normal liability. and ruinous insurance costs. They shelter it from competition from wind power and other cheaper, safer sources of energy, and they force the public to pay R&D costs. If you don't like that policy, you should vote for congressmen and presidential candidates who favor other policies. Tell your representative you oppose extending the Price - Anderson act. It has been in place since 1953, which is long enough. Also, let's give credit where it is due. The FAA was told to drastically reduce conventional hijacking at a minimum cost, without inconveniencing travelers. They did that quite well from the early 1960s until September 11, 2001. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 07:28:16 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA21713; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:21:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:21:55 -0800 From: Keasy aol.com Message-ID: <187.58e7b11.29d33d6d aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:21:17 EST Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_187.58e7b11.29d33d6d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 256 Resent-Message-ID: <"-W-sV.0.BJ5.JEUey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46646 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_187.58e7b11.29d33d6d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/25/02 11:11:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, rvanspaa bigpond.net.au writes: > Does a magnet experience a force along the field lines of a uniform > magnetic field, in which it is immersed, when it's own magnetic axis is > aligned with the field? > If the magnet is symmetric the answer is, unfortunately, no. The question would be, in which field direction might it move, in the direction of the B field or opposite to the B field? So far as I know, there is no reason to expect it to move one way instead of the other. Ken --part1_187.58e7b11.29d33d6d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 3/25/02 11:11:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, rvanspaa bigpond.net.au writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Does a magnet experience a force along the field lines of a uniform<BR> magnetic field, in which it is immersed, when it's own magnetic axis is<BR> aligned with the field?<BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>    If the magnet is symmetric the answer is, unfortunately, no.  The question would be, in which field direction might it move, in the direction of the B field or opposite to the B field?  So far as I know, there is no reason to expect it to move one way instead of the other.<BR>                                           &nb sp;                                    Ken  </FONT></HTML> --part1_187.58e7b11.29d33d6d_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 09:32:36 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA00917; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:29:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:29:37 -0800 Reply-To: <knagel gis.net> From: "Keith Nagel" <knagel gis.net> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: RE: Energy Policy documents. Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: <NDBBLHBMKKFMAIAFAAKMGEIBDCAA.knagel gis.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68 pop.mindspring.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"TExXz3.0.FE.16Wey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46647 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed. Yes, I think B&C sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. I tried to bring this issue up last year when the elections were happening, as there was substantial support on Vo. for the Republican ticket. It surprised me, considering how detrimental their policy positions were to alt-energy researchers. No one responded at the time. Perhaps now? >Also, let's give credit where it is due. The FAA was told to drastically >reduce conventional hijacking at a minimum cost, without inconveniencing >travelers. They did that quite well from the early 1960s until September >11, 2001. Indeed. I think the airlines are at fault for the hijaakings, not the FAA. The airlines were responsible for airport security, at least until recently. The recent flap about the INS is also a bit of a red herring, as the approval for the visas occurred before the hijaakings. What was sent to Huffman Aviation was simply a paper receipt of that approval. If the receipt hadn't been sent they would be attempting to cover up their approval. No doubt they should not have approved the applications to begin with, but why does it take a pseudo-scandal like this to make it an issue? I mean, common sense told you there was a problem back in Sept. My problem with the Energy Policy documents is not the advocacy, but the secrecy. My own experiences with the Gov. and policy might be instructive in this regard. The SEC was in the process of modernizing their EDGAR electronic filing system. A request was made of the general public for comments and proposals concerning modernization. Our company drafted a proposal, and it was published along with the rest of them in a public forum. Did this prevent us from advocating a position strongly favorable to our company? Hardly. But everyone knew that was our position. No surprises there. Transparency is a pretty fundamental part of a functioning democracy. Same for Mobil, Exxon, etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with them saying, "Yes oil is the way to go, nothing else will work". If they are ashamed to say this in public, then clearly it's a position which they need reconsider. If the current admin feels that private meetings will get them better comments, they should consider the effect that policy had on Hillary Clinton and her attempt to reform health care. K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 10:43:47 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA06906; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:40:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:40:09 -0800 Reply-To: <knagel gis.net> From: "Keith Nagel" <knagel gis.net> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: RE: Energy Policy documents. Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:51:35 -0500 Message-ID: <NDBBLHBMKKFMAIAFAAKMOEICDCAA.knagel gis.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68 pop.mindspring.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <"5jAoA2.0.ih1.98Xey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46648 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Oh yeah, here's some more relevant info regarding the energy policy debate. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/energy_task_force/index.asp Notice the subtle trend here? K. PS: My apologies to the group for posting what some may consider political posts, but I think if like me you do research in the field you need to keep abreast of the political situation w/ regards to energy policy. If this stuff is considered offtopic please tell me so. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 11:16:20 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA26465; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:13:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:13:45 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327140150.03635e10 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:10:28 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: RE: Energy Policy documents. In-Reply-To: <NDBBLHBMKKFMAIAFAAKMGEIBDCAA.knagel gis.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"BcAtU.0.QT6.edXey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46649 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel wrote: >. . . as there was substantial support on Vo. for the Republican ticket. >It surprised me, considering how detrimental their policy positions were >to alt-energy researchers. No one responded at the time. Perhaps now? Most environmentalist organizations opposed Bush. His policies surprised no one. I do not know what the consensus was here. I do not think that Gore would have helped CF any more than Bush would. He probably would have given more support to wind energy and conservation. >My problem with the Energy Policy documents is not the advocacy, >but the secrecy. . . . >Same for Mobil, Exxon, etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with them >saying, "Yes oil is the way to go, nothing else will work". If >they are ashamed to say this in public . . . They are not ashamed, and they are not covering up their role in making this policy. The administration is trying to cover up, not the oil companies. Months ago, at the request of the New York Times and the OMB, the oil companies provided a list of people they sent to meet with Cheney, and copies of the memos they gave him. They said that apart from the energy policy discussions they have not met with or actively lobbied the administration much because it already agrees with them. In a way, this "secrecy scandal" is a tempest in a teapot. Anyone familiar with the public relations literature from the oil companies and Enron will see that the administration's energy policy was copied from that literature. It was obvious who influenced the policy, and who did not. >If the current admin feels that private >meetings will get them better comments, they should consider the >effect that policy had on Hillary Clinton and her attempt to reform >health care. Yes, it is inept politics, but not unethical in my opinion. The president and v.p. have a right to keep meetings secret. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 11:57:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA27742; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:53:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:53:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3CA21693.11AD1425 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:59:56 -0600 From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Energy Policy documents. References: <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jOlI53.0.Mn6.GDYey" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46650 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Keith Nagel wrote: > > >Your comments seem well founded, if a bit naive. It should be apparent > >to all that the current government is uninterested in citizen opinions > >or wishes, so no amount of public outrage will change policy. Consider > >the recent ( heavily redacted ) energy documents released. > > I disagree. It seems to me, the people who voted for Bush & Cheney wanted > this energy policy. Everyone understood -- or should have understood -- > that voting for them was tantamount to putting Big Oil in charge of our > energy policy. B&C both worked for oil companies, earning millions of > dollars, and they endorsed oil drilling, and dismissed conservation. Cheney > called it a "personal virtue, but . . . not a sufficient basis for a sound, > comprehensive energy policy." > > If you elected me president, you would know in advance that I would put CF, > wind power, conservation and other alternative energy advocates in charge > of energy policy. I would be more even-handed than B&C, giving the oil > interests a little input. That would be my choice as president, not > something the constitution, laws or custom compel. Bush chooses to > implement the policy he said he would implement, and he chooses to ignore > the opposition. That is his right. It is his style of governing. Voters who > do not like it can reject him in 2004. > > By the way, even the redacted documents are interesting! > > >PS: The agencies you mentioned are designed to work the way they > >do, they are not incompetent or ineffective. A better question to > >ask is, "who benefits from the actions and methods of these agencies?" > > Exactly right! The DoE and the NRC are mainly intended to promote nuclear > energy. They defend the nuclear industry from legal challenges and public > opinion. They save it from having to assume normal liability. and ruinous > insurance costs. They shelter it from competition from wind power and other > cheaper, safer sources of energy, and they force the public to pay R&D > costs. If you don't like that policy, you should vote for congressmen and > presidential candidates who favor other policies. Tell your representative > you oppose extending the Price - Anderson act. It has been in place since > 1953, which is long enough. > > Also, let's give credit where it is due. The FAA was told to drastically > reduce conventional hijacking at a minimum cost, without inconveniencing > travelers. They did that quite well from the early 1960s until September > 11, 2001. While I may be naive, I propose that most people who vote are ignorant and their vote is based on an emotional reaction to the issues and candidate, as manipulated by the Media. A certain fraction of the population will vote straight Republican or Democrat no matter who runs. A larger fraction will vote for or against a narrow issue, like abortion. A still larger fraction votes for the person who makes them feel good, the Reagonites for example. Only a very small fraction of the population seriously considers the general implications of their vote. For example, practically none of the population cares about the energy issues or even knows where the energy comes from. This is why our government agencies do such a poor job. Although I agree with Jed that most government agencies are designed to protect certain businesses, my outrage is directed toward their repeated failure to do even this job properly. They do the minimum they can get away with and only change when they screw-up really badly. This approach worked well enough in the past. However, increasingly in the modern world, screw-ups have very serious consequences. If we as a country are going to use nuclear energy, genetic engineering, or be the world's leader, we can not afford to screw-up like some two-bit third-world country. Even if the agencies are only following the self-interest of business, I would hope they would not want to jeopardize these interests by incompetence. For example, let one nuclear reactor have another serious accident and the nuclear industry well soon be out of business. Let another "shoe bomber" bring down a plane, and the aircraft industry will be in even greater trouble. None of us can afford such incompetence, least of all the affected industry. I might note that the methods used by the FAA do not stop hijacking. Hijacking stopped because there was no where for the plane to go where the hijackers could be safe. Once Cuba started putting the hijackers in jail, hijacking stopped. The FAA knew that a plane could be crashed into a building, but they did not believe that people having the necessary willingness to die actually existed. Once this happened and knives were used, the response was to confiscate anything sharp, including nail clippers. Then when someone made a bomb out of his shoes, they now examine everyone's shoes. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the methods now being used are a joke because incompetence has not yet been eliminated from the system. Of course, better methods are in the pipeline so the future will be better, but only because the FAA screwed-up. Ed > > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 12:43:38 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08393; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:42:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:42:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327152057.00a9b510 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:38:10 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: Energy Policy documents. In-Reply-To: <3CA21693.11AD1425 ix.netcom.com> References: <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"IVNsf3.0.y22.1xYey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46651 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: >While I may be naive, I propose that most people who vote are ignorant and >their vote is based on an emotional reaction to the issues and candidate, >as manipulated by the Media. Perhaps that is true, but surely the people themselves are to blame. A person has free will. He can choose to educated, or ignorant. He can choose to ignore the media, or let himself be manipulated. Most people realize that ignorance is dangerous and television advertisers and politicians often lie. >For example, practically none of the population cares about the energy >issues or even knows where the energy comes from. This is why our >government agencies do such a poor job. Right. To fix this, millions of people have to start taking their responsibility as voters and citizens seriously. People seldom do that, except in a crisis. It is a conundrum. >For example, let one nuclear reactor have another serious accident and the >nuclear industry well soon be out of business. Let another "shoe bomber" >bring down a plane, and the aircraft industry will be in even greater >trouble. None of us can afford such incompetence, least of all the >affected industry. It is hard for me to imagine what I would do if someone put me in charge of the FAA or the FBI. How can you anticipate every possible crazy terrorist scheme? There must be countless ways suicidal people can wreck havoc with airplanes, oil refineries, tunnels and other vulnerable high-tech machines. The police cannot think of everything. They did storm in on the terrorists red handed, at the very moment they were mixing explosives to blow up the New York tunnels. (They had been watching them for months.) They caught hundreds of others. It is a shame they are not perfect, but I doubt anyone could do better. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 12:45:45 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08448; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:42:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:42:45 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327153826.036537e8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:42:38 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell infinite-energy.com> Subject: Re: Energy Policy documents. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020327093046.0329ec68 pop.mindspring.com> References: <NDBBLHBMKKFMAIAFAAKMMEHNDCAA.knagel gis.net> <3CA0B676.A67C2553 ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"INJyz1.0.q32.4xYey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46652 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >Exactly right! The DoE and the NRC are mainly intended to promote nuclear >energy. They defend the nuclear industry from legal challenges and public >opinion. By the way, that was not cynical. The original charter of the AEC (the NRC and DoE forerunner) was to promote nuclear power, and to regulate it. These conflicting responsibilities have been a problem from the start. The jobs were supposed to be assigned to different agencies after TMI, but I do not think they have been effectively separated. This part: >They save it from having to assume normal liability. and ruinous insurance >costs. They shelter it from competition from wind power and other cheaper >. . . . . . is cynical. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Mar 27 12:58:19 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA14864; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:57:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:57:41 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530501b8c7e15bf820 [12.21.209.110]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:02:00 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire Resent-Message-ID: <"h2xVn2.0.7e3.39Zey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46653 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:21 AM 3/27/2, Keasy aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/25/02 11:11:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, >rvanspaa bigpond.net.au writes: > > >> Does a magnet experience a force along the field lines of a uniform >> magnetic field, in which it is immersed, when it's own magnetic axis is >> aligned with the field? >> > > If the magnet is symmetric the answer is, unfortunately, no. The question >would be, in which field direction might it move, in the direction of the B >field or opposite to the B field? So far as I know, there is no reason to >expect it to move one way instead of the other. > > Ken > It doesn't matter whether the magnet is symmetric or not. The only way to obtain a uniform field is the case where the field is infinite ro the source of the filed is infinite. If an imposed field is from one or more dipoles, then it is not infinite and it is not uniform througout all space. The field from the magnet permeates all space. The imposed field must therefore be uniform througout all space to qualify as uniform, or have source current elements that are infinite, thus the suggested conditions are only theoretically possible. However, assuming such a uniform field theoretically exists, then the magnet can not experience a net force from the infinite and uniform field because no motion in any direction produces a change in the superpositioned field energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 28 02:02:00 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA30604; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:59:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:59:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: cyllene.uwa.edu.au: Host lab74.pd.uwa.edu.au [130.95.157.74] claimed to be jwnew Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020328180733.007e0890 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:07:33 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood <jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire In-Reply-To: <v01530501b8c7e15bf820 [12.21.209.110]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"RYa-Z.0.0U7.4ckey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46654 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: >...The only way to >obtain a uniform field is the case where the field is infinite or the >source of the field is infinite. If an imposed field is from one or more >dipoles, then it is not infinite and it is not uniform througout all space. >The field from the magnet permeates all space. The imposed field must >therefore be uniform througout all space to qualify as uniform, or have >source current elements that are infinite, thus the suggested conditions >are only theoretically possible. However, assuming such a uniform field >theoretically exists, then the magnet can not experience a net force from >the infinite and uniform field because no motion in any direction produces >a change in the superpositioned field energy. A uniform field over a small volume is easy to generate. The Helmholtz coil arrangement is the standard approach. If you want a larger volume, just make the coils bigger. However Helmholtz coils are only a very good approximation for a relatively small volume near the centre of the pair. A perfectly uniform field is theoretically possible (if I remember correctly) by adding more and more coils in between and outside of the Helmholtz pair until you have built a complete spheroid of coils - ie a spheroidal current sheet produces a perfectly uniform field within its entire volume. The same is true of a homogeneous magnetized material - such as a lump of ferrite - if it is made into a speroidal shape then the internal *demagnetizing* field is perfectly uniform! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 28 08:05:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA23050; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:03:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:03:01 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA33E7B.6FE3CCD7 bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:02:03 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: BEC Presentation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IyAqP1.0.4e5.rwpey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46655 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There's a good presentation by Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle on his work with Bose Einstein Condensates at: http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/ketterle/ RealPlayer is required to hear the audio; but, the slides may be viewed by any browser. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 28 11:59:02 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA01927; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:56:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:56:24 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530505b8c918400382 [12.21.211.198]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:00:38 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Magnet round a wire Resent-Message-ID: <"cnoAJ1.0.zT.dLtey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46656 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:07 PM 3/28/2, John Winterflood wrote: >A uniform field over a small volume is easy to generate. The Helmholtz >coil arrangement is the standard approach. If you want a larger volume, >just make the coils bigger. This is common physics course pablum. Anyone who has done an FEA of a Helmholtz field knows how bad it really is. The field from a Helmholtz coil is dramatically non-uniform, especially radially. Only in the very center of the coils for very small objects does it approach uniformity, but even there it is pretty bad compared to the center of a very long solenoid. It is merely an easy way to get a very rough approximation. It certainly does not approach the theoretical perfection which is our subject. >However Helmholtz coils are only a very >good approximation for a relatively small volume near the centre of the >pair. A perfectly uniform field is theoretically possible (if I remember >correctly) by adding more and more coils in between and outside of the >Helmholtz pair until you have built a complete spheroid of coils - ie >a spheroidal current sheet produces a perfectly uniform field within >its entire volume. The same is true of a homogeneous magnetized material >- such as a lump of ferrite - if it is made into a speroidal shape then >the internal *demagnetizing* field is perfectly uniform! There is no perfectly uniform magnetic field in practice. All magnetic fields are from dipoles and thus non-uniform. The uniformity of the spherical solenoid field depends upon achieving an infinite numer of turns per inch (a perfect current sheet, which has its own infinities upon approach) and also perfect closure of the sphere. However, I restate: At 4:57 AM 3/26/2, Horace Heffner wrote: > All >real magnetic fields are the result of dipoles, which result in a 1/r^3 >field, thus there is no perfect gradient free magnetic field, only >approximations, and some very good. I quote the above simply to point out that I DID say some are very good. The solenoid, and the Helmholtz coils, the spherical coil, and any other arrangements only approximate a uniform field in some small local volume. The emphasis there should be on "small volume", though "approxiamte" is still true and important in its own right. My point main point was that the interacting "boat" of the original problem, any interacting set of magnetic dipoles that is, interacts with energy of the ENTIRE field of the set of dipoles about it, not just the local field they impose on the boat's volume. The ENTIRE field of any set of dipoles is of course non-uniform and approaches a 1/r^3 field at a distance. The energy involved in making a force involves the entire fields of the dipoles, not just the localized fields. (Don't be confused by Faraday!) If this is not true, then of course energy is not conserved because a dipole cancelling a distant magnetic field to some degree without a corresponding force upon itself results in a net loss of energy, and field reinfocing similarly results in a gain. However, I will conceed that this may be a circular argument in that the objective with the boat seems to be to create unlimited energy from nothing. What I am saying is only obviously true if energy is conserved. It is also only obviously true for static situations, but I think it is extendable to the dynamic as well. I should also mention that the force between two magnetic dipoles, i.e. circular currents, can be computed by looking at only the flux linking the two, but, this is merely focusing on the complimentary part of the fields, the inifinite part is also involved in the energy balance; the more that is linked the less that is not as you consider the rest of the field to an infinite distance. The some of the linked and non-linked energy of a constant strength dipole is constant. They are complimentary volmes and complimentary energies. The energy density in a magnetic or electric field depends on its intensity and on what other fields are superpositioned. This is true throughout the field, not just in some locality of the field generator. The energy of the entire system, considering the fields of all the field generators, must be brought into balance or conservation of energy is not valid. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 28 16:08:27 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA31681; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:05:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:05:29 -0800 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:04:34 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser <joe tao.org.uk> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BEC Presentation Message-ID: <20020329000434.GD95784 genius.tao.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Karthauser <joe tao.org.uk>, vortex-l eskimo.com References: <3CA33E7B.6FE3CCD7 bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CA33E7B.6FE3CCD7 bellsouth.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Resent-Message-ID: <"Pymvj2.0.ok7.8_wey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46657 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:02:03AM -0500, Terry Blanton wrote: > There's a good presentation by Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle on his work > with Bose Einstein Condensates at: > > http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/ketterle/ > > RealPlayer is required to hear the audio; but, the slides may be > viewed by any browser. Excellent. Thanks for the link Terry. Good stuff. Joe From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Mar 28 16:17:21 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id QAA05735; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:16:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:16:35 -0800 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:15:37 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser <joe tao.org.uk> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BEC Presentation Message-ID: <20020329001537.GE95784 genius.tao.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Karthauser <joe tao.org.uk>, vortex-l eskimo.com References: <3CA33E7B.6FE3CCD7 bellsouth.net> <20020329000434.GD95784@genius.tao.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020329000434.GD95784 genius.tao.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Resent-Message-ID: <"FJiVq3.0.MP1.X9xey" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46658 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:04:34AM +0000, Josef Karthauser wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:02:03AM -0500, Terry Blanton wrote: > > There's a good presentation by Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle on his work > > with Bose Einstein Condensates at: > > > > http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/ketterle/ > > > > RealPlayer is required to hear the audio; but, the slides may be > > viewed by any browser. > > Excellent. Thanks for the link Terry. Good stuff. I didn't realise before, but at http://www.itp.ucsb.edu/talks/ and http://www.itp.ucsb.edu/activities/public/ there are loads of lectures, all on line. Do any other universities do this does anyone know? Joe From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 07:09:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA06616; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:04:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:04:32 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA4823F.236C8363 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:03:27 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bearden MEG in Production??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-pxmf1.0.Hd1._98fy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46659 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm MEG Scalar Energy Device Patented - Production Starts Next Year >From Bill Morgan wmorgan nycap.rr.com 3-28-2 A patent was granted on March 26, 2002 for "The Motionless Magnetic Generator," MEG) US Patent 6,362,718, which is likely to become the first commercially available free energy device in history in about one year from now. The machine will provide free electricity from the vacuum, for the life of the device, which should be a very long life since it has no moving parts. You can see a picture of scientist Jean-Pierre Naudin's MEG replication model at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm>http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm. It has strong magnets, coils, and a controller unit with the electronics. Naudin made the announcement to the MEG-builder's Yahoo group. The announcement has significance since the patent office has always been skeptical of devices which seem to get-something-for-nothing." But according to the new science of scalar electromagnetics, the MEG does not break the law of conservation of energy. It's just that the energy is conserved in the fourth dimension, time, and not our 3-space world. The MEG provides electrical energy by tapping the longitudinal electromagnetic (EM) waves which exist in almost infinite abundance in the vacuum of space. This ocean of energy which permeates everything is sometimes called the "zero point" energy, since it remains there even at absolute zero temperature. Four inventors are listed: Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, Kenneth D. Moore. Tom Bearden has explained the operation of the MEG on his website Cheniere.org, and also speaks about the new fearful weapons that can and have been made using the same "longitudinal waves" of the vacuum. The complicated physics of how the MEG works is explained in the paper "The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator: Extracting Energy from a Permanent Magnet with Energy Replenishment from the Active Vacuum," which can be found at Tom Bearden's website: cheniere.org.(http://www.help4all.de/energy/MEGpaper.pdf> The first MEG units to be produced for sale will output 2.5 kilowatts of free electricity. Forever. They should be in production about a year from now. Facilities for manufacturing the device are being set up in an unnamed "friendly nation." This free electricity will flow indefinitely, without much, or any maintenance. The units may be hooked together to provide more wattage, so four of them would provide 10 kilowatts. After some production experience units will be made which output 10 kilowatts each. With a couple of those units a house could get off the electrical grid. Tom Bearden, one of the inventors has said "I will admit that the chief scientist of an important experimental group in a large company was rather stunned at the type of output we were able to obtain. The MEG may look like just a transformer, but it is not. It is a completely different breed of cat." This cat, it would seem, is out of the bag now. The ordinary EM waves we are familiar with are called "transverse" waves, to distinguish them from the new "longitudinal" EM waves of the vacuum. Bearden has explained in depth on his website cheniere.org that wherever there is a dipole (battery, generator, magnet) there is an unseen flow of longitudinal EM waves in that local vacuum, the only problem is in tapping that energy and "transducing" it to electricity. Bearden says that the problem with all the electrical circuits we have is that they are two-wire circuits, a loop by which half the energy goes back to destroy the dipole. In the MEG that closed loop is never made. So the dipole is not being destroyed. Patents are not granted on devices which do not work, so in a sense this announcement proclaims a new era. The MEG device itself proclaims and proves that energy is bundantly available everywhere, for free. We only have to build the devices to tap it. MEG type devices could be put into a car with an electric engine to make a truly fuel-less automobile. Electricity can be available in very remote places. People will be able to get off our very terrorist-vulnerable power grids. In an era of terrorism a highly dispersed power system would be most desirable rather than our centralized systems. What is somewhat astonishing to me is the discovery by Bearden et. al. that time itself is actually compressed energy, and that this free energy is actually coming from the time domain, the ocean of longitudinal EM waves which fill the empty vacuum of spacetime. In fact, time is energy compressed by the same factor that matter is compressed energy: the speed-of-light squared. Thus there is a new companion to Einstein's E=mc2. Can you say "E equals delta-tee-cee-squared?" The "tee" is time and delta-tee is change in time. A company has been set up to manufacture the MEG called Magnetic Energy Limited. The ramifications of free energy are enormous. The oil wars are not necessary. If we threw as much money at this technology as we are spending on the oil wars we would be free of the need for oil in less than a decade. With fuel-less cars air pollution will be greatly lessened. Third world nations can raise their standard of living eventually. And the energy is free. And it never runs out. I have put together a kind of "Bearden for Beginners" article which explains some of the basic concepts of the current state of scalar technology. The granting of the MEG patent is the herald of the new era of scalar electromagnetics, and the free energy which flows forever and never runs out. <end> Well, I guess we'll soon find out! Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 07:21:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA15916; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:21:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:21:09 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530501b8ca370e3246 [12.21.208.195]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:25:10 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Bearden MEG in Production??? Resent-Message-ID: <"L6Tgm1.0.Nu3.ZP8fy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46660 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:03 AM 3/29/2, Terry Blanton wrote: >From: > >http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm > >Patents are not granted on devices which do not work, so in a >sense this announcement proclaims a new era. This is of course complete nonsense! The PTO does not have an obligation to determine with certainty that any proposed device works, nor does it provide any warranty. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 07:43:49 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA26423; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:41:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:41:15 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA48AE4.F4450822 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:40:20 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bearden MEG in Production??? References: <v01530501b8ca370e3246 [12.21.208.195]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gsfqS.0.gS6.Ri8fy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46661 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > At 10:03 AM 3/29/2, Terry Blanton wrote: > >From: > > > >http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm > > > > >Patents are not granted on devices which do not work, so in a > >sense this announcement proclaims a new era. > > This is of course complete nonsense! The PTO does not have an obligation > to determine with certainty that any proposed device works, nor does it > provide any warranty. I certainly agree with your comment; however, this is a misconception of the author. IF the rest of the story is true, this will be a world changing event. Tom reports: http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm "Magnetic Energy Limited is in intense negotiations with several large financial enterprises, for the capitalization necessary to get on with it and finish the research for production engineering. We will continue until the capital is successfully raised. A major financial group has spent more than a hundred thousand dollars in verifying us and technically verifying the device and the process. We have passed through three rigorous and independent technical assessments, quite successfully. As a point of wry humor, one of the problems is that this technology is "disruptive" technology, and so any large financial institute with large amounts of committed capital in the normal power field, e.g., has a serious internal struggle and a major problem in considering financing this. I'm understating the problem there! This peculiarity that a large enterprise could "shoot itself in the foot" by investing in this "disruptive technology" ironically has emerged as the single biggest problem in our negotiations. There is no problem in technically proving the system; we have to do that repeatedly in all our negotiations." Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 12:32:06 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA22705; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:29:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:29:29 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530502b8ca794d9001 [12.21.208.195]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:33:47 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Bearden MEG in Production??? Resent-Message-ID: <"eHPXd3.0.cY5.ewCfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46662 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 10:40 AM 3/29/2, Terry Blanton wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >> At 10:03 AM 3/29/2, Terry Blanton wrote: >> >From: >> > >> >http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm >> >> > >> >Patents are not granted on devices which do not work, so in a >> >sense this announcement proclaims a new era. >> >> This is of course complete nonsense! The PTO does not have an obligation >> to determine with certainty that any proposed device works, nor does it >> provide any warranty. > >I certainly agree with your comment; however, this is a >misconception of the author. For sure! I hoped quoting your quote would make sure I was not criticising the authro and not your position, but I see now that is not at all clear the way I did it. Yes - a misconception of the author and, unfortunately, many an investor too. It's a good formula for a scam - patent and try to liscence. I will say it is very much in Bearden's favor that it looks that he is trying to do the manufacturing, which is what patenting is really all about - protecting the maufacturer from competition. This is assuming the inventor(s) are not paid significantly for getting the product to market until it makes a profit. >IF the rest of the story is true, >this will be a world changing event. Tom reports: > >http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm > >"Magnetic Energy Limited is in intense negotiations with several >large financial enterprises, for the capitalization necessary to >get on with it and finish the research for production Uh... Oh Oh! Finish the research? So it is still vaporware? >engineering. We will continue until the capital is successfully >raised. A major financial group has spent more than a hundred >thousand dollars in verifying us and technically verifying the >device and the process. We have passed through three rigorous and >independent technical assessments, quite successfully. As a point >of wry humor, one of the problems is that this technology is >"disruptive" technology, and so any large financial institute >with large amounts of committed capital in the normal power >field, e.g., has a serious internal struggle and a major problem >in considering financing this. I'm understating the problem >there! This peculiarity that a large enterprise could "shoot >itself in the foot" by investing in this "disruptive technology" >ironically has emerged as the single biggest problem in our >negotiations. There is no problem in technically proving I wonder if this means they demo a working model, or merely provide "theoretical proof". If "theoretical proof is all they have, then I have some "gadgets" that will knock your socks off! Ahhem .. of course there will be significant cost for production engineering and testing! ;^) Since I have had numerous such schemes that did not pan out, I am of course not banking on any of the many such "theoretically provable" schemes I presently have in mind. BTW, one of such schemes that did not prove out experimentally was VERY VERY similar to the MEG. > the >system; we have to do that repeatedly in all our negotiations." It is true that "lynchpin technology" is hard to sell and often not profitable even if feasible. However, energy is not hard to sell, and if you can make it you can sell it, espcially if you can make it in small portable packages. I find it difficult to believe big energy companies would not be interested in investing in a non-depletable source of energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 12:39:16 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA27961; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:38:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:38:24 -0800 Message-Id: <v01530505b8ca81c58d5a [12.110.74.10]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:42:39 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Bearden MEG in Production??? Resent-Message-ID: <"JYjiQ3.0.kq6._2Dfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46663 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:40 AM 3/29/2, Terry Blanton wrote: >I certainly agree with your comment; however, this is a >misconception of the author. I wrote: "For sure! I hoped quoting your quote would make sure I was not criticising the authro and not your position, but I see now that is not at all clear the way I did it. Yes - a misconception of the author and, unfortunately, many an investor too." That should have said:"For sure! I hoped quoting your quote would make sure I was criticising the author and not your position, but I see now that is not at all clear the way I did it. Yes - a misconception of the author and, unfortunately, many an investor too." Some days I can't get anything right! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 12:44:56 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA31786; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:44:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:44:14 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA4D1ED.10FBA414 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:43:25 -0500 From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net> Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bearden MEG in Production??? References: <v01530502b8ca794d9001 [12.21.208.195]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_wrz_3.0.Vm7.T8Dfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46664 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > I wonder if this means they demo a working model, or merely provide > "theoretical proof". According to Bearden's web page, they have working models. A similar device is shown at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm with a very simple explanation of how it works at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megdsqth.htm I think Bearden's reference to "research for production" involves the practical aspects of bringing a device to market, a formidable task since he will need things like UL approval to install in a home. There are also safety aspects in one wishes to remain connected to the power grid, like lockouts to prevent backfeeding the power company's transformer - a problem faced by solar power sources. Happy Easter, Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 14:22:05 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA23870; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:19:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:19:28 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA4E749.862C5D58 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:14:33 -0800 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 <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: [Fwd: What's New for Mar 29, 2002] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dyXpF.0.uq5.mXEfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46665 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What's New for Mar 29, 2002 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:17:26 -0500 (EST) From: "What's New" <whatsnew aps.org> To: aki ix.netcom.com WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 29 Mar 02 Washington, DC 1. ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: THE CLINTON COMMISSION'S CATCH-22. Created by Bill Clinton two years ago, the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy has delivered a massive final report (WN 8 Mar 02), but there's a catch. What the Commissioners want is respect: they want to be licensed by the state and reimbursed by health-insurance plans; they want to see CAM courses at prestigious medical schools and programs to educate the public. In short, they want CAM to be treated just like real medicine. Good plan! Under it's new director, Stephen Straus, the NIH Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has already begun doing just what the Commissioners call for: applying the same standards to CAM that are routinely required of medical research. In 1998, the New England Journal of Medicine pointed out the catch-22: "There cannot be two kinds of medicine, conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work." In other words, if some CAM treatment survived rigorous testing, it would no longer be CAM, it would simply be medicine. So, is CAM making the transition? Uh, no. The most popular CAM therapies survived for centuries simply because they were never subjected to randomized, double-blind trials. It is certainly possible that important medical advances will emerge from the gaggle of CAM therapies, but so far, under rigorous testing, not one has been demonstrated to be efficacious, while several herbal supplements appear to be dangerous. "'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' Yossarian observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed." 2. ALTERNATIVE PUBLISHING: COMMUNICATING SCIENCE BY FULL-PAGE AD. Scientists going through the March 17 Sunday New York Times were startled to find a paper titled "The Collapse of the Big Bang and the Gaseous Sun," by Pierre-Marie Robitaille, published as a full page ad. A professor in Radiology at Ohio State, Robitaille had built the first 8 Tesla MRI. But this paper/ad was outside his field, cost a bundle (about $125 thousand) and didn't have a clear target audience the public couldn't read it, but neither was it in the mathematical language of physics. On the other hand, Robitalle didn't have to put up with peer review and he had full control over timing. The timing raised eyebrows. Ohio is in the midst of a heated debate over a move to put Intelligent Design on an equal footing with Darwinism in the classroom (WN 15 Feb 02). ID is the fallback position of the creationists, who hate the Big Bang as much as they hate Darwin. Their strategy has been to portray the Big Bang as a divisive issue, with a powerful science establishment seeking to suppress dissenting viewpoints. Robitaille, who did not return our calls, seems to cast himself in the role of a lonely defender of truth who must spend a year's salary to get his side of the story out. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the American Physical Society, but they should be. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 14:58:53 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA11798; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:56:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:56:24 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:56:19 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com> To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: Podkletnov/NASA device in LA times In-Reply-To: <3CA4E749.862C5D58 ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020329145552.6902B-100000 eskimo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GrxZo3.0.Fu2.O4Ffy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46666 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Up, Up, and Away http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-000021224mar24.story?coll=la-news-science (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 15:02:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14958; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:09 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:06 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bearden's MEG works? In-Reply-To: <v01530502b8ca794d9001 [12.21.208.195]> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020329145634.6902C-100000 eskimo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"vYp2Q3.0.ef3.m9Ffy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46667 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Horace Heffner wrote: > >"Magnetic Energy Limited is in intense negotiations with several > >large financial enterprises, for the capitalization necessary to > >get on with it and finish the research for production > > Uh... Oh Oh! Finish the research? So it is still vaporware? Free-energy inventors typically need to do a bit more work before their OU device can function. This is equivalent to a gold prospector needing to check a few more map locations before striking it rich. Did Bearden ever announce that he had "closed the loop?" Forget the 2.5KW, has anyone heard about a five-watt "toy MEG" in stand-alone operation yet? (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Mar 29 21:15:17 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA04011; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:12:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:12:48 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020329224314.00a26410 pop.mail.yahoo.com> X-Sender: cjford1 pop.mail.yahoo.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:53:42 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Charles Ford <cjford1 yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Bearden's MEG works? In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020329145634.6902C-100000 eskimo.com> References: <v01530502b8ca794d9001 [12.21.208.195]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"EEix-3.0.X-.FbKfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46668 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:02 PM 3/29/02 -0800, you wrote: >Did Bearden ever announce that he had "closed the loop?" Forget the >2.5KW, has anyone heard about a five-watt "toy MEG" in stand-alone >operation yet? Honestly you would think with an efficiency of 500% they would stick a resister into an old toy steam engine and run a generator..... But.... IF the power is not usable then is it relay there? Charlie Ford KC5-OWZ cjford1 yahoo.com cjford1 swbell.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 30 09:27:04 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03356; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:24:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:24:26 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:24:23 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com> To: Oystein Lande <oeysland online.no> cc: JNaudin509 aol.com Subject: my Lifter calc wrong! air too fast. Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020330091135.9705D-100000 eskimo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3EIZD1.0.Lq.AJVfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46669 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You're right! I calculated half the lifter area, then forgot to multiply by two afterwards. This error made my value for air velocity be 1.4x too large ( too large by sqrt(2) ). The air SHOULD move at 2mph, not 3mph. Duh. Any other mistakes? (I can't see 'em.) Original values: Area of jet .078 meter^2 Mass of lifter .016 kg Weight of lifter 9.81*.016 = 0.156 Nt density of air 1.2 kg/meter^3 ( sea level) air velocity sqrt(weight/area/density) = 1.30 meters/sec (2.91 mph) Corrected values: Area of jet .156 meter^2 Mass of lifter .016 kg Weight of lifter 9.81*.016 = 0.156 Nt density of air 1.2 kg/meter^3 ( sea level) air velocity sqrt(weight/area/density) = .916 meters/sec (2.06 mph) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:52:15 -0800 From: Oystein Lande <oeysland online.no> To: billb eskimo.com Subject: Comments from billb amform --- url --- http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm, ION WIND Calculation --- comments --- Hi! Regarding your Ion Wind calculation on JLN lifter V3.0, I believe you calculated wrong area (too small). Otherwise I agree on your formulas used. My calculation goes like this: If the ion wind covers the whole lifter device, with lifter beeing 60*60*60 cm triangle the area is, A= 0,6*0,5*sqrt(3) * 0,6*0,5=0,16m2 (you used 0,3*0,5 on the base). The necessary ion wind for lifting would then be approx. 0,9 m/s. regards Oystein From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar 30 18:20:28 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA00961; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:17:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:17:44 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Message-ID: <e6.25a003e2.29d7cba4 aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:17:08 EST Subject: the APS meeting in Indianapolus To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Resent-Message-ID: <"-nzpf.0.qE.87dfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46670 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Did anyone attend? How did it go? Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 01:53:02 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA04154; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:26 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: temalloy metro.lakes.com (Unverified) Message-Id: <a05100300b8cc4cbe4e6a [63.233.227.249]> In-Reply-To: <3CA4D1ED.10FBA414 bellsouth.net> References: <v01530502b8ca794d9001 [12.21.208.195]> <3CA4D1ED.10FBA414 bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:40:30 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy <temalloy metro.lakes.com> Subject: My conversation with Alexander Frolov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"jZg2V2.0.q01.Pnjfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46671 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As you know Alexander is the director of Faraday.ru . I visited their website and read the synopsis of last year's articles. I noted with interest that among them were reports of a replication of J R Searle's machine and an article by Olag Griskavitch about his generator. Both of these machines are of interest to me because they would be scalable to what ever size. I wrote Alexander a letter inquiring about the availability of machines. One would assume that a poor country would be itching to export finished machines. In his reply he basically ignored my suggestion that we could both profit if he could arrange for me to import machines. He attempted to sell me a copy of his book of course. We have this science fiction book story in this town, it's called Uncle Hugo's. It's just so difficult to find someone with a working machine for sale. -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 01:53:13 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA04415; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:58 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: temalloy metro.lakes.com (Unverified) Message-Id: <a05100305b8cc645fdbd7 [63.233.227.249]> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020330113924.00c4e398 padrak.com> References: <3.0.32.20020330113924.00c4e398 padrak.com> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:40:30 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy <temalloy metro.lakes.com> Subject: Re: AG News and Gravity Research in LA Times Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"4LKYu3.0.n41.wnjfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46674 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From: jim cox >Subject: Re: AG News and Gravity Research in LA Times! > >--- Harvey Fiala <hefiala attbi.com> wrote: > >March 24, 2002 Talk about it E-mail story > >Up, Up and Away >Defying the shackles of gravity is a dream enshrined in myth and the human >psyche. >Now NASA will test a machine to determine if it is also real science. > >Times Headlines > >Up, Up and Away > >What the Fed Has Wrought > >Why Excuse Some Steel Dumpers? > >Economic Salvation Through the Internet > >The Only Hope for Peace > >By MARGARET WERTHEIM > >Margaret Wertheim is curating a show on the work of "outsider physicist" >James Carter, at the Santa Monica Museum of Art, opening April 20. In >Carter's theory of physics, gravity does not exist at all > >Laws are made to be broken. Or so the National Aeronautics and Space >Administration seems to think. After an almost two-year wait, the agency's >Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., is poised to take >delivery of a machine that proponents hope will counteract the laws of >gravity. > >At the heart of the device is a purported effect so radical it could change >the way we interact with one of nature's most fundamental forces. We're >talking revolution, not evolution. A revolution in spaceships would be just >one spinoff. Back here on Earth, the internal combustion engine could >become an endangered species, replaced by gravity-powered cars, planes and >elevators. > >The dream of defying gravity has a long and ignoble history. From Icarus >on, the road is littered with failed attempts to unbind our feet from the >shackles of nature's most seemingly inexorable force. But the team behind >the NASA project say they are basing their efforts on real science, and >NASA has paid almost $600,000 to have the machine custom-built by >Ohio-based Superconductive Components, Inc. (SCI), a company that >specializes in high-tech ceramics and superconducting materials. Says SCI >Vice President James R. Gaines Jr.: "If it works, what a hoot!" Revolutions >are usually bloody affairs, and this one is no exception. Many physicists >believe the whole project is a waste of time based on unsubstantiated >research of dubious origin. Gravity, they contend, is in no danger of >diminution--the only thing they see at stake is NASA's credibility. > >The story begins soberly enough, in the pages of the respected science >journal Physica C. There, in 1992, Russian physicist Evgeny Podkletnov >published the results of an experiment in which he claimed to have >discovered a "gravity-shielding" effect. According to the article, >Podkletnov had managed to reduce the force of gravity on a small object by >up to 2%--in effect, he had reduced its weight. Now 2% may not sound like >much, but to the physics community, it was like a bomb blast. The law of >gravity is one of science's most sacrosanct principles; any breaching of >its walls would represent a major threat to the current theoretical >framework. If verified, such a finding would bag its discoverer a Nobel Prize. > >But here's the rub: Podkletnov's paper was hazy on the details. He worried >that his ideas would be taken by others, that he would not be given proper >credit, and he refused to allow anyone into his lab to see his apparatus. >Incomplete disclosure, coupled with the outlandish nature of the claim >itself, left most physicists scoffing with derision. As a result, >Podkletnov was thrown out of his job at the Tampere University of >Technology in Finland. > >Since his paper appeared a decade ago, Podkletnov says, many people have >successfully replicated his results, but if so, they have yet to report >them in a peer-reviewed journal. All those who have published have failed >to detect any clear results. One of them is Marshall Space Flight Center >researcher Ron Koczor, who spent two years investigating various aspects of >Podkletnov's experiments, and eventually gave up. But Podkletnov insists >the gravity-shielding effect only occurs when all the experimental >conditions are precisely right. Koczor decided it was a job for the >professionals, and in 1999 he persuaded NASA to commission SCI to build a >facsimile of Podkletnov's original apparatus. > >The details might be sketchy, but the basic idea behind the device is >fairly simple. It begins with a disc, about six inches in diameter and a >quarter of an inch thick, made out of a superconducting material whose >recipe Podkletnov has carefully kept secret. The disc is cooled to below >-233 degrees centigrade and levitated using a magnetic field. Then an >electric field is applied to make the disc spin. So far, all we have is a >variation on an electric motor, but Podkletnov claims that when the disc >rotates at more than 5,000 revolutions per minute, an object placed above >it begins to lose weight. Somehow, he says, the force of gravity is being >counteracted--the trick is, you have to get the setup exactly right. > >"I wish it was as simple as baking a cake," says SCI's Gaines. Even with >the company's expertise it has not been easy. Indeed, the project is a year >behind schedule. But Gaines says his team are almost there, and they should >be handing over the device to NASA soon. > >Will it work? Gaines' technicians are not gravity experts; their field is >materials science. They have simply built the machine to agreed >specifications. But, of course, they would be thrilled if it did work; >success would ensure an enormous boost to superconducting research. Testing >of the device will be NASA's responsibility, and he awaits their results >with great expectation. > >Personally, I am thrilled to hear my tax dollars are hard at work >subverting the laws of nature. Or attempting to, at any rate. Who knows >what conceptual mountains we might demolish if our imaginations aim high >enough? Johannes Kepler, the founding father of modern astrophysics, saw >science as a form of play--empirical data set an irrevocable boundary to >this play, but within its arena the imagination must be free to roam. > >This is not NASA's first attempt to look for the Podkletnov effect. Last >year, Marshall Space Flight Center funded a different experiment in which a >very sensitive Cavendish balance was used to try and detect a change of >weight in a superconducting apparatus. Results of that study were >"inconclusive." > >Randall Peters, a physicist at Mercer University in Macon, Ga., was a >consultant to that project--he helped to customize the balance for this >unorthodox use. "My own position," Peters says, "is that I'd be greatly >surprised if the effect being sought was actually found." Like most >physicists, he feels confident that gravity will withstand the Podkletnov >test. Nonetheless, he adds that "physics is full of surprises," and he >believes that scientists need to maintain an open mind. Gaines agrees, >defending NASA's willingness to go out on such a speculative limb: "The >upside potential is so huge, they really couldn't afford to miss out if it >is true." > >NASA's interest in circumventing gravity is not theoretical. The agency is >reaching for the stars. Literally. Even in the zero-gravity environment of >outer space, you still need to accelerate a ship to extremely high speeds >to get to the stars in any viable framework, something that cannot be done >with conventional rocket technology. The Podkletnov effect suggests it may >be possible to effectively reduce the mass of the ship, thereby reducing >the overall energy needed for acceleration. > >The authors of the July paper introduced their experimental analysis with a >wistful discussion on the limitations of rocket propulsion. "Using current >rocket technology," they note, "a trip to the next star would easily >consume the mass-energy equivalent of a planet in order to arrive within a >reasonable lifetime." Technologies like nuclear fission and fusion offer >some hope, "but still will not support the 'Star Trek' vision of space >exploration." In short, if we are serious about space travel, we need a >quantum leap forward in propulsive power. -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 01:53:14 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA04338; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:47 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: temalloy metro.lakes.com (Unverified) Message-Id: <a05100304b8cc61a938bc [63.233.227.249]> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020330111803.00a7b478 padrak.com> References: <3.0.32.20020330111803.00a7b478 padrak.com> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:40:30 -0600 To: Vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy <temalloy metro.lakes.com> Subject: Re: FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"lYAu71.0.i31.lnjfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46673 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" > > >"The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" >http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm > >by J. R. Nyquist > >March 26, 2002 > >On Thursday, March 21, WorldNetDaily posted an article from STRATFOR, a >well-connected private intelligence firm. The title of the article was >"Crisis looming between U.S., Russia." >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID= 26920 STRATFOR's >article deals with CIA Director George Tenet's March 19 testimony before >the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. According to Tenet, Russia is >hardly a reliable partner in the "war against terror." Instead, Russia is >"the first choice of proliferant states seeking the most advanced >technology and training," said Tenet. > >What the CIA director could not say, and perhaps what makes President >George W. Bush so desperately eager to wipe out the regime of Saddam >Hussein, is that Russia may have given red mercury fusion technology to >Saddam. According to one of my sources, Iraq possesses "s- megaton" >micro-nuclear warheads. These are softball-sized two-megaton fusion bombs >triggered by an irradiated and compressed compound of mercury antimony >oxide. This device doubles the nuclear yield with a hundredfold reduction >of weight. Using heavy hydrogen instead of uranium or plutonium to fuel its >explosive reaction, this hand- held nuclear weapon cannot be detected by >U.S. sensors. Does anybody know if this is B S? I've never heard of Hg and antimony doing something like this. > -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 01:54:58 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA04205; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:52:33 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: temalloy metro.lakes.com (Unverified) Message-Id: <a05100301b8cc4fc203cc [63.233.227.249]> In-Reply-To: <3CA4D1ED.10FBA414 bellsouth.net> References: <v01530502b8ca794d9001 [12.21.208.195]> <3CA4D1ED.10FBA414 bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:40:30 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy <temalloy metro.lakes.com> Subject: the nature of nucleons Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"Ehifi2.0.Y11.Vnjfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46672 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There has been discussion on Vortex-L recently about the nature of nucleons. Someone posted a URL about the Bose-Einstein Condensate. On the website there were pictures of a wave. As I understand it, The nucleon consists of three quarks in a string. As I understand it quarks come in various spins, colors, flavors and with or without charm. There was also some discussion about changing the spin of a nucleon by means of photonic bombardment. Changing this spin resulted in nuclear fusion. I find this very interesting. Paul Brown, of globalatomics.com his reported accelerated radioneuclide decay following what I assume is a similar process. Similar, although not as impressive results have been reported following combustion with Brown's Gas. I'm wondering if with the proper treatment I could cause Hg to fuse with a neutron and then undergo decay to a radioactive form of Au, which would decay to Pt, A similar reaction starting with Ag, and then decaying to Rh or Pd, would also have economic significance. -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 07:58:50 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA07235; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:55:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:55:59 -0800 Message-ID: <20020331155556.88672.qmail web20610.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:55:56 -0800 (PST) From: harvey norris <harvich yahoo.com> Subject: Re: FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <a05100304b8cc61a938bc [63.233.227.249]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Tb3fB1.0.vm1.E6pfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46675 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --- thomas malloy <temalloy metro.lakes.com> wrote: > >FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury > Nightmare" > > > > > >"The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury > Nightmare" > >http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm > > > >by J. R. Nyquist > > > >March 26, 2002 > > > >On Thursday, March 21, WorldNetDaily posted an > article from STRATFOR, a > >well-connected private intelligence firm. The title > of the article was > >"Crisis looming between U.S., Russia." > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID= > 26920 STRATFOR's > >article deals with CIA Director George Tenet's > March 19 testimony before > >the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. According > to Tenet, Russia is > >hardly a reliable partner in the "war against > terror." Instead, Russia is > >"the first choice of proliferant states seeking the > most advanced > >technology and training," said Tenet. > > > >What the CIA director could not say, and perhaps > what makes President > >George W. Bush so desperately eager to wipe out the > regime of Saddam > >Hussein, is that Russia may have given red mercury > fusion technology to > >Saddam. According to one of my sources, Iraq > possesses "s- megaton" > >micro-nuclear warheads. These are softball-sized > two-megaton fusion bombs > >triggered by an irradiated and compressed compound > of mercury antimony > >oxide. This device doubles the nuclear yield with a > hundredfold reduction > >of weight. Using heavy hydrogen instead of uranium > or plutonium to fuel its > >explosive reaction, this hand- held nuclear weapon > cannot be detected by > >U.S. sensors. > > Does anybody know if this is B S? I've never heard > of Hg and antimony > doing something like this. > Dont know either, but would make comments on these compounds. Worked in the plastic processing industry for 17 years. Antimony oxide is an very common additive often used as a fire retardent. When a PVC material is processed through extrusion or whatever it needs to have materials in it that will keep it from oxidizing, and this also lowers the end temperature where a material will ignite.These folks always used recipes where other things like stabilizers were added. The various compounds are mixed together in a mixing chamber called a banbury. With hypalon rubber compound mixtures, lead compounds, may also be used, where red lead is fairly common. I do not understand the color properties of these lead compunds, but a very bright yellow one is also made. Sometimes chromium and lead compounds are used for colorant. Historically candy makers used lead compounds to make the candy in attractive colors! This was of course before the toxic propeties were known. All of that stuff is fairly toxic, but the antimony oxide always caused me problems. For some reason it has a small percentage of arsenic in it, because of the way it is found or mined in nature. Some people, including me, have a skin allergy to it, where the condition of antimony measles is reffered to what it does to the skin. Glad to be out of that industry as this condition was problematic for me during long manufacturing runs where I weighed the antimony. Sorry I cant be relevant towards the topic, but I thought folks would like to hear some commercial purposes used for the substances. HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 10:30:24 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA09971; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:27:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:27:51 -0800 From: "Matthew Rogers" <matt accelnet.net> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: RE: Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. . . . a feisty company Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:28:00 -0800 Message-ID: <000801c1d8e1$c9fc2230$7009fea9 bear> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020322162605.04019898 pop.mindspring.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"gbmud3.0.jR2.dKrfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46676 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vor, After reading this web page, its articles and links, I can only conclude, Hurrah, finally somebody who knows what their talking about. This seems to be an accurate portrayal of the technology needed to make things safe, and not insane. Matthew Rogers -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothwell infinite-energy.com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:29 PM To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. . . . a feisty company This is insane, but interesting: http://www.atomicengines.com/index.html "Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. is a feisty company with a couple of governing thoughts." "A couple of governing thoughts" means they are obsessed, like CF fanatics, only they want to use uranium fission. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 12:45:51 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA03335; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:42:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:42:40 -0800 Message-ID: <3CA76810.CA4E6316 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:48:46 -0600 From: Edmund Storms <storms2 ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. . . . a feisty company References: <000801c1d8e1$c9fc2230$7009fea9 bear> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gdrK23.0.1q._Itfy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46677 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Matthew, I agree with you, nuclear energy is better in many respects compared to fossil fuel. If the US had adopted a safe and efficient reactor design like France and Canada, if we had made a competent effort to process the fuel rods and dispose of the resulting radioactive material, if we had done this using the philosophy that the job needed to be done right rather than cheap, I would also argue for more nuclear energy. However, this was not done and, as a result, we have a very dangerous mess. Furthermore, the philosophy applied by business in this country will guarantee that any new technology will always result in a mess, which will only be cleaned up after a sufficient fraction of the population is killed or injured. This being the situation, I think that any further development of nuclear energy in the US, no matter how well argued or how good the design looks on paper, would be very unwise. Instead, we should look to conservation and renewable sources of energy as our salvation, not the least of which is cold fusion and zero-point energy. The very fact that the US has fought these latter energy sources demonstrates that we as a country are not wise enough to handle something so dangerous as fission energy. Ed Matthew Rogers wrote: > Vor, > After reading this web page, its articles and links, I can only > conclude, > Hurrah, finally somebody who knows what their talking about. > > This seems to be an accurate portrayal of the technology needed to make > things safe, and not insane. > > Matthew Rogers > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothwell infinite-energy.com] > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:29 PM > To: vortex-L eskimo.com > Subject: Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. . . . a feisty company > > This is insane, but interesting: > > http://www.atomicengines.com/index.html > > "Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. is a feisty company with a couple of > governing > thoughts." "A couple of governing thoughts" means they are obsessed, > like > CF fanatics, only they want to use uranium fission. > > - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 14:21:35 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA06713; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:19:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:19:08 -0800 From: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa bigpond.net.au> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [OFF TOPIC]Re: FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:18:33 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: <7g2fau8trgmb5bjv0tcf38gnn06171rj86 4ax.com> References: <3.0.32.20020330111803.00a7b478 padrak.com> <a05100304b8cc61a938bc@[63.233.227.249]> In-Reply-To: <a05100304b8cc61a938bc [63.233.227.249]> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 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 OAA06666 Resent-Message-ID: <"vYXo2.0.ke1.Rjufy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46678 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to thomas malloy's message of Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:40:30 -0600: Hi, >>FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" >> >> >>"The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" >>http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm >> >>by J. R. Nyquist >> >>March 26, 2002 >> [snip] A snippert from further down in the article: "If Vreeland's information is reliable, we might have a handle on why the United States is threatening Russia with nuclear strikes. Like a trapped animal the U.S. realises the mistake it has made. Disarming after our alleged Cold War victory was an error. Now the U.S. must make terrible threats and take drastic action to restore the nuclear balance. To do this the United States must hold Russia directly responsible for Russian-supported and Iraqi-directed nuclear terrorism against the American homeland. By doing this, and by mopping up Iraq, the United States might reestablish that same "balance of terror" that kept the peace during the Cold War." This appears to be a typical example of an old tactic. When you want to start a war, make the other guy look like the bad guy first, so that you can justify it to your own people. The real reason for this war is simple. Certain entities in the US want total control of middle eastern oil supplies. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ ....Put the "bottom line" at the top! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Mar 31 22:27:43 2002 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA22220; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:24:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:24:47 -0800 Message-ID: <020601c1d945$f93a4180$0201a8c0 m> From: "Michael Randall" <vrand01 earthlink.net> To: <vortex-l eskimo.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] New map of the Middle East was "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:25:09 -0800 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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Resent-Message-ID: <"vDBYg1.0.6R5.kq_fy" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/46679 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: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:18 PM Subject: [OFF TOPIC]Re: FWD: "The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare" Hi Robin, >> > This appears to be a typical example of an old tactic. When you want to > start a war, make the other guy look like the bad guy first, so that you > can justify it to your own people. > > The real reason for this war is simple. Certain entities in the US want > total control of middle eastern oil supplies. > The cartoon map came out a couple of weeks after Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.webpost.net/do/Don/MiddleEastMap.jpg Regards, Michael Randall